Author Topic: oH bugger II (Read 8205 times)

Grahamm · « **Reply #25 on:** 17 August 2012, 04:57:05 pm »

Quote from: Rusty on 17 August 2012, 02:38:00 pm

I felt it my public duty to flash all oncoming vehicles to make them slow down - thus preventing potential speeders having an accident.

But if you get caught doing it you could be prosecuted for "Obstructing a Police Officer in the execution of their duty"!

Rusty · « **Reply #26 on:** 17 August 2012, 05:26:24 pm »

Quote from: Grahamm on 17 August 2012, 04:57:05 pm

But if you get caught doing it you could be prosecuted for "Obstructing a Police Officer in the execution of their duty"!

My point exactly. But didn't it say 'Safety camera'on the side of that van? And by getting motorists to slow down thus making them 'safer' wouldn't you think they would thank me.

It's all cobblers, I'd have more respect for them if t had said 'raising revenue' on the side of the van at least that would be honest, but instead they cloak it all in safety and speed kills claptrap.

MadDogMcQ · « **Reply #27 on:** 17 August 2012, 06:31:14 pm »

Hahahaha.....

Pc Antony Gray, of Lancashire Police’s road policing unit, said: [/size]“Speeding motorists need to be stopped and spoken to by officers so that they will seriously consider their irresponsible driving behaviour and hopefully drive more appropriately in the future – particularly in residential areas and near schools.”[/color] [/size]So why wasn't I stopped and spoken to?[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]And as far as being done for improper use of headlights (flashing others to warn them of speedtrap), I rarely do it. I give a hand signal.[/color]
[/size][/color]

MadDogMcQ · « **Reply #28 on:** 17 August 2012, 06:35:00 pm »

Hahahaha.....

Pc Antony Gray, of Lancashire Police’s road policing unit, said: “Speeding motorists need to be stopped and spoken to by officers so that they will seriously consider their irresponsible driving behaviour and hopefully drive more appropriately in the future – particularly in residential areas and near schools.” [/color][/size]So why wasn't I stopped and spoken to?[/color][/size][/color][/size]And as far as being done for improper use of headlights (flashing others to warn them of speedtrap), I rarely do it. I give a hand signal.[size=78%][/color]

Rusty · « **Reply #29 on:** 21 August 2012, 10:32:22 am »

Again, a case of the Police not quite telling it like it is.

Don't they talk a crock of shit? It's like the offence of not displaying a tax disk. You might have paid for it and have a valid disk, it may have subsequently fallen off or been nicked, and the Police computer can instantly confirm your bike is actually taxed, but the 'offence' still stands as it is for 'Not displaying' it.

I got pulled for throwing a banana skin out my car window a few years ago. It was Autumn, and the leaves were piled high at each side of the road - all bio-degradeable stuff to which I added a banana skin. The copper didn't half come the high and mighty but I don't take any of that nonsense anymore, their function is as a public servant not master.

He said; "I've a good mind to make you walk back and pick that up"

I replied: "Well, good luck with that one then.... "

The way I see it I'd rather pay a litter fine than be patronised like a schoolboy.

Grahamm · « **Reply #30 on:** 21 August 2012, 10:53:09 am »

Quote from: Rusty on 21 August 2012, 10:32:22 am

It's like the offence of not displaying a tax disk. You might have paid for it and have a valid disk, it may have subsequently fallen off or been nicked, and the Police computer can instantly confirm your bike is actually taxed, but the 'offence' still stands as it is for 'Not displaying' it.

That's because the law hasn't caught up with modern technology...

Rusty · « **Reply #31 on:** 21 August 2012, 11:57:08 am »

They don't do it that way though Grahamm, if only they did.

They don't update the law by repealing the obsolete laws, they just add new statutes to cover recent technological changes. The original offence is left in place. That law is then there for them to fall back on if they want to be awkward. That's why you still hear of people being prosecuted under some obscure 1864 blah blah blah act.

As far as I know it is still an offence to push a perambulator on the pavement, or to not be in possession of a bow and three arrows for home defence, and all kinds of other archaic stuff. They don't repeal it, so theoretically they can still find a law to prosecute you under even if it's an obsolete one that has fallen into abeyance.

I'm still wondering about the TV license. Similarly the License is not paid for receiving TV channels, but for owning a television capable of receiving them. In today's world of streaming via internet direct to computer monitor technically you no longer need a TV license.

Lawrence · « **Reply #32 on:** 21 August 2012, 12:33:35 pm »

Quote from: Rusty on 21 August 2012, 11:57:08 am

I'm still wondering about the TV license. Similarly the License is not paid for receiving TV channels, but for owning a television capable of receiving them. In today's world of streaming via internet direct to computer monitor technically you no longer need a TV license.

I got reminder through for the previous tenant of my place when I moved in. Phoned them up and said that although I have a TV, the only thing connected is a games console so I don't receive any channels and they said it's fine I don't need to pay

Rusty · « **Reply #33 on:** 21 August 2012, 03:14:53 pm »

That's a result then!

If you were to watch BBC I player via the internet I'm sure that would be legal too. The crafty licensing of the TV tuner itself has backfired on them as it means it's not actually the content that's licensed. Perhaps we need a test case? I've never understood how one corporation can be allowed to have such an advantage as licence funding over the competition in today's free market mindset anyway. Let alone the ability to have you put in prison for not paying them. $:\$

breadlord · « **Reply #34 on:** 21 August 2012, 04:02:32 pm »

Regarding the original post: Bad luck mate. Having said that, I'm crazy careful in London. There's a copper, a speed camera or a bus pulling out every hundred metres, always get out of the M25 if I want to tie one on - There's a stretch of road on my commute home with about four cameras on it - a progressive pace going home would lose me my licence in fifteen minutes...

As for the TV licence - We're running standalone home theatre PCs with all the content coming from a fileserver I have upstairs, that does streaming of iPlayer stuff if you want it, but mostly plays things I've downloaded. I've had the TV licence person come over and confirm we're not receiving any broadcasts and don't have to pay.

Bradshaw:1, Government:Several

pitternator · « **Reply #35 on:** 22 August 2012, 12:52:48 am »

with respect to tv licence, the offence was just to be in possession of a tv capable of receiving broadcasts. u didnt even have to have it switched on....

Rusty · « **Reply #36 on:** 22 August 2012, 08:45:51 am »

Yes, as stated the license was for owning a receiver. You say the offence was?

I love it when technology out paces authority. My ISP recently blocked certain websites on the behest of big business interests, within days an alternative mirror site had sprung up and it was business as usual.

The gagging orders paid for by the rich and famous (like Ryan Giggs) recently are also made pointless by the freedom of information found on the internet, and long may it continue.

Going back to the OP I'd also like to see on bike radar deflectors or jammers that - much like the tuning fork trick the Police allegedly use for their own ends, we could use for ours. Historically each new technology has been immediately harnessed by the authorities for their own ends, it's nice that the internet provides a level playing field of sorts.

JZS 600 · « **Reply #37 on:** 22 August 2012, 08:56:20 am »

Some kind of radar/laser seeking projectile would do as an alternative

maddog04 · « **Reply #38 on:** 22 August 2012, 10:16:04 am »

was talking to a 70 yr old fella the other day who said he'd been to France recently and also down to the Olympics. at the Olympics, his mrs wanted a drink of water and he had to pay £1:75 for a small bottle, in France he got a 1.5 L bottle for 25 cents or whatever the French use for money!
he said he saw 1 speed camera at the end of a VERY long stretch of road (said the French are bad for tail gating) got back to blighty and saw 2 or 3 scameras within yards of the Port!!
speed alone doesn't kill.............if it was speed alone, F1/motoGp would be banned, Emergency services wouldn't speed to jobs etc
it may add to the outcome and I can understand if you're hit at 30 then you stand more chance than at 70 but put it this way.........if we have an off at 50 or 70 on the motorway (legal speeds) then I reckon we stand a good chance of becoming another fatal due to road furniture/congested traffic

Grahamm · « **Reply #39 on:** 22 August 2012, 04:24:08 pm »

Quote from: Rusty on 21 August 2012, 11:57:08 am

They don't update the law by repealing the obsolete laws, they just add new statutes to cover recent technological changes. The original offence is left in place.

Erm, no. Old laws are removed from the statute books every few years, it just usually doesn't make headlines.

Rusty · « **Reply #40 on:** 22 August 2012, 05:45:32 pm »

I don't actually think that they have begun the process yet Grahamm, they prefer to let them fall into abeyance. There was a bill put to parliament in April of this year I believe, but things move very slowly in Westminster.

http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/outdated-laws-to-be-repealed/

Since 1780 all new legislation was recorded in books with removable pages making it possible to repeal redundant laws, but even so the relevant pages are never destroyed but moved to an archive.

