Safe Speed Forums

The real fallacy is the idea that money raised by taxing a certain section of the population should be spent entirely and only for the benefit of that section of the population.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Actually, I now agree with you.
What I said was relevant to weepej’s point, but it seems weepej’s own point indeed wasn’t relevant at all to this case.

I’ve just has a look at the stretch in question on Google Street View (Robin Hood Way). It is quite unreasonable to expect pedestrians to be crossing there given the number of overpasses and the completely fenced off central reservation. Also, I didn't see such a sign!


Weepej, The whole section is visible on Street View, show us where this sign is or accept that Peter is right and that your original point is irrelevant.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Tell that to those who believe motoring subsidies (assuming there is a net subsidy) is somehow wrong and/or should be reduced/ended.

Ringfencing all sources of funding in such a way would be a bureaucrat's dream - meaning a financial and logistical nightmare.
However, is there anything inherently bad about ringfencing motoring revenues for motoring investments/burdens, especially when considering everyone else still benefits from the roads?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Just been for a virtual run along it too.

I tried the sections to the west as well and there were no pedestrian signs there either, the road is clearly designed to discourage pedestrian access. Crossing on foot would be an attempt for a Darwin award.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

You could also say that it is not the responsibility of the state to provide petrol stations either

You will pay duty on fuel whether it is used in a lawnmower, boat, generator (just ask Claire), chainsaw or car so in a sense this should not be included as road revenue, of course the reduction for agri diesel does confuse this somewhat

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

I think it's a bit further down, but there certainly are DC sections at NSL/50 that pedestrians cross.

So you agree that:
- Peter was entirely correct (no such sign anywhere along the section where Cole was caught)?
- your original point (which you insist on repeating) is irrelevant and has absolutely no bearing on this thread (pedestrians cannot be a factor there)?
- and that your rant at Peter was (at best) misplaced?

Surprise me by giving direct answers to those questions.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

So what you're really saying is "phew! Lucky there are all those motorists out there getting fleeced, or the government might come to the pedestrians and cyclists looking to make up the shortfall"!

No. If revenue collected directly from motoring were to be reduced it certainly wouldn't be recovered by a tax on cyclists and walkers. It would be replaced by an increase in income tax or VAT which would have to be paid by motorists. Or, to put it another way, since every motorists is also a pedestrian at some point, shifting the tax from motorists to pedestrians would mean that the same people would be paying. But rather than complaining about motorists being fleeced they would be complaining about pedestrians being fleeced - "Blimey £45b raised from pedestrians and only £800m spent on pavements"

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Did we miss something here..

What does a typical professional footballer get? I don’t follow footy but I often hear figures of £100K a week bandied about but I’ll assume he's a cheapskate who only gets £50K, the poor thing.

If my maths serves me well that £1000 fine he got was the equivalent of me getting an £8 fine on my earnings! Can’t see that happening somehow. Proportionate my arse!!!

Now I would expect at least a £100 fine if it were me in the dock, (and that's erring on the low side I'm sure), so let's do the Math again...

I make it he should have got a fine of £12,500 but he didn't and that's British justice my friends


(BTW Can I ask why you’re giving up driving dcb? I'm very nosey and feel free to tell me to bog off )

_________________
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.

You think!!

So where do you really think the proposals on requiring cyclists to carry number plates are going? (Either on the bike or on a tabbard)

The treasury stands to lose a great deal of revenue if significant numbers really switch from driving to cycling or walking!

In the days of "Toll roads/bridges" even pedestrians had to pay a fee, How long before even pedestrians will have to wear an identifiable tabbard (No doubt originally introduced as some sort of anti-terrorisim measure) and will have to pay a fee every time they venture outside their own front doors!

It may seem a bit far fetched at present. But who would have predicted (or even tolerated the idea of) speed cameras back in the 60's??

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

I am sure he can, which highlights a problem courts see now and again. Speeding can only be penalised by a conditional discharge or a fine, plus either points or a ban. Bearing in mind that any penalty has to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offending behaviour it just isn't possible to fine wealthy people a meaningful amount and we can't stop them hiring a driver.

The time to pay matter has been exploited by media people who don't understand the way it works. All financial penalties are due the instant they are imposed and courts do try to get at least part of the fine at once. In this case Mr Cole was not in court and thus couldn't pay at once even he wanted to. So the court allowed time to pay, a facility which would be offered to any defendant who couldn't pay up on the day. It is common to order payment at something in the region of £5 a week even that means it will take a year to pay off the whole amount. In this case MR Cole was given 21 days to pay in full. If the whole amount is not received by the court office within that time the court will take action to enforce payment. That could be via a court order to his employer to deduct from salary, or bailiffs, or a summons to court with threat of custody if he doesn't pay.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.

There's no need to start talking like Yoda.

Because I no longer enjoy driving - being treated like an idiot by the authorities and having to share the road with incompetents, raises my blood pressure to a dangerous level. At the moment driving is the only way that I can get to work so I have to run a car at great expense. When I retire completely next year I will be able neither to justify nor afford that expense. Thought, to be honest, I will probably borrow my wife's car or hire a car from time to time - I have to admit that travelling by public transport does have some limitations

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I wasn't explicity talking about where Cole was caught.

Weepej: There are parts of the A3 that have "warning pedestrians crossing" signs on it.
Peter: Are there any parts [of the A3] that are dual carriageway with a speed limit of 50 mph or above that have such signs?
Weepej: I certainly remember it that way.
Peter: Maybe you should go back and take another look.



From the report in the Telegraph (my bold and [insertions]):



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... -zone.html

I wonder if those who were doing so still feel comfortable about defending his driving?



