Alexandria said:
While I agree that mostly everyone who drives has violated traffic laws at least once, whether it be speeding, an illegal U-turn, parking where we shouldn't or whatever, if we are caught for these violations we are held accountable for them and must pay the fine or whatever.
Just because Mary (or other royals) are the focus of public attention doesn't excuse them for making the same violations other normal people do and doesn't excuse them for violating rules. I think this is where Britter's point of "where does one draw the line" comes in. Laws are laws and every citizen of the country should follow them and be held accountable to them. We can't say that it's okay for Mary to speed a little but not okay for Citizen X. If Mary is a citizen of Denmark then she should follow the same laws as every other citizen.
As for having other considerations that are more pressing, so you excuse that speeding -- that's not right. We could all come up with 10 reasons to speed: I'm late for my doctor's appointment, I need to catch my airplane, my mom is waiting for me to pick her up, etc. But if all the other drivers on the road had the same excuses then our roads would be not only chaotic but also very dangerous. Hence traffic laws.
And as stated above, choosing to violate traffic laws is a choice one makes. I chose to speed, you choose to speed, Mary chose to speed. But that doesn't make the choice right, let alone legal.
Nobody is above the law, even royalty. We shouldn't excuse royals for some of the things they do, especially when there are clear cut rules (i.e. laws) determining what they can/can't or should/shouldn't do. We can excuse royals for not wearing an appropriate hat to an event, but certainly not for violating clear cut, defined laws.
I wasn't arguing that royals should retain their immunity. I'm all for royals being held accountable for their actions like the rest of us. All I was trying to point out in my posts were (1) that we can't really know for sure that it was Mary nor can we confirm that she was travelling at 140kmh, and (ii) since I am not perfect on the road, I think its a bit rich for me to criticise another for not being perfect on the road. Hold them accountable for their actions, fine them, whatever, I don't have a problem with that - I'm all for it (so I actually do agree with your point Alexandria, except for the fact that I think you misinterpreted what I'm saying). But I don't think we ought to be too critical because someone's committed a traffic infringement, because we've committed them too.
In regards to other considerations excusing ones speeding, I'm not actually trying to argue this. What I was trying to discuss was the criticism that because you've committed a traffic offence, you don't respect traffic laws all the time. I think one's "respect" for a huge body of law such as the traffic law should be influenced by the totality of one's actions on the road, and that one or two incidences (especially unconfirmed incidences) shouldn't mean that one has to keep qualifying themselves by saying "I don't respect traffic laws all the time because I did this, did that...." I mean, I love my parents, but I don't say "I love my parents, except this one time when I shouted back at them, or when I slammed the door, or smoked when I wasn't supposed to" etc.
I also think we should qualify what we say by saying that
no one can confirm that Mary did in fact speed. As stated before, the source is Se og Hor, and Se og Hor based their criticism on what one person thought he saw (might add that this person didn't have a radar or anything so I don't know how a person can say "o, she drove 140)" and have it accepted as truth).
Or is this readiness to accept this story due to the fact that some people just can't wait to criticise the CPss? I remember very well how, when the pregnancy rumous surfaced, some of us wrote that
"I won't believe it until we have confirmation from the palace", yet when this rumour surfaces, we have no qualms in accepting this rumour as truth? Its probably just me, but I tend to think that a negative rumour must satisfy a higher treshold before I'll accept it, compared to the lower threshold when it comes to accepting positive rumours (a bit like the different tests for civil and criminal cases.... balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt etc, although I'm not using these tests, but something like it). I mean for example, I'll readily accept the report that Mary helped some old pensioner, but won't readily accept the rumour that Fred has an illegitimate daughter etc.
Again:
1. Source =
Se og Hor (recently caused other magazines, both Danish and international, to report that the CPss was pregnant... which we all now know was totally bs);
2. Based on = what one person thought she/he saw;
3. 140 kmh = one person's "guess" as to how fast the driver was going, reached without the help of a radar.