HADECS 3 cameras on the M25
Discussion
vonhosen said:
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
Heaveho said:
Do the people who are defending, and/or advocating the use of stringent enforcement, be it by camera, patrol car, what have you, really believe in the position they're taking here? If so, given the tenaciousness of your stance, the assumption must be that you drive at no more than the legal limit at all times, whatever the circumstances? Please confirm.
Why would you assume that?It is possible to see a societal value & reasonableness (greater good) behind something, whilst (for totally selfish reasons) not binding yourself strictly to it.
I would imagine that many people for instance support the principle of speed limits & believe it is entirely reasonable for a government to seek to limit people's speeds, whilst at the same time admitting that they don't strictly adhere to speed limits 100% of the time. They are the sort of people who will think it fair enough that they receive sanction if caught.
[/quote
No, hypocrisy would be it's OK for them to prosecute you but not me.
Not, it's OK for them to prosecute you & me.
Hypocrisy would be criticising you for doing something I do.
Hypocrisy wouldn't be support another's right to prosecute you for doing something that I do.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 19th January 21:34
jm doc said:
No it's hypocrisy. You report me for it then drive off and do exactly the same thing yourself. If you enforce the law you have to obey the law, which other laws do you choose to ignore??
We all have to obey the law &,we all risk prosecution if we are caught breaking the law is not hypocrisy. It's consistent, not inconsistent or selective.We've all been guilty of careless/inconsiderate driving at sometime, we could all be prosecuted for the same if caught.
emmaT2014 said:
mygoldfishbowl said:
emmaT2014 said:
Well I'm not confusing them, HADECS2, HADECS2.5 and HADECS3 can all enforce the 70mph speed limit and often do.
No they don't. What they do is enforce higher than 70 in a nsl, they don't enforce 70.
vonhosen said:
jm doc said:
No it's hypocrisy. You report me for it then drive off and do exactly the same thing yourself. If you enforce the law you have to obey the law, which other laws do you choose to ignore??
We all have to obey the law &,we all risk prosecution if we are caught breaking the law is not hypocrisy. It's consistent, not inconsistent or selective.We've all been guilty of careless/inconsiderate driving at sometime, we could all be prosecuted for the same if caught.
jm doc said:
vonhosen said:
jm doc said:
No it's hypocrisy. You report me for it then drive off and do exactly the same thing yourself. If you enforce the law you have to obey the law, which other laws do you choose to ignore??
We all have to obey the law &,we all risk prosecution if we are caught breaking the law is not hypocrisy. It's consistent, not inconsistent or selective.We've all been guilty of careless/inconsiderate driving at sometime, we could all be prosecuted for the same if caught.
So, a person who has spent several pages defending speed cameras and limits, and has argued with anyone and everyone who decries them, is alright with admitting publicly that he too doesn't think enough of them to obey them at all times? Quite a conundrum!
Hypocrisy may not be a strong enough word. Why would you assume anyone should respect your opinion, when you don't live by your own mantra? Sounds horribly argumentative, when read back, but it's a genuine question, from a rather puzzled enquirer. Are you just playing devils advocate?
Hypocrisy may not be a strong enough word. Why would you assume anyone should respect your opinion, when you don't live by your own mantra? Sounds horribly argumentative, when read back, but it's a genuine question, from a rather puzzled enquirer. Are you just playing devils advocate?
Heaveho said:
So, a person who has spent several pages defending speed cameras and limits, and has argued with anyone and everyone who decries them, is alright with admitting publicly that he too doesn't think enough of them to obey them at all times? Quite a conundrum!
Hypocrisy may not be a strong enough word. Why would you assume anyone should respect your opinion, when you don't live by your own mantra? Sounds horribly argumentative, when read back, but it's a genuine question, from a rather puzzled enquirer. Are you just playing devils advocate?
Do you believe you should drive with care & consideration for others?Hypocrisy may not be a strong enough word. Why would you assume anyone should respect your opinion, when you don't live by your own mantra? Sounds horribly argumentative, when read back, but it's a genuine question, from a rather puzzled enquirer. Are you just playing devils advocate?
Have you ever committed to an act of driving that was either careless or inconsiderate?
Human beings are fallible.
So every human being should be punished without question, or the opportunity to converse with an appointed law enforcer, every time they do the human thing, and prove they're fallible? Your world seems unnecessarily harsh, given the almost imperceptible risk to others at, let's say, 82mph, as opposed to the theoretically allowable 78. Especially when, as you admit, you don't respect the limit you're so in favour of enough to adhere to it. What's your view on a 100mph motorway limit, for conversations sake? If it was raised to that, would you still break it?
A much more intelligent and articulate man than I'll ever be once said " Time is life, speed saves it ". Only true if you have nothing to gain financially by legislating against it though, sadly. If speed really was being limited to promote safety, people still may not like it, but that's clearly not the reason, and there's something so overpoweringly infuriating about being blatantly lied to on the subject, that it's hard to ignore. I think we have the best Govt. we could hope for in the current circumstances, of the options available, but draconian speed limits, enforced under false pretences by any Govt., are to be derided, not defended.
