Mum got an NIP, 40 in a 30 but the letter is LATE
Discussion
Devil2575 said:
Kinetic energy is related to mass and velocity. However velocity has a greater impact as it is a squared relationship.
KE = 1/2mv2
As to me getting defensive because I've bought into the hype, nothing of the sort. I don't like the speed kills campaign, I don't much like speed cameras and I still do break the posted limit although a lot less than I used too.
However I understand the need for speed limits and the enforcement of them. I may not always agree with them, but that's the downside to not living in a dictatorship where I make all the rules.
It is very difficult to legislate against bad driving. It is much easier to control speed and hence limit the effect of accidents when they occur.
Wow, I'm amazed to hear someone with strong speed enforcement views that makes such reasonable arguments! I still don't agree, but it's good to hear someone who's actually thought about it properly!KE = 1/2mv2
As to me getting defensive because I've bought into the hype, nothing of the sort. I don't like the speed kills campaign, I don't much like speed cameras and I still do break the posted limit although a lot less than I used too.
However I understand the need for speed limits and the enforcement of them. I may not always agree with them, but that's the downside to not living in a dictatorship where I make all the rules.
It is very difficult to legislate against bad driving. It is much easier to control speed and hence limit the effect of accidents when they occur.
As a counter point - people pay more attention when they're traveling faster - the autobahns are safe because people pay attention, both to their own driving and because they're always looking out for someone doing 320(km/h) in the outside lane. By dumbing down the system we stop people paying attention - the gov is starting to realise this and doing things like removing signage, road markings and creating 'shared spaces'. The problems with the speed is it's an easy collar and adds (indirectly) to the police coffers.
In an accident F=MA is more important - where A is the deceleration because of the impact, which stays broadly similar between a light vehicle and a heavy one.
If I were dictator I'd definitely start limiting weight of vehicles - everyone should be forced to drive a lotus
Completely agree with your point about where weight comes from, it's the luxuries, not the safety equipment. That and low cost safety cells - all manufacturers should be forced to use CF chassiseseses
Devil2575 said:
fluffnik said:
This is not compatible with liberty and justice.
I don't agree. I think that it's entirley reasonable in a just society to have to disclose who was driving a car registered to you on a certain day and time.Devil2575 said:
fluffnik said:
The point at which the risk rapidly becomes non negligible will vary massively - perhaps 10mph in a crowded shopping street, perhaps over 150mph across open moorland - but it is reasonable to characterise any speed below that point as "safe".
This all sounds very good but on what evidence is this based? 150mph across open moorland? Really? I trust there are no sheep...On a fine sunny afternoon like today's there will be quite a few people exceeding 150mph in sparsely trafficked areas; it rarely makes the papers 'coz it rarely goes wrong.
Devil2575 said:
Even if your view on the relationship between speed and risk is correct, which I doubt, the speed below which it is safe will vary depending on the time of day etc.
I'm right, I'm a numerate liberal. The "safe" speed varies by the moment just with the circumstances and is different for every vehicle and driver yet the vast majority of drivers successfully keep themselves in the low risk bit of the envelope without either concious thought or reference to the posted limit.
Devil2575 said:
fluffnik said:
They may seek to but they fail utterly, they don't even serve to consistently inform.
Really? Again what evidence can you supply to support this assertion?In the UK we have a lot of cars and in many places heavy traffic, yet we have some of the safest roads in the world.
The vast majority of extra-urban speed enforcement occurs where reasonable people travel at reasonable speeds that just happen to be in excess of an arbitrary number painted on a stick. Such enforcement of petty regulation for its own sake is nasty and crypto-fascist.
I would like to purge the public service of all the bullies involved.
Devil2575 said:
fluffnik said:
Every driver who has successfully negotiated a tight bend on an NSL road or driven past a school at chucking out time has demonstrated the ability to chose a suitable speed independent of any posted limit.
The evidence of the IoM, Montana and Australia's Northern Territories suggests that speed limits offer far more oppression than they do utility...
Montana and the Northern territories have several orders of magnitude less traffic that UK roads.The evidence of the IoM, Montana and Australia's Northern Territories suggests that speed limits offer far more oppression than they do utility...
The IoM is a small island with limited population.
Please explain how any of these cases demonstrates that speed limits offer more oppression than utility.
Devil2575 said:
People tend to believe things because they support exisiting held views.
You believe all this stuff because it supports your exisiting view that you should be allowed to drive at what ever speed you want.
Quite the reverse, I used to support or at least tolerate speed limits because "it's common sense innit" but then I considered the issue more carefully and concluded that arbitrary blanket speed limits are of little utility and that their enforcement contains considerable moral hazard...You believe all this stuff because it supports your exisiting view that you should be allowed to drive at what ever speed you want.
