I'm really torn on this issue. On the one hand, I am abhorred by the fact that the police are fining someone for essentially warning others to stop committing crime. I know the argument is that they'll slow down and then speed up again, but all this guy really did was warn other drivers that if they commit a crime for a certain stretch of road they'll get caught. From a utilitarian perspective this is tough, from a non-utilitarian perspective it's clear cut he's done nothing wrong. On the other hand I understand the argument that all he's really doing is helping people avoid the law. Afterall, people who saw his flashes are only going to slow down and then speed up again in order to avoid fines. Finally though, this is mostly the government's own fault for legislating too much (in bringing in silly fines for speeding) or for legislating too little (in not brining in mandatory speed limitors). If the government was actually serious about speeding they could easily stop it, either by enforcing speed limitors on all road legal cars at 70MPH, or by introducing either the death penalty or a 40 year jail sentence for anyone caught speeding. Any of those measures would stop speeding overnight. Instead we play this silly cat and mouse game where motorists travel at the speeds they're comfortable with and the police try and punish anything that moves. Above all, the whole damn thing is just one stupid charade.
It is, especially, as has been pointed out, TomTom can legally sell satnavs essentially doing the same thing. I don't agree with the fine; I think it impinges on freedom of expression (seeing as there is no clear conspiracy to commit a crime), but I also can see the police's point of view on this. I also think we should not kid ourselves. When you offer someone money to kill someone, you can argue that it was for all sorts of harmless reasons: as a joke, in a moment of drunken anger with the victim, hey, you didn't mean it, and it is not like the other has to go out and kill him... But we all know what intent is most likely. Correspondent inference (and we all use that logic): the most likely outcome of the act is its most likely intention. So let's agree on this: the man warned others because he does not like speed traps and wanted to help others evade getting caught speeding. The police considers that obstruction and fined him. I think it is dubious (but not totally ludicrous) and I think it may be the thin end of the wedge in all sorts of dangerous ways concerning freedom of speech. But if you are going to defend the man's actions you have to do it based on solid argument, not BS cop-outs like "But he didn't mean it that way", "Speed cameras don't work anyway", "Speeding is not that dangerous" or "It's all a state conspiracy".
I think this is disgusting and does show that these types of "Accident Prevention" schemes are purely there to make money. You cannot fine a person for helping to slow down traffic. Much like a TomTom gives you warning of this. It is a much greater crime to not publicise your presence and have motorists stamp on their breaks to avoid reprimand hence causing a more dangerous Motorway Environment. I think a valid point to introduce would be that our speed limits were introduced in 1965 after no really study of what the limit should be. Cars and technology have changed dramatically since then so I think rather than using Speed Cameras etc to enforce an out of date Speed Limit. Our Government should commission a study to ascertain a new speed limit, possibly 85, and also the Motorway Drive Laws.
I think Nexxo sums it up nicely in the last paragraph.... I'll try and do a similar (but worse job) the pigs were narked that someone stopped them getting their kicks so they decided to screw them over. They could do this because the system tends to support the establishment unless there is a cast iron case against them (in which case they'll try and ignore it till they cant and then have an 'investigation' which will amount to nada ) http://www.google.com/search?source..._rfai=&pbx=1&fp=ca05a7bb65e82229&pf=p&pdl=300) the bloke who was screwed will go public, the public will be 'shocked and outraged' at the enfrigment of their civil liberties but will then go back to their day jobs and tut at single mothers who 'spend more on christmas presents' than they 'earn in a month' dont let the rozzers get you down (buy a good pair of nikes)
The above comment is sponsered by BRAWL.inc where we smash everything very little pieces because it's fun. i.e. I agree with this really.