A much more intelligent and articulate man than I'll ever be once said " Time is life, speed saves it ". Only true if you have nothing to gain financially by legislating against it though, sadly. If speed really was being limited to promote safety, people still may not like it, but that's clearly not the reason, and there's something so overpoweringly infuriating about being blatantly lied to on the subject, that it's hard to ignore. I think we have the best Govt. we could hope for in the current circumstances, of the options available, but draconian speed limits, enforced under false pretences by any Govt., are to be derided, not defended.
Heaveho said:
So every human being should be punished without question, or the opportunity to converse with an appointed law enforcer, every time they do the human thing, and prove they're fallible? Your world seems unnecessarily harsh, given the almost imperceptible risk to others at, let's say, 82mph, as opposed to the theoretically allowable 78. Especially when, as you admit, you don't respect the limit you're so in favour of enough to adhere to it. What's your view on a 100mph motorway limit, for conversations sake? If it was raised to that, would you still break it?
Every human being isn't punished without question. Most aren't detected & even all those that are aren't prosecuted. You then have a sliding scale of disposal related to the degree of transgression. The line is drawn at 70, if you do 71 you can rightly expect nothing will come of it, illegal as it is, but the further you go you've got to realise that it's going to change where caught. What I said was that I'm not perfect, you know I've done 71 before, that doesn't mean I have no respect for them & they (or the threat of enforcement) don't influence my choice of speed (which is after all their design purpose), even if I can't physically keep exactly to them 100% of the time. I have managed to keep close enough & manage my speed to avoid prosecution up until now.Prosecution of speed limits isn't tied to the individual risk at the time, as is common with a lot of motoring offences. It isn't realistic to do so. They are made easy to deal with so that there can be a greater impact in trying to influence the choices that drivers make. The individual risk is small, the wider risk of not trying to influence the behaviour on system scale is greater.
Heaveho said:
A much more intelligent and articulate man than I'll ever be once said " Time is life, speed saves it ". Only true if you have nothing to gain financially by legislating against it though, sadly. If speed really was being limited to promote safety, people still may not like it, but that's clearly not the reason, and there's something so overpoweringly infuriating about being blatantly lied to on the subject, that it's hard to ignore. I think we have the best Govt. we could hope for in the current circumstances, of the options available, but draconian speed limits, enforced under false pretences by any Govt., are to be derided, not defended.
Speed limits are a compromise, they aren't tied to or defined by what is safe, there are lots of considerations of which safety is one.Edited by vonhosen on Monday 19th January 23:48
vonhosen said:
Speed limits are a compromise, they aren't tied to or defined by what is safe, there are lots of considerations of which safety is one.
The enforcement of speed limits is promoted as being based on safety, primarily. It's a straw man argument, the insult being that it's one we're forced to swallow, and live with on a daily basis, regardless of accuracy.Edited by vonhosen on Monday 19th January 23:48
The knee-jerk slogan " speed kills ", is one of the more deplorable aspects of exploitation of the subject. It clearly doesn't, but it plays on the minds of the stupid and uninformed, and unfortunately, there are more of them than is healthy.
From the views you air, I'll assume you're employed in law enforcement in some capacity or other, if I'm correct, would you object to being asked what you do specifically? If I'm wrong, ignore the question.
To answer your earlier question, yes, I believe it's important to consider others. Which is what I do when I see an opportunity arise that has little chance of affecting others. I do things I wouldn't otherwise do, because the old adage " a time and a place for everything " still holds true in my world.
Edited by Heaveho on Tuesday 20th January 00:26
Edited by Heaveho on Tuesday 20th January 00:30
mybrainhurts said:
Your faith is touching, but complete b
ks....current swathes of limit reductions are down to new guidelines from the Commons Transport Select Committee under Gwyneth Dunwoody. If you read the minutes of all meetings leading up to the setting of theses guidelines, you'll see the utter tripe that was offered up to the Committee, by way of oral and written evidence, from the likes of BRAKE, Brunstrom, the Pedestrians' Association, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, Ramblers and many more incompetents. The views of a handful of people who knew what they were talking about were ignored and ignorance triumphed.
That's why the majority of limits are set today.
Are you a lady trucker or do you work in the camera industry or transport related civil service?
Looking at her posting history a stooge from BRAKE more likely...ks....current swathes of limit reductions are down to new guidelines from the Commons Transport Select Committee under Gwyneth Dunwoody. If you read the minutes of all meetings leading up to the setting of theses guidelines, you'll see the utter tripe that was offered up to the Committee, by way of oral and written evidence, from the likes of BRAKE, Brunstrom, the Pedestrians' Association, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, Ramblers and many more incompetents. The views of a handful of people who knew what they were talking about were ignored and ignorance triumphed.That's why the majority of limits are set today.
Are you a lady trucker or do you work in the camera industry or transport related civil service?
