I really hate this country ....

What if the old guy didn't have a driving licence ?

Would the magistrates then impose a further penalty for committing a "driving offence" whilst not being able to drive ?

Could you have your licenced revoked for drunk driving whilst in the pub having a few pints ?

Mad, they are all mad..............

quote:

---

What if the old guy didn't have a driving licence ?

---

The courts/DVLA would do the same as for a juvenile offender or anyone else who had never held such a licence - create a driver record/number for him in which to add the endorsements/ban.

regards,

andy c!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
Florida would appeal if all the old people were booted out and there was something going on - but it's dull.

---

But where would all us old people go?

Davie

quote:

---

Also perhaps the speed camera's were there for accident reduction

---

If that were the case then surely actively warning of danger ahead also acts to reduce accidents? What the Police are saying here is that they want people to drive unwarned into danger and have accidents by their camera so that they can be prosecuted for breaking the speed limit. And ISTM that they could only prosecute if they moved the speed trap in order to ascertain that there were drivers speeding who would have been caught by the original trap if not forewarned.

It's nonsense. Makes a complete mockery of the 'safety camera' propaganda.

And it's inconsistent given that fixed cameras are supposed to be visible and have warning signs, and that the daily locations of some classes of temporary speed trap are published. In order that the primary purpose is seen to be safety rather than revenue.

Paul

Hi Paul,
I see you point clearly. But wherever, and however, I get caught for speeding - I get caught. Its then down to differant forces tolerances whether you get prosecuted or not - whether you like it or not. In fact, if you don't like it you end up at court as opposed to dealing via fixed penalty.

Sure, its underhand, but no more underhand that tanking down a road then anchoring up so as to avoid getting zapped by the fixed (or mobile camera's), and then smiling saying to ones self 'hah got away with that didn't I?'

But this is going to turn into another speed camera's don't work debate, and 'other methods should be used'.

True in some cases, but they sure slowed me and others down on the M42 the other night! I don't want to fork out £60, nor do I want the points, so the chap warning was I agree doing some a favour.

But you can't convince me that its the camera's fault that the speed limit was being broken in the first place. and as I said before, it's the speed limit' i.e. the maximum one should travel on the given road at the speed permitted.

regards,

andy c!

Put this elsewhere

looks like a VW interior Martin?

Martin - nearly, but not quite:

Garyi,

Nice to hear that you had a good time.

I'm sure some of us would get a kick out of you siting examples of the TV, magazine, and food things that disturbed you. Was it the drama in everything?

The old chap wasn't so much trying to enable drivers to avoid prosecution, he was simply trying to make them slow down approaching the entrance to a car boot sale, iirc.

His own signs didn't work, but they got the thumbs up from the police until such time as they arrived with a hand-held laser device.

The speed trap itself was not effective in encouraging drivers to reduce their speed, it was only effective in catching drivers in the act of speeding.

The advance warning of the speed trap was effective in achieving the objective of reducing drivers' speeds on approaching the entrance to the car boot sale, but it undermined the revenue collection process - hence the prosecution.

The driving ban was an effective deterrent, and the fact that the government is prepared to resort to methods that are considered outrageously unfair by most people serves to make such a deterrent even more effective by dint of its expedient ruthlessness.



Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Toy:
The driving ban was an effective deterrent, and the fact that the government is prepared to resort to methods that are considered outrageously unfair by most people serves to make such a deterrent even more effective by dint of its expedient ruthlessness.

---

There will come the day when Dictator Blair and his cronies decree that a bullet is the only appropriate means (having confiscated all assets belonging to the wrong doer) to deal with those who are deemed to have interfered with the day to day operations of the revenue collection process.

Mike

I am reminded of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four and the reference made to the jackboot stamping on your head for eternity.

Blair and his cronies wouldn't use bullets as they cost money.



Regards,

Steve.

What was done to the old fella was undoubtable by some power mad meglomainac of a J.P.was wrong there is no arguing about that, but don't you think that you may have gone just a teeny weeny bit over the top. As a old socialist i'm totally alienated to Blairs form of "new labour" but even in my wildest rants I wouldn't accuse him of useing bullets against the British people,That would lose him the forthcoming election

I wouldn't accuse him of useing bullets against the British people,That would lose him the forthcoming election

hadn't you heard?

Its been cancelled.....

Cheers

Don

It is alleged that Harold Wilson once considered calling off an impending General Election because he had unfinished work to be done...

With true socialism, the end always justifies the means.

Crony B.Liar only got rid of Clause IV of Labour's ideology to get in power and for no other reason.



Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Toy:
Driving bans or points on licence should _ only _ be handed out for driving offences.

