Safe Speed Forums

Just charge them £10 for dropping litter, and £20 for being too noisy. And £30 for parking on the pavement. We're too kind hearted to those types. I can put up with scruffy people, but not litter louts.

For me, those stupid signs telling you it's illegal to smoke in places nobody ever smoked take the biscuit!

I still have not had a visit because I dont have one - despite widespread publicity including radio and newspaper coverage!


Several other local businesses have followed suit!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Because it only really affects law-abiding citizens. I don't think those people who are predisposed to shoot someone have really been put off by the legislation.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

"Silly" is no the problem - sadly, this thread proves that their are people who approve of legislation others think "silly" (that includes me, but I won't say which ).

To me the problem is unnecessary and/or ineffective legislation and regulation. Motoring is full of both. For example the recent "new" mobile use penalties and the associated laws are an example of unnecessary because we have perfectly good DWWDCA and DD laws.

We have plenty of ineffective laws!

_________________
I won't slave for beggar's pay,
likewise gold and jewels,
but I would slave to learn the way
to sink your ship of fools

Driving on left ist culture in this country. I think it originate in how we had the horses plough the fields or something.


If Hitler had won the war .. some people would not exist.

we would be doomed as he not like natural born rebels..



I could write essay on Hitler's silly rules which ended up with people very dead as a result.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Totally agree. Same with the anti-terrorist legislation, almost all of which was covered under existing statutes. This government has a kind of 'legislative diarroea', passing hundreds of new laws since 1997, but without adequate resources to police them. How, realistically do you police the Hunting ban, for instance.

A friend of mine recently had a look around Lincolns Inn when his daughter qualified as a solicitor. In the library are copies of all legislation going back over the years. Most years prior to 1997 took up about a foot of shelf space. The years since then took up about 10 feet each....

But I once had an "argument" with some American PH-er ages ago on the PH General Gassing Over Garden Fence forum.


It was about a woman who got fined for eating the last choccy chew-toffee in her roll of sweeties as she entered the "subway station"

Aparently there was a rule forbidding eating or drinking in the station und she was sucking the chocolate off the toffee in her mouth as she passed by the "jobworthy" on the door,

He ordered her to spit out her sweet. She swallowed it. He followed her ranting abiout fines. She tell him to go take a flying f to the moon und he called the cops und had her arrested for "being disruptive"


I defend the woman at the time I do have an "addiction".. a compulsive scoffing of all things covered in chocolate.. und one thing which ist biggest ist to prize a choc-mad lady away for her chocs

Quite rightly the American PH-er was saying that he did not want to stand or sit on half chewed up sweeties or other litterings. My argument was that the item was half eaten as she entered the station und swallowed.

Of course I wound him up a lot though.. He kept trying to justify the ruling with respect to the woman und I kept saying that as she had already swallowed this toffee .. und thus the evidence.. fining her for eating when she had already eaten it within seconds of entering the station was plain daft.

To fine her, quoting this rule was thus very silly.


He eventually yielded by the way

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

If you live in block of flats or stay in hotel even.. in Switzerland.. you not supposed to flush the Klo after midnight as it can wake up the folk next door..

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Much like the smoking ban, an eating ban raises the issue of what actually constitutes eating. Is it the act of putting food into your mouth, or the act of chewing, swallowing? Much the same as if one was to inhale from one's cigarette, put the cigarette out outside, and then enter the pub before exhaling, does that breach the ban?

Pretty sure the no smoking regulations reference 'lit smoking materials' so - no. I did research it a while back and found it would be perfectly legal to wander around a restricted are with a cigarette (unlit) dangling from the lips.

Or an unlit joint... (OK .. you might just get done for "possession" if you live outside Brunstromia... GMP have made arrests of "cannabis farms" in their area per the local press.)

But if you legalise cannabis completely..



Where can you smoke it given they now want to ban smoking in the privacy of your own home.. (OK so it was page two of the Waily one day last week.. )

Und if this story ist true und they really are thinking of making smoking at home if you are a parent .. then this would have to be the silliest of all silly laws as how the hell do you enforce it without placing snoppy devices in folks' "castles"


By the way .. am a non-smoker. I have never smoked - apart from one drag on someone else's fag when aged about 13 at a school dance und thinking it akin to licking a badly sweaty not washed for months foot in taste.


But despite this.. I do wonder about such unenforcebale laws. Und the fines for not putting the glass in the glass bin.. paper in the paper bin und ist shredded paper allowed or not?




Or the law which say I cannot wire in light bulb socket as DIY job as I have to have an electrician.. assuming I can find one who do job at fair price.. to do something I more than capable of doing myself. (I am very feminine in looks but I can do some DIY jobs. My Papa und Onkel und b(r)others und male cousins all insisted we girls learned "essentials"
in case just as they learned to cook und sew on buttons.

