I know this thread has somehow progressed onto Q plates, but I have only just noticed something and feel I need to clarify a few things. I apologise for the long post:
DIABLO636 said:
A bit out of order i thought......Shades, you have said you want to give your opinion etc but that was un-called for. He isnt wasting anybodies time - he is asking for advise, which happens an awful lot of this forum. Thankfully most people manage to be polite and answer constructivly to most queries or questions. Obviosuly there are a very few that dont.
Granted, my comment
may have kicked it off but I stand by it but it was certainly not un-called for, let me explain:
I dare say many people, since being on this forum, have at one point in time been caught speeding yet they largely restrict their posts to asking about how to deal with the legal proceedings after the event rather than ask, as the original post in this thread did, the best way to continue speeding and not get caught. Asking about speeding offences and how to deal with the legal proceedings is quite understandable given that most people aren't armed with a law degree. However lets face it, most people are either aware they were speeding when caught and are simply looking for 'loopholes' to possibly avoid/overturn any fine/conviction or genuinely don't know how to proceed.
Asking how to avoid being caught speeding is a different matter. The blindingly obvious answer to not being caught is not to speed. Unfortunately there are ways to attempt to avoid being caught, detectors for example, but I find all methods, mentioned and not, to be highly irresponsible and inconsiderate. It is not as if doeboy was unaware of his options either as he stated them in his original post. To attempt to start a poll about a preffered method of avoiding the law is quite frankly an enourmous waste of everybodies time and is too stupid for words. In essence the original post, and poll if it had of been made, would have meant anybody replying to it in a way that supports the original post would have been condoning the commiting of speeding offences. Whether anybody likes it or not speeding offences were created for a reason, to promote the safety of yourself, other road users and pedestrians, and not a means to simply generate revenue. This issue has become left behind and lost within the speed offences Vs revenue generation debate.
As technology has evolved it has given the opportunity to detect and deter crimes/offences in ways/place where it was not always realistically possible to place someone 24 hours a day. This is the
real point of contention. "Law abiding" citizens are now being caught where they were previously not and they, like doeboy, obviously do not like it. Yet, just because they were not previously being caught does not mean they were not still breaking the law and now automatically have the right not to be caught. As I'm sure most people will be aware we are the most heavily CCTV observed nation in the world, with more cameras per head of population than anywhere else. Yet the only major (minor?!) dissenting voices I hear are those of "civil liberty" organisations and those who do not want to be caught breaking the law! 30-40 years after the introduction of CCTV to the UK we are still having roughly the same debate. Now its speed cameras, the objecting voices are still the civil liberty organisations and now previously "law abiding" citizens. Citizens who had no problem with the introduction of CCTV for the purposes of crime prevention/detection, but now object to being caught
breaking the law themselves.
You may notice above I used the phrase "speed
offences Vs revenue generation debate" rather than "speed
camera Vs revenue generation debate" as such is the dislike of being caught speeding by "law abiding" citizens, the whole debate has somehow managed to emcompass the police. No-one had a problem with the Police doing it before, other than those caught, but such is the frenzy over speed cameras/offences the police have been caught up in it too. Technology has simply enabled other organisations to independantly witness road traffic violations and present their findings to the police (who have to verify every occurance) much in the same way that CCTV from shops is used as evidence when a crime occurs. However now the police are getting flack too for doing something that has always been part of their remit, something they have always done before and with the introduction of cameras; the detering/detection of speeding offences.
To summarise my point: Speed offences and their various detection methods are there for a purpose. Primarily the safety of yourself, other road users and pedestrians. Trying to circumvent these and the encouraging of such is, to me at least, highly irresponsible and and posts referring to methods of acheiving this, and the support of such, is therefore a waste of everybodies time (and could theoretically be a waste of someones life). Such posts have no merits upon which to be defended. I would like to
apologise to doeboy if I caused offence, that was not my intention. He has the right to post anything he likes on a public forum and I have no argument against that, but I still find his original post inconsiderate, detestful and still a waste of time, for that I do not apologise.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I know this has been an incredibly long post and I thank you for reading but I would like to state something before I get accused of taking some sort of moral high ground. No, I do not consider myself to be perfect and yes I, like many others, have been known to stray above the speed limit. However I only consider myself to be lucky to have not yet been caught. I also consider myself lucky to have not been involved in an accident while straying above the speed limit. It is often this thought alone that is enough to make me think "Whoa, you're being bit of a tit now" and ease off the gas. But again, I'm not perfect so I occasionally still go over. There is no such thing as being unlucky to be caught, only lucky not to be caught. The only people who can consider themselves unlucky are those minding their own business, within the law, who are unfortunate to be involved in an incident.
Its not just a matter of my own safety either but that of others around me too, no matter how
safe you
think you are something unexpected can always happen. If something were to happen, and I am within the realms of the law, I can comfort myself with the knowledge that I am not at fault even if, for example, someone may have been injured (which I would obviously still feel bad about, as people involved in accidents through no fault of their own often do!). I would never consider myself unlucky to be caught speeding, I would appreciate someone or something is doing their job correctly, for the protection/safety of others, while I was being an idiot!