---

I agree totally with this; the old boy shouldn't have been "done" like this; that said, IF PEOPLE DROVE WITHIN THE SPEED LIMIT there'd be no need for speed cameras.

I'm sick to death of how the motoring lobby holds this country to ransom - whether it be for speed cameras because it forces them to drive PROPERLY, or because fuel's too expensive (which it is of course, thanks to tax, but it's still cheap compared to the amount of damage it does to the environment). I mean, if cars are so damn neccessary to everyone (I know SOME need them), how come we were able to manage in medeival times etc etc?

BTW - I'm not a big fan of this country either - over the last decade it's been sliding down the pan towards the brown water at the bottom (and it started slipping faster when Tony Blair got in), but speed cameras? Do me a favour. Slow down or pay the price - it's pretty damn simple as far as I can tell.

__________________________
Don't wanna be cremated or buried in a grave
Just dump me in a plastic bag and leave me on the pavement
A tribute to your modern world, your great society
I'm just another victim of your highrise fantasy!

I only drive when I absolutely have to, love where I live, don't feel like the government is oppressing me, and I am not fat.

<Parry>You drivers whinge because you've lost the argument.</Parry>

That was fun.

<Parry>

Harding knew the rules and broke them and so shouldn't whinge when he gets punished. He should be locked up and forced to live on bread and water for 20 years. In a military prison.

Anyone caught speeding should be gassed.

</Oarry>

quote:

---

whether it be for speed cameras because it forces them to drive PROPERLY

---

You clearly have absolutely no idea about driving, properly or otherwise.

Paul

quote:

---

I mean, if cars are so damn neccessary to everyone (I know SOME need them), how come we were able to manage in medeival times etc etc?

---

You are taking the piss right!!!

Or are you about to give up your use of electricity, gas, running water, sewerage, etc etc etc.

quote:

---

I mean, if cars are so damn neccessary to everyone (I know SOME need them), how come we were able to manage in medeival times etc etc?

---

If we went back to horses and carts all of our fields (that haven't already had houses built on them) would be required to be set aside for grazing and this would only feed a quarter of the horses.

And just imagine how deep the shit would be...

Domf,

Methinks sour grapes are behind your viewpoint...

Necessity is the mother of invention



Regards,

Steve.

Dom:

Where does all this anti car rubbish emanate from?

“IF PEOPLE DROVE WITHIN THE SPEED LIMIT there'd be no need for speed cameras.”

Don’t be so naive, they’re not there for safety, they’re there to tax people for mildly exceeding a “limit” imposed by people wanting to put in speed cameras to justify their own existence. They have become like the race relations and PC “industry”

Its already on this site somewhere, but the gvt’s own figures show speed as the cause of accidents 7th on a list of ten, the no1 was Inattention. Wonder why we don’t see inattention cameras – you work it out.

“I'm sick to death of how the motoring lobby holds this country to ransom”

Just not worth a response.

Pollution? – Yeh right

I know Exeter quite well, I was on the road by the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital only a few days ago where the bus lane starts going south, by the way which used to be usable by all vehicles outside the rush hour – I now note the “between 7-10” usage sign is gone or what ever it was so early in the morning or late at night (when there’s no traffic anyway) you cant use the lane anymore, for which I helped to pay for I might remind you. Anyway I had to HANG BACK from the bloody filthy stinking bus belching out crap. When I eventually got passed the thing, because as ever they have their own lane then stop 200m up the road to belch all over again, I slowed to see about 4 people on it. That is pollution. It would take about 25 of the car I drive to cause the same pollution as ONE only a couple of decades ago. Cars cause about 12% of air pollution. I suggest you turn your system off and moan about the 88% of what’s causing pollution instead. A recent study in Germany showed that travelling by train and bus were about as polluting as a car per passenger – fact.

Car are here, 20+ times cleaner than of old, get used to it and stop moaning or live somewhere else.

We need a usable public transport system that is inexpensive to use and gives clear advantages over using the car.
Until we have that, nothing will change. Not even worth discussing any further.

BTW, 40% of all global warming is caused by inefficiencies in domestic housing - building them & running them.

quote:

---

agree totally with this; the old boy shouldn't have been "done" like this; that said, IF PEOPLE DROVE WITHIN THE SPEED LIMIT there'd be no need for speed cameras.

---

Dom,
If a thief takes a car without the owners consent, and he gets caught, he gets banned also, as does the person who drives the car to yours or my house and then burgles it then uses the car to drive away.

This legislation is fine (disqualification for offences other than traffic offences), its just the imposition of the ban in these circumstances that a bit iffy IMO.

andy c!