On Feb 1, 2:12*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:28:29 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

I am suggesting that prisoners stay in jail until they have fully
compensated their victims. *Some would have to stay there for ever but
who cares?

And what would you do about the crimes that *have* no victims?

--
Cynic

There is no such thing.

On 01/02/2012 13:35, Cynic wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:39:30 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
wrote:

My response was to the suggestion that judges etc. should live on a
sink estate for 2 years. I took that to mean that they should live
*in the same conditions* as the people on such an estate.

And where have I suggested that they wouldn't be, as, if they were
living on the estate they'd be in similar housing to everyone else.
However, not everyone wants to conform by displaying tattoos, shaving
their heads, buying a pit bull terrier, running an unlicensed motor
vehicle and saying f*ck for every third word. They will consequently
stand out and get their windows smashed and their car scratched.

Obviously you're too stupid, or too distant from real life to understand
that such things are triggered by far less than obvious signs of wealth.

Either that or you have an overly fertile imagination.

I do in fact know and visit several people on such estates who do
*not* have loads of tattoos, and who mostly conform to the law in all
respects AFAICT. They do indeed have neighbours who have all sorts of
weird body decorations and who frequently and blatantly break the law.

IME the law-abiding people are not at all resented by the others
*unless* they act in a way that show that they regard themselves as
better than their neighbours, or are suspected of "grassing". So long
as they live their lives as they wish, and are tolerant and reasonably
pleasant toward those who wish to live differently, there is no
problem at all.


And just how do people "act in a way that show that they regard
themselves as better than their neighbours"? I think the "grassing"
comment sums up a lot - keep your mouth shut or else we'll burgle you next!

--
Moving things in still pictures

On 01/02/2012 13:05, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:10:49 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

of cause one way is to let the prisoner decide his own punishment
without actually letting on.

They asked a the person who raped and 80 year old women
what he would do to someone that raped his grandmother,
he said" I'd f***ing kill them" or word to that effect

So there you go, he sentanced himself.

Channel Five might be interested in a new game show - Live Hunting.
The prisoner is released into a game park with a bow and a knife. He
has two days to survive a lethal manhunt, where the hunters (randomly
drawn members of the public and family members of the murder/rape
victim) are armed with weapons of their choice, up to and including
30mm cannon - but only one weapon each.

Do you realise how heavy the 30mm cannon is?

If the hunted survives, he gains a pardon and is immediately
conscripted into a Liquidation Squad operating in Afghanistan.


--
Moving things in still pictures

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:16:03 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
wrote:

IME the law-abiding people are not at all resented by the others
*unless* they act in a way that show that they regard themselves as
better than their neighbours, or are suspected of "grassing". So long
as they live their lives as they wish, and are tolerant and reasonably
pleasant toward those who wish to live differently, there is no
problem at all.

And just how do people "act in a way that show that they regard
themselves as better than their neighbours"?

In the same way as you might get that impression from someone. By
remaining aloof and refusing to socialise (or refusing to allow your
kids to play with their kids). By making judgemental comments. By
being critical of their behaviour. By being arrogant. Etc.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:05:45 +0000, wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 06:10:49 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

of cause one way is to let the prisoner decide his own punishment
without actually letting on.

They asked a the person who raped and 80 year old women
what he would do to someone that raped his grandmother,
he said" I'd f***ing kill them" or word to that effect

So there you go, he sentanced himself.

Channel Five might be interested in a new game show - Live Hunting.
The prisoner is released into a game park with a bow and a knife. He
has two days to survive a lethal manhunt, where the hunters (randomly
drawn members of the public and family members of the murder/rape
victim) are armed with weapons of their choice, up to and including
30mm cannon - but only one weapon each.
If the hunted survives, he gains a pardon and is immediately
conscripted into a Liquidation Squad operating in Afghanistan.

And what if he succeeds in killing the hunters?

--
Cynic

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:24:58 +0000, John Williamson
wrote:

I am suggesting that prisoners stay in jail until they have fully
compensated their victims. Some would have to stay there for ever but
who cares?

And what would you do about the crimes that *have* no victims?

