ASO

Then they'll probably try to tackle that situation with all the usual
conspicuous but inefective measures - even more rules, or heavier
fines, or increased police powers, which of course won't work.

You can write as many laws as you like and hike fines as much as you please
but if there's no incentive or money to pay for enforcement, it's a waste of
time. Just look how effective the band on hand-held mobiles in cars is.
AND PLEASE no rants about the law itself - I'm merely pointing out that it
is illegal but that it is not policed making the legislation almost
worthless.

Paul DS.

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:44:18 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"
wrote:


You can write as many laws as you like and hike fines as much as you please
but if there's no incentive or money to pay for enforcement, it's a waste of
time. Just look how effective the band on hand-held mobiles in cars is.
AND PLEASE no rants about the law itself - I'm merely pointing out that it
is illegal but that it is not policed making the legislation almost
worthless.

I still don't understand why we needed a specific law about mobile
phones at all, since the reckless use of them could easily be
interpreted in terms of existing laws, such as "driving without due
care and attention". If the existing laws were not being adequately
enforced, it might have made more sense to try to find out why,
instead of inventing new ones that wouldn't be enforced either for the
same reason.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:44:18 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"
wrote:


You can write as many laws as you like and hike fines as much as you
please but if there's no incentive or money to pay for enforcement,
it's a waste of time. Just look how effective the band on hand-held
mobiles in cars is. AND PLEASE no rants about the law itself - I'm
merely pointing out that it is illegal but that it is not policed
making the legislation almost worthless.

I still don't understand why we needed a specific law about mobile
phones at all, since the reckless use of them could easily be
interpreted in terms of existing laws, such as "driving without due
care and attention". If the existing laws were not being adequately
enforced, it might have made more sense to try to find out why,
instead of inventing new ones that wouldn't be enforced either for the
same reason.

I agree that lack of enforcement was and still is a big problem.
The trouble with the existing "not being in full control" laws was that it
was a bit grey over exactly what needed to have happened , and it wasn't
something that could be dealt with by way of a fixed penalty.
That meant that if someone was stopped by the police for driving while on
the phone it would mean half a day to complete the paperwork and a day in
court for one or two police officers which is a huge waste of time and
money.
Under the new legislation it's a fixed penalty which can be issued in a few
minutes and doesn't tie up officers for anywhere near as long. If someone
challenges it and goes not guilty then it takes the same amount of time as
before , but as there isn't much "wiggle room" with the new law there aren't
many people that do this - people know that it's illegal , they know that
they have been caught and were in the wrong and they just pay up.

I'd still love to see more police officers available to deal with this sort
of thing though


--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk www.ebayfaq.co.uk

"Adrian A" wrote in message
...
buddenbrooks wrote:
"JohnT" wrote in message
. uk...

I don't think that councils will be allowed to charge under the new
WEEE regulations, which came into effect today.
--

I would image charging is a function of government legislation and
council policy. Councils are allowed to charge for some classes of
disposal already, and are certainly considering a weight base
structure for all waste.

You imagine wrongly, again.


I did'nt, maybe it was the BBC news saying it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5074558.stm

"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
...
Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:44:18 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"

I'd still love to see more police officers available to deal with this
sort of thing though



It would be better to just use technology, gps and maps controlling the
maximum speed of a car to the local limit.
Built in handsfree adaptors built into the car radio.

Make it impossible to break the law rather than waste police time on petty
enforcement.

buddenbrooks wrote:


"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
...
Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:44:18 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"

I'd still love to see more police officers available to deal with this
sort of thing though

It would be better to just use technology, gps and maps controlling the
maximum speed of a car to the local limit.

There has been an experiment running with that technology. The theory
is that you would get a discount on your insurance if you were using
it.

Built in handsfree adaptors built into the car radio.

Make it impossible to break the law rather than waste police time on petty
enforcement.

Indeed, but people will moan about the drivers of legacy vehicles
getting away with it.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

"buddenbrooks" wrote in message
...

"JohnT" wrote in message
. uk...

I don't think that councils will be allowed to charge under the new WEEE
regulations, which came into effect today.
--

I would image charging is a function of government legislation and
council policy. Councils are allowed to charge for some classes of
disposal already, and are certainly considering a weight base structure
for all waste.

Coventry charges a flat rate of £20 per item for the collection of
electrical items. According to a leaflet they sent me a desktop PC, monitor
and keyboard would count as three separate items so £60 total. You can take
them to the city dump in a car free of charge but not in a van as that then
counts as "industrial waste".

(kim)

In message ,
buddenbrooks Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

"Dr Zoidberg" wrote in message
...
Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:44:18 +0100, "Paul D.Smith"

I'd still love to see more police officers available to deal with
this sort of thing though



It would be better to just use technology, gps and maps controlling
the maximum speed of a car to the local limit.
Built in handsfree adaptors built into the car radio.

Make it impossible to break the law rather than waste police time on
petty enforcement.

Can't see this sort of technology coming into widespread use in the
foreseeable future. Too many safety and privacy/civil liberty issues...
not to mention the cost.

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

In article , ChrisM wrote:
It would be better to just use technology, gps and maps controlling
the maximum speed of a car to the local limit.
Built in handsfree adaptors built into the car radio.

Make it impossible to break the law rather than waste police time on
petty enforcement.

Can't see this sort of technology coming into widespread use in the*
foreseeable future. Too many safety and privacy/civil liberty issues...
not to mention the cost.

Not to mention the fact that it would take some hacker about five minutes
to subvert it, just like anti-copying schemes on recordings, region
coding of DVDs and so on.

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
Not to mention the fact that it would take some hacker about five minutes
to subvert it, just like anti-copying schemes on recordings, region
coding of DVDs and so on.



No one has hacked SKYs digital encryption system.
No one has hacked the mobile phone network system. Spoofed individual
phones but not the system.
There are many hack proof systems in place.
In any case a car caught speeding would draw attention to the fact that
the system had been illegally tampered with.