Have you always supported them?
fluffnik said:
Quite the reverse, I used to support or at least tolerate speed limits because "it's common sense innit" but then I considered the issue more carefully and concluded that arbitrary blanket speed limits are of little utility and that their enforcement contains considerable moral hazard...
Have you always supported them?
No. In my younger years I resented them and broke them at every possible opportunity.Have you always supported them?
Then I grew up
As I said in an earlier post, I may not agree with what the limit is and I may also not agree that every road needs a limit, but I support the concept of limits and think that most if not all UK roads should have them.
Numerate liberal?
Yet you failed to back your 'what I reckon' opinions up with any numbers. As somneone who is also numerate and in many cases a liberal. I'd love to see the basis for your opinion.
WRT considering the issue more carefully, again is this just a case of "I thought about it more and reckon..."?
Your argument lacks any substance and seems to be based around the view that if you want to do something you should be able to and screw everyone else.
In other situations i'd agree. If you want to snort cocaine, smoke dope, skydive without a parachute etc then i'm happy for you to do so, so long as your actions don't negatively impact on others.
If you get rid of limits altogether then more people would die. No other country in the world with any form of coherent government operates a road network with no limits at all. The limited examples you site are not backed up with accident statisitics and have far less traffic density as well as pedestrian density than the UK.
Get rid of the 30 limit and you will have idiots tearing around town centres. Ok you can charge them with dangerous driving but that's A hell of a lot more difficult to prove and requires a police officer to catch the offender.
But then as you're a libertarian you're porbably of the view that you should only be prosecuted if you actually cause damage/injury.
daemonoid said:
Wow, I'm amazed to hear someone with strong speed enforcement views that makes such reasonable arguments! I still don't agree, but it's good to hear someone who's actually thought about it properly!
As a counter point - people pay more attention when they're traveling faster - the autobahns are safe because people pay attention, both to their own driving and because they're always looking out for someone doing 320(km/h) in the outside lane.
Germany has a worse accident/fatality rate on it's roads than the UK though. I agree that unlimited Autobahns demonstrate that speed does not necessarily have to be a disaster, but they're not as widespread as they used to be and as far as I was aware they kill more people than our motorways.As a counter point - people pay more attention when they're traveling faster - the autobahns are safe because people pay attention, both to their own driving and because they're always looking out for someone doing 320(km/h) in the outside lane.
To be honest, I wouldn't say i have strong speed enforcement views, more that I have strong views against some of the libertarian codswallop that people like Flufnik spouts.
Alex said:
Devil2575 said:
Get rid of the 30 limit and you will have idiots tearing around town centres.
Would you though? I'm not so sure. Alex said:
Devil2575 said:
You can never be sure of anything unless you actually try it to be honest, but I'd put money on the yoof seeing it as an invitation to drive like complete tools.
And those type of drivers are currently deterred by the speed limit?daemonoid said:
Devil2575 said:
Kinetic energy is related to mass and velocity. However velocity has a greater impact as it is a squared relationship.
KE = 1/2mv2
As to me getting defensive because I've bought into the hype, nothing of the sort. I don't like the speed kills campaign, I don't much like speed cameras and I still do break the posted limit although a lot less than I used too.
However I understand the need for speed limits and the enforcement of them. I may not always agree with them, but that's the downside to not living in a dictatorship where I make all the rules.
It is very difficult to legislate against bad driving. It is much easier to control speed and hence limit the effect of accidents when they occur.
Wow, I'm amazed to hear someone with strong speed enforcement views that makes such reasonable arguments! I still don't agree, but it's good to hear someone who's actually thought about it properly!KE = 1/2mv2
As to me getting defensive because I've bought into the hype, nothing of the sort. I don't like the speed kills campaign, I don't much like speed cameras and I still do break the posted limit although a lot less than I used too.
However I understand the need for speed limits and the enforcement of them. I may not always agree with them, but that's the downside to not living in a dictatorship where I make all the rules.
It is very difficult to legislate against bad driving. It is much easier to control speed and hence limit the effect of accidents when they occur.
As a counter point - people pay more attention when they're traveling faster - the autobahns are safe because people pay attention, both to their own driving and because they're always looking out for someone doing 320(km/h) in the outside lane. By dumbing down the system we stop people paying attention - the gov is starting to realise this and doing things like removing signage, road markings and creating 'shared spaces'. The problems with the speed is it's an easy collar and adds (indirectly) to the police coffers.
In an accident F=MA is more important - where A is the deceleration because of the impact, which stays broadly similar between a light vehicle and a heavy one.
