Safe Speed Forums

Just for good measure, I checked out the wording on my own insurance certificate.

Not only can I drive my own car reg no "xxx xxx x", I can also drive anyone else's car with the owner's permission.

My insurance extends to anywhere in the western world. ie North America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, etc.

So how is it "impossible" for a qualified, licensed driver from the USA, for example, to have the required insurance?

You won't know that unless you see his certificate of motor insurance, and as we all know, the NIP isn't interested in hwether there's any insurance in force or an MOT... They really only just want the sixty quid, prefably in cash then no further questions asked!

_________________
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.

As I've been asked to state what my position in the speed camera world is, it's this ...

nothing other than a driver.

Sorry NN18, in case that's destroyed any conspiracy theory you may have.

Gosh, this is just getting so exciting. The only reason, it seems, that anyone can be in favour of speeding fines is because they get some money out of it? Rubbish.

I'm just a concerned citizen. Or "subject", rather, if I'm being pedantic with myself, even though it's against my politics, being a bit of a republican and all that. Although the monarchists do have the benefit that they don't have Blair as an option. But I digress, as I am often wont to do.

Oh, and NN18 ... did I call for you to be silenced? No, can't recall that one.

PeterE ... did I, have I, ever suggested that I have never driven over the speed limit in my driving career? If it's in any of my posts, please point it out to me and I will retract it and make suitable apologies to the forum in general. I've never had a speeding ticket, granted, but that's not the same thing. So please point it out, so I can learn from my mistakes.

No, you didn't make that claim. But, to be consistent, if you ever had exceeded a speed limit, you should have immediately presented yourself at the nearest police station to make a full confession. Why didn't you?

If people felt that any comments made on this forum would be reported to the police if they implied any illegal activity, it would rather kill debate.

But I have never noticed any juvenile bragging of the "I once did 160 mph on the A1" variety on here.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

Handy,

What can I say other than it must be mighty hard for you being so perfect in such an imperfect world.

Where did I say conspiracy theory? You have a good imagination. You could write a book about how you don't need a speedo to drive well - but the fact that you have one means you can look at it at least 33 times in 10 seconds (gleaned from other posts of yours), adequately monitoring your speed whilst surveying the road's horizon.

On the track, of course, ever thought about taking on Schumaker? because your reaction times are 300% better than the average of everybody else's.

Please Handy, please enlighten us with more observations of our deviances and your piety, we beseach thee.

_________________
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.

here:





Nope, once again refer me to the post where I claim to be perfect and I will make retribution, apologies, show my arse on the town hall steps etc.



Yes, thanks. I can imagine that you are a fantastic driver who has never ever broken the speed limit or received a speeding fine. I may even be right, am I?



Isn't this whole site about that subject? That speeding does not necessarily make you a bad driver? My point is that you should not need to read your speedo every 20 seconds to know how fast you are going.



Where have I said that? Where? Point it out? I'll remove it instantly. A single glance in less than half a second, easy. Repeated glances to the speedo? Why would I want to do that? I see a speed camera approaching my speedo will get one or 2 glances. One to see current speed, the second only required if I was close to the flash limit and have slowed up slightly.



now you're being silly. Observation times confused with reaction times? Read up on the matter, they are different things, really they are.



Oh please, please, can I ask you to read my posts. I've described my view of the deviances in general (breaking the speed limit is against the law) and the OP on this thread (who intimated but did not outrightly confess to have perjured himself) and that I do not claim any higher level of piety except that I try not to break the law by exceeding the speed limit and perhaps I try harder than some, and I don't see speeding as some sort of divine right. If it's any comfort I also don't drink and drive, nor do I burgle houses or keep unlicensed firearms, or abuse animals, or countless other crimes that some people think don't apply to them. I live a law abiding life, which is the duty of all people in a democracy. It's not pious to obey the law, it's the law.

Oh, and by the way, it's beseech.

Perhaps Paul was touch typing when he mis-spelled "beseech"

Mad Doc copped you on "becuase"

Does depend on where you are - and I do think there is more of a tendency to speedo gawp when passing any scamera - based on observations when I have driven past them - I do drive outside Durham on occasions.

Shall still continue to apply common sense in the enforcement policy here - because it works. Tried -tested and true - common sense works. Blinkered logic focussing on one area does not seem to be.