Name one crime *which would result in a prison term* which does not have
any victims.

Buying some drugs for you and your mates (possession with intent to
supply). Looking at an indecent cartoon image of a child. Having
completely consensual sex with an emotionally mature 15 year old.
Downloading a copy of "The anachist's cookbook".

--
Cynic

On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 08:14:38 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

And what would you do about the crimes that *have* no victims?

There is no such thing.

See my previous examples.

--
Cynic

On 01/02/2012 19:59, Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:16:03 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=AEi=A9ardo?=
wrote:

IME the law-abiding people are not at all resented by the others
*unless* they act in a way that show that they regard themselves as
better than their neighbours, or are suspected of "grassing". So long
as they live their lives as they wish, and are tolerant and reasonably
pleasant toward those who wish to live differently, there is no
problem at all.

And just how do people "act in a way that show that they regard
themselves as better than their neighbours"?

In the same way as you might get that impression from someone. By
remaining aloof and refusing to socialise (or refusing to allow your
kids to play with their kids). By making judgemental comments. By
being critical of their behaviour. By being arrogant. Etc.


Ah, being just like them!

--
Moving things in still pictures

Cynic wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:24:58 +0000, John Williamson
wrote:

I am suggesting that prisoners stay in jail until they have fully
compensated their victims. Some would have to stay there for ever but
who cares?

And what would you do about the crimes that *have* no victims?

Name one crime *which would result in a prison term* which does not have
any victims.

Buying some drugs for you and your mates (possession with intent to
supply).

Support may well be needed for the users, in which case support staff
and those who pay for them (All taxpayers) may be considered victims.
Crimes may well have been committed in order to get the money. Also,
which drugs? The users may be considered victims in some cases.

Looking at an indecent cartoon image of a child.

Possible. Although the idea for the cartoon must have come from somewhere.

Having
completely consensual sex with an emotionally mature 15 year old.

Some believe that the current age of consent is too low. Although the
boundary between being 15 years 364 days and 16 years of age is
arbitrary, and differs between cultures and over time.

Downloading a copy of "The anachist's cookbook".

Possible, but not necessarily incurring a prison sentence if you take no
action based on its content.

From Wikipedia:-
"In 2007, a seventeen year old British youth was arrested in Britain and
faced charges under Terrorism Law in the UK for possession of this book,
*among other things*. He was cleared of all charges in October 2008,
after alleging that he was a prankster that just wanted to research
fireworks and smoke bombs."

I added the emphasis for clarity.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Cynic wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:32:34 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

Wrong. Taking the property of an innocent man because you are acting on
*rumour* is still theft. In your scenario, the *thief* is still a thief,
even if by mistake, while my uncle was quite clearly an innocent victim.

Similarly, beating up an innocent person because you *think* he is a
thief is still GBH.

It might be ABH.

Bill

John Williamson wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

Tciao for Now!

Pretention doesn't become you. If you're going to use foreign
languages to appear sophisticated, you might at least try to get
them right.


Deliberate mis-spelling.

Yeah, yeah, yadda, yadda.

It's been in my .sig for mumble years, and
this is only the second or third time it's been brought to my
attention.

And doing nothing shows you're not a pillock how exactly?

Norman Wells wrote:

I get a certain amount of pleasure from winding up those who think minor
matters of form matter more than content.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
Buying some drugs for you and your mates (possession with intent to
supply).

Support may well be needed for the users, in which case support staff
and those who pay for them (All taxpayers) may be considered victims.
Crimes may well have been committed in order to get the money. Also,
which drugs? The users may be considered victims in some cases.

Just like alcohol, then?

--
*Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

John Williamson wrote:
Norman Wells wrote:

I get a certain amount of pleasure from winding up those who think
minor matters of form matter more than content.

And in that regard, "It's been in my .sig for mumble years, and
this is only the second or third time it's been brought to my attention"
represents an unqualified success, does it?

On Feb 1, 12:39*pm, "dennis@home" wrote:
"Ste" wrote in message

...

8

How does the driver know what he can ignore it if he doesn't see it?

Because he can ignore the object based on its position in the visual
field - and also whether the object is moving.

