I lifted some of this post from another forum, but in essence it is something that I have witnessed on this forum where I am amazed by the number of contributors who justify breaking the law when it concerns driving, but get really uppity when a “toerag” tries to steal their car. It seems a strange state of affairs on a forum where the mods are pretty scared of libel and will nuke a post for safety.

 

• Speed cameras = evil machines that catch innocent people exceeding the speed limit.

• Unmarked Police Cars = shouldn’t be allowed because they can catch people breaking speed limits.

• Speed limits = ridiculous attempts to stop people who get up late getting to work on time.

• Double Yellow lines = How dare someone tell us we cannot park in such a way as to create a danger.

• Use of Mobiles whilst Driving = the nanny state stopping me from doing something which is now considered essential.

• Eating whilst driving = petty attempt by police to alienate the whole of society.

 

For goodness sake get real..........the law is there, if you break, it you get fined or worse. If you don't like it contact someone who can action change, but don't keep bleating on, on here about how some poor innocent got caught, and how it is victimisation etc etc.

 

Abuse of Highway Laws is now so regular that it seems the only time they are obeyed is whilst we are learning to drive!! If the police stopped every offender there would hardly be a car moving on the roads.

 

Now I'm no good guy in this aspect either, I certainly don't always stick to 70 mph or the posted speed limit on the road either - but I accept that in breaking the law, I am taking a risk and if caught am willing to accept the penalty, it sometimes seems on here that it is possible to pick and choose which law of the land they shall obey.

have a look at this site...

 

http://www.safespeed.org.uk

 

the road laws are a compromise due to financial constraints. sometimes they make the roads more dangerous, often they mainly generate revenue. if police accepted the laws are greatly flawed and used better judgement/ways of alerting drivers to danger, we wud have more respect for them and be more accepting of punishment.

 

It's the blind acceptance of a crap system which annoys people and the police's often mindless/callous/uncaring enforcement of them which pi$$es ppl off.

Road safety in the UK... the background to our campaign

These are the key facts that guide the focus of our campaign:

 

Modern road safety policies led by speed cameras appear to have robbed us of the improvements that continued for at least 30 years up until the early 90s when speed cameras were introduced.

The important road fatality rate indicator (i.e. road deaths per vehicle km) fell at a steady 5% per annum from before 1960 until about 1993. Since then we've only had tiny gains. Speed cameras were first introduced in 1992.

Extrapolating the previous gains suggests that present road safety policy is responsible for not saving some 4,500 road deaths to the end of 2002. (click here) Sometimes we hear the claim that "all the big gains have already been had" as an excuse for the failure of modern road safety policy. However...

In many western countries without a road safety policy based on "speed kills" gains continue at the previous rates.

We predicted back in the late 80s that the forthcoming introduction of speed cameras would tend to worsen driving conditions and do nothing to improve road casualties. But it's worse even than we predicted...

Road casualties have held steady despite considerable improvements in vehicle safety and road design.

The conclusion must be that our road safety policy has made the roads more dangerous to such an extent that the improvements in vehicles and roads are entirely negated.

The government repeatedly claims that "one third of accidents are caused by speed" but there is no research whatsoever that supports the claim. We even have a "Statistics Challenge" on the first page of the web site where we promise to publish links to any supporting research. Despite many visits to the site by anti-speed campaigners no one has offered a link to supporting research.

The so-called safety camera partnerships employ marketing men to spin the best story to the press and the public. They frequently make claims of massive safety improvements where speed cameras are installed. But none of these supposed gains have ever been reflected in the national road safety statistics. This can only mean that they use the local statistics creatively to mislead us and to protect their own jobs. Here's how they do it. (click here)

The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) appears to have been recruited to support the government's misguided anti-speed campaign and has produced some bizarre documents purporting to be research, but which we believe to be blatant propaganda.

We believe that current speed policy targets all drivers without discrimination between safe and dangerous. It is morally unjust to use the law against a safe responsible driver at a safe and responsible speed. And yes. There can be responsible speeds in excess of the speed limit. Any driver who tells you otherwise is a fool, a liar or a danger.

Safe Speed's Policy

Safe Speed seeks to find the truth in road safety. There are a lot of lies, some bad research, some well funded pressure groups, and plenty of people who've staked their job on speed cameras being successful. It's no wonder that truth is hard to find, and it's no wonder that Safe Speed is needed to help set the record straight. See, for example, some astonishing email exchanges with the DfT and the TRL.