Think the facts speak for themselves - and no amount of spinning stats, cosmetic surgery and make-up is going to hide the wrinkles here.

_________________
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.

I defer to your perfection in all matters and will no longer protest if led off to the Salt Mines or otherwise sequestrated.

_________________
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.

Please PaulNN18, can you tone down the large fonts a bit? Basic bold is more than enough to highlight something.

I would have thought that the first thing that could be done as confirmation of a foreign driver in a UK car is a check of Passport records. After all if we are monitoring all movements in and out as a counter terrorism measure then the drivers name should appear somewhere...

While I agree that Handy is seriously over estimating the speed in which he can check his speedo (to within 1/3 degree!) and return to effectively observing the conditions around the vehicle - it is probably worth mentioning that Herr Schumacher has had his reactions tested and he was average. Yep totally normal, same as everybody else. Where he is undoubtably better is in his ability to read the subtle signs about what is about to happen (using all senses) and in his ability to accurately correct for them. He also crashes just as much as everybody else does, but his job is to drive the car at the absolute limits so it is not surprising that occasionally he passes those limits.

Point taken re the large type, rewolf...

And with regard to my comments about Schumaker, etc - I admit I was being a bit facetious

_________________
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 ...




oh what's the point.




Fine, you do that, if it makes you happy.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Alright, Handy...

No Quips, puns or other point scoring - I'm not a good commedian anyway.

I emphatically accept that I have no more of a 'right' to break the law than anyoney else.

The thing is, Handy, the problem with this strict enforcement of speed limits is quite simply that the the retribution for infraction exceeds the damage done by the 'offence' to such an extent that it defies adequate description.

Yes, the limit and enforcement for exceeding the limit has to start somewhere... But to have been the victim of being fined £60 for 6mph over the posted limit, downhill, sunny day, dual carriageway....

They stopped deporting to Australia people who stole when hungry more than a century ago (and it may have been 2).

For the law to command my respect, it must be enforced FAIRLY and REASONABLY given the circumstances.

I know, it's all bollocks. All my good deeds in the past and the fact I have continually been insured and had MoTs ever since I went on the roads should count for nothing when looking at any specific infraction - as I say, all bollocks.

But when I read in my local papers that causing trouble at football grounds, mugging pensioners, etc, etc, etc goes unpunished because the State can't justify the manhours, etc I conclude that my previous amenable, friendly, general complicit state is not conducive to not being treated reasonably fairly by the authorities.

Now, I know that my typewritten demenour since becoming the victim of this retribution by the State may be unpleasant in the eyes of those who think we should all walk everywhere, etc, etc, etc... But at least I am only verbalising rather than vandalising.

There will be others (and I do NOT condone or advocate this) who will take their own retribution by vandalising cameras or other none too welcome behaviour.

The thing is, Handy, I will tell you again. I am 42. I have NEVER been arrested, I have NEVER mugged old ladies, I have NEVER broken into people's houses and generally I have always tried to help other people. Indeed, the law does define me as a "reasonable man".

That reasonableness tends to evaporate when ANYONE takes the piss out of me, whether that be Estate Agents, double glazing salesmen and the like, and now sCAMERA Partnerships.

I know you find it nauseous but if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, goes "Quack" and has duck like appearances, it probably is a duck. I apply the same view to extorting money in fines and penalties from ordinary people on technical speeding offences where the law has been misapplied and mis-enforced. This is NOT about safety. They want our money.

Or do kids now play on the M4 too, for example???

_________________
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.

Have a good rant, it don't half make you feel better - or it will in about 3 or 4 years time, because that is how long it took me to get back from red-mist rage to just plain angry. My triggering event was due to unmarked traffic police apparently trying to make their quota for the day and using a hidden video camera attached to under-road sensors then driving in an agressive and dangerous manner in order to force drivers to speed up. Just don't go quite as far as I did on another BB when I said that I would "rather let terrorists blow...." [don't make that mistake again]. The thread was deleted because it filled up with messages from people who said that they wouldn't waste good urine to put out... [stop it!], and I think the officers that also used the BB were getting quite upset.

As a serious point the red mist effect was very real, and it only took a quick sequence of apparently stupid traffic calming measures, deliberately hidden speed traps or even the same unmarked police car reversing from L2 into a sheltered area behind the armco in the middle of the same dual-carriageway in order to set up the same trap the following year. I have driven hundreds of miles a week for months on end in an absolute rage just thinking about what was done and about how justice doesn't exist, and god help anybody else who does something stupid when I am in that mood.

