On Aug 2, 9:49*am, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)

Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and
the majority ignore it.

Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the
letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it
up. There are probably dozens of other absurd laws that plenty of people
ignore because they either bear no relevance to reality or are just plain
daft.

B2003

No.
I suggest you petition your MP to change the law and see if she/he
agrees it doesn't have common consent.
Would seem an easy way for a politician to gain popularity if he/she
can get the impotent law repealed? But perhaps actually a majority of
people do support prosecution of speeding car drivers. Would you also
say that using a mobile phone while driving or drink driving should be
decriminalised? No doubt you could argue that the relevant laws are
impotent because of lack of common consent.
Even if the upside stamp was treasonable ( a stupid suggestion) I
would argue that that law had no common consent and Dave should put it
on his bonfire.

Jeff gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Would you also say that using a mobile phone while driving ... should
be decriminalised? No
doubt you could argue that the relevant laws are impotent because of
lack of common consent. Even if the upside stamp was treasonable ( a
stupid suggestion) I would argue that that law had no common consent and
Dave should put it on his bonfire.

Jeff gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Would you also say that using a mobile phone while driving ... should
be decriminalised?

I would certainly argue that there's no need for the separate legislation
which trivialises it.

If somebody is driving carelessly or dangerously, charge them with that -
whether the phone is the cause, the symptom or whatever.

If their driving is safe and appropriate despite the phone, what's the
problem?

Likewise with a speed above the limit.

Exceeding the speed limit and using a phone whilst driving are minor and
trivial administrative offences which merely distract from the actual
problem - drivers who don't pay any bloody attention to what's going on
around them.

On Aug 2, 11:50*am, wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:38:35 +0100

Mark Robinson wrote:
wrote:

Concerned about what exactly? That the biker could get away with speeding
and he couldn't?

Concerned as in "having an interest in", not concerned as in "worried
about". It is in the interests of all citizens that the law of the land
is upheld; it's how society works.

Not always. It used to be the law that women couldn't vote and gays went
to prison.

B2003

But that was how society worked. The law changed to reflect altered
views of what is right and society continues to work. It evolves.
Perhaps we will evolve the law so that speeding is outside its scope.
It would be interesting to see if such a move would have common
consent.

On Aug 2, 1:30*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On Aug 2, 9:49*am, wrote:

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and
the majority ignore it.

Have you ever accidently put a stamp on upside down but still posted the
letter? Yes? Well in that case you've technically commited treason. Look it
up. There are probably dozens of other absurd laws that plenty of people
ignore because they either bear no relevance to reality or are just plain
daft.

Well said. The 'breaking any law is serious' argument is a pretty
nerdy one that always seems rather detached from the real world.

Well which law can I disregard as nerdy? A bit of thieving could be an
attractive way of getting a bit of cash together so lets disregard the
nerdy Theft Act.
It would be interesting to see how you would choose which laws are
nerdy.

On Aug 2, 3:20*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:00:49 +0100



Mike Bristow wrote:
In article ,
* wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Jeff wrote:
It doesn't matter what harm he was doing. Potential damage is of some
concern though. Breaking the law is always a concern. It's strange
that some people think they should have the right to choose which laws
they break.

Oh give it a rest. The law is impotent if it doesn't have common consent and
the majority ignore it.

Are you going to take a similar view to bikes jumping red lights?

If not, what's the difference?

Traffic lights exist to prevent gridlock. Average speed cameras exist to
raise revenue for the treasury.

B2003

No. They exist to try and enforce speed limits. If people choose to
make voluntary payments to HMG because they choose to break a speed
limit that's their business - and my business if it puts me in any
danger at all.

On Aug 2, 5:08*pm, Adrian wrote:
"Peter Masson" gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

Average speed cameras exist to raise revenue for the treasury.
So reduce the fine so that it merely covers the cost of enforcement, but
make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for
other road users off the road more quickly.

I'm really not sure that the link between "exceeding the speed limit" and
"drivers who have little thought for others" is anywhere _near_ that kind
of clear-cut correlation...

I would bet there is.
I would also suggest there is a correlation between speeding and other
criminal activity. Ask a traffic cop for confirmation.

[snip]


Exceeding the speed limit and using a phone whilst driving are minor and
trivial administrative offences which merely distract from the actual
problem - drivers who don't pay any bloody attention to what's going on
around them.

You are wrong actually, driving while using a phone is actually a lot more
dangerous than simply speeding. Even using a handsfree kit is not that
effective in reducing the danger. The problem is that concentrating on the
phone call is a major distraction from paying attention to driving
conditions. Psychologically it is a lot different to just talking to another
person in the car with you.

And don't get me started on people who send text messages while driving.


--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:20:46 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:52:24 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message

Bruce gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

The margin (maybe not so much nowadays) is necessary to allow for
tyre wear (and IIRC tyre type on some vehicles) as well as the
capabilities of a mechanical speedo; the normal consequence of tyre
wear is that the indicated speed will be progressively too high so
to avoid underindication the average speedo will probably already
be over-reading from new.

The legal requirement is that a speedometer measures road speed with
a tolerance of +10%, -0%.

Actually, it probably isn't.

It's difficult to be sure, since the Construction & Use regs aren't on
the web. The nearest that is simple to find is the requirements for
the IVA test - which are definitely nowhere near as simple as that.
There's a table of allowable readings against accurate speed.

0 under-read is true, though.

Mind you, I'd love to know what sort of tyres are being used to affect
calibration by 10% as they wear... Something like a total of 6mm
variation due to tread wear on a typical overall tyre radius of about
320mm?

Wouldn't tyre pressure have a much bigger effect?


Indeed so, and that forms the basis of tyre pressure monitoring in
many modern cars - when the rotational speed (RPM) of one wheel
exceeds that of the others by more than a predetermined percentage, an
alarm sounds and a warning light illuminates.

I repeat that the legal requirement is that a speedometer measures
road speed with a tolerance of +10%, -0%. I am told by a friend who
is a car designer that this is stated in the Construction & Use
Regulations. He says it is very out of date because speedometers can
now be made to much tighter tolerances.

They might but the tyres vary with wear and type** so the legal limits
will necessarily have to cope with a reasonable amount of variation
caused by that.

**There are possibly still significant numbers of older vehicles
around which were originally designed/produced with cross-ply tyres
but which now run on radial tyres with a consequent over-indication of
speed due to the speedometer spec. not changing.

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:53:26 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:46:31 +0100
"Peter Masson" wrote:
make it a 6 point offence to clear drivers who have little thought for other
road users off the road more quickly.

I'm not sure why you think making progress is having little though for other
drivers.

A major use of average speed cameras is through roadworks. Workers carrying
out the roadworks are at serious danger from speeding motorists, that's why

No doubt. Except that for the majority of a 24 hour day there generally isn't
any bugger working on most roadworks. They should be renamed
roadcan't-be-arsed-I'm-off-home.

Complaints about "nobody is working there" seem to ignore the
impractibility of setting up and removing the protective measures
every working day or the further danger to the workers doing that.