No.

Everyone else has been from the beginning.
Your first comment was a direct response to that stretch in question (explicitly so).
Your first comment was about pedestrians, which obviously isn't applicable to the case.
So is your answer yes or no?


Or just ever so possibly (changing your insertion):
Are there any parts [where Cole was caught] that are dual carriageway with a speed limit of 50 mph or above that have such signs?
I now think Peter is well justified and positioned to make your rant at him backfire at you!


And you said: "How are pedestrians supposed to work out when to cross...", where is the mention of pedestrians crossing in that report you gave? You were originally talking about pedestrians - right?
Change your goalposts when it suits you, eh weepej?


Discouraged?
Is it at all reasonable to expect pedestrians to be crossing the road there weepej? Can you really answer yes given the total fencing off, the obvious and numerous overpasses (and underpasses according to Jomukuk)?


Weepej, I think you need to re-read the quote you gave in the first post of this thread, perhaps even the whole thread for that matter.
No-one here defended that driving; all that occurred was that someone raised the possibility of the driving being defendable - as well as "dangerous without due care" (accepting the lack of knowledge prevented that conclusion).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

My first comment was "There are parts of the A3 that have 'warning pedestrians crossing' signs on it", intended to highlight the fact that the A3 is NOT a motorway.



100mph on a road with bus stops and a pavement at the side of it, and potentially pedal cycles abd slow buses going along it, even if peds are discouraged from crossing the road on that particular stretch?




I don't, I stand with my reply to Peter's post.

Let's run that again shall we:

Peter: Are there any parts that are dual carriageway with a speed limit of 50 mph or above that have such signs?

Weepej: I certainly remember it that way.

Peter: Maybe you should go back and take another look.




Don't see how that matters really. And do you really think he wouldn't have applied that sort of speed anywhere down that road?



It's not totally fenced off, the article says Cole "pulled into a bus stop".



Forgive me if I think that's a crock!

"It was three lanes", "pedestrians shouldn't be on it" etc...

Yet, within your same post was "How are pedestrians supposed to work out when to cross...", intended to highlight that pedestrians could be crossing - yes?


Again - "discouraged"?
Pedal cyclists don't need to work out when to cross the road on that stretch because doing so isn't possible.
Buses perhaps, but how do you know there were "slow buses" at the time of the offence? Not that it matters because bus drivers are professionally trained and qualified.


Oh, where did "your insertion" of your previous post disappear to?
Is there no possibility that the replacement insertion I gave is valid?


I quote you yet again: "How are pedestrians supposed to work out when to cross..."
Why did you raise this relating it to a quote you gave - where pedestrians cannot even cross?


Perhaps he wouldn't if he realised folks could actually cross in those other places.
Or perhaps he would on the stretches where the limit was higher and there are central reservations.
Or perhaps he truly is reckless, but unlike some I'm not going to let bias lead me to assumptions and prejudiced judgements.


Oh for the love of..... Are you trolling? Seriously?
The central reservation is fenced off, thus preventing (and visibly deterring) anyone from crossing, unless you still really expect folk to try to cross?


I will if you can show an example otherwise. The OP was quite clear with their response; nothing else was said about it.


Quite right! That stretch is fenced off to prevent, oh sorry I mean "discourage" pedestrians from crossing it
Pedestrians really shouldn't be on it !!



I think it's fairly obvious that you've got your knickers tied in a major twist weepie. I think you need to take a step back and think about what you've been saying and stop trying to defend an argument which (I suspect) is based on a misunderstood thread.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Discourage, Steve, not prohibit. A pedestrian crossing such a road is behaving unwisely but is not contravening any legislation, unlike on a motorway. A prudent motorist, knowing the peccadilloes of pedestrians, should always consider the possibility of one trying to cross the road. Which is why travelling at 100mph should be considered careless.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I’m not defending Mr Coles driving but nothing we ever do is completely safe. Safety is not an absolute whether it’s speed, deep sea diving, or just sitting in front of the TV waiting for a heart attack.

If I eat lard it’s not going to be good for my health, however, it’s very unlikely to harm me until I increase the amount and regularity of consumption. So you could say lard kills, but that’s as misleading as saying speed kills because it depends on so many other factors, (exercise etc.), and speed is just one ‘ingredient’.

I’m sure a blind man driving at 10mph is more dangerous than me at 40mph. Silly analogy, maybe, but many people are effectively driving blind and speed has little to do with the safety aspect. If a driver is not concentrating on the road, they may as well be blind for the period they are distracted.

In the case of Mr Cole we would need to have been there to see how dangerous it appeared and each person will have their own opinion. It’s all too easy to say it was X amount over the limit therefore it was dangerous and he could have killed someone. I was doing 20mph over the limit the other day quite safely. “Impossible!” I hear weepej say…

There’s a Morrisons store which has a cash-point and I drove through the empty car park when the place was closed which is marked as a 10mph. Imagine a space the size of a football field with perfect visibility all around and not a person in sight. (There are also barriers preventing pedestrians leaping into the park from every angle). Quite frankly it would have been safe to have gone much faster. Contrast that with when the store is open and the car park is full and busy. I often go at whatever the speed is in my car on tick-over in 1st or 2nd gear, (<5mph I think), in order that I can have my foot over the brake.

So I know you don’t like to hear it weepej but circumstances and conditions matter and a posted sign does not always dictate what is safe, but I’m sure you will correct me

ADD: I agree with you dcb on the driving thing. If I could, I would give it all up tomorrow. It has become such an un-enjoyable expensive experience and stress to me, but I have a few more years to go before I get to your enviable position...

_________________
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.