Hoon drivers to be used in test of government's new GPS speed device

[Kamshaaft]

Yaww, that's going to be a riot long after I stop laughing at myslf about it, isn't it?


Zdcol,

The important difference here is that while you, as can be expected of you, pull us up and show us where our heads are at, the 'hoons' opto refers to aren't necessarily the same hoons who kill people.

The hoon opto refers to is generally anybody who wears the all too easily given badge given by the overzealous media and government who discriminate, or more accurately fail to discriminate and instead generalise, against many car enthusiasts and etcetera in such a manner that it unfairly impacts them, brings negative attention towards them, and takes away their unwritten but God given right to the benefit of a doubt.

Sometimes the term is used as a weapon in much the same way Communist was used in the United States when Socialism was their greatest fear, and favourite whipping boy. I'm sure no-one man or woman on these forums debates that.

But to make life worse for the enthusiast, sensationalist slop in particular like Today Tonight and A Current Affair create beat ups then apply them to the image of the average Joe Bloggs with everything from rims on a late model Falcon and not much else, to even an $80k resto that he wouldn't dare abuse, and viola!
Now they're all subject to the label - this propaganda is a good portion of the reason why these notorious P Platers are now synonymous with the term. It doesn't account for all of their reputation, most of us can attest to that either having been one or having witness a few P platers take risks through inexperience or drive like shitheads - but it does go a long way.

Thrown in with the idiots who shouldn't even be on the road in the first place, for which the ever broadening term 'hoon' is almost too honorable, especially when dropkick, criminally negligent idiot, manslaughtering mongrel, and other defined terms already exist.

I'm not trivialising issue at hand here though, or trying to make popular appeal for the 'make benefit' of a sinister agenda, I'm dead serious on this issue.

--Second half of post omitted pending counsel--

[chevypower]

Come on Australians! Use this crap against politicians! speak up, and make sure that politicians are against it, and vote for the ones that say they are against it. All this crap wouldn't have happened if Victorians had voted against Steve Bracks. Everything since then, is just one more step further, and that will continue to happen unless the public says no more! Bring back Kennett!

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

PLEASE....Tell me where this comes from???
According to the weekly road fatality cummulative report submitted to (QLD) parliament... (https://www.webcrash.transport.qld.g.../roadsense.pdf)
fatalities involving drivers/riders attributable to undue care and attention amounted to 10.8% of fatalities.(averaged out over 4 year period).
Fatalities involving drivers/riders attributable to speeding amounted to 23.7% of fatalities over the same period. Again,the pros and cons of current speed limits and associated penalties for disregarding them is debateable , but if it is debateable lets put some thought into the figures.(I am quite happy to be accused of being duped by the figures presented to parliament, and being conned into believing what"they" want me to believe, but I am happy to go there if the alternative is to believe someone shouting out that "70+% of all road deaths are attributed to innatention"!!

My problem with the statistics is we don't know how they're collected, and how they're analysed to determine a final percentage figure like X% of crashes were the result of blah...

Eg. Say a driver is driving at 70km/h in a 60 zone. They have a heart attack, cross over the median divider and have a head on with another car... Heart attack victim dies, driver of other car is seriously injured.

It would be hard pressed for anyone to argue that "speeding" was a factor in the above scenario... however when the statistics are gathered, there'd probably be a tick in the speeding box, or the crash entry is tagged with 'speeding' or however they gather the data.

Then, when it comes time to report on the statistics... if they simply collect all the entries where 'speeding' was selected - the final figure would include scenarios such as the one above, which I believe is inaccurate.

IMHO, it's virtually impossible to quote a simple percentage figure when talking about the causes of an accident and have that figure represent something meaningful.

[4Vman]

Why is it when ever people produce statistics that conflict with their own personal agenda or view they just dismiss them as manipulated or somehow inaccurate..?

[FORCEFED1]

They'll be using to book everyone shortly or using it to limit cars speeds completely

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Why is it when ever people produce statistics that conflict with their own personal agenda or view they just dismiss them as manipulated or somehow inaccurate..?

It has nothing to do with my personal views on speeding... merely expressing my opinion that quoting simple percentages when speaking to the cause of an accident is virtually impossible as the 'cause' of an accident is rarely simple, and I doubt that they collect and analyse the data in a meaningful way.

Often they'll quote percentages where blah was a 'factor' in the accident... eg. speeding was a factor in X% of accidents, alcohol Y%, etc. The point I was trying to make is these sorts of statistics are meaningless, as per my example above... whether or not the heart attack victim was speeding is completely irrelevant to the cause of the accident and the victim's death - yet scenarios like that are most likely counted in the statistics quoting 'factors' in an accident.

[ltd_on20s]

here's a gem of a quote

“Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?”


guess who said that.

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

My problem with the statistics is we don't know how they're collected, and how they're analysed to determine a final percentage figure like X% of crashes were the result of blah...

Eg. Say a driver is driving at 70km/h in a 60 zone. They have a heart attack, cross over the median divider and have a head on with another car... Heart attack victim dies, driver of other car is seriously injured.

It would be hard pressed for anyone to argue that "speeding" was a factor in the above scenario... however when the statistics are gathered, there'd probably be a tick in the speeding box, or the crash entry is tagged with 'speeding' or however they gather the data.

Then, when it comes time to report on the statistics... if they simply collect all the entries where 'speeding' was selected - the final figure would include scenarios such as the one above, which I believe is inaccurate.

IMHO, it's virtually impossible to quote a simple percentage figure when talking about the causes of an accident and have that figure represent something meaningful.

You come close to answering the problem yourself, The point of statistics is by definition ,to analyse them. If people just throw them around to suit themselves, they are wasted. I gave the example that I did, in response to a wild figure that was thrown about (later retracted as a typo) that seemed to have little grounding in anything resembling research (btw, I'm still not sure that it does, even with ammendment). Use them how you will but don't put statistics in the same basket as off the cuff anecdotal "evidence"
(I have used this before ,but anecdotally, who's got a grandma who smokes 50 cigs a day and drinks 3 bottles of bourbon and is 105...ergo nothing wrong with tobacco and alcohol, I wonder what the evil statistics tell us about them???)

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

You come close to answering the problem yourself, The point of statistics is by definition ,to analyse them. If people just throw them around to suit themselves, they are wasted. I gave the example that I did, in response to a wild figure that was thrown about (later retracted as a typo) that seemed to have little grounding in anything resembling research (btw, I'm still not sure that it does, even with ammendment). Use them how you will but don't put statistics in the same basket as off the cuff anecdotal "evidence"
(I have used this before ,but anecdotally, who's got a grandma who smokes 50 cigs a day and drinks 3 bottles of bourbon and is 105...ergo nothing wrong with tobacco and alcohol, I wonder what the evil statistics tell us about them???)

But that is exactly what the pollies/police/TAC/etc. do... they disseminate figures that may not necessarily reflect the true position because it suits their agenda.

If they were to state something like: 'Of all the accidents recorded last year, in 5% of cases the driver was affected by drugs, 15% alcohol, 10% were speeding...' etc., without trying to attribute a cause, that is a valid reporting of statistical information, IMHO. Using my hypothetical figures - to then infer, based on the raw data, that 5% of accidents were caused by drugged drivers or 10% due to speeding, etc. is wrong. It is also wrong to infer that drugs/alcohol/speed/etc. was a factor in the accident if, in fact, it wasn't. Again, just because a driver was speeding, doesn't mean that speed was a relevant factor in the cause of the accident.

Statistics of this kind may be relevant in determine overall trends over large samples/longer terms, but that is not how TAC etc. are using them.

I may be wrong... the TAC may perform an in-depth analysis of the statistics before reporting things such as X% of accidents are caused by excessive speeding, but I doubt it.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

here's a gem of a quote

“Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?”


guess who said that.

Joeseph Stalin, responsible for the death of many of his own people.

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by XCPWSF

Joeseph Stalin, responsible for the death of many of his own people.

yup.

and the today you have the government complicit in the deaths of many road users simply because they punch out this "speed kills" mantra over and over again without a comprehensive overhaul of the nations roads/rules/laws, and fixing the obvious problems.

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

But that is exactly what the pollies/police/TAC/etc. do... they disseminate figures that may not necessarily reflect the true position because it suits their agenda.

If they were to state something like: 'Of all the accidents recorded last year, in 5% of cases the driver was affected by drugs, 15% alcohol, 10% were speeding...' etc., without trying to attribute a cause, that is a valid reporting of statistical information, IMHO. Using my hypothetical figures - to then infer, based on the raw data, that 5% of accidents were caused by drugged drivers or 10% due to speeding, etc. is wrong. It is also wrong to infer that drugs/alcohol/speed/etc. was a factor in the accident if, in fact, it wasn't. Again, just because a driver was speeding, doesn't mean that speed was a relevant factor in the cause of the accident.

Statistics of this kind may be relevant in determine overall trends over large samples/longer terms, but that is not how TAC etc. are using them.

I may be wrong... the TAC may perform an in-depth analysis of the statistics before reporting things such as X% of accidents are caused by excessive speeding, but I doubt it.

If you have a look at the link I posted you will see that the percentage figures I quoted aren't necessarilly sole causal factors. They are attributable factors, and speeding is an attributle factor in the percentage of road fatalities that are in fact, hard numbers, (er.. statistics). All of the attributle factors involved in any single fatality may well be multiple, ie speed, inattention, road conditions etc, so the trick is to analyse the hard numbers (again..statistics) and not accept what snippets we are wanting to accept as gospel.

[durtyharry]

I think what gets confused here is the statistics that are given. ie the claim in QLD that only 3% ? of fatals were due to speed and the message of the TAC that exceeding the limit by 10km/h(not sure if they are talking 60km/h or 100km/h) doubles your risk of an accident.

The two stats are not contradictory. Most of us have a very low probability of being involved in an accident, perhaps say 1/30 for any year, or one accident per 30 years. According to the TAC if you regularly exceed the speed limit by 10km/h you double your chances to one accident every 15 years.
Because the chances are still relatively low, many dont see any added risk in their day to day travels. But collectively across the whole population we would see a doubling of the injury rates if all people drove 10km/h above the limit.

This stat is a collision based one(one that gets reported to police) so would typically involve an injury, not just a fatality.

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

I think what gets confused here is the statistics that are given. ie the claim in QLD that only 3% ? of fatals were due to speed and the message of the TAC that exceeding the limit by 10km/h(not sure if they are talking 60km/h or 100km/h) doubles your risk of an accident.

The two stats are not contradictory. Most of us have a very low probability of being involved in an accident, perhaps say 1/30 for any year, or one accident per 30 years. According to the TAC if you regularly exceed the speed limit by 10km/h you double your chances to one accident every 15 years.
Because the chances are still relatively low, many dont see any added risk in their day to day travels. But collectively across the whole population we would see a doubling of the injury rates if all people drove 10km/h above the limit.

This stat is a collision based one(one that gets reported to police) so would typically involve an injury rather than a fatality.

Point exactly, statistics form the basis for data and reports and must be taken in that context, not just grabbed at random to suit or push an agenda.

(btw, not sure where "the claim in QLD that only 3% ? of fatals were due to speed comes from", but there were upward of 23% of fatalities in QLD that had speed as one of their attributal factors)

[UNR8D]

and based on alot of other figures provided if you drive along being an inattentive fool like a majority of the muppits *a-b* drivers then your risk is alot more than double.

the ammount of idiots overtaking around blind curves, doing U turns on freeways, focusing on anything BUT driving are what causes accidents, not driving 10 km/h over on a well maintained freeway.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by b0son

and yet here its written that you are not to exceed the limit when overtaking..

http://www.police.sa.gov.au/sapol/se...otice_faqs.jsp

should I believe you or the police?

Well first of all that's a SA police website, I have tried to find similar on the Vicpol site but have had no luck so far, however I have sent off an email to the Vicpol library for information on any rulings.

In the meantime I also checked up the Vicroads as well as the Victorian Legislation and Parliamentary Documents website, try saying that 10 times really quickly, and have found absolutely no reference to any speeding infringement ruling whilst a vehicle is overtaking.

Again you have taken it to the extreme, kind of like someone with an agenda, I said as long as you could show just cause for your action, firstly, but more importantly it comes back to the discretionary powers of the officer at the scene.

Any person with a decent amount of common sense realises that there will be occasion to break the speed limit whilst overtaking, this may be by as little as a couple of km/h or a little more, certainly not a whole lot more, define that as you will.

It does state however in the legislation that a driver being overtaken shall not increase their speed while they are being passed, how many times has it happened that the zombie being passed only realises they are going slow once someone attempts to pass and actually increases their speed while this is occuring. This is just one such situation where the need to "break" the speed limit would be more than necessary especially if there is oncoming traffic and the change in the passees speed now consititutes a higher speed by the passer in order to be able to safely return to the correct side of the road.

