Speeding - Sometimes safe but not according to Plod....
Discussion
vonhosen said:
It's not about that though.
The exemption doesn't exist because it's safer for them, or they've had extra training. It exists because of the appreciable benefits of them being able to exceed the limit outweigh any extra risks.
I'm not talking about the exemption, I'm talking about the attitude.The exemption doesn't exist because it's safer for them, or they've had extra training. It exists because of the appreciable benefits of them being able to exceed the limit outweigh any extra risks.
And would you care to expand a bit on the extra risks associated with exceeding the limit. I'm interested to hear your opinions.
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
It's not about that though.
The exemption doesn't exist because it's safer for them, or they've had extra training. It exists because of the appreciable benefits of them being able to exceed the limit outweigh any extra risks.
I'm not talking about the exemption, I'm talking about the attitude.The exemption doesn't exist because it's safer for them, or they've had extra training. It exists because of the appreciable benefits of them being able to exceed the limit outweigh any extra risks.
And would you care to expand a bit on the extra risks associated with exceeding the limit. I'm interested to hear your opinions.
Wider parameters result in greater risks, because it results in (for instance) greater speed differentials & a wider gamut of speed being carried into situations following errors of judgement (& we all suffer from errors of judgement from time to time, including those who are making judgements about whether to enter our path based on their perception of our speed/distance). Humans are imperfect.
Phatboy317 said:
I'm not talking about the exemption, I'm talking about the attitude.
Its not hard to understand why they develop an attitude when all the emergency service workers have to deal with the scum this country has, the drunks who think its ok to punch a nurse, the drug addicts with needles in their pockets and don't tell coppers when being searched, the kids who think its fun to set fire to cars and then stone the fire brigade when they turn up to put it out, doing a job when you have to scrape the remains of someone off the road, having to knock on the door to tell parents their kids critically ill in hospital after a smash in a stoeln car only to be met with a load of abuse.. the list goes on and on and is endless.If you think they have an attiude, you've not met people with real attitude that they have to deal with.
vonhosen said:
The attitude you claim does not exist in the emergency services, those who feel cheated by the emergency services being able to exceed the limit believe it exists.
I never claimed it did. I'm talking about the attitude exhibited by people like mph1977.vonhosen said:
Wider parameters result in greater risks, because it results in (for instance) greater speed differentials & a wider gamut of speed being carried into situations following errors of judgement (& we all suffer from errors of judgement from time to time, including those who are making judgements about whether to enter our path based on their perception of our speed/distance). Humans are imperfect.
Well, that's something we can discuss.I think part of the problem is speed limits varying from one local authority's jurisdiction to another. It doesn't show on Google Streetview because the images of the road aren't new enough, but if you go along the A682 between Gisburn and Long Preston, the speed limit changes between 50mph on the Lancashire side of the border and NSL on the Yorkshire side. Nothing about the road itself or how many houses and other properties there are on it changes. There are many similar examples around the country.
We used to have a blanket system across the country of 30mph in urban and residential areas, 40mph where buildings were fewer and set further back from the road and then NSL outside those areas. Maybe a small number of 50mph limits where there were still a lot of junctions and buildings with entrances but not enough to require a 40mph limit. You could usually judge accurately what the speed limit was without having to refer to the signs.
Now it varies between local authorities and how much they like cutting speed limits. Wide open dual carriageways and country roads in one area can have a lower limit than roads with houses on them in another. There can even be inconsistencies within the same local authority areas.
Faced with this inconsistency people can't see the logic behind the speed limits and why they should take them seriously and so use their own judgment as to how fast they go. When limits are dropped and speed cameras put up it just looks like a knee jerk reaction to a problem it isn't going to solve or a ploy to make money from fines. To win public favour and understanding there needs to be more simplicity to speed limits like there used to be.
We used to have a blanket system across the country of 30mph in urban and residential areas, 40mph where buildings were fewer and set further back from the road and then NSL outside those areas. Maybe a small number of 50mph limits where there were still a lot of junctions and buildings with entrances but not enough to require a 40mph limit. You could usually judge accurately what the speed limit was without having to refer to the signs.
Now it varies between local authorities and how much they like cutting speed limits. Wide open dual carriageways and country roads in one area can have a lower limit than roads with houses on them in another. There can even be inconsistencies within the same local authority areas.
Faced with this inconsistency people can't see the logic behind the speed limits and why they should take them seriously and so use their own judgment as to how fast they go. When limits are dropped and speed cameras put up it just looks like a knee jerk reaction to a problem it isn't going to solve or a ploy to make money from fines. To win public favour and understanding there needs to be more simplicity to speed limits like there used to be.
vonhosen said:
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
It's not about that though.
The exemption doesn't exist because it's safer for them, or they've had extra training. It exists because of the appreciable benefits of them being able to exceed the limit outweigh any extra risks.
I'm not talking about the exemption, I'm talking about the attitude.The exemption doesn't exist because it's safer for them, or they've had extra training. It exists because of the appreciable benefits of them being able to exceed the limit outweigh any extra risks.
And would you care to expand a bit on the extra risks associated with exceeding the limit. I'm interested to hear your opinions.
Wider parameters result in greater risks, because it results in (for instance) greater speed differentials & a wider gamut of speed being carried into situations following errors of judgement (& we all suffer from errors of judgement from time to time, including those who are making judgements about whether to enter our path based on their perception of our speed/distance). Humans are imperfect.
green eyed little monsters sitting on the shoulders of think they are hard done to 'civilians' who are jealous of what they percieve to be the 'perks' of being in a professional group that can claim exemptions from various laws in the course of their work role whether that's emergency driving, or variously walking round with a big folding stick , a gun , a pocket full of class As .... forgetting the checks balalnce and eadditional regualtory requirements that are in place.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff