Nuxx:4e28a71a$0$2530$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4e28a71a$0$2530$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: RLJ Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:24:25 +0100 References:  <65eb0aac-964c-4c7a-b428-9327c127ba71@dp9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>    <4e1f4224$0$2536$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk> <624712c0-1a07-4836-8b0a-0c2d67bb42a1@fv14g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>   Lines: 59 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 8a5b07b2.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=njJ17>[kkB]bm?V^N??TXVnok4Z\ On Jul 21, 6:48 pm, Nuxx Bar  wrote: >> >> > I seem to remember a case many years ago where a traffic light's red >> > glass had faded so that it was a sort of orange colour and thus no >> > longer a legal red light. I do know that drivers got away with >> > speeding in a 30mph limit once as the 30mph sign had the wrong fonted >> > "30" on it. >> >> So it wasn't a real 30mph limit and it wasn't "speeding". >> >> If you're going to say "The law is the law" then that has to cut both >> ways. If a driver deserves 3 points for driving at 71mph on a deserted >> motorway because "Common sense doesn't come into it, he was breaking the >> law and that's that", then when a "30" is in the wrong font, that means >> that "Common sense doesn't come into it, he *wasn't* breaking the law >> and that's that".- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > No - all it means that if you can afford it, you can hire a top lawyer > like "Mr Loophole" who will get you off on a technicality like the font. > The rest of us have to pay up and shut up, or obey the law and not pay > at all.

But it's *not* "the law" if - you know what, forget it. Are you deliberately trying to be frustrating or what? [bangs head on desk]

I'll leave it at this: You only seem to be a stickler for "the law" when it can be used against the motorist...you seem to suddenly become a lot more flexible about "the law" when a motorist tries to use it to his advantage. Why, if you're not a car-hater? Presumably it's to do with wanting everyone to be controlled? Using technicalities to control people is just great, but they absolutely mustn't try to use technicalities to stop themselves from being controlled.

> BTW - when was the last time anyone was fined for doing 71mph on a M-way?

Car-hater mileburner advocates fines for that...I wouldn't be surprised if you did as well. Regardless, my point (which you seem to be deliberately trying to miss, unsurprisingly) remains the same if one is talking about 79mph on a deserted, dry motorway. Because that is nothing more than a technical "offence".

> I was doing 95.9 when I was fined and that was only 40 quid.

Fixed penalty? Am I right in thinking that 96.0 or above is (and was) the trigger for a summons? You jammy git! :-p Suspiciously jammy, in fact...did the officer "knock it down" somewhat? If he did then I'm surprised you didn't tell him not to do so "on principle". In fact, part of me is surprised that you don't hand yourself in at the police station every time you drift over the speed limit or break any other law. Why don't you do that? (Let me guess, you "never speed", or do your own electrical wiring, or....)

I thought I was lucky when I squeaked under at 93.75 (the actual reading he showed to me), and so got a fixed penalty, especially since I was still within my 2 years' probation (you'll be pleased to hear that I haven't acquired any further points since then).