 

We only want to make the roads safer. Our focus is for road safety not against speed enforcement. It's just that speed enforcement policy is presently the single most important issue. The vested interests support the policy despite its complete failure to deliver results. We think the figures show that speed cameras are dangerous.

 

We entirely agree that inappropriate speed can be extremely dangerous, but the significant majority of cases of inappropriate speed take place within the speed limit where they won't be improved by even the fiercest enforcement scheme. If fact we think that dangerous and inappropriate speed accidents are increasing as drivers are paying more attention to their speedo and less to the road than ever before.

 

We call for improved driving standards and safe speeds set by drivers. Since speed limits are never going to be able to replace responsible speed setting we repeated call for ensuring that drivers have the skill to slow down when necessary. This is what we mean when we call for safe speeds. Read about safe speeds.

 

We agree with speed limits. We've never campaigned to have speed limits raised or abolished. What we do campaign for is using the speed limits properly as a method for prosecuting the dangerous use of speed. click here

 

We campaign against injustice. Modern road traffic law applied by robot and software frequently targets safe behaviour. The law is supposed to be enforced in the public interest, and many modern speeding prosecutions are not in the public interest and are unjust.

 

We publish your comments. For any claim or any article we will create a page to hold comments from visitors. We won't ever withhold publication of a comment because we disagree with views expressed. Normally we will attribute the comment to an individual by name. If that's perhaps unsuitable for you, then advise us when you submit the comment (For example, if you are a serving Police officer, we would be pleased to attribute the comment to "a serving police officer", and we might well understand why you wouldn't wish to be identified by name). We may withhold pointless or unsubstantiated rants, and we will withhold incomprehensible, profane, personal and off-topic comments.

 

We promise throughout the site to remove any facts that can be shown to be incorrect. We've made a couple of minor corrections on this basis over the last year or so. We'll stand by it with a passion. This website does not twist facts or tell half truths. If you happen to find an error of fact anywhere on the site we want to know

What problem I have with speed camera is the police think that is all you need.

 

They dont stop drink driving and they wont take pictures of drunken drivers. They dont take pictures of people who dont indicate, cut people up, drive in the middle of the road, pull out when they shouldn't, drive at a dangerous distance to the car infront, drive without tax or insurance to name just a very small amount of other driving offences which virtually all I would deem more dangerous than speeding.

 

Very well said mate. Spot on.

speeding is an easy way to get money off the motorist - they are also clamping down on road tax dodgers now (quite rightly)

Why should we pay a road licence fund? we already pay a whopping great amount on fuel duty, and thats where it should end.

 

People who use the road pay for the roads, if you dont drive much then you pay less 'road tax' because you are not using the facility.

Also there should be no 'tax disc' and possibly a road worthiness 'mot' style certificate on the windscreen, coupled with your insurance, quite frankly the two most important documents that should be displayed. Amber for TPFT & Green for Comp. & so on.

 

Road licence fund was introduced when the levy on fuel was very low and this was the method introduced to upkeep & expand the road system a long time ago. Archaic springs to mind.

 

It would never happen tho' it's far too fair.

true but it annoyed me when there were loads of blatant road tax dodgers who were happy to let honest folk like myself pay for them.

totally, but as I know all to well, that's what our government love to prey on. Us honest folk, after all we do have more money to impart :(

off topic

 

banning smoking in one day will not solve problems, the NHS will be left with the burden of smokers for the next 40 years, it has to be phased out over a period of time.

 

 

Smoking related illnesses cost the NHS something like £1.4billion per year :( Tax from smokers generates around £7.5billion per year. So for all those anti-smokers out there to bleat on about how much it costs the poor old NHS, I'm afraid it would cumble to nothing if we all gave up smoking! :tongue:

 

As for the "moaning about getting nicked" point to this thread.....

 

For a start moaning and general chatting is what most of us "SUBCRIBED MEMBERS" come here for!

 

The things we are moaning about are when we get 'done' in a situation where there was no danger and the 'law' is being enforced for revenue gain and nothing to do with safety.

 

2p :)

Smoking related illnesses cost the NHS something like £1.4billion per year :( Tax from smokers generates around £7.5billion per year. So for all those anti-smokers out there to bleat on about how much it costs the poor old NHS, I'm afraid it would cumble to nothing if we all gave up smoking! :tongue:

 

2p :)

 

 

It would not crimble if people stopped smoking. None of the £7.5b goes into health, so the budget wont go down, but major problems which costs thousands per person will go down.

 

If only half of the smoking tax goes into the NHS it would be fantastic, but it doesnt. It goes into Europe so iniffecient French farmers can harvets poor quality crops.

 

:tongue:

Ok, but then they'd want to get the £7.5billion from somewhere else.......a GATSO on every road?

 

Smoke more, reduce the need for GATSO's! I feel a campaign coming on....

 

"My lungs for your licence!" LOL! :rofl: :eek: :rofl:

the rich claim they r paying too much tax, but if they paid less, the country would have more poor ppl etc. etc. Don't less than 10% own >90 % of the wealth ?

 

have u noticed there seem to be more wealthy ppl than ever - or are they just borrowing more ?

if the non-smoking brigade get there way, smoking in your car maybe the only place left soon:(

 

watching one of those documentaries the other night, it was stated that drunks etc cost hospital out patients one and half a billion a year,

thats not drink related illnesses, just drunken fights/accidents etc,

 

im not sure if im one of the few who feels some symphathy towards the police

on friday/saturday nights etc, as i wouldnt have their job for a gold clock, as ive got teenagers i'd like to think if they were in trouble when out there would be a decent police force to be ready to step in, so many reported cases of kids being attacked/shot/stabbed etc

must be showing me age, but im sure i couldn't be doing with drinking in pubs nowdays, lol talk about off topic

but if smoking costs the health service xxx amount how much does drink etc cost??

God I have only just read this and I am amazed at the moral high ground attitude of some people who have bought a car with a 3 litre twin turbo'd engine. Are you sure you wern't looking for a 100nx and got mixed up :rofl:

I pay enough in taxes to decide what I can and cant do in my car, laws set by other people mean nothing to me, I am capable of deciding what is wrong and right myself. This dosent mean I am a maniac either, 99% of the time i drive totally sensible but if I do want to put my car sideways round an empty roundabout or hit 170 late at night then I do it.

How did we get from speeding to smoking? and how do people who drive 3 litre turbo charged cars (which incidentally chuck out more carcinogens in the first minute and a half of each morning startup than a smoker will if they smoke forty a day for their four score years and ten) get off on complaining about the dangers of having a fag? Smoking tax doesnt help the NHS? like bolox it doesnt! Not to mention the fact that we (smokers) die younger and relatively quickly while you non smokers last well into decrepit old age where you need 24hr nursing, do the national health service a favour you miserable sods and light one up!

 

And further to the "drink costs x million a week" item, thats how the anti fag brigade started. Do you really think the "I know whats good for you brigade" are going to rest on their laurels when fags are banned? not on your nelly, they will move onto telling you about how you having a drink is leading your kids into trouble, adverts will be shown with young kids with a bottle of stella with a teat on it and so it will go on. So stand by and laugh whilst we who smoke fight the inevitable, cos you lot are next mate.

we probably got onto smoking, by people not reading fully what has been posted, i do smoke but don't drink, my point was ive never seen two smokers kicking the crap out of each other after a night of smoking, ive never seen a smoker go home and kick the crap out of his wife and family after a night of smoking, or because of a packet of cigs go and crash his car killing other people, all the talk of passive smoking, if i took the family out for a night out and were none smokers, i have the option of walking out of a pub/club

 

we may not get the same option/choice about being stabbed by a drunk, or run over by someone who is incabable of driving

 

thats not to say i would go and sit in my lads room and smoke, or go to someone else's house and smoke, back to the cash generated by smokers

at the moment any goverment doesn't give a toss how many people pack in

'cos they just up the price of cigs for the remaining smokers

 

and finally getting back to mr go slow/never do anything wrong, as a couple have said most of us drive zx's, a high performance car, and the reason people moan about cameras is because they are NOT sited in areas where they are supposed to kill speed, but in areas that will generate cash,

i for one will stop moaning about cameras when i see them removed from ie motorways and placed in blackspot areas

Sh*t. All this talk of smoking...is making me...light up...ahhhhhh that's better!!!

 

Whilst we're on the subject of law and tax, they should legalise prostitution. Just think about it. Less pollution because there would be no need for punters to curb crawl, less violence from pimps, taxation for the government, cleaner streets and comfortable environment for prostitutes, health checks for prostitutes so less STD, unfortunate blokes can legally get laid etc etc etc.

 

Lets face it, it's one of the oldest profession which cannot be illiminated. Why try?

Sh*t. All this talk of smoking...is making me...light up...ahhhhhh that's better!!!

 

Whilst we're on the subject of law and tax, they should legalise prostitution. Just think about it. Less pollution because there would be no need for punters to curb crawl, less violence from pimps, taxation for the government, cleaner streets and comfortable environment for prostitutes, health checks for prostitutes so less STD, unfortunate blokes can legally get laid etc etc etc.

 

Lets face it, it's one of the oldest profession which cannot be illiminated. Why try?

 

I think most of these places are legal these days and they pay tax. They get round it by running a private club. And the rest is just consenting adults. Obviousley no one wants to see toms walking the streets so they will always get nicked. They need to look more at these poor girls from easten countries who are being forced into it and be held there against their will.

 

With regards to tax, I reckon over 60% of my household income goes to the goverment. I drink, smoke, use tons of petrol, so all high tax stuff. + my misses now has to pay VAT on her business so her profits have been halved since she went VAT registered. So she now has to work twice as hard to earn the same money.

Not to mention the fact that we (smokers) die younger and relatively quickly while you non smokers last well into decrepit old age where you need 24hr nursing, do the national health service a favour you miserable sods and light one up!

 

 

not true - smoking usually makes ppl more unwell in later years, and they tend to take longer to die.

RE: revenue from tobacco duty and cost to NHS - I think you'll find that now the cost to the NHS is greater than revenue from tobacco. It evened out last year I think.

 

IMO there should be an age limit on free treatment, limited to the age where 'smoking kills' is common knowlledge. It's like breaking your leg purposefully and expecting treatment for it for free- its wrong.

I agree - there should be more accountability in society - then maybe ppl wud behave more responsibly !

RE: revenue from tobacco duty and cost to NHS - I think you'll find that now the cost to the NHS is greater than revenue from tobacco. It evened out last year I think.

 

IMO there should be an age limit on free treatment, limited to the age where 'smoking kills' is common knowlledge. It's like breaking your leg purposefully and expecting treatment for it for free- its wrong.

 

 

No, the NHS should give treatment for all, regardless. It's a fackin HUMANITARIAN thing innit!? Just because you don't like what someone is getting treated for doesn't mean you should not treat them. If we go along your lines then we will not have any form of NHS and everything will be private.

 

Break your leg skiing? Well, you know how dangerous that is, so unless you can afford treatment then CRAWL mofo!

 

Got the clap? Well you shouldn't be going off with dirty old strumpets! Scratch till it falls off and die!

 

Car crash? Were you speeding? Yes? Tough ---- DIE!

 

Baby sick? Has it paid tax? No? Then let it die!

 

See, your theory don't quite work. If we went along your lines then no one would get treated for anything, because if you didn't go to the place where it happened to you, it wouldn't have happened! If you didn't lead 'that' lifestyle then 'X' would not be affecting you.

 

If you don't want to treat smokers, who else will you not treat?

yeah rugby players are a right lot !! :rolleyes: :rofl:

never said i didn't speed, just thats my line of thought. And you dont need to speed in the Z, 0-60 feels good, its overtaking on motorways, not topend driving. When was the last time you drove 172 on the motorway

 

Well said, and getting through a set of twisties at 60, no more no less, is great fun too. I hardly ever use 4th gear on the Z except on descents - because I just never need a lot of power between 100-130. Yes, I've chased the odd Porsche on the motorway, but it's very rare you have enough space for those kinds of shenanigans. Most of the fun comes from overtaking and roundabouts on normal roads. :D

 

There are probably a dozen other laws we all break daily - how many people here take drugs, for instance? That's where your argument falls down, Barry - it's not motoring laws people ignore, it's pointless, anachronistic, or ill-thought out legislation that falls by the wayside.

 

Plus if -you- exceed 30mph bits begin falling off your car... :D

speeding is an easy way to get money off the motorist - they are also clamping down on road tax dodgers now (quite rightly)

 

A taxed car is just as safe as an untaxed car, and nobody is hurt save the Chancellor.

 

An uninsured car could ruin the lives of dozens of people - the passengers in the car, the passengers of other vehicles involved, any pedestrians affected, the livelihood and/or housing if the car totals a roadside building, etc.

 

Guess which one the government has tackled first...