Yes all very true. But Nexxo the reason why I, and so many others disagree with you is this: We are being told over and over again that speed camera's are not to make money. Mobile speed camera's are to catch people off guard as it were. They can ONLY be put in area's were there are alot of accidents. Therefore they are given the name ACCIDENT REDUCTION UNITS. That is what mobile speed camera's are actually called. If all they cared about was the accidents they wouldn't care, not really. It's certainly not uncommon for someone to see a mobile speed camera at the last second, panick, break harshly and crash. Lets face it, we all stray over the limit. Some are worst than others but if you are like me, where you can't afford to pay the fine in the first place, and don't want the points because your income depends on you being able to drive, your really don't want to get caught. I myself to tend to stick to th limits, i only ever speed on motor ways and i hardly ever stray over 80-90 and thats usually over taking. I have gone over that when my daughter was taken into hospital and i was worried but hey, thats the exception. If the police only cared about stopping accidents, they wouldnt mind about people warning them about mobile speed camera's. As long as they slowed down in the first place who cares. I do agree, nobody wants to get caught but lets not forget, these mobile speed camera's have targets to hit which in itself shows it is there to make money, the targets arnt the accidents it stops, but how much money it makes. I know it would be difficult to calculate how many accidents it stops but it isn't the point. If they were truely there to stop accidents they wouldnt care. And wouldn't a better use of money be to use another way of letting people know a dangerous road has killed alot of people. They want the money and you know it. You stated in a previous post that 30 million goes to the treasury(income from speed camera's) which you refered to as a piddling amount. By whos standards? Certainly not mine. 30 million is a massive amount of money, income from something that should ALL go to the improvement of roads and other such things. But 30 million goes to the treasury? Where we don't know what it's doing? Paying off expenses probably.
anyway it looks like the wonderful coalition govt. is pretending that they can and will do something about this if we the public can be bothered to email them http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...g-calls-on-public-to-help-scrap-bad-laws.html
"The “radically different” approach is part of the Coalition’s attempt to redress the balance between the citizen and the state" lol so asking the people of a country how they want their country to be is radical. It's ok it's only the lib dems, nothing will come of it how long before it turns into a huge anti-racism debate?
Actually my comment is simply put with my very sarcastic upper-class voice on (which annoyingly gets compared to Russell Howards voice) "How dare we try and make decisions for our own country! We should leave it to the oh wise and glorious government" I may work for them, but I don't agree with some of the BS that gets thrown around.
There's bits that you do? in all seriousness, what do you work as? As that's the 2nd time you said that and i keep meaning to ask.
Let's (re-)establish some annoying facts. First: speed cameras do work. They do reduce accidents and fatalities --by a lot. We know this because Swindon council did a detailed study of the statistics before and after speed cameras were installed. Second: speed cameras do not generate much money: £30 million. This sounds like a lot to you and me, but in terms of the billion, nay trillion-pound terms that the Treasury has to think, it is a piddling amount. Especially as the infrastructure of keeping the cameras going, issuing the fines and collecting them and the courts dealing with extreme offenders and those reluctant to pay up costs about £20 million. In fact, it is such a hassle that Swindon decided to do away with them despite their life-saving benefits. Third: mobile speed cameras are about extending the deterrent effect of stationary speed cameras. The idea is that people do not just learn to slow down in certain locations where they see the yellow device and road markings of doom, but that they learn to slow down everywhere. People being people they will only do that if they experience that the risk of getting caught speeding is everywhere. Police do care about people slowing down. They care even more about them not speeding up again as soon as they think they're in the clear. Now you can argue: "But people will panic and break and that will cause more accidents!", but that is saying that you should allow people to commit a potentially dangerous offence because stopping them from doing so may only cause them to commit another potentially dangerous offence. Frankly, anyone --and I am quite serious about this-- anyone who panics and cannot keep control over their car when confronted with an unexpected obstacle down the road (such as a mobile speed camera) was not paying enough attention, was going too fast, is not a skilled enough driver and should not be driving at all, anywhere. And they have been challenged by me --had you bothered to read. Should be a sig.
True, but the main point of that post was to prove a decent lawyer would have thrown it out of court, because it's impossible to prove he stopped them catching anyone. And the But people will panic and break and that will cause more accidents!, was merely a throw away comment if you will. I was just pointing out something i know does happen. And you said they obviously were not paying enough attention or speeding or both which is perfectly true, but peoples minds do wander, everyone who drives knows that when your driving esp if it's a long distance, you day dream and realise 2 mins later you've been staring into space.
But its true and they won't even necessarily be speeding either, just see the speed trap and panic, combine that with dodgy road conditions (ice/wet/etc) and its all to possible. Why do you think normal speed cameras are so clearly marked? Partly to avoid what i just said. Of course all road users should be able to handle unseen obstacles but lets face it nearly anyone is allowed on the road and as such not everyone can handle said things, often with very sad consequences.
A friend of mine has panic attacks quite often and had one when he was driving once... he's bloody leathal but the DVLA are intent on making sure he can still drive. Pointless.
And the person behind is obviously driving too close if they don't have time to react to the person in front suddenly slowing down.