Like I said how can he know if he hasn't seen it.
It isn't even above and to the left when he is a few cars length away and he
should be looking that far ahead to be safe.

I repeat, he does not have to see and recognise the object. He can
completely discount the object, because it is stationary and falls in
an area of vision that is outside the usual area of relevance. There
could well be a gunman at the side of the road taking aim at the
driver, but the reality is that most drivers are not going to see him,
because experience suggests that no such thing generally needs to be
guarded against, and that limited resources of attention should be
properly focussed elsewhere to managing scenarios that do more
commonly occur.



Interesting things don't normally happen off to the left above head-
height, even less so when those things are not moving into the path of
the vehicle, and so where there is excessive demand for visual
processing, that capacity will be allocated to certain areas that
have, by experience, been found to be the places where interesting
things happen.

Like in the road in front of you where all gatso cameras have white lines
painted?

8

Indeed, I do often see the white lines on the road before I see the
camera itself, both because I'm looking at the road ahead as a matter
of course, and because the white lines are a relatively high contrast.



I would not have come to that verdict and the coroner should be
re-educated
as it was obviously poor driving.

No, it was intentional on the part of the agency that installed the
speed camera, that the driver should have reacted in that way - that
he should have devoted more attention to his speed, and therefore
necessarily less attention to anything else.

The driver should always be aware of his speed and the limit.

He should be aware of the pedestrian stepping out, above virtually all
other concerns. As I've said, you have simply enforced a reallocation
of concentration away from scanning for pedestrians, to additional
checks of vehicle speed (including visual checks of the speedometer).

All drivers are aware of their speed and the limit, to a certain
degree of accuracy - you don't do 70mph in the town centre without
realising it, but it is quite easy to do 35mph in a 30 limit without
realising it, which these days is enough to attract automatic
sanction. So too, most drivers do not place a great deal of emphasis
on recalling posted limits, because posted limits are redundant to the
judgments about correct speed that drivers must make constantly (if
they did not, they would soon find themselves involved in collisions,
even below the speed limit).

Additional accuracy in regulating speed therefore requires additional
mental resources. Most drivers cannot judge their speed within 1 or
2mph based simply on routine observation of the surroundings - it
requires active checking of instrumentation.

By experience of being stung by speed cameras, most drivers have
learned that their existing allocation of mental resources to speed
control has been insufficient, so they have started checking their
speedometers more often - particularly in the presence of the speed
camera, the guarding against which is the sole reason for making such
checks, and where such checks are of paramount importance if you are
to avoid certain criminal penalty.



If he can not do so while still paying attention to other things he is not
capable of driving safely and will have an accident.

But you are starting from the implicit assumption that it is necessary
that drivers be able to monitor their compliance with posted limits
within a margin of +0 mph, whilst also carrying out all the other
mental tasks associated wtih driving and to the same standard as they
do when not required to monitor their compliance with posted limits so
carefully.

The fact is, the mental resources required to monitor and maintain
one's compliance with speed limits, has to met from a necessarily
limited supply of those resources. There will *always* be situations
where circumstances are such that the full extent of potentially
relevant sensory information overwhelms your ability to process it
all, and you have to start processing what is most relevant and
discarding information that is least relevant. Most people discard the
speed camera, and concentrate on the pedestrian - until, that is, they
have paid several £60 fines and attracted several penalty points. Then
they start to treat the speed camera as more important, in relative
terms, than they did before, and other important things start to be
treated as less relevant.




The case you quote proves this to be true.

What is true, is that the driver in that case, was not capable of
driving as safely in the presence of speed cameras, as he would have
without the presence of the speed camera. Since the sole purpose of
the speed camera was (supposedly) to improve safety, it failed in that
regard.



If you can't take in all the information that you need to drive safely
then
you are driving too fast for your abilities!

This is where people like yourself wander off into fantasy land. No
driver can take in all the information at all times that they need to
drive "safely" in all possible circumstances.

Then they shouldn't drive in those circumstances.

But logically, one of the solutions to this conundrum is to remove the
speed cameras themselves, since that will achieve a change in the
prevailing circumstances, in a way that reduces the mental demands of
driving and improves safety.




