Speeding round Europe

Thinking of a bike tour of Europe?

Check out the speeding fines in Norway.

http://evilurl.com/sluttyPORNbush
(note: anti-american URL!)

Note the mandatory jail for some speeding offences.

And the restrictions in some areas that say "no overtaking" Cars can
overtake bikes, but bikes cannot overtake cars. Would that suck or what?

See here http://evilurl.com/smutPISSTURDBUSH (found another!)
for other European speeding fines etc...

Moike

 

Good for them. I don't think a mandatory gaol term for people exceeding
the speed limit by almost doubling it (for speeds limits of 60 kph or
lower) is unreasonable - it'd be a damn good thing to see down here, in
fact.

The license suspension periods aren't that different from down here - in
NSW, at least, you go more than 140 on ANY road {including a 110 kph
limit freeway}, get sprung, and kiss your license bye bye for 3 months.

OK, that one sucks 100%. As does the apparently anally low speed limits
almost everywhere. And the rule about letting someone approaching from
he right unless explicitely signposted otherwise.

But there are stranger rules in the world. Melbourne's "turn right from
the left lane" schermozzle is only one example.

DaZZa

 

This is somewhat at odds with the other thing I've heard about the Norwegian
justice system. Another website I've seen claims that all prison sentences
of less than one year in duration, imposed for nonviolent crimes, are
automatically commuted to probation.

Yes, because, for one thing, it would completely remove any stigma
associated with serving a custodial sentence, kinda like what happens with
Aboriginal people in the Top End.

The explosion in confused 19-year-olds who'll be given direction in prison
by mixing with proper criminals for a month will also be worthwhile.

All the small businesses which go broke when they have to wind down for a
similar period of time due to a key employee's unavailability will also be
prepared to make the sacrifice, I imagine.

I'm also having difficulty envisioning scenarios which would be more
efficient at sending people flying through local streets at high speeds;
"I'm not going to jail. I just have to make this roundabout from a 140kph
approach and I'll lose them. My tyres are up to it, sure they are, sure they
are...".

That's two fuckwitted positions you've taken on here inside of a single
working week. For someone with uber-geek-speak in his .sig, you're not
overly bright, are you?

 

I didn't highlight the web site - that was what was quoted there. I do
not attest to its accuracy.

While, of course, not removing any stigma at all associated being a
complete idiot & doing double the speed limit with the resulting
consequences, will it? I mean, it's not like there's any stigma
associated with killing yourself {or someone else} becausde you're too
stupid to obey the posted speed limit.

Yup. If nothing else, it'll teach them that being someones bitch in
prison isn't worth exceeding the speed limit to the extent they did.

19 year old key employees? Which particular strain of waccy weed have
you been smoking?

This huge number of small business you claim will go broke would lead
someone to conclude that there is a problem with young fellas and
excessive speed, wouldn't it? I mean, if there is going to be enough
people pinched in this situation that these thousands of small
businesses have to close because all these "key" employees aren't
around, right?

Which is different from doing double the speed limit {the point at which
the automatic gaol sentence kicks in for 60k or lower zones} exactly
how? You think someone will be able to do the roundabout at 120 but not
at 140?

Brighter than you might suspect.

Don't tell me, let me guess - you're one of those blokes who advocates
riding at any speed you want, anywhere, anytime, completely disregarding
the people around you who might be affected, right? Don't be shy - come
out and admit it.

BTW, it's not uber-geek speek. It's a simple mathematical calculation
using tools which are standard on most decent operating systems. But for
you, I'm going to translate it this time.

DaZZa

 

But you go right out and applaud it, anyway.

Please cite articles in today's papers detailing the latest crop of
flattened children, old folks and beloved family pets caused by vastly
excessive speeding in built-up areas. If it's enough of a problem to cause
you this level of consternation and to require such a drastic response as
the imposition of a custodial sentence, surely it must be something that
happens on at least an hourly basis.

I'm curious... under which circumstances does one become someone's "bitch"
in prison?

Two paragraphs, two distinct points. Do try to keep up.

Where do you see me using the word "huge"?

"Thousands"? Are you always this easily given to hysteria?

Well, there's the rearview mirrorful of flashing red and blue lights, and
the off-the-scale adrenaline levels such a sight engenders. Desperate people
take more risks than merely foolish people. In this context, they are likely
to be making more unreasonable demands on both their vehicle and their own
faculties if they're being pursued with the threat of... "becoming someone's
bitch in prison", wasn't it?... hanging over their head than otherwise.
Plus, there's the added factor of there now being not one, but two vehicles
moving through a built-up area at excessive speed.

Going on the available evidence, that would have to be your own sense of
self-importance talking.

What exact difference do you imagine your being correct in your assumption
would make? Even if you were arguing with the most extreme antisocial hoon
in the southern hemisphere, would your inability to consider the
implications of the use of your proposed sledgehammer on a nut you imagine
to exist be any less total, and would your attempt to defend your position
with techniques outlined in Chapter 1 of "The Hysterical Idiot's Guide to
Public Debate" be any less deserving of ridicule?

As I never did quite have the time to get my head around something as
masturbatory as the minutiae of any particular OS, while the effort is
appreciated, the output is not.

So, an entire line of text to represent only four characters. Quite the
encapsulation of wankerdom.

 

Why not? I agree with the concept wholeheartedly - this agreement
doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the concept is fact in
reality.

Don't read much the news much, do you? Hourly basis, perhaps not - but
frequently enough that it's almost casual for anyone to ignore speed
limits in built up areas.

The fact that there aren't daily reports of carnage amongst the
children, old folks & family pets is more down to the pedrestrian
ability to dodge than responsibility on the part of the drivers who
flaunt speed limits excessively.

Exceed the speed limit by enough to get yourself thrown in gaol and
you'll find out.

The do try and make your point clearer. You mentioned 19 year olds & key
employees - you want to seperate them, make it clear you do.

Well, put a definition on your "all" - how many are we talking about
here? It's got to be a signifigant amount to raise such a hue and cry
from yourself - 1? 2? A dozen? Hundreds? Your tone & implication was
that a large number would be affected. Define yourself more clearly.

OK, so we're below the "thousands" level. How far below? Where is your
line in the sand?

While we're ont he subject, I think ascribing the failure of multiple
{defined as "all"} small businessesbecause of the loss of a single
employee each might go pretty close to the grounds of hysteria, don't
you? Unless, of course, the sole employee of said small business is the
individual who ends up in gaol.

At no point in the original article was there a statement that the
individual had to be stopped by police for such a penalty to apply - I'm
sure - Norway, wasn't it?} is capable of using speed cameras the same as
the rest of the world, and applying the penalty as soon as the
individual in question can be taken into custody in a non dangerous
manner.

If I had one, I'd agree with you. But I don't. Have any self importance,
that is.

Oh, none at all - except it'd go along the lines of he who is without
sin casting the first stone and the like.

The implications of my proposed sledgehammer are many - and I've
considered most of them - but I'd consider the result - less people -
not just kids, not just oldies, not just family pets - killed by
fsckwits who insist that going as fast as mechanically possible is the
only way to get around.

It's always extremely amusing how the people who insist on going
everywhere fast are the ones who bleat about measures designed to stop
people from breaking the law because it interferes with their fun.

You _do_ remember that the people in question are breaking the law,
don't you? Or doesn't that matter in your little perfect world?

DaZZa

 

Enough to be able to spot half-informed conformist loudmouths coming from
over the horizon...

So now you're undermining your own position. OK... either that, or you don't
structure sentences particularly well when you're riled up.

....and now, you expect run-over dogs and cats to be something to make the
newspaper...?

In any event, since, as you yourself say, there "there aren't daily reports
of carnage amongst the children, old folks & family pets", how do you know
that this "is more down to the pedrestrian ability to dodge than
responsibility on the part of the drivers who flaunt speed limits
excessively"?

Huh?

Do you spend your days in a cherry-picker overlooking a patch of suburbia,
PDA in hand, tallying near-misses of the type you describe, or are you just
pulling this out of your arse, thinking that other people's buttons are as
easy to push as your own?

Somehow, I doubt it, as even dangerous driving occasioning death doesn't, by
itself, land you in maximum security.

Question remains... under which circumstances does someone become someone
else's "bitch" in prison, and how does this, by implication, teach one about
the carrot-and-stick mechanisms of obeying the law?

What do you know about how prisons work? Do you think every single person
who ends up in jail gets fucked up the arse, and are you such a homophobe
that you consider sodomy to be the ultimate deterrent?

The terms were placed in separate paragraphs. There was a blank line between
the two. If you need it spelled out any clearer... sorry, but the set of red
marker pens I use to draw circles around the bleeding obvious seemingly
doesn't include one of the thickness you seem to require.

I suppose so. So, yeah, why not just go right out and assume it, like you
did? Or why not pull it out in an attempt to cover over a gaping hole that's
been shown to exist in your argument?

So the answer is to monitor every single metre of every single suburban
street with a speed camera, is it?

What happens if the offending vehicle has obscured number plates?
What happens if the police can't prove who was at the wheel/bars at the time
the offence was committed?

Resorting to cliches along the lines of "I know you are but what am I?" in
retorts structured to sound sarcastic is in section 1.8.

Don't go jumping on soapboxes and you won't present such an inviting target
for the stones in question.

Prove it. List the implications you've considered.

Again,_where_are all these people being run over by vehicles travelling at
insane speeds? I just had a quick look... something about some guy being
caught doing 155kph across the Harbour Bridge_without_being involved in an
accident, and something about some other guy, in Perth, running over his own
kid in his own driveway. The story doesn't seem to mention that the father,
a keen drag-racing enthusiast, had converted his driveway into a
quarter-mile strip complete with staging lights, but, since excessive
speeding in built-up areas is such a problem, and everyone knows it (don't
they?), it can be taken as a given, can't it?

