Safe Speed Forums

Quite simple:

Where there is a conflict of interests between these two desireables, Is my first and foremost 'duty' as a citizen to obey the law? Or is my first and foremost 'duty' as a citizen to drive safely?

Any legally qualified or trained opinions please.

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.

Hmm...planning all driving from a safety-led perspective is the main priority.

As for breaking the law - by exceeding speed limits - or even creating a danger by holding up traffic ...use discretion and judgement as to how we deal with it.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Sorry, In Gear, you haven't answered the question.

Put these two desirable methods of driving in the correct order.

1 Obey the law
2 Drive Safely

or

1 Drive Safely
2 Obey the law

Any Magistrates or others charged with 'upholding the law' want to give me the right advice where these two desireable outcomes come into conflict?

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.

I think it's a little unfair to ask a police officer this question as IME they are much more likely to stop and deal with you if you are a. driving in an unsafe manner and then b. breaking a law - this is the discretion that they can use when deciding what to do with a driver and is highly favourable compared to robotic policing. Also a Police Officer may not be comfortable acknowledging this discretion on a public internet forum. (although some, bravely, have

As for magistrates I suppose the answer has to be if you did break the law, what law did you break? Did you have a real and good reason for breaking it? Are there any redeeming factors that need to be taken into account?

I think that is the way it should work, and in my experience, prior to the leeching scammer operators it worked well. Now I’m not so sure about the magistrates – although Fisherman on this forum did explain a point of view on here that was very helpful and removed a few concerns I had, but for certain we are seeing less and less traf pol, mainly, I think, due to the use of the leeching scammers who not just "police" on the cheap, but can actually turn a profit, shame deaths are rising at the same time.

All IMO

Cheers

Paul

I actually do feel sorry for the police - but I suppose it's a leftover from when I was treated reasonably fairly!!!

That said, none of our scamera fiends or their executioners (the magistrates) have come on because they would HAVE TO say:

1 Obey the Law
2 Drive Safely

Remember, they say we must always obey the law - there is never an excuse for breaking it, only mitigation.

Of course, I threw in the 'safety' angle, because I wanted one of them to commit, for me to give the following scenario.

A driver is travelling along a winding highway where there are solid double white lines in the centre of the road. The driver knows he is within the posted speed limit because he constantly checks his speedo (this is a 9 point lad) - probalbly every other second, literally.

Well, just at the instance his eyes come back to the highway in this 30 times a minute check-it tedium (yes, he's doing 29mph in a 30 maximum), a small child runs out into the road - literally from nowhere (we are told, remember, that kids play in all sorts of places - like motorways)...

Well, anyway; in the instance the driver glances back from his speedometer and notices the child, he realises he is too close to brake and completely stop the car without hitting the child. His other option is to swerve across the double white lines to try to miss the youngster.

Should the driver a) Obey the Law? Or b) Cross the double white lines to attempt to avoid the collision?

Now common sense tells me (and I would imagine most of the other fleeced-off folk who frequent this board) that crossing the double white lines to avoid running the kid over is absolutely the thing to do....

So again, the question for the magistrates and scamera operators who pump this politically correct clap-trap.... Safety and the Law are in conflict: Do I obey the law and almost certainly knock the kid over or break it and drive over the double white line contravening an enactment of our Sovereign Parliament???

Should I Drive as safely as I can or obey the Law???

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.

You give a good example and one where I doubt any police officer would think to take you to task for it, and one that when explained to a magistrate would see the option as a no brainer - obviously it gets more difficult if the person crossing the solid white line then hits something coming the other way, but still the decision of the driver to cross the line in this situation I think would be seen as the most valid option by all able thinking people.

The problem or situation I think you are alluding to is that of the non-discretionary camera that has no knowledge of road safety and is only capable of photographing vehicles that appear to be over a prescribed limit providing "justice"

The camera allows for a certain amount of discretion, the trigger limit is usually around the ACPO guidelines, however this is only discretionary in one dimension and on something that has, according to Govt figures, very little to do with accident causation, especially by those likely to be caught out by robotic policing (The correctly registered vehicle being driven by an insured and taxed driver).

I do believe in the example given the answer by any right thinking person would be break the law (with thought and carefully), but cameras can’t make those decisions, people can and as such describes the possible fate of road safety in the UK.

At least the “Safety Camera” people can get fat on the flesh of dead road users.

Cheers

Paul

The thing is Gopher, a magistrate "swears an oath" that they will discount their own opinions and apply the 'letter of the law'

Let's just hope that one of the Scamerati's kids never runs out in front of me in such a situation! Such a notional paradox to say I killed a kid but I never broke the law in doing so. Or I maimed a kid but I know I wasn't speeding because I spent half my time checking my speedo rather than looking at the road

Time to start applying the laws in the real world rather than off of a text page in a magistrate's manual, eh?

I challenge ANY magistrate to tell me he thinks there are instances where I should break the law.

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.

They won't, they can't (really) but this is the whole point of discretion and mitigation, under certain circumstances they will, just not publicise the fact.

I think we agree, the only difference is I do not blame the police or the magistrates, I blame the scammers, and only the scammers.

Cheers

Paul

Ok - allow me a little licence here - we are in hypotheticals after all.

The double white lines are there because someone decided it would be dangerous to be on the wrong side of the road. If when this altication confronts you, you are close to thye end of the double-white line section, the chances are people coming toward you (either in eyeshot now or later on) will see you and swerving over is safe. If not, you may be making matters worse. Breaking hard and nudging the infant may be a less bad alternative than stopping alongside him and a car coming toward you that you'd not seen appearing, swerving around you and mowing down the infant at a greater speed.

I hope and pray such a situation does not happen to me. If it did, I am almost certain that I would brake hard and if that was not going to work, still on the brakes (ABS) I'd steer LEFT into whatever inanimate obstacles were there to miss the child and avoid any possibility of either a head on or being (indirectly) responsible for the child's death by avoiding actions of another. It also gives traffic coming in either directions a damned site more options if in this instance I've played the martyr and gone off the road.

By doing this, I would satisfy both law and safety, albeit likely causing damage to my own vehicle that would probably not have occurred had I gone across the road. BUT - priorities here are, for me, avoid at all costs being in any way responsible for the death or injury of a child. Everything else is secondary. Going over the line compared to a minor smash into a fence (or whatever) is a judgement one makes, but unless I *know* the other side is clear (when I question the need for a double white line anyway), that is too risky.

Just my 2d.

Sorry, Roger. There is the odd dropped kerb on the left hand side of the road (which has allwed the kiddie to emerge) - otherwise the pavement is a 2 foot climb from the road surface with railings. An attempt to go to the left would have you sliding along the the obstacle (rather than mounting it) with little control, likely exacerbating the immediate problem.

Are you going to brake as hard as you can (obeying the law) and almost certainly knock the kid over?

Or are you going to disregard the law and drive across the double white lines - and making it a bit easier for you; it would appear unlikely (though not impossible) your vehicle would be struck by another as a consequence of your action of wanton disobedience in disregarding the demands of an Act of Parliament?

Are you going to obey the law or not? Yes or no? I am not asking you to mitigate after the event - I am asking you what you would tell other people to do before the event, if such an event took place.

I think I have shown that the law, and all the claptrap that goes with "unquestioning obedience" is a load of clap-trap. And whilst we all should want to obey the spirit of the law, there is always an exception to any rule - no matter how well intentioned that rule is.

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.

_________________
Brian of Plymouth
When will the government realise , that to err is only human, to be perfect is to be GOD.

I would have no problem with crossing the white lines in the child scenario above.

Double whites are there to assist safety - but in the circumstances of a child on the road no-one in their right mind would take the "hit the kid" option.

Point is, though....bring back the Tufty Club !!! Might have kept the child out of the road in the first place.....

Ok, Paul. the left looks nasty in this additional piece of fantasy.

That being so, I will miss the child by going right over the line and back again, UNLESS there is fast traffic coming down, when I'll go HARD left to a dropped kerb, supplementing with handbrake if needed, and take my chances of a written off car rsther than a written off child or lots of cars and child..

There you go, Cotswold...

You've just said it's okay to break the law - if safety is in question

tut, tut, tut.

The thing is, in the politically correct 'control-freak' world where we're now living, knocking the kid over is paradoxically the correct thing to do.

We must obey the law at all times, mustn't we?

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.

Where circumstances dictate, of course breaking the law is the correct thing to do - it's a no brainer as the Americans would say.

If I'm faced with someone about to attack me with a knife, and I have a large piece of 4 by 2 to hand I'm going to whack the sucker with it. If I kill him (which is against the law) then I'll have to claim self-defence.

Rigpig, I - and I assume the vast majority of 'normal' people know that 'breaking the law' would be the right moral thing to do. But in this era of the Scamerati, they put FAQ sheets in with their NIPs (which magistrates agree with 100%) which state There is NEVER any reason to break the Law. The Law must be obeyed at all times



Actually, no, you're not breaking the law in the example you give, Rigpig. It's called self defence and acting spontaneously.