Here's a document some of you may not have seen and might find interesting and informative:
http://assets.highways.gov.uk/specialist-informati...
http://assets.highways.gov.uk/specialist-informati...
FurtiveFreddy said:
Here's a document some of you may not have seen and might find interesting and informative:
http://assets.highways.gov.uk/specialist-informati...
Yes, thankyou for that. A good read.http://assets.highways.gov.uk/specialist-informati...
I like the use of the term 'No unnecessary enforcement'. Thats quite an expansive statement and is at the root of my argument regarding this part of the M25, did we really need it?
FurtiveFreddy said:
Here's a document some of you may not have seen and might find interesting and informative:
http://assets.highways.gov.uk/specialist-informati...
Have a read of 4.4.7. http://assets.highways.gov.uk/specialist-informati...
Carl_Docklands said:
Agreed, would prefer if BIB are left out of this discussion as they are doing a very good job (IMHO) and this particular debate is not levelled at them at all.
Disagree - the BIB used to do a good job but have been usurped by their ambivalence. Its THEIR remit not these money chasing clowns doing everyone a real road safety disservice as they laugh all the way to the bank. The police need to step back up and regain the motorists 'proper policing' respect as this top cop maybe implies - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10656510/Police-ad...Blakewater said:
Have a read of 4.4.7.
And ???There are all sorts of innovation and projects going on in the UK https://www.catapult.org.uk
As in many businesses which want to be functioning in the future where i work there is (excuse the bullsh!t) foresighting and horizon scanning to pick up future and new technologies, you seem to be nervous/scared of the control over your life you think they may bring ??
Rightly or wrongly the general scope of govt (apart from trying to get reelected) is to work for the good of all society for social and economic reasons ??
Ie 'speed control' to manage traffic throughput to capacity for all, rather than some 'self centred' thoughts of a few who think fook everyone else and bang through at 70 before slamming on and causing ghost queues etc.
You may moan but TBH i rarely see the old ghost queues and stop start traffic of old days
speedyguy said:
Blakewater said:
Have a read of 4.4.7.
And ???There are all sorts of innovation and projects going on in the UK https://www.catapult.org.uk
As in many businesses which want to be functioning in the future where i work there is (excuse the bullsh!t) foresighting and horizon scanning to pick up future and new technologies, you seem to be nervous/scared of the control over your life you think they may bring ??
Rightly or wrongly the general scope of govt (apart from trying to get reelected) is to work for the good of all society for social and economic reasons ??
Ie 'speed control' to manage traffic throughput to capacity for all, rather than some 'self centred' thoughts of a few who think fook everyone else and bang through at 70 before slamming on and causing ghost queues etc.
You may moan but TBH i rarely see the old ghost queues and stop start traffic of old days
If we're all happy to drive around the motorway system at 60mph, enforced by a nationwide network of cameras and sensors and heavy penalties for those selfish drivers who might need to get somewhere in a hurry, the next step (many years away but possible) would be interaction with or automation of the vehicles to prevent anyone travelling above a set speed and then it's a short hop to driverless cars and taking away any element of control from those in them.
There are pros and cons to all of this but is this the future we want?
There are pros and cons to all of this but is this the future we want?
Tesla have autopilot :-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7quu551ehc0
They said the technology will be available to other companies ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7quu551ehc0
They said the technology will be available to other companies ...
FurtiveFreddy said:
If we're all happy to drive around the motorway system at 60mph, enforced by a nationwide network of cameras and sensors and heavy penalties for those selfish drivers who might need to get somewhere in a hurry, the next step (many years away but possible) would be interaction with or automation of the vehicles to prevent anyone travelling above a set speed and then it's a short hop to driverless cars and taking away any element of control from those in them.
There are pros and cons to all of this but is this the future we want?
I remember when I was studying Economics at A Level fourteen years ago my teacher asked class members to come up with ideas for tackling traffic congestion because it has such a negative impact on the economy. Everyone went over the usual stuff about incentives to use public transport but I'd read about the early testing of automated cars following sensors in the road so I talked about that. Of course my Economics teacher dismissed it as nonsense akin to suggesting teleportation but, not very long later, it's a serious prospect. There are pros and cons to all of this but is this the future we want?
When looking at a mass of cars the idea of controlling it makes sense to some extent but, as individuals, I doubt people will feel comfortable with being tracked and watched and controlled by a system that is poised to fine them for transgressions or intervenes in their behaviour. Especially when the system proves itself to be unreliable, for example, by slow lorries on a quiet motorway setting low speed limits. We all transgress to some extent, do we really want to be watched and punished every time regardless of the impact it has on other people? You don't have to be driving like a loony to be penalised on a smart motorway, you just have to miss that one gantry with a lower speed limit on it than the rest. Some are hard to read because the displays were manufactured incorrectly and type approved after being fitted because it was cheaper than replacing them.
These things come in gradually though. First it was cameras in accident black spots, then more cameras, then black boxes for new drivers. It makes people more willing to accept that next step towards more observation and control. I'm not generally a tin foil hat type but I am unsure about it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff