=^..^= Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 One other thing about speed cameras - to convict you requires a change in the law from "Innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent". You as the vehicle owner would have to prove that you weren't driving the car when the speed camera records the image. Imagine the fight that would happen if you lent your car to your wife, she gets a ticket and you have to prove that she was in the car. A fundamental change in the law there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 One other thing about speed cameras - to convict you requires a change in the law from "Innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent". You as the vehicle owner would have to prove that you weren't driving the car when the speed camera records the image. Imagine the fight that would happen if you lent your car to your wife, she gets a ticket and you have to prove that she was in the car. A fundamental change in the law there. Not exactly, you get a notice requiring you to either send in your license and a cheque or tell who was driving the vehicle at the time. If you can supply a name, that person gets a ticket with the same requirements. Innocent until proven guilty. Some speed cameras take the picture from the front, get out of that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 "I dislike even more the attempt, or rather the misguided gerrymandering, you are proposing". sorry scrappey is "gerrymandering" the right terminology? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymander Would you not agree that choosing who the leaflet is delivered, or made available, to is choosing the constituency? Three people in one house = two less votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Did the meeting go ahead this afternoon then? Kinda seems to have got lost what with all the 'debating' going on this afternoon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Did the meeting go ahead this afternoon then? Kinda seems to have got lost what with all the 'debating' going on this afternoon... Thought it was for Monday 7pm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Oh, I must have missed that post amongst all the squabbling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxchatterbox Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 "Would you not agree that choosing who the leaflet is delivered, or made available, to is choosing the constituency? Three people in one house = two less votes". yes - just that gerrymandering is the wrong term - "fixing-it" sounds better to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Oh, I must have missed that post amongst all the squabbling. Sorry about that - but Slim was overdue for a windup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted April 23, 2006 Author Share Posted April 23, 2006 Oh, I must have missed that post amongst all the squabbling. Yep, it's tomorrow at 7pm - The Outback, Barrack Street, Douglas Changed the topic description and the first post to the new date, so hope no-one turned up today.... One other thing about speed cameras - to convict you requires a change in the law from "Innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent". You as the vehicle owner would have to prove that you weren't driving the car when the speed camera records the image. Imagine the fight that would happen if you lent your car to your wife, she gets a ticket and you have to prove that she was in the car. A fundamental change in the law there. Not exactly, you get a notice requiring you to either send in your license and a cheque or tell who was driving the vehicle at the time. If you can supply a name, that person gets a ticket with the same requirements. Innocent until proven guilty. I guess this site may get a bit more traffic then: How to Avoid getting a Speeding Ticket Some speed cameras take the picture from the front, get out of that one! Hand, baseball cap and sunglasses, or just the sun visor down - plenty of ways, and they're not even intentional all the time... I'm not sure if this applies over here, but isn't there a law that says you don't have to incriminate yourself or anyone close to you, i.e. family? Just got some top secret pics of the new speed limit enforcement unit : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxchatterbox Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 does anyone know if there wil be a piece done for Border/ BBC Northwest Tonight TV?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
=^..^= Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 One other thing about speed cameras - to convict you requires a change in the law from "Innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent". You as the vehicle owner would have to prove that you weren't driving the car when the speed camera records the image. Imagine the fight that would happen if you lent your car to your wife, she gets a ticket and you have to prove that she was in the car. A fundamental change in the law there. Not exactly, you get a notice requiring you to either send in your license and a cheque or tell who was driving the vehicle at the time. If you can supply a name, that person gets a ticket with the same requirements. Innocent until proven guilty. Some speed cameras take the picture from the front, get out of that one! So they send you a letter saying you are guilty and have to pay unless you say someone else was driving. Funny - sounds like guilty until you prove you are innocent to me. Must be in the way you say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rednik Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 I am totally against a national limit. Like many others I have no objection to limits, or even cameras in the right places. No one can object to a speed camera outside a school, and why not impose a 40 limit either side of Windy Corner and install a camera rather than spend 000s ££ of our money on road "improvements" on safety grounds. If the gov ever provide proper statistics that back up an all Island limit I might well change my mind. In the form delivered to our home in the third paragraph it talks about the highest speeds recorded and the 85th percentile speed on 2 stretches of road. Neither give any corresponding accident figures, so what is the point of that information. Also, to state "with an 85th percentile speed increasing from the low 60s in 2003 to almost 70 mph in 2005" means nothing without information on the time period the data was collected, the weather conditions, and the number of accidents in that time. If the 2003 figure was collected in Feb, and 2005 in June then it illustrates that people don't adjust their driving style to the conditions. Without the full facts the figures provided are useless and reek of the government trying to manipulate figures to make people believe what they want us to believe. I would fully expect the average speed to vary by a considerable margin throughout a year, and chances are that based n the driving I have seen an average of 55 in winter is more dangerous that 95 in clear daylight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentbob Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 We all know the reason for the inflated deaths on manx roads, I know it, you know it, and so does the DoT. BOY RACERS Now, I am not going to be a hypocrit and say that I wasnt a boy racer when I was younger, BUT, I took my driving very seriously. My Parents banned anyone but them from sitting in with me when I was learning and I had no interest in impressing girls or banging out illegible 'music' on the stereo I did not have fitted. I would prefer that I was called a petrolhead if anything. Anyway, I ramble on... I honestly think the minimum driving age should be increased to 17 or maybe even 18. Newly passed drivers should be limited to a 75HP Car (VW Polo 1.4, Corsa etc) and NO modifications must be made to that vehicle for 2 years (No fat tyres, no drain pipe exhaust, no 1.1gigawatt stereo system) so they better understand that a car is primarily used to transport a person from A to B. Maybe also ban them from taking passengers for the first year. There is a lot of peer pressure when a youngster to have the flashest car, and even more to prove your mettle on the road; these are the things that need to be addressed, not the speed limit for everyone else. I currently drive a vehicle that would be hard pressed to exceed the 60mph planned limit, I fear though that the IOM Government is sitting on the wedge of cash it makes from the financial sector and selling out on its history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 So they send you a letter saying you are guilty and have to pay unless you say someone else was driving. Funny - sounds like guilty until you prove you are innocent to me. Must be in the way you say it. I don't think so. They send you a ticket, which is in effect saying that you have a case to answer. Similar to being charged. You "plead guilty" by paying the fine otherwise you plead "not guilty" by contesting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Well if the limit is introduced then why would it matter what car a learner driver had, Doesn't matter what car you still can't do over 50mph and then on the following year it would be the maximum 60mph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.