BASIC Life skills are "unisex" really It off topic but there are some jobs which I as woman am not built to do .. as in male muscle having that certain strength. There are jobs which a man find impossible but a woman do with ease .. such as multi-task the "fiddlies!"

But if you like .. to link this aside to Riggers; original.. the silliest of rules has to be that "man's toys ist man's toys" und "woman's world ist woman's world" und never the twain should meet



In teaching there was the "literacy/numeracy hour" whereby teachers had to teach to a prescribed clock with minutes allocated to set rubric within this hour.


They could not do so. It got revised eventually when proven to be daft.

The "hour" ist a lot more flexible und can be adapted within all lesson plans .. but they still have to show evidence to OfSted inspections per the teachers across the family as whole. (I one of large family.. we all married. We all had parents/parents-in-law who gave bestest inheritance gift of all.. an encouraged education to realise fullest of capabity to develop which also something which silly rules undermine,)

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Thousands.
They are (or should eventually) all be available here:
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/

_________________
Andrew.

Not sure if it qualifies for this thread, but I positively HATE unnecessary TL's on roundabouts and the putting in of TL's where they're not needed.

The Smoking Ban - reason: The pubs that I frequent have provided outside smoking areas, complete with with tables, chairs, ashtrays, heating and a roof. The bar staff still have to enter this smoky area to clear up the glasses/ashtrays... So what's been achieved? Well, it's almost doubled the pubs' floorspace!

The Handgun Ban - I don't think it was needed. If someone's going to shoot someone, they'll do it, ban or no ban.

Reduction of (some) Speed Limits - this has achieved what?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Total Legislation Passed 1987-1996 = 12288
1997-2006 = 23432


I really should get out more

Or they should

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

With you on this one.

Here in Shrewsbury they put lights on one of the main roundabouts on the periphery of the town (Meole Brace Island) many years ago, when it was part of the route from the Midlands to North Wales. We've since got a bypass, and thus the volume of traffic really does not justify the lights any longer, but of course they've never been taken down. The phasing of the lights was never really conducive to traffic flow, indeed at one stage you could be approaching the lights at night, with nothing coming from the other direction, and they would change from green to red! Certainly a candidate for part-time lights these days!

Now they are starting installation of lights on a roundabout two up from Meole Island, a roundabout actually on the ring road (Dobbies Island)! There are some problems getting onto the island from certain directions at busy times, due to the fact that most of the traffic is going from DC to DC across it, and that there are services accessed directly from the island. I don't think lights are the permanent answer however. As you can see from the bird's eye view, there are slip lanes to and from the eastern carriageway; I would like to see this theme also applied to the western carriageway. Furthermore, I would like to see the merging section of these slips onto the DC extended, or even given exclusive entrance to the nearside lane, as getting off the slip to the east can be a real challenge when numpties just blithely exit the roundabout into the nearside lane, oblivious to the fact they're blocking your entrance and the outside lane is empty!

Having the access to the services and garden centre right on the island is also a bad thing imo. It is very difficult to get out of the services onto the island when traffic is heavy, and it can also confuse other drivers when leaving the roundabout, due to it's proximity to the DC exit. I'd like to see the entrance to the area moved to the west, from the DC, and exits possibly back to the westbound carriageway, but certainly onto the road to the south, heading back to the roundabout.

The gold-plated solution would also, of course, involve grade-separating the junction, preferably with at least one lane of the DC running underneath the roundabout. The only possible limitation to this would be the presence of a quarry very nearby to the south-east. I have no idea if they blasting there would affect the integrity of any engineering.

So we have...

1987-1996 = 1228.8 per year.
1997-2006 = 2343.2 per year.

That's ~3.37 per day and ~6.42 per day.
Assuming your figures are for the beginning of the first year to the end of the second (10 years) and they are creating them for 365 days per year.

Assuming 52 weeks a year, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day they are now averaging more than 1 per working hour. If they work 6 days a week then it's just under, ~0.94 per hour.

Does anyone know how many hours these government types work per year?

_________________
Andrew.

They work a lot less than 52 weeks a year. Something like 34?

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

It's the humane thing to do to put an animal to sleep which is writhing in agony but not to a human.


"Every day I think about dying, about disease, starvation, violence, terrorism, war, the end of the world.

It helps keep my mind off things." (Roger McGough)

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

The figures I gave were for Total Legislation. If you take the figures for Primary Legislation for the same two periods, they are 934 and 944 respectively, so not much variation. Any legal folk on here who can explain the difference?

Rog