If I were dictator I'd definitely start limiting weight of vehicles - everyone should be forced to drive a lotus
Completely agree with your point about where weight comes from, it's the luxuries, not the safety equipment. That and low cost safety cells - all manufacturers should be forced to use CF chassiseseses
We are consistently told here about higher driving standards in Germany yet the autobahns aren't as safe as our motorways.
They are better drives & paying more attention because of higher speeds , yet suffer more fatalities ?
In the advent of a crash, it's the mass of the person not the car that is important. A nice big heavy car will contnue to plough through anything in its way and not be affected. In the interest of safety, there should be a campaign to stop all fatties driving cars.
No, wait a minute. Scrub that.
As you were.
No, wait a minute. Scrub that.
As you were.
Devil2575 said:
Numerate liberal?
Devil2575 said:
Yet you failed to back your 'what I reckon' opinions up with any numbers. As somneone who is also numerate and in many cases a liberal. I'd love to see the basis for your opinion.
Non-linear relationship between speed and risk?There's a different calculation for every example.
Here's one:
We have a constant radius curve with a consistent and effectively blemish free surface. We have a vehicle without defect shod with four good tyres appropriately inflated for neutral behaviour under steady lateral acceleration.
This combination will allow you to run up to some level of lateral g beyond which it is certain that grip will be exceeded and an exit toward the scenery will have a probability of 1.
Before this absolute limit you will pass through a narrow(ish) band where minor perturbations - a large pebble, a slow puncture, a failing damper - will provoke disaster.
Below this marginal area, risk, in the absence of un-forseeable catastrophy, is negligible; this is where we spend most of our largely uneventful lives.
Another:
A perusal of Motorway accident stats will show that there is much more chance of being t
tted by a truck whilst stationary on the hard shoulder than going with the flow in any of the running lanes...No numbers, much numeracy.
Devil2575 said:
WRT considering the issue more carefully, again is this just a case of "I thought about it more and reckon..."?
Your argument lacks any substance and seems to be based around the view that if you want to do something you should be able to and screw everyone else.
My position is based on the view that the state has no more intrinsic moral rectitude than any of its members and as such has no right to constrain their reasonable (and (dynamically) risk assessed!) behaviour.Your argument lacks any substance and seems to be based around the view that if you want to do something you should be able to and screw everyone else.
Devil2575 said:
In other situations i'd agree. If you want to snort cocaine, smoke dope, skydive without a parachute etc then i'm happy for you to do so, so long as your actions don't negatively impact on others.
I also strongly disapprove of prohibition in all its gangster promoting forms. (That's all prohibition of course...)Devil2575 said:
If you get rid of limits altogether then more people would die. No other country in the world with any form of coherent government operates a road network with no limits at all. The limited examples you site are not backed up with accident statisitics and have far less traffic density as well as pedestrian density than the UK.
You say nothing against my tight bend example which is the universal example.Devil2575 said:
Get rid of the 30 limit and you will have idiots tearing around town centres. Ok you can charge them with dangerous driving but that's A hell of a lot more difficult to prove and requires a police officer to catch the offender.
I have no problem with speed being used as absolute evidence of a lack of due care in built up areas requiring active rebuttal, that's not arbitrary...Devil2575 said:
But then as you're a libertarian you're porbably of the view that you should only be prosecuted if you actually cause damage/injury.
No, a significant demonstrable risk does it for me.WhereamI said:
fluffnik said:
stuff
I think you will find that very few accidents involve the vehicle losing grip on a curve and sliding into the scenery. It doesn't happen because people are quite capable of choosing a suitable speed independent of any posted limit.
Nearly every driver stays comfortably within the low risk part of the envelope nearly all the time...
10 Pence Short said:
If the speeding case against the driver is sound enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was speeding, and the 172 allows the driver to be identified, then the result is a just one.
If the evidence of speeding is overwhelming, but the 172 is not available to identify the driver, the speeder never faces justice or has opportunity to test the case against them. That is not a just result.
And just how many burglars etc. go free because there is no definitive proof of identity? There is no compulsion in law to admit 'it was me guv, it's a fair cop' except in the case of a S172. This is what is not just.If the evidence of speeding is overwhelming, but the 172 is not available to identify the driver, the speeder never faces justice or has opportunity to test the case against them. That is not a just result.
It is my belief that this was brought in to allow the use of robotic enforcement rather than proper policing, I am against that as a matter of principle.
By the way I have never received a NIP, S172 or had any points on my licence in my 35 years of driving.
Millions of people speed every day without being caught, why should those that do have their right to silence removed in what is generally seen as a 'victimless' crime?
