Re previous posts about the fabricated “crime” of “speeding”. Statutory traffic law allows no defence, no arguments on rational or commonsense grounds. The system inures itself against reform by forbidding voices to be raised in challenge. It’s a self-serving monster.
The phrase, “You could be killed crossing the road” is a thoughtlessly-repeated phrase, e.g. the other day on The Today Programme by Chief Medical Officer, Chris Whitty (10.1. 2021, I think it was). Making some parallel with the risk of catching Covid-19, he came out with, “If you were healthy and unlucky enough to be hit by a bus” …
Death and injury on the road have little to do with luck. They are down to a lethal system involving third-rate minds, unequal rights, inhumane control, misguided engineering, and inadequate driving tuition.
I’m no fan of the term “nanny state” because good nannies enable rather than disable human flourishment. Blanket lockdown rules that outlaw activities such as tennis among people capable of exercising due care are akin to rigid speed limits that teach driving by numbers and outlaw intelligent discretion. The anti-speeding campaign Brake! would say that driving by context is a licence to drive without due care and attention. No, it’s a blueprint for driving with true care and attention. Speed does not kill. It’s inappropriate speed, or speed in the wrong hands that can kill. Such subtle distinctions are beyond the wit of our MPs who allow extortion rackets masquerading as safety measures to spawn.
Motorists who fall foul of traffic regulation are rarely real criminals. Captain, now Sir Tom Moore, the NHS fundraising hero, admitted to breaking the speed limit hundreds of times. In doing so, he probably only hurt the odd fly. Harriet Harman and Stephen Fry are among legions of motorists “caught” doing 100mph in perfect safety. They weren’t doing it on a High Street but a deserted motorway. Former Energy Minister, Chris Huhne, and his ex-wife were jailed for swapping points over a trivial speeding offence so Huhne could avoid losing his licence over other trivial speeding offences. Mr Justice Sweeney, said: “Any element of tragedy is entirely your own fault.” I disagree. “Speeding” is a fabricated crime, and no crime if it caused no harm. Inappropriate speed is a different matter. Clearly it’s beyond the wit of the state to distinguish one from the other, or ensure the distinction forms an integral part of driving tuition and the driving test. Another casualty of puerile regulation over “speeding” is the “disgraced” Labour MP, Fiona Onasanya. These high-profile victims of the inflexible, indecently mercenary system, which wrecks lives and criminalises the innocent, are the tip of a grim, silenced iceberg.
Traffic regulation is devised by morons for fellow morons as well as bright people. Speed limits and traffic lights require total obedience. They brook no argument if you exercise discretion (e.g. creep across a deserted junction or accelerate briefly to overtake) and are caught on camera. To reduce life in all its variety and unpredictability to set numbers and coloured lights is grotesquely simplistic.
I realise now that everything about my challenge to the speeding ticket was irrelevant to the Court. And everything that statutory law stands for – numbers instead of context – is irrelevant to me.
So what we had was a failure to communicate, like in the film Cool Hand Luke. A failure on their part to value context, and a failure on my part to see any value in the numbers game they play.
It came as a shock to see how uninterested Courts are in matters concerning nuances in human behaviour, context and prevailing conditions, system defects, and justice.
To the exclusion of all else, it fixates on numbers, blame, and, it appears, raising money by nefarious means. How did MPs allow this autocratic mindset, this extortion racket, to come into being?
Itself inhumane and irrational to the point of corruption, the system corrupts any hope of a positive relationship between Them and Us. Any suggestions as to how to overthrow this diabolical régime?
At the Speed tab of this website, I’m going to post my reasoned statement which they refused to allow me to make in Court.
Yesterday I went to Court to argue my case over a charge of “speeding”. On the wall was a notice headed HM Courts and Tribunals Service. It stated “Justice matters”. In Court I was refused leave to speak about context or commonsense. The fact that my brief acceleration caused no harm or inconvenience cut no ice. It was disturbing to discover that we live in an autocracy where free speech and reasoned argument are denied, and justice doesn’t matter.