Nuxx:33eb62ae-c23a-4a49-af4b-dbe805cef32c@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <33eb62ae-c23a-4a49-af4b-dbe805cef32c@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: OT: Safespeed perceptions Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:39:28 -0700 (PDT) References:   <0nrt84h40dl22s1cbidt2qlqliunu4qu67@4ax.com> Lines: 44 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.145.93 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217331568 25674 127.0.0.1 (29 Jul 2008 11:39:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:39:28 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.145.93; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3269 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:659493

On Jul 29, 11:39=A0am, David Hansen  wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:22:47 -0500 someone who may be Geoff Lane >  wrote this:- > > >'We sympathise with them but we don't agree with it - we don't condone l= aw > >breaking. I can understand how frustrated someone can be, especially, sa= y, > >if they have lost their job for driving a few miles over a set limit.'" > > >http://www.lep.co.uk/travel/Vigilantes-attack-24000-speed-camera.4327... > > Even that statement is, at best, hyperbole. > > Motorists are not prosecuted for driving "a few miles" over a limit. > In a reverse of the usual zero tolerance mantra the police have > stated that they will generally [1] ignore criminals if they only > break the law "slightly". > > In addition, people will (generally [2]) not lose their job if they > are caught breaking the law "more than slightly" once. Rather they > will have to have been caught more than once, which means they are a > serial criminal. If their job depends on having a driving licence > then they have an easy solution to not losing their job for this > reason, become a law-abiding citizen. > > [1] I have never heard of a case where the police did, but the > weasel words are IIRC a response to a court challenge. > > [2] in theory a motorist could be banned from driving for one event, > in which speed was just one factor in the charges. However, such > cases seem to be as rare as those in [1].

So let me get this right. Someone who drives at 80mph on the motorway, 4 times in 3 years, is a "serial criminal". Do you honestly not see what a ludicrous statement that is? Can you not see how absurd it is to call 99%+ of drivers "serial criminals"? And surely only someone who was anti-motorist would want to do such a thing anyway.

If you find yourself having to make obviously ridiculous statements in order to support speed cameras, it's really time to review that support.