Looking back it is very frightening to think that the primary consequence of traffic calming and related measures is to force a lot of people into a road-rage mood before the key is even turned. Even now my wife tells people to avoid the subject when I am around.

I think we agree here


I draw a parallel with DUI. This site - and it is a good thing - is dead against DUI. But 25% of 2000 people in a survey earlier this week admitted to doing it, 10% said that it did not affect their driving! If I had 5 pints then decided to drive home, I may well get home safe. (Actually, I wouldn't, if I had 5 pints I wouldn't be able to find my car, remember my name or even be able to describe what 'home' was ... which is why I don't drink!). That drive home was a victimless crime. I could do it twice. Three times. Some drink drivers do it for years before they are caught (or worse, caught out by being in an accident). But DUI is accepted as a 'BAD' thing. The reason why it is a bad thing is that there is a statistical correlation between DUI and accidents. The reason for the penalty is the same - not for the 'crime' itself, which is a victimless crime in both counts - but for the potential to injure.


you accept that you were speeding, albeit by 'only' 6mph. Where would you start the fines then? 25% over the limit? The some people would decide that driving at 25% over was then their right, and would complain at being ticketted for doing 26% over the limit.

The speed limits being incorrect is IMHO far worse than the cameras used to fine people who speed. Get the limits correct - variable limits to allow for poor conditions and variable situations such as school letting out time - and then penalise people who break the law.


It's bad. Very bad. So we should take down speed cameras because of soccer hooligans? If we took down the speed cameras and increased the amount of police on traffic duty, wouldn't that reduce the amount of police at the football matches? No, we would increase the size of the police force. We'd have to raise taxes though.



I don't find it nauseous, really I don't. I find speeding essentially pointless, and I find people complaining about getting tickets quite amusing. I enjoy driving, most of the time I'm not on the M25 that is. I really can't understand, even though I have really tried, why it is so important to people?

Kids DO play on the motorways. I've had to swerve to avoid some chav teenagers playing dare on a blind bend of the M58. Scared me witless.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I think you'll find the survey showed that 25% of people admitted to driving after consuming some alcohol, which is not necessarily either illegal or dangerous.


There are numerous reasons why the two are not directly comparable - see this webpage on Why speeding will never become as socially unacceptable as drink-driving

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

apropos of nothing:



Ben Elton used to do a sketch about the 'Drunk Olympics'. Arguing that making toast on a skinful was more sporting than half of the olympic sports!

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I agree that the two are not directly comparable, that was not what I was tryng to say. The comparison only comes in the application of a 'punishment'. The potential to injure is the reason. The same could be said of driving without due care and attention - IIRC if someone is hurt the offence is something different?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Thjat's true of DUI, but there's no statistical correlation between speed and accidents.
If there was, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops, and nobody here would be arguing the toss.
But they have to resort to all sorts of statistical chicanery to make it appear that there's a connection - when they can't even show a plausible mechanism.




If limits were set properly and fairly enforced then they wouldn't be an issue, as you yourself say below:



If they did that then they'd catch very few people - and the ones they did catch would deserve their punishment.



It's only a matter of time before you get nicked. Think it won't happen?
Thats what we're fighting here - not for carte blanche to do 200mph down the village high street.

Cheers
Peter

At the end of the day, we get the laws we're prepared to accept and tolerate.

Personally, I think it's coming time enough for some of us to stand as independent candidates (safespeed candidates!?!?!?!) and to fight local council seats as well as Parliamentary by-elections.

I am quite sure that the election of a few SafeSpeed councillors in county council by elections (decapitating and removing the councillors responsible for the SCAMeras) will ring ding-dong through the corridors of power in Westminster.

The other thing to add, I might add, is just like Hitler's henchmen were held PERSONALLY responsible for their actions and atrocities, perhaps part of a manifesto might say that those responsible for thisperverse use of the law to extort money from the public will be treated likewise.

Might make them think about their nice little earners, eh?

_________________
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'm probably around 90% sure it won't happen. If it does it'll be my fault, not the camera operator, not the government, not some faceless civil servant.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

When you lose your deposit, where will the money go? Perhaps this is another earner for the evil government machine.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.