If you thumped your assailant and then stopped to think about what he'd done over a cigarette whilst he was unconscious on the floor and then hit him again to make sure he died - then you'd be guilty of murder or serious assault.

The irony of your example, however, is that most 'ordinary' 'normal' people who protect themselves or their property in the exact way you give in your example are then harrassed by the police. I can think of the "Martin" case in Norfolk.

The youth Martin shot had ONLY burgled other people 53 times. Mr Martin had only called for the assistance of the Police 28 times before. But, to be fair, they were detained in their lawful duties of checking and changing roadside film - catching deviant motorists who drive down the A47 at 3 in the morning at 80mph+.

No chance of a copper when needed because there was no profit in it, presuambly.

Still - we live in a lovely, rational, free country - don't we?

Mr Martin's problems were his obvious lack of cash for the local camera partnership. Personally, I think we have to try more to understand these vermin thieves rather than put them down!?!?!?!?!?!

Let's face it - the law is a bit of a joke. It's certainly in disrepute, that's for sure

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.

In the vast majority of cases the two go hand in hand. Speed is the single issue IMO where there is an issue of safety compromise by speed limit adherence.

For me and many of my colleagues, speeding has to be reasonably excessive for the driver to be reported as a standalone offence with no aggravating factors. Below that discretionary limit, most of us look at manner of driving, and speed whether above or below the limit will play a part in that overall picture.

But I'd like to think that if you got a ticket from myself, you would receive a reasonable explanation from me about why I believe what you were doing was wrong, an explanation which I believe you would have difficulty arguing against.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Apart from the problem of bringing satisfactory evidence to court, how about doing away with an offence of exceeding the speed limit, and replace it with driving dangerously.

If a means of recording suitable evidence could be found, it could be used when somebody was below the posted limit, but driving at an inappropriate speed!
It would serve the BiB well to enforce this fairly, as it would earn the respect of a higher proportion of the motoring public than is the case under the present regime!

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

Ian, I've read a few of your posts and what you say comes across as 'reasonable'... Indeed, I'm quite sure I'd be unlikely to be nicked by someone like you (a policeman exercising discretion) because I am unlikely to be 'taking the piss', nor would I fail the 'attitude test' either way if there were the exercise of communication with a ticket for any infraction.

Personally, I think that the use of unmarked police cars with cameras to record the bigger picture of driving style over a period of 20 or 30 seconds or longer along with the tug and explanation along with the ticket will bring things back into line.

I don't think there is any reasonable reader on these forums who would advocate otherwise, if and when, for example, you stop a driver for tailgating another car at speed you then go onto prosecute such an offender after the lecture.

Aside of the irritating fact that we're all being fleeced for 'speeding' 'offences', the truly bad drivers amongst us are not being caught, educated or punished for some horrendous manoeuvres on our roads.

The fact still remains that the higher echelons of the police service, civil servants and politicians out to feather their own nests are damaging the police immeasurably. The poison they're putting into the likes of me, thousands of us (people who drive safely enough and have never been nicked for anything criminal) is irrepairable!

When I think of my 'offence' of 6mph over the posted limit, downhill (at the bottom of the hill, actually) on a dual carriageway on a sunny day, I either start laughing or get very angry.

If I really am that much of an anti-social deviant then I figure I may as well become one properly. I've said this elsewhere before but until this is changed the police won't get any more help from me at all. So what some will say? And to an extent that is true. I am just one tiny, tiny individual amongst 60 odd million.

The thing is, how many people can the State afford to hack off doing this to??? 1 million? 2 million? 5 million??? I understand it's 12 million+ tickets issued by the scameras so far. Am I the only bloke who had a clean licence as well as never having been nicked for anything else either?

OK So there will be those who have had 2 or 3 or more tickets from cameras. There will be others who've either done bird or have had a few business dealings in their time (not that they will have registered their cars in their own names, have any insurance or MoTs, have taxed their cars, etc, etc - cameras don't catch these people anyway) but how many people like me who do respect other people and the law in general. People who do generally abide by the spirit of the law???

The country will end up becoming ungovernable if this isn't addressed; that's my biggest fear. This is not about safety. It's about prying money and control freakery. If this wasn't so serious it would be funny.

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.

Be careful with your use of words, Roger, they'll be writing to you before you know it wanting sixty quid and to stick points on it!

Stand and Deliver Moto of the Scamera Partnerships

_________________
Although I used to consider myself to be a "reasonable man", the law just sees me as a criminal... My uncontrolled anti-social activities solely include the undeniable fact I usually drive my car at or just below the 85th percentile.