Oh and before you say that you should then slow back down and get back behind, well lets throw in other cars that had been behind you have now moved right up also planning an overtaking manouvre. Is it safer to try to nudge back in, possibly causing a lock up further back and then a major higway collision/pile up, or would it be safer to get in front of the richard cranium that started the whole thing. If need be it would actually be safer to go even further right and stop in the emergency lane to the other side of the road to avoid a collision if none of the above are available.

It's called common sense, and it seems that many of you here lose it for the sake of being on the right side of the rules.

If some moron wants to do 5km'h below the speed limit then they should also have the courtesy and common sense to indicate to a driver that they should pass, like how truckies do on the highways. They also, where possible, move slightly to the left of the road to allow for a little more room. Truckies are among the most considerate drivers on the road and yet among the most maligned by the general public, go figure. You've obviously never been down the GOR, if you have you wouldn't argue so much, many day trippers and other tourists travel this road and even though "overtaking" and "turn out" areas are sign posted for slower traffic to allow traffic travelling at the speed limit to pass(or wishing to travel), the stubborn tool in front refuses to allow this to occur. So is it the fault of the person behind?? In your eyes probably yes, but then again you'd more likely than not be the tool in the lead car anyway.

Just because a school zone is 40, doesn't mean that is the best speed, could be that the best speed for the particular school zone your travelling through might be much less due more to irresponsible parents and plain stupid kids, common sense should prevail.

I'll let you know how the enquiry to the Vicpol library goes, in the meantime, try to learn some more common sense, even in the courts judges use common sense many times to dismiss cases where discretion could have been used in the first place.

[flappist]

Evangelists on missionary duty.

For they are they way the truth and the life.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of traffic,
I will fear no evil: For thou art watching out for me;
Thy safety camera and thy propaganda, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a servitude for me in the presence of mine freedoms;
Thou annointest my bank balance with fines; My debt runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the Popular Peoples Socialist Republic of Australia forever

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

and based on alot of other figures provided if you drive along being an inattentive fool like a majority of the muppits *a-b* drivers then your risk is alot more than double.

the ammount of idiots overtaking around blind curves, doing U turns on freeways, focusing on anything BUT driving are what causes accidents, not driving 10 km/h over on a well maintained freeway.

This thread started out with an article about a trial to use GPS technology to make some inroads into a problem we have with a minority of road users. (imo) the subjects chosen are probably deserving of being scrutinised in this way ie repeat speeding offenders.
unr8d, you have trotted out the same argument all the way through, eg " based on alot of other figures provided if you drive along being an inattentive fool like a majority of the muppits *a-b* drivers then your risk is alot more than double." double what?? this makes no sense.and you have completely missed the point by insisting that accidents are caused by overtaking on blind curves or doing u-turs on freeways, and not by breaking the speed limits by 10kph. These are all factors attributal to road deaths, not the single cause in any given circumstance, and anything being looked at to reduce the road toll, (wether you want to call it revenue raising, or police state mentality or any other of the hysterical nonsense that some people come up with to justify breaking the law), I say bring it on.
Just lets be a little more objective when we try to rip it down.

If this thread is the building, then I've left it.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by durtyharry

I think what gets confused here is the statistics that are given. ie the claim in QLD that only 3% ? of fatals were due to speed and the message of the TAC that exceeding the limit by 10km/h(not sure if they are talking 60km/h or 100km/h) doubles your risk of an accident.

The two stats are not contradictory. Most of us have a very low probability of being involved in an accident, perhaps say 1/30 for any year, or one accident per 30 years. According to the TAC if you regularly exceed the speed limit by 10km/h you double your chances to one accident every 15 years.
Because the chances are still relatively low, many dont see any added risk in their day to day travels. But collectively across the whole population we would see a doubling of the injury rates if all people drove 10km/h above the limit.

This stat is a collision based one(one that gets reported to police) so would typically involve an injury, not just a fatality.

Well done, bravo, kudos even.


Now, tell me what the statistics say about highway accidents occuring in relation to a 100km/h speed limit and the percentage of increased accidents occuring in 110km/h speed limitted freeways. Are they doubled?? Because by their own definition this should be the case.