Sorry, chum. The spotlight's on you and your many misconceptions about
things ranging from the extent of high-range speeding in areas with low
speed limits to life in prison. First, you demonstrate that those don't come
from, respectively, an overactive sense of thinking you know what's good for
everyone and a few cop show episodes, then we can get onto what I believe...
besides my belief that people with a propensity for shouting half-baked
ideas from the rooftops should be snipered off in the interests of public
harmony.

 

While, of course, not removing any stigma at all associated being a
complete idiot & doing double the speed limit with the resulting
consequences, will it? I mean, it's not like there's any stigma
associated with killing yourself {or someone else} becausde you're too
stupid to obey the posted speed limit.[/QUOTE]

Nope - if doing more than the speed limit automatically killed you (or
someone else), then people might start to associate the "killing"
consequences with the "speeding" cause.

*BUT*

We _all_ know thats not how it _really_ works.

There are _very_ few drivers(/riders) who _never_ speed, and _none_ who
never see anybody else speeding. And its pretty obvious to all of us
that in general, you _don't_ crash and die when you speed.

Todays paper has an article about a 25yr old WRX driver who was clocked
doing 155kmh on the Harbour Bridge, and it _didn't_ end with him
crashing and killing someone, it ended up with him getting pulled over
in Willoughby - notice how there were no dead bodies to be seen
anywhere.

There was that guy earlier this year who got clocked every morning
speeding through the Harbour Tunnel - again, no dead bodies, but a big
mediafriendly "police operation" to catch him.

Now I'm not for a moment suggesting that either of those guys weren't in
fact "complete idiots", but its painfully clear that the consequences of
their actions were _not_ "killing themself {or someone else} because
they're too stupid to obey the posted speed limit.", but just the plain
old "getting caught by the cops and getting fined/suspended".

Heh - lets just stick some words in his mouth as a poor argument
technique then, eh? You don't get too many points for that one...
"Disillusionment in the limits and penalties compared to the actual
observed consequences for speeding" is a long way from "complete
disregard for people around you", Dazza...

The arguement here (or at least elsewhere in this thread) is that the
rules/penaltys are arse about.

Firstly:

You (or people like you) claim "speed kills" when what you mean is
"speeding increases the likelyhood of an accident, possibly leading to
death", and use that to justify low speed limits and large speeding
penalties.

So the penalty for *one* of the ways of increasing the likelyhood of
having a accident is set artificially high.

There's no equivalent high penalty for "driving while angry" or "driving
while tired" or "driving when you only vaguely mustered the ability to
pass the test 25 years ago and have let your vehicle control skills and
road rule knowlegde dwindle since then", in fact looking at the media
coverage of the F3 truck crash, it appears theres not really any serious
attempt by the RTA or Police to penalise people for "driving
unregistered uninsured unroadworthy trucks" unless you actually plough
one into 35 or so cars...

No no, we don't need to worry about them, eh? We'll just decide that up
to 15kmh over is worth a sixth of your licence and a couple of good
dinners for two, 15-30 is a quarter of your licence and half a weeks
takehome pay, and 30-45 is 3 months walk and a months rent, 45 and up is
six months walk and a complete financial arse reaming.

Then:

There are all these people who haven't neccessarily engaged in such
society-threatening behaviour as "increasing one of the risks" (by
speeding), but have actually turned the collection of risks into a
_real_ fuckup. They've lost control of their vehicle for whatever reason
and hit something or someone.

That seems a _lot_ more serious to me than "increasing the risk", and
what do we penalise _them?_ "Negligent Driving" - about the same as a
15-30kmh over speeding ticket.

How come the guy driving the 4WD that, in clear daylight in a queue of
traffic on a straight road ran into not one but *two* motorcycles,
clipping one and sending it flying into the ditch on the side of the
road and nailing the other dead in the middle of the bullbar throwing
the rider into a tree and breaking two vertabrae, copped almost exactly
the same fine as the first rider got 2 days earlier for doing 124kmh on
the freeway? To _my_ way of thinking, that 4WD driver ought to be
punished way more severely than the WRX driver reported thismorning, he
may have done 155 on the Bridge and increased the risk, _but he didn't
**** up!_

Nobody (except you in your strawman attack) is seriously suggesting "any
speed anywhere anytime", but I cant help but wonder why my licence is
only one mediumsized speeding fine away from a suspension at the moment
(thanks mainly to a 15-30 over 3 point ticket on a double points
weekend[1]), while the guy that cleaned up IK and I in that story up
there who actually _did_ fuckup bigtime isn't facing significantly more
serious penalties...

I've got a bunch of speeding tickets, but I've never hurt or killed
anybody with the bike...

big

[1] And theres another rant about that too - did I somehow increase some
"risk to society" by having the gall to ride my bike on a longweekend
thereby making it proper to take fully half my licence points for 79 in
a 60 zone? Is speeding on a non-longweekend somehow twice as safe as
would be indicated by the half sized penalty???