KevinA3DSG32 said:
Millions of people speed every day without being caught, why should those that do have their right to silence removed in what is generally seen as a 'victimless' crime?
Why should they not? How would speed limits be enforced without that information? I am not necessarily wholly in favour of speed limits, whether I approved of the limit in any particular situation I would need to answer on a case by case basis, but if there are going to be limits, and those limits are going to be enforced, then either the owner needs to say who was driving the car or take the penalty himself.KevinA3DSG32 said:
10 Pence Short said:
If the speeding case against the driver is sound enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was speeding, and the 172 allows the driver to be identified, then the result is a just one.
If the evidence of speeding is overwhelming, but the 172 is not available to identify the driver, the speeder never faces justice or has opportunity to test the case against them. That is not a just result.
And just how many burglars etc. go free because there is no definitive proof of identity? There is no compulsion in law to admit 'it was me guv, it's a fair cop' except in the case of a S172. This is what is not just.If the evidence of speeding is overwhelming, but the 172 is not available to identify the driver, the speeder never faces justice or has opportunity to test the case against them. That is not a just result.
It is my belief that this was brought in to allow the use of robotic enforcement rather than proper policing, I am against that as a matter of principle.
By the way I have never received a NIP, S172 or had any points on my licence in my 35 years of driving.
Millions of people speed every day without being caught, why should those that do have their right to silence removed in what is generally seen as a 'victimless' crime?
vonhosen said:
What year was Sec 172 (or equivalent within earlier Road Traffic the legislation) introduced & what year did robotic enforcement start ?
Disingenuous VH. S.172 has been around for decades but, as you and I know, the law that permits postal service arrived about the same time as speed cameras began to proliferate. KevinA3DSG32 said:
10 Pence Short said:
If the speeding case against the driver is sound enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was speeding, and the 172 allows the driver to be identified, then the result is a just one.
If the evidence of speeding is overwhelming, but the 172 is not available to identify the driver, the speeder never faces justice or has opportunity to test the case against them. That is not a just result.
And just how many burglars etc. go free because there is no definitive proof of identity? There is no compulsion in law to admit 'it was me guv, it's a fair cop' except in the case of a S172. This is what is not just.If the evidence of speeding is overwhelming, but the 172 is not available to identify the driver, the speeder never faces justice or has opportunity to test the case against them. That is not a just result.
Being an RK, holding a driving licence etc comes with responsibilities. You don't have the same rights as when minding your own business in your own home or moving around by foot in public.
Zeeky said:
KevinA3DSG32 said:
10 Pence Short said:
If the speeding case against the driver is sound enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was speeding, and the 172 allows the driver to be identified, then the result is a just one.
If the evidence of speeding is overwhelming, but the 172 is not available to identify the driver, the speeder never faces justice or has opportunity to test the case against them. That is not a just result.
And just how many burglars etc. go free because there is no definitive proof of identity? There is no compulsion in law to admit 'it was me guv, it's a fair cop' except in the case of a S172. This is what is not just.If the evidence of speeding is overwhelming, but the 172 is not available to identify the driver, the speeder never faces justice or has opportunity to test the case against them. That is not a just result.
Being an RK, holding a driving licence etc comes with responsibilities. You don't have the same rights as when minding your own business in your own home or moving around by foot in public.
Driving is, as Zeeky says a licensed activity. It is NOT a right. You have to apply for the licence, be tested and pass the test. With such an activity comes responsibility. And rules. For safety and order.
Rightly so. Drivers must exercise reasonable care whenever driving. The RTA rates show why, pretty clearly. There have to be rules, and enforceable consequences when those rules are broken. Otherwise chaos would ensue.
Unless you are an anarchist, in which case, I doubt that you would bother with a licence of any sort, this seems entirely reasonable to me.
Zeeky said:
Burglary is a crime the consequences of which can be serious. Speed limits are regulations that when contravened have no significant adverse affect on one's life other than not being allowed to drive. Driving is a licensable activity. Selling alcohol is a licensable activity. You cannot do so without identifying yourself as being the licensee which makes identifying you should you commit a regulatory offence on licenced premises obvious.
Being an RK, holding a driving licence etc comes with responsibilities. You don't have the same rights as when minding your own business in your own home or moving around by foot in public.
A publican does not have to identify himself as the one serving at the time if they sold alcohol to a minor. They still have the right to not self incriminate. It's obvious who owns / runs a pub from the plaque above the door, just as it is who owns / keeps a vehicle from the V5. Being an RK, holding a driving licence etc comes with responsibilities. You don't have the same rights as when minding your own business in your own home or moving around by foot in public.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff