how crap is this

Which is exactly what they do, with regards to the speed laws.

No matter how safe it was, if you're caught speeding by a camera, then you WILL be busted. There is ZERO discretion from a camera.

Why should it be any different for rally drivers ?

You sir, are missing the point.

The danger presented by me, doing 110mph, in the middle of the night, in excellent conditions, in a suitable car, down an empty motorway, is also essentially zero.

If a camera flashed me, I would have approximately zero chance of being let off. It's no different for the rally drivers.

?!?!

It's nothing to do with "risk to safety". If a camera flashes you speeding, then you WILL be prosecuted. The end.

It doesn't matter how safe it was ! You broke the law.

If they're driving on british roads, then they have to obey british rules. The points only apply when they're driving here. IIRC, the Police/DVLA will keep a record of them somewhere, as clearly they can't go on their licenses.

So he was over the limit by 24mph.

I have broken the speed limit in the past by MUCH more than 24mph, when safe to do so.

But I could hardly complain if I got flashed by a camera, and subsequently busted. It would be my own fault !

End of discussion.

Have you been living under a rock for the past few years ?

Were you under the impression that speed cameras DIDN'T apply the letter of the law, without taking ANYTHING into account ?

Spot on.

The speeding laws take ZERO account of driving/vehicle capability.

As I good driver (at least I think I am) in my TI, I'm a damn-site safer when speeding, than a first-week-passer 17-year old in a 15 year old Ford Fiesta.

But if we both got nicked, my defence would be no better than his !

?? They were caught by a 'safety camera', and prosecuted for dangerous driving. The fact that it wasn't dangerous is _absolutely_ relevant.

trivially so.

Irrelevant. Saying 'that's how the world is' is a weak argument.

And I should accept it, and not be annoyed, simply 'cos that how it works? Nonsense.

Now _that_ is irrelevant :)

Yes, I have. If the reason for the prosecution is not valid then they should not be prosecuted. If they were not driving dangerously then they should not be prosecuted for driving dangerously.

They were prosecuted for speeding - which is iirc a different offence from DD.

In a perfect world, maybe they would get let off, but they broke the law, you can't have one rule for one, one for another. I agree, they weren't caused a real danger and probly shouldn't be prosecuted - but then they'll be out cry and loads of people fighting speeding tickets cos they can try to prove they weren't causing a danger......actually now i think about this might be a good idea :)

I don't live in a black&white world :)

How the law is supposed to work: Evidence is found for someone breaking a law, the case goes to trial, the judge examines the evidence and decides whether the _reason_ for which the law is in place has been violated, and passes sentence, or not, according to that judgement.

So for breaking the speed limit, they are brought to trial for dangerous driving, the judge examines the evidence, which clearly demonstrates that there was no dangerous driving, and yet they are prosecuted.

Actually, I have, but it's a jolly nice one.

Of course not, but that has no impact on whether the ruling is just or not. The fact that everyone is subject to unjust law doesn't make it right or acceptable, and the fact that even in this extreme case the law is _still_ applied mindlessly merely serves to illustrate the point.

But if you were doing 60 down that same stretch of motorway, weaving madly between cars to keep it up (and using the hardshoulder), because the rest of the traffic was congested and travelling at 40ish, you would get away with it, because hey, 60 in a 70 is safe.

But if you were spotted by a copper you'd get it. And too right.

a) They were not prosecuted for dangerous driving. b) It's not for you or I to decide whether their driving was dangerous or not.

Almost double the limit on a road that not only is a public one, but likely to be occupied by spectators on foot, is not 'trivial'.

No, saying they should be let off because they drive for a living is a weak argument.

Whether you accept it or not isn't really up to you. Whether you like it or not is a different matter.

Agreed, but that's the argument that you appear to be using.

The reason *is* valid.

They are not being prosecuted for driving dangerously...

Of course it is. My decision has no bearing on anything, of course...

The road in question was previously a 60-limit, reduced to a 30 due to traffic volume. A local dual carriageway was installed, reducing traffic volume, but the limit hasn't been reinstated to 60. Therefore the offence amounts to a technicality, and is therefore trivial.

Agreed, but that isn't what I'm saying.

If by that you mean that there's not a damn thing I can do about it, then you're right, dagnammit.

What I meant by 'accept' is to go along with it without protestation, which I'm not gonna do.

No, no, it really isn't. I don't give a monkeys how much they earn, I'm just annoyed that a law which shouldn't apply in this case is being applied so mindlessly and for such obviously engineered reasons.

Yes they were. They weren't being prosecuted for the specific crime of 'dangerous driving', I grant you, but the reasons given for the prosecution were that they were driving danerously, which it appears that they weren't.

'S funny how arguing about pointless crap like this is soooo much more fun than working :)

Thats the problem, inspectore Gatso, and WPC Spec are totally one trick ponies, and blind to crime of any kind other than "breaking the speed limit, like a murderous paedophile granny raping crack smoking, heroin injecting anti bush protestor"

Hello Andrew.

AK> How can Carlos Sainz and the other foreign drivers have been given penalty AK> points by a British magistrate?

Serves him right; he stomped on my foot during opening ceremony of Neste Rally this year ;-)

Sergey

... Bumper sticker in L.A.: To change lanes, first pull out your 9mm...

Yep.

But that's not the case with speeding, as you well know !

NO !

They are brought to trial for SPEEDING.

Whether it's dangerous or not, doesn't matter one jot.

SPEEDING is illegal, even if it's 100% safe.

Nobody is saying it does.

The law was applied correctly, based on it's previous applications.

Agreed.

But that has no relevence to anything.

If speeding laws were applied based on the danger of the situation (and as you rightly point out, they SHOULD be) then yes, the ruling would have been bollocks.

But it's NOT. And you already know this.

NO !

They were prosecuted for speeding. The camera doesn't know, or care, whether you were being dangerous, drunk, uninsured, or whatever. All it cares about is whether you were speeding or not.

The law says you can't speed. They did speed. That's all there is to it. How can the reason be invalid ?

Yep, and hence they weren't prosecuted for driving dangerously.

Dangerous Driving is an offence in it's own right. The Rally drivers in question were done for Speeding. The Speeding law in question, takes no account of the danger of the situation. If it WAS particularly dangerous, then they could have been done for dangerous driving aswell.

Dangerous Driving is a proper offence - you can get a SERIOUS kicking for it. They were lucky they got off with a simple speeding misdemeanour.

Yep.

Yep. But that's not the issue in question.

You can't argue that speed cameras don't do an excellent job of enforcing the speeding laws. It's just a shame they can't enforce other things like drunkeness, lack of tax/insurance etc.

Yes, sorry, poor phrasing. However, in the sense that laws are there for reasons, speeding is a crime because it is considered dangerous, so at a fundamental level they are being tried for driving dangerously, although not, as you correctly point out, for 'dangerous driving'.

Well, it was stated that they _should_ have been prosecuted, which surely can't be the case if the prosecutions are unjust. Unjust Justice?

Agreed.

Except to my original point that the prosecutions were stupid :)

Absolutely. As I say, the point I was making was that the prosecution was stupid, not that it was illegal.

They've got a few of those tax cameras in London haven't they? Are there any plans to make them a bit more widespread? That'd be a decent idea...

Are rally cars road taxed?