Oh and by the way I don't just mean fatalaties, I mean all acidents on record.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

Point exactly, statistics form the basis for data and reports and must be taken in that context, not just grabbed at random to suit or push an agenda.

(btw, not sure where "the claim in QLD that only 3% ? of fatals were due to speed comes from", but there were upward of 23% of fatalities in QLD that had speed as one of their attributal factors)

You love throwing all these stats, how about you shut up and put up, some of these stats you rely on for many of your comments.

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Well first of all that's a SA police website, I have tried to find similar on the Vicpol site but have had no luck so far, however I have sent off an email to the Vicpol library for information on any rulings.

In the meantime I also checked up the Vicroads as well as the Victorian Legislation and Parliamentary Documents website, try saying that 10 times really quickly, and have found absolutely no reference to any speeding infringement ruling whilst a vehicle is overtaking.

Again you have taken it to the extreme, kind of like someone with an agenda, I said as long as you could show just cause for your action, firstly, but more importantly it comes back to the discretionary powers of the officer at the scene.

Any person with a decent amount of common sense realises that there will be occasion to break the speed limit whilst overtaking, this may be by as little as a couple of km/h or a little more, certainly not a whole lot more, define that as you will.

It does state however in the legislation that a driver being overtaken shall not increase their speed while they are being passed, how many times has it happened that the zombie being passed only realises they are going slow once someone attempts to pass and actually increases their speed while this is occuring. This is just one such situation where the need to "break" the speed limit would be more than necessary especially if there is oncoming traffic and the change in the passees speed now consititutes a higher speed by the passer in order to be able to safely return to the correct side of the road.

Oh and before you say that you should then slow back down and get back behind, well lets throw in other cars that had been behind you have now moved right up also planning an overtaking manouvre. Is it safer to try to nudge back in, possibly causing a lock up further back and then a major higway collision/pile up, or would it be safer to get in front of the richard cranium that started the whole thing. If need be it would actually be safer to go even further right and stop in the emergency lane to the other side of the road to avoid a collision if none of the above are available.

It's called common sense, and it seems that many of you here lose it for the sake of being on the right side of the rules.

If some moron wants to do 5km'h below the speed limit then they should also have the courtesy and common sense to indicate to a driver that they should pass, like how truckies do on the highways. They also, where possible, move slightly to the left of the road to allow for a little more room. Truckies are among the most considerate drivers on the road and yet among the most maligned by the general public, go figure. You've obviously never been down the GOR, if you have you wouldn't argue so much, many day trippers and other tourists travel this road and even though "overtaking" and "turn out" areas are sign posted for slower traffic to allow traffic travelling at the speed limit to pass(or wishing to travel), the stubborn tool in front refuses to allow this to occur. So is it the fault of the person behind?? In your eyes probably yes, but then again you'd more likely than not be the tool in the lead car anyway.

Just because a school zone is 40, doesn't mean that is the best speed, could be that the best speed for the particular school zone your travelling through might be much less due more to irresponsible parents and plain stupid kids, common sense should prevail.

I'll let you know how the enquiry to the Vicpol library goes, in the meantime, try to learn some more common sense, even in the courts judges use common sense many times to dismiss cases where discretion could have been used in the first place.

I had just about shut the door on the way out when I see xrqtr has jumped back into the debate.
After reading his second last post, I had to come back to ask if he is real calling anyone else a moron??? "Just because a school zone is 40, doesn't mean that is the best speed, could be that the best speed for the particular school zone your travelling through might be much less due more to irresponsible parents and plain stupid kids, common sense should prevail."Beautiful!!, and ps I'll keep an eye out for vicpol library results with anticipation.

[RedHotGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Evangelists on missionary duty.

For they are they way the truth and the life.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of traffic,
I will fear no evil: For thou art watching out for me;
Thy safety camera and thy propaganda, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a servitude for me in the presence of mine freedoms;
Thou annointest my bank balance with fines; My debt runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the Popular Peoples Socialist Republic of Australia forever

Considering I am completely against religion or anything that even looks/smells/sounds like religion... i quite like this Flappist... Very clever...

Bravo in fact...

[RG]

COOL!!

An internet argument!! It even has stats!!


WOW

[JK1]

Going back to the GPS thing - has anyone seen the film - Demolition man???

