Road policing activities

[scumdog]

It's the LAW people, written in by your favourite Government (insert brand choice here)
It's the same laws that prevent me owning an MP5, that make me wear a helmet, that stop me making 'P', that say my swimming pool, - nay fish-pond- has to be fenced, that says at 400 breath level I'm safe but at 401 I'm not.

But apparently when the law says you can drive at a maximum of 100kph and you may get away with 110 that a ticket for 111 is a crime against humanity?

Like it or lump it.
I do.

[Squeak the Rat]

It's the LAW people, written in by your favourite Government (insert brand choice here)
.....snip.....
Like it or lump it.
I do.

And it's illegal to smack your kids, but the government says the cops won't enforce that for minor cases. Let's see......

[Ixion]

Consideration of complaints about speeding tickets will show that in many cases the complaint actually indicates an opinion that the speed limit is indeed too low.

If the speed limit was 200kph, how many people would think a cop was out of line handing out a ticket at 201kph?

Which is why there is general acceptance of the "drop dead" limit of 400 thingjigles for breath testing. 401, and you are in the shit. It is accepted because those who have considered the matter have concluded the figure is reasonable. You have to be fairly tiddly to get to 400. And if someone blows less than 400 but still seems tiddly the cops will usually take his keys for the evening.

But, people considering the matter of the 100kph speed limit conclude that it is not universally reasonable. and complain about getting a ticket for something they (probably correctly) do not consider unsafe.

The solution, I submit, is either a much wider range of speed limits (varying by time of day, weather etc): or, a "double" speed limit - a high upper absolute limit, and a lower , discretionary, limit, where a cop can give you a ticket for the (new) offence of "inappropriate speed", but you can contest it on the basis the speed was not inappropriate under the circumstances. And, yeah, that is a sneaky back door way of bring back the forbidden 'D' word, and getting back to where we used to be.

[denill]

And it's illegal to smack your kids, but the government says the cops won't enforce that for minor cases. Let's see......

And to ride a cycle with out a helmet? And to indicate incorrectly at a Roundabout?


The point is some laws are Policed and some aren't. Is that because some laws are fucking stupid?

[scumdog]

But it's the law!!!!

[Squeak the Rat]

law schmaw

[Grahameeboy]

Of course not and that is just an attempt to defend the indefensible.

The nub of the dilemma is - the overly zealous and pedantic policing of arbitrary but not always realistic speed limits in zones where even the half witted drivers on our roads (and there are a few) can travel at higher than the designated speed with complete safety (and Cops know it!)
Eg: The policy of targeting passing lanes is just one example. As long as this regime exists the lack of respect for Cops will continue to increase.

Shame you see it that way.

Scumdog is happy to be more pragmatic, some are not. Does not mean that those who are not like Scumdog should be criticised. I am sure we have all at times had to make a decision, follow the rules set down by employer i.e. do the right way or stretch the rules i.e. do the right thing. Not all employee's are happy to stretch rules so why should the Police be treated differently?

As Bikers we have the same decisions. To exceed or not to exceed the speed limit. It is our choice so if we get caught then have to accept responsibility.

Lou, 100k is the Law so travelling at 11-15 k over this is breaking it. Yes, the Law may be an arse at times. I think Motorways should have a higher speed limit than Highway's and in the UK the Police tolerate 90mph without too many issues.

All the time we complain about speed limits and blame the Police, we will not get the respect from Police and it is human nature to treat those the way they treat you.

I mean where do you draw the line with speed. A lot of us travel in excess of 120k so even if they increased the limit in some areas some of us would still be breaking the Law so complaining is really nonsensible is'nt it??

[scumdog]

law schmaw

And it's an ass too!


But it's the law.

[Grahameeboy]

But it's the law!!!!

Now you know that is too simple for some to understand..........

[denill]

But it's the law!!!!

I'll say it again.

The point is some laws are Policed and some aren't. Is that because some laws are fucking stupid?

[Grahameeboy]

The solution, I submit, is either a much wider range of speed limits (varying by time of day, weather etc): or, a "double" speed limit - a high upper absolute limit, and a lower , discretionary, limit, where a cop can give you a ticket for the (new) offence of "inappropriate speed", but you can contest it on the basis the speed was not inappropriate under the circumstances. And, yeah, that is a sneaky back door way of bring back the forbidden 'D' word, and getting back to where we used to be.

That sounds like a good idea Ixion. In the UK they have roads where the speed is variable according to time of day...........may produce a few more cops like Scumdog (heaven help us!!)

[Grahameeboy]

I'll say it again.

The point is some laws are Policed and some aren't. Is that because some laws are fucking stupid?

No, the Law is still open to interpretation which is why we have Courts. If the Law was an absolute then we would not need Courts.

[Ixion]

,,
Scumdog is happy to be more pragmatic, some are not. Does not mean that those who are not like Scumdog should be criticised. ,,

Yes. Yes they should. laws were made by man to be a benefit for him, not a rod with which to break him.

If a copper does not have the judgement to know when the law should be enforced , and when a blind eye should be turned; and the balls to back up his call; then he should not be a copper.

(Mr Scumdog's weird mustachios are another matter entirely. )

[denill]

No, the Law is still open to interpretation which is why we have Courts. If the Law was an absolute then we would not need Courts.

Sorry, I wrote: "The point is some laws are Policed and some aren't. Is that because some laws are fucking stupid?"

I should have written: Some laws are fucking stupid.

[Grahameeboy]

Yes. Yes they should. laws were made by man to be a benefit for him, not a rod with which to break him.

If a copper does not have the judgement to know when the law should be enforced , and when a blind eye should be turned; and the balls to back up his call; then he should not be a copper.

(Mr Scumdog's weird mustachios are another matter entirely. )

A cop knows the Law and you cannot criticise him / her (being PC) for following the Law. That is why they spend money to send them to Police Training.

A cop who follows the letter of the Law is doing the job he is told to do. Now I am not saying that I disagree with your sentiment, however, we cannot criticise a Cop for doing something you do not like or agree with.