On the TV license thing I rang up today on behalf on my stepson who has just an X-box and a tv as a monitor in his flat. I explained the circumstances as he had been pestered by the licensing and they said "Ok, we'll close the account"? I was expecting some sort of argy bargy but No!

Grahamm · « **Reply #41 on:** 22 August 2012, 07:50:12 pm »

Quote from: Rusty on 22 August 2012, 05:45:32 pm

I don't actually think that they have begun the process yet Grahamm, they prefer to let them fall into abeyance. There was a bill put to parliament in April of this year I believe, but things move very slowly in Westminster.

Past Acts of Parliament have also repealed various laws. The details are kept as a matter of historical record, of course.

maddog04 · « **Reply #42 on:** 23 August 2012, 10:03:11 am »

speed alone isn't the problem, if it were, we wouldn't have F1/motoGP/emergency services driving to jobs etc. I agree that being hit at 30 is different to being hit at 60 but there are still mitigating circumstances.
I can come off on a motorway at 50 or 70 and although doing legal speeds, chances are I'll end up a fatal due to road furniture or tailgaters.
was speaking to a lad of 70 who got a ticket for speeding and he done the speed awareness course, said the only 2 things he learnt were TOM and BOB
(learning to use your mirrors.......which is no bad thing) TOM is your offside mirror and you're looking out for Twits on motorbikes (substitute the letter i for an a............this is what they call us on these courses so you get an idea of what they think of us!!!)
BOB is your nearside mirror and you're looking for boys on bikes (kids)
I quite like the algorythms but the fact they refer to us as TW*TS annoys me somewhat

Lawrence · « **Reply #43 on:** 23 August 2012, 12:08:46 pm »

We might be twats but at least we use our mirrors

Rusty · « **Reply #44 on:** 23 August 2012, 01:05:23 pm »

Quote from: Lawrence on 23 August 2012, 12:08:46 pm

We might be twats but at least we use our mirrors

Yep, and this twat uses them all the more the faster he goes. At 125 the other day I scrutinised my mirrors very carefully looking for CUC's (C*nts in Unmarked Cars).

SteveH41 · « **Reply #45 on:** 23 August 2012, 08:45:33 pm »

Talking of twats, lots of them out in Tamworth last night sitting in cash machines on nice long stretches of country roads out to ruin the fun...........................................

Fazerider · « **Reply #46 on:** 24 August 2012, 08:03:20 am »

Only just spotted an unlit white van parked atop the police ramp just before junction 4 on the southbound M3 late last night. Suspect it was Lidar equipped and managed to roll off the throttle in time.
What's bothering me though is... was it there the previous night too?

HarryHornby · « **Reply #47 on:** 24 August 2012, 08:25:17 am »

Like others, it's the covert nature of these vans/cars/guns etc that annoys me. They've stopped calling them speed cameras and started calling them safety cameras, well as others have said, if it's about safety why hide?

In my eyes it's all about reminding me of what speed I should be doing, seeing a police car, or one of those flashing 30mph signs does work for me.

And, as others have said if it's about safety why shouldn't motorists warn other drivers? Surely it's all about getting the cars to slow down through the "accident blackspot" or whatever the criteria is behind placing a camera somwhere.

A little food for thought, a camera van is hidden; a car is doing 40mph in a 30mph zone, he goes through the trap and gets a fine, keeps going at 40 because he's not seen the van and then hits a child 5 metres down the road from the van, in this case the poilice make some money and the child dies. Senario 2: I warn the driver of the car, he slows down to 30, passes the van without setting off the cash machine and manages to swerve to avoid the child because he's travelling at the correct speed.....so.....money to the police or a child's life.....?

Saying all that, if none of us sped, we wouldn't have anything to worry about!

Rusty · « **Reply #48 on:** 24 August 2012, 09:15:13 am »


Speeding Saves Lives

If the Police are to be believed and the vans are equipped with 'Safety' camera's, then using the same twisted logic here's the case why Speeding saves lives.

breadlord · « **Reply #49 on:** 29 August 2012, 08:03:05 pm »

Way I've always seen it, 70mph is the fastest speed a 75 year old man with bad eyes and shit reactions can drive a car with shitty brakes.

Since I'm in my 20s, have decent eyesight and ride a motorcycle that has better brakes than a twenty year old metro, the safety threshold is a little higher for me.

Somewhere around 120, say? ;-)