That kind of society is coming if we dont stop it - one where the government drives your car for you and fines you for non pc language and swearing etc etc etc - its staring already - more and more control!!! (watch out for this decade) and a world run on fear!! - @#@! that!!!

[Auslandau]

Reading the last page of this ... I have no idea what the original discussion was about .... so I went back and had a look and low and behold .... has nothing to do with the original discussion!

Really come on peoples .....



| [/url] |

[b0son]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Again you have taken it to the extreme, kind of like someone with an agenda

how is it extreme? i've simply done a quick google on whether what you said is true or not, and one of the first links from a fairly authoritative source contradicts you. i dont often take forum postings as gospel as they make for a poor defense in court.

in the meantime, try to learn some more common sense, even in the courts judges use common sense many times to dismiss cases where discretion could have been used in the first place.

since when is the law rooted in common sense?

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by zdcol71

I had just about shut the door on the way out when I see xrqtr has jumped back into the debate.
After reading his second last post, I had to come back to ask if he is real calling anyone else a moron??? "Just because a school zone is 40, doesn't mean that is the best speed, could be that the best speed for the particular school zone your travelling through might be much less due more to irresponsible parents and plain stupid kids, common sense should prevail."Beautiful!!, and ps I'll keep an eye out for vicpol library results with anticipation.

You truly are a piece of work, taking comments out of context is the favorite tool of any person looking for some fishing action, if I was to guess I'd say you even remind me of other "crusaders" on here, they know who they are/is.


Auslandau, before you look at me on this as was suggested by stormin Norman in another thread, check back to my first post in the thread and it's relevance to the OP, now if others have chosen to take it off on a tangent, well maybe they need to be looked at. It's the same people time and time again that take many of these threads off topic, time they were looked at more than the poeple that choose to hold their ground.

[mrbaxr6t]

OK I just read (most of) the posts since my last - and have a few things to add:

if the stats are being manipulated - go through them yourself and prove they are being manipulated in a similar fashion to the "cash for clunkers" manipulation of statistics - again this should be done by a pro motoring representative group lobby them to check this crap out IIRC there is several that proport to be pro-motorist (RACV & NRMA) - yet they do SFA

also on the topic of a PC type fluffy society - I seen a report on 60 minutes about CCTV cameras and loudspeakers being used to stop people misbehaving in public - littering and the like through humilliation - I don't know about you guys but I for one do not want to live in such a society where if I scratch my **** then it winds up on youtube cause someone hacked the cctv control center. But I concede that video evidence is invaluable when it comes time to prosecute people for serious offenses, but the powers that be always push the envelope and things such as that start out with the best of intentions, then get manipulated into a means of public control, and that is absolute crap.

also driving nowadays is becoming more and more of a risky affair where you are fired upon by lasers and cameras and all kinds of objects both stationary and mobile with the intent of using you like an ATM, why do those we elect choose to treat us like targets?

if its not revenue raising I say grow some balls and prove it mr. politician.

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by auslandau

Reading the last page of this ... I have no idea what the original discussion was about .... so I went back and had a look and low and behold .... has nothing to do with the original discussion!

Really come on peoples .....

lol

it is now a discussion about how in the future govt's will use stats to justify jamming a gps in everyones car.

and we will let them.

[XRQTR]

First of all here is what I actually wrote, slightly out of context also but the "entire sentence" rather than the excerpt that suits you best, I've highlighted the bit that makes it all sound rather benign once it's put back into context.

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Again you have taken it to the extreme, kind of like someone with an agenda, I said as long as you could show just cause for your action, firstly, but more importantly it comes back to the discretionary powers of the officer at the scene.

As you can see once it all goes in it makes a bit more sense and doesn't come across as though I'm attacking you, but rather defending my own stand on the issue.

Now here is your version of events, and this time I will say you are pursuing an agenda as can be clearly now seen.

Originally Posted by boson

how is it extreme? i've simply done a quick google on whether what you said is true or not, and one of the first links from a fairly authoritative source contradicts you. i dont often take forum postings as gospel as they make for a poor defense in court.

since when is the law rooted in common sense?

I answered your first question in my response at the top, as to your second question, well that's why judges are given a further discretionary power in order to make calls on instances where they think the law may have been a little more leniant on someone appearing before them, that's why they are called "JUDGES".