mj.scuba Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 sPEEDING IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. wHY WOULD ANYONE OPPOSE CATCHING CRIMINALS? tOO MANY LILY-LIVERED BLEEDING HEART WISHY WASHY NAMBY PAMBY LEFTIES OFFERING APOLOGIES FOR CRIMINALS ON THIS THREAD. WHOOPS CAPS. You would advocate £60 fines for cyclists jumping red lights then Spinny, unless you oppose catching and punishing these criminals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 You would advocate £60 fines for cyclists jumping red lights then Spinny, unless you oppose catching and punishing these criminals? Yep. They already get them. The cops regularly trawl for RLjing cyclists at the end of the month- it bumps their crime stats up. Cyclists jumping red lights killed nobody last year. Speeding drivers killled 1300 people last year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogs Of War Posted July 29, 2010 Author Share Posted July 29, 2010 Yep. They already get them. The cops regularly trawl for RLjing cyclists at the end of the month- it bumps their crime stats up. Cyclists jumping red lights killed nobody last year. Speeding drivers killled 1300 people last year... As ive said before - im in favour of returning to police officers patroling the roads ,to catch bad drivers ,as they can see the difference between a driver completly in control of his car ,driving very safely , and no danger to anyone , who is doing 35 in a 30 zone compared to the lunatic who is bang on the speed limit ,BUT is tail gateing , cutting people up and overtaking on blind bends , who is a fatsl accident waiting to happen . speed cameras would only fine the driver going slightly over the limit , but driving very safely - the lunatic would be free to continue his bad ,dangerous driving. Only police patrolling the roads can stop the right driver -not speed cameras ,which would capture the wrong driver. Dangerous driving is NOT only about speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 Speeding is driving dangerously. Lower speeds are proven to save lives. The difference between 30 and 35 is the difference between life and death. If a driver hits a pedestrian at 30mph, there is an 80% chance the pedestrian will survive. At 40mph there is a 80% chance of the driver killing the pedestrian. Most child pedestrians are injured in 30mph zones. Slow down, get out of bed earlier, and if you get fined for placing children in danger don't whine and snivel, pay up and promise not to be so stupidly reckless again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsmith Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 Speeding is driving dangerously. Lower speeds are proven to save lives. The difference between 30 and 35 is the difference between life and death. If a driver hits a pedestrian at 30mph, there is an 80% chance the pedestrian will survive. At 40mph there is a 80% chance of the driver killing the pedestrian. Most child pedestrians are injured in 30mph zones. Slow down, get out of bed earlier, and if you get fined for placing children in danger don't whine and snivel, pay up and promise not to be so stupidly reckless again. Do you fancy answering my question? Have you ever driven over the speed limit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogs Of War Posted July 29, 2010 Author Share Posted July 29, 2010 Speeding is driving dangerously. Lower speeds are proven to save lives. The difference between 30 and 35 is the difference between life and death. If a driver hits a pedestrian at 30mph, there is an 80% chance the pedestrian will survive. At 40mph there is a 80% chance of the driver killing the pedestrian. Most child pedestrians are injured in 30mph zones. Slow down, get out of bed earlier, and if you get fined for placing children in danger don't whine and snivel, pay up and promise not to be so stupidly reckless again. you havnt answered my question about spped cameras not being able to catch the lunatic driving dangerously inside the speed limit . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 Do you fancy answering my question? Have you ever driven over the speed limit? Nope. Obeying the speed limit is a pretty rudimentary part of my driving ability, it's not hard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsmith Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 Nope. Obeying the speed limit is a pretty rudimentary part of my driving ability, it's not hard! I'll wave next time I drive past you then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 you havnt answered my question about spped cameras not being able to catch the lunatic driving dangerously inside the speed limit . Aspirin doesn't cure cancer- that's not an argument to ban aspirin. It would take 18000 coppers to replace the 6000 cameras we have. Speed cameras free up police resources to tackle other bad driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted July 29, 2010 Share Posted July 29, 2010 I'll wave next time I drive past you then. And I'll wave back when you get a £60 FPN and 3 points! Coo-eee! Don't forget to tell your insurance company you're a convicted criminal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.