How To Discourage Motoring

Hey everyone, I've just thought of a really good way of bullying people
out of their cars. What you do is set speed limits far lower than they
need to be, then rigidly enforce them, and pretend to be sanctimoniously
horrified at how many people are breaking the speed limit (because
obviously if 80% of drivers are speeding at a particular place then that
must be because at least 80% (and probably 100%) of drivers are
homicidal maniacs, and not because the speed limit is incorrect, and
never mind about well-researched principles like the 85th percentile).

Seems like a winner to me: we can ban drivers for doing a reasonable
speed, and use "safety" as a catch-all excuse; if anyone dares criticise
the new regime then we can just say they're irresponsible maniacs who
want to be able to go as fast as they like. As for the consequences of
telling lies about road safety in terms of avoidable deaths, well,
that's a price worth paying to get the motorist scum off the roads, and
in the long run, lives will be saved because there will no longer be
nearly so many death-cars.

What do you think? Shall we try it? I know such an approach hasn't yet
been tried because I'm told that there's no such thing as the
authorities being anti-motorist. Doug, do you like the sound of my
idea?

"Chapman Mao" wrote in message
...

What do you think? Shall we try it?

Not practical politics. The police typically refuse requests to "rigidly
enforce" low speed limits, and quite often refuse requests to make any
attempt at all to enforce them. I think they quote "ACPO guidelines" as
their policy basis, but I haven't a clue where the democratic legitimacy of
"ACPO guidelines" might come from.

Or where you proposing a radical change of the policing culture? Perhaps
directly elected police commissars or whatever is currently being proposed
might be a step in the direction you're asking for?

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

On 04/09/2010 15:18, Chapman Mao wrote:
Hey everyone, I've just thought of a really good way of bullying people
out of their cars. What you do is set speed limits far lower than they
need to be, then rigidly enforce them, and pretend to be sanctimoniously
horrified at how many people are breaking the speed limit (because
obviously if 80% of drivers are speeding at a particular place then that
must be because at least 80% (and probably 100%) of drivers are
homicidal maniacs, and not because the speed limit is incorrect, and
never mind about well-researched principles like the 85th percentile).

Seems like a winner to me: we can ban drivers for doing a reasonable
speed, and use "safety" as a catch-all excuse; if anyone dares criticise
the new regime then we can just say they're irresponsible maniacs who
want to be able to go as fast as they like. As for the consequences of
telling lies about road safety in terms of avoidable deaths, well,
that's a price worth paying to get the motorist scum off the roads, and
in the long run, lives will be saved because there will no longer be
nearly so many death-cars.

What do you think? Shall we try it? I know such an approach hasn't yet
been tried because I'm told that there's no such thing as the
authorities being anti-motorist. Doug, do you like the sound of my
idea?

Why not just have someone with a red flag walking in front of every car?
That *has* been tried and - as far as I am aware - was successful.
[Apart from the odd flag carrier who got run over!]

--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

In article ,
"Tim Ward" wrote:

"Chapman Mao" wrote in message
...

What do you think? Shall we try it?

Not practical politics. The police typically refuse requests to "rigidly
enforce" low speed limits, and quite often refuse requests to make any
attempt at all to enforce them. I think they quote "ACPO guidelines" as
their policy basis, but I haven't a clue where the democratic legitimacy of
"ACPO guidelines" might come from.

Curious that, considering 20 mph zones are explicitly excluded from
exemption from prosecution in the "ACPO guideline" on NDORS National
Speed Awareness Course Guideline Notes, but maybe it's hiding somewhere
in one of the other policies on:
http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/policieslist.asp?

"Espen H. Koht" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
"Tim Ward" wrote:

"Chapman Mao" wrote in message
...

What do you think? Shall we try it?

Not practical politics. The police typically refuse requests to "rigidly
enforce" low speed limits, and quite often refuse requests to make any
attempt at all to enforce them. I think they quote "ACPO guidelines" as
their policy basis, but I haven't a clue where the democratic legitimacy
of
"ACPO guidelines" might come from.

Curious that, considering 20 mph zones are explicitly excluded from
exemption from prosecution in the "ACPO guideline" on NDORS National
Speed Awareness Course Guideline Notes, but maybe it's hiding somewhere
in one of the other policies on:
http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/policieslist.asp?

I said "I think they quote", not "I have checked and the guidelines do
actually say".

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

Brian Morrison wrote:
On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 15:49:16 +0100
"Tim Ward" wrote:

but I haven't a clue where the democratic legitimacy of
"ACPO guidelines" might come from.

Being able to make successful prosecutions of course, because the
construction and use regulations say (or said perhaps) that speedometers
may under read by 10% so they add 2mph on top of that to make it clear
that you're over the prosecution threshold.


No they don't. They say the speedometer can over read by 10% but must
not under read at all. So if you stick to your speedometer reading you
can never go too fast for the speed limit.

Tony

Espen H. Koht wrote:
In article ,
"Tim Ward" wrote:

"Chapman Mao" wrote in message
...

What do you think? Shall we try it?

Not practical politics. The police typically refuse requests to
"rigidly enforce" low speed limits, and quite often refuse requests
to make any attempt at all to enforce them. I think they quote "ACPO
guidelines" as their policy basis, but I haven't a clue where the
democratic legitimacy of "ACPO guidelines" might come from.

Curious that, considering 20 mph zones are explicitly excluded from
exemption from prosecution in the "ACPO guideline" on NDORS National
Speed Awareness Course Guideline Notes, but maybe it's hiding
somewhere in one of the other policies on:
http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/policieslist.asp?

the accuracy was specifically at 30mph iirc

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 18:31:55 +0100, Espen H. Koht put finger to keyboard
and typed:

In article ,
"Tim Ward" wrote:

"Chapman Mao" wrote in message
...

What do you think? Shall we try it?

Not practical politics. The police typically refuse requests to "rigidly
enforce" low speed limits, and quite often refuse requests to make any
attempt at all to enforce them. I think they quote "ACPO guidelines" as
their policy basis, but I haven't a clue where the democratic legitimacy of
"ACPO guidelines" might come from.

Curious that, considering 20 mph zones are explicitly excluded from
exemption from prosecution in the "ACPO guideline" on NDORS National
Speed Awareness Course Guideline Notes, but maybe it's hiding somewhere
in one of the other policies on:
http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/policieslist.asp?

All that that means is that you can't be offered a speed awareness course
as an alternative to prosecution if you would oitherwise be prosecuted for
exceeding a 20mph limit. It doesn't have any bearing on when a prosecution
is considered appropriate.

Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

Brian Morrison wrote:
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 19:10:49 +0100
Tony Raven wrote:

No they don't.

Which is why I said that perhaps the regs used to say this, I recall
hearing that but I've not read it myself. And since older vehicles are
still allowed on the road, I don't see that you can apply new
regulations to all vehicles.

The C&U regulations (for vehicles) don't specify an accuracy. The speedos
at the time of sale / fitting should meet their regulations for accuracy.

Nick Finnigan wrote:

The C&U regulations (for vehicles) don't specify an accuracy. The
speedos at the time of sale / fitting should meet their regulations for
accuracy.

They specify an accuracy set in EC Community Directive 75/443(97/39)
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...5L0443:EN:HTML

Its an offence to have a non-working speedometer.

http://www.motordefenceteam.co.uk/of...lty-speedo.htm

If you are stopped with a faulty speedo you will most likely get a
Vehicle Defect Rectification Notice which gives you 14 days to get it
fixed and submit the vehicle for inspection at an approved garage.

Tony