Even people on foot,
moving by definition at walking pace, manage to fall off kerbs into
traffic, or even simply walk straight into traffic, or even fall down
uncovered manholes.

They don't have to pass a test to show they are competent.

That's really neither here nor there. The point is that even people
moving very slowly, manage to make mistakes that will reasonably lead
to fatality. And most people must in fact demonstrate their
competence, before being allowed out on their own to walk - children
are not simply left to wander the streets, and certainly not near busy
roads, and adults who cannot walk the streets safely are locked up for
their own protection.



You also missed out falling through manhole covers which is what happened to
me.

I can see why you are somewhat disgruntled about road safety!



In the end, people like yourself hold drivers to impossibly high
standards simply because you don't like cars and want to drive them
off the roads, not because you have any legitimate safety (or
otherwise humanistic) agenda. When drivers react adversely to your
ploys, as the driver clearly did in this case, you use that to try to
argue for further restrictions, when in fact it was the restriction
that worsened road safety in the first place.

It was poor driving, plain and simple.
If it were the case that the camera did cause the crash then how come nearly
every other driver can manage to drive past it without problems.

Because it might cause a statistical increase in danger without
causing every single driver to crash on every occasion, and above all
the particular scenario required a pedestrian to step out into the
path of traffic (itself an relatively uncommon occurrence) right in
front of the speed camera.



IME the biggest problem with cameras is that the speeders see them and then
jump on the brakes to about 5-10 mph below the limit. They don't spend lots
of time looking at their speedo so that they run into an object in the road.
The problem is easily solved by hiding the cameras.

But then you cause even more of what I've described, in terms of
reallocating mental resources away from other important tasks, to the
sole task of identifying hard-to-see speed cameras - in which,
generally, braking reactions will be even more last-minute and
extreme, instead of planned somewhat in advance.

Or perhaps I'll just do what you want, and accelerate to 25mph in a
30mph zone, and then turn Radio 4 on and concentrate on that instead!

Whatever your lectures about unsafe driving, I (along with most other
drivers) am satisfied that my driving is of a reasonably safe
standard, even though I (and most others) exceed posted limits as a
matter of routine, and that it is not necessary to drive any safer. I
accept intellectually that my driving is not perfectly safe, but
emotionally my standard of driving causes me no particular concern -
if it did, I would change it so as to alleviate my concerns.

By menacing me with the criminal law, you do not make me more
concerned with safety - you simply make me more concerned with
avoiding the sanctions of the criminal law. And if, for example, you
successfully force me to reduce my speed so as to avoid criminal law
penalties, then the surfeit of driving safety that I would then be
enjoying, would simply allow me to bankroll more dangerous styles of
driving (in particular, those styles that require less skill and less
concentration), because there would be no point me engaging in the
various safety-improving behaviours that I do presently, that I do
only to alleviate what would otherwise be an unacceptable level of
danger given the speeds that I currently drive at.




I've pointed out myself before now that the prevalence of red-light
cameras in particular (and combined speed/red-light cameras), simply
means that I have now reallocated attention away from checking the
junction and road ahead (including the behaviour of pedestrians at any
associated crossings), to carefully scanning the side of the road for
the presence of a camera whilst actively inhibiting my desire to
accelerate, and being braced for an emergency stop on a much more
cautionary basis than usual.

Why, if you are driving legally there is no need to worry about the cameras.

I am not sure that I will be driving legally. If there is no red-light
camera, then I fully intend to proceed in circumstances where, if
there is a camera, I would not proceed - not necessarily because I am
sure that I am about to run a red light, but because I know it is on
the margin and I am not willing to risk being on the wrong side of the
margin, whereas without the camera I would be willing to take that
risk. So too, if there is no speed camera, then I will usually be
driving faster than if there is a speed camera, at a speed that I have
determined to be appropriate.



There are millions of drivers who don't have a problem with cameras because
they don't speed and don't try to jump amber lights.

Quite. The fact is, I do speed and I do jump amber lights, so I do
have that problem.



Hidden cameras would remove the drivers that do have a problem with speeding
and jumping lights.

