Safe Speed Forums

Exceeding a speed limit should not be an absolute offence in itself. This is one of my real hobby horses I'm afraid. I know that the result of what I have stated will be more effort being required to investigate and prosecute but so be it.

As I said, it's always the case when the police caution you - first they caution you, then they ask you your name and address. I agree that it is a bizarre situation as they have just told you about your right to silence, but if you remain silent they will take you to the police station and hold you until they have established your identity. It's still not as bad as the american caution which is the most bizarre choice of words imaginable. As for the ABD web site, given their comments on global warming I find it difficult to attach any credibility to what is on there - bear in mind they have a vested interest, just like the safety camera partnerships.

When motorists make their way along our highways they do so in the knowledge that a speed limit exists. Thus, their actions must be affected by their knowledge of the limit, its (purported) purpose and the concept that it is unlawful to break that limit; the fact that many do so by various margins does not negate this observation.
Now, I accept that drivers don't set out to have accidents and attempt to avoid them through driving mechanisms which include speed correction where necessary. BUT, I find it extremely difficult to believe that if all speed limits became, in effect, advisory (because that is what it would boil down to) we would not see a rise in accident rates as, here and there inappropriate speeds are chosen.

Yes, but that doesn't alter your right to silence. The police will hold you until they have established your identity (that's quite reasonable) and if you want to avoid that tell them your name and address - but you need say nothing more!

I'm not quite following your comment about the ABD site. Do I take it you are a believer in Global warming? (given that the ABD site debunks most of the myths perpetrated by the environmentalists) If that is the case it seems a little harsh to disbelieve other threads just because they don't agree with your convictions on global warming (I don't believe in it either)

You mention that ABD has a vested interest, I agree with you, their aim is to remove these camera obscuras from our roads and restore some sanity to the policing of roads - isn't that our interest too?

I won't go into an argument about whether global warming is fact or fantasy. Suffice to say that I believe it to be simple fact, and if the ABD are so biased as to want to attempt to construct an incredibly weak argument against it, then yes, I do have to conclude that they have a vested interest that is overriding everything else, and hence I can't attach any value to anything else on their web site.

I think it is pivotal to intelligent policy and defines why we should be viewing offences with an experienced discretionary judgement, rather than at one extreme allowing complete freedom of choice, and at the other extreme a zero tolerance remote enforcement strategy with no environmental consideration.

Yep, rather like S172 in fact.

Sorry stevei, not like S172 at all! As I said before, you have the right of silence when the police interview/arrest/charge you. You are not obliged to say anything at all. When I said you could tell them your name and address I was merely suggesting it might save you a lengthy wait in custody while they sought identification, you don't need to tell them anything YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF SILENCE. S172 denies you this fundamental right by requiring you to say who was driving your car at the time of the alleged offence. In other words you must incriminate yourself or face a charge of failing to identify the driver which is punishable by a similar fine and penalty points. The system relies on threats to obtain what is usually self incrimination!

I won't go into an argument about whether global warming is fact or fantasy. Suffice to say that I believe it to be simple fact, and if the ABD are so biased as to want to attempt to construct an incredibly weak argument against it, then yes, I do have to conclude that they have a vested interest that is overriding everything else, and hence I can't attach any value to anything else on their web site.

I can't really say anything to that comment. It sounds to me a bit like petulance. Is what you are saying "If you don't agree with me then you are wrong and I won't believe anything you say"?


No, that is not my interest at all - I'm interested in the truth, whatever it turns out to be. I see vested interests on both sides of the debate, drivers who are more interested in driving in a manner that ensures their personal comfort (by not driving at an uncomfortably slow speed) rather than ensuring the safety of others, and the speed enforcement brigade who are also prioritising their self-interest above safety. I try to not approach the subject from either side, I'm more interested in analysing any evidence presented by either side to see if it is valid or not.

I can't really say anything to that comment. It sounds to me a bit like petulance. Is what you are saying "If you don't agree with me then you are wrong and I won't believe anything you say"?

No, not at all. A difference of opinion is one thing, but when someone starts clutching at any straw they can find to promote a point of view that they have a vested interest in, then I don't see what credibility they can have. I didn't want to explore the specific matter of global warming in any more detail because this isn't the place for it, I'm just saying that given my views on the matter, the only logical path from there is for me, personally, to not attach any credibility to the ABD.

I won't go into an argument about whether global warming is fact or fantasy. Suffice to say that I believe it to be simple fact, and if the ABD are so biased as to want to attempt to construct an incredibly weak argument against it, then yes, I do have to conclude that they have a vested interest that is overriding everything else, and hence I can't attach any value to anything else on their web site.

Surely it is being very sweeping to dismiss everything a pressure group says because you disagree with one aspect of their policy.

Assuming for the moment that they are mistaken about anthropogenic global warming, is that really a solid justification for believing that everything else they have to say is also wrong? Is having a vested interest a solid reason to doubt a person or group? Why can they not be wrong on one issue and right on another? Or all the others? It's a cliche I know, but a broken clock is right twice a day.

This thread seems to be like a queue for U2 concert tickets. It extends faster at the end than it takes to get there!!.

but I had to stop here to applaud this earlier observation of Rigpig.
I think it is pivotal to intelligent policy and defines why we should be viewing offences with an experienced discretionary judgement, rather than at one extreme allowing complete freedom of choice, and at the other extreme a zero tolerance remote enforcement strategy with no environmental consideration.

BUT, I find it extremely difficult to believe that if all speed limits became, in effect, advisory (because that is what it would boil down to) we would not see a rise in accident rates as, here and there inappropriate speeds are chosen.

Stevei you are now doing what you criticise the ABD for.

You've taken a quote, the I don't belive computer simulations one and drawn all manner of conclusions from that in isolation. You believe that the ABD have vested interests and are scientifically naive regarding GW therefore you immediately conclude that the quote belies an underlying scientific ignorance exacerbated by ABD vested interests.

why was the quote made? was it a complete quote? was the quote in relation to weather and climate change or about computer simulations in general? How accurate are computer simulations? Why does the person hold that belief? What qualifies him to make it? What was the reasonong behind the quote? More importantly what was the thought process that sits behind the quote, given his personal experience and expertise has he arrived at a reaseonable conclusion? Is it pure devilment?

Now you claim to be a seeker of truth but can you honestly say you are impartial in your analysis of information or are you interpreting things to fuel your prejudices?

Okay, let's suppose they are mistaken. This means they must believe their own arguments, so lets follow through the implications.

And the broken clock analogy - I'm not going to start using one to tell the time just because it happens to show the right time twice a day, I'd rather use a more reliable source of the information.