Not unless the cameras were completely undetectable, and even then, as
I've said, I might well actually overtly comply with the law, but in a
way that nevertheless subverts its underlying aim. For example, I
might simply start slamming on at amber at every junction - causing
the very accidents the camera was supposed to prevent, in which no
doubt the driver behind will occasionally swerve to avoid rear-ending
me, and straight into the bus stop full of children.



If a pedestrian then steps out and gets run down, then that is the
choice that people like yourself have made - you can't have my
attention allocated to both tasks, because I do not have enough of it
to allocate to all possible factors,

You are driving beyond you abilities then.

I would certainly be driving beyond the abilities that you are
demanding.



You need to slow down and stop being an idiot.

I have no intention of doing so, unless I am forced, and if I am
forced then I fully intend to offset my enforced cooperation with an
increase in risky behaviours elsewhere, of the kind that you will not
be able to detect as reliably as my speed or red-light jumping.



and you've made it clear by
installing a camera and imposing draconian penalties, that you want my
attention to be focussed first and foremost on maintaining a lower
speed, and stopping earlier at the amber, than I would otherwise
choose to do without the presence of the camera.

I haven't, I would hide them.
However I can't see why they are a problem to anyone who knows how to drive
properly.

"Proper driving", according to the vast majority of drivers, does not
include a strict adherence to the posted limit. Your commitment to the
idea that such adherence is essential to proper driving, seems to be
based on the idea that the posted limit is a better reflection of a
reasonably safe speed than the majority of drivers' own judgments, but
not all of us are so respectful to authority or blindly trusting of
supposed experts.



According to what you have stated however, a driver who had spotted
the pedestrian and given full attention to avoiding hitting that
pedestrian, but who had not spotted the bright yellow camera would be
a worse driver.

Yes, he would have been a worse driver than one that didn't need to worry
about the speed camera because he knew how fast he was going and what the
speed limit was. You would be amazed at how easy that is.

Drivers like yourself (I assume you are a driver in the first place)
are simply dickheads.

The fact is, most of us do not spend all our time on the roads
monitoring speed limits and our compliance with them - even by your
own logic, it is easier to observe the speed camera and make a
temporary adjustment of speed, than to observe every change of posted
limit and keep one's speed constantly in accordance with that limit.

I don't have a problem with knowing how fats I am going or what the limit
is.

I can only imagine you either put a lot more mental effort than I do
into monitoring speed, or you drive appreciably slower than I do in
general (so that, even with the inaccuracy, you are almost invariably
driving under the limit), or (a remote but real possibility) you are
simply not telling the truth.



I don't see why another driver should either.
If they do then they have a problem with their ability and need to address
it by either getting better or by changing how they drive.
If that means they have to drive at 20 mph then so be it.

Unfortunately, few of us are going to do that unless we are forced -
and like I say, if we are forced to drive so slowly, we'll just react
by driving otherwise more dangerously, so that we are returned to the
situation in which the vast majority of drivers, are driving in a
manner that they themselves consider to be reasonably safe (and no
more safe than that).



The general observed nature of the road at any time, is enough for
most drivers to infer what is an acceptable speed, with a much greater
degree of accuracy and appropriateness than any crude posted speed
limit can achieve. It is the hallmark of a good driver to be able to
do this.

A good driver obeys the rules. that way nobody gets caught by him doing
something he should not.

On the contrary, I think a good driver should break the rules. I think
this comes down to more fundamental differences in our general
approach to authority. I do not respect any rules, unless I accept
their underlying reason for being, and I often go out of my way to
break those rules whose underlying reason I do not accept. I think
perhaps you just take them on blind trust.



I wonder, do you ever have any trouble on unrestricted rural roads,
given that the posted limit will be of little guidance in choosing an
appropriate speed? If you have no trouble inferring an appropriate
speed from general observation, then why do you feel the need to
rigidly follow posted limits at all?

I don't. The limit is a maximum not a required minimum.

But how do you choose the minimum? If your judgment of the minimum
exceeds the legal limit, do you say to yourself "I must be wrong", or
do you say "the person who put up the sign must be wrong"?