150 mph M25 8-10

[Phatboy317]

Devil2575 said:

Phatboy317 said:

Devil2575 said:

What comment have I read and taken a default position on? I was commenting on a general stance that people everywhere, not just on PH, take that if I've done it before and nothing bad happened then it must be safe.

That's the stance you assume people take.
You might be right some of the time, but certainly far from all of the time.

I know they take that stance because they use the words "I've been doing this for years and not had an accident".

Apologies, it seems I did come on a bit strong there - perhaps I should heed my own advice and take a step back sometimes.

[flemke]

vonhosen said:

Mileage will vary of course & as an aside I've probably spent a lot more time driving with people from that particular group than you have. (That's not deriding the individuals you have experience of, just that I probably have been swimming in a much larger pool).
Entusiasm & seriousness aside, it's the cultural/institutional focus (on what subject matter & delivery of it) within the training given I'm talking about.
You put them up (without any mention of reservation) as being a group that should be given the type of freedom you are talking about. I wouldn't put any group up without reservation & there is much still that could be done within that particular target group to improve performance in the most important areas by having greater emphasis on what is 'really' important within the training. Change is happening but it's not there yet.

Well, I guess my starting point is that the state itself assumes that Police Class 1 drivers (let's leave aside their instructors, who on average are surely on a higher plane) are able enough to engage in emergency calls for a "Police purpose" with general exemption from traffic laws, and sometimes to engage in even more dangerous pursuits, because their special training combined with their natural ability and character effect to reduce the risk of that sort of driving to a level that is acceptable.
That is to say, Class 1 holders on average must be better drivers than the average police officer or average civvy driver, elsewise there would be no point in giving them the extra training and the qualification.

I am happy to take your word for it that not every Class 1 driver is all that safe and responsible. Whether the dividing line should be "Class 1" or something else is a detail.

The essential point is that it is broadly agreed that, with training and testing, some drivers can demonstrably raise their game to a level far above average. Yet all our traffic rules treat mediocre drivers and the very best drivers exactly the same.

If we assume that too many people when left to their own devices will make poor driving judgments, and thus the state should impose upon them various formal constraints such as speed limits, surely it follows that, if an individual can demonstrate that he(/she) is capable of making sufficiently good driving judgments on his own, without relying on some of the constraints, the state is not entitled to impose upon him or her the constraints that the less good driver needs.

Indeed, this is the principle underlying the basic driving licence: "You're not allowed to go out on the road in a motor vehicle until you demonstrate that you can drive to a certain level. Once you demonstrate that you can drive to that level, you may drive wherever and whenever you like."

Unfortunately, as we know, that level is not a high one, which is why we have so many operational constraints that apply after the driver has gained the basic licence.

Beyond the limits of the basic licence, the state sanctions drivers who wish to undertake riskier driving activities: motorbikes, trailers, HGVs, coaches (not to mention aeroplanes, helicopters, etc). Each requires a special licence, achieved with specific qualifications.

We have all those exceptions and more to the basic licence. It seems straightforward to me that we should have another exception, one that would entitle a driver who had demonstrated sufficient skill, judgment and maturity to make his or her own decisions about speed (and perhaps other things, such as turning left on red).

[Devil2575]

Phatboy317 said:

Apologies, it seems I did come on a bit strong there - perhaps I should heed my own advice and take a step back sometimes.

No worries.

[LoonR1]

Kawasicki said:

LoonR1 said:

That doesn't help the supporters of the German model much. They have a 44.8% higher death rate than the UK per million inhabitants.
UK 29
Germany 42

I think it backs up the German model very well. About 20% lower fatalities than the European average, and we get treated like adults. Result!

Yes, there's nothing ze Germans like more than being "better than average"

Explain the "treated like adults". You do know there's a chance other people will be involved in the outcome of someone's adult decision

[Kawasicki]

LoonR1 said:

Yes, there's nothing ze Germans like more than being "better than average"

Explain the "treated like adults". You do know there's a chance other people will be involved in the outcome of someone's adult decision

Treated like adults...given the responsibility to determine how fast to drive.

[vonhosen]

flemke said:

vonhosen said:

Mileage will vary of course & as an aside I've probably spent a lot more time driving with people from that particular group than you have. (That's not deriding the individuals you have experience of, just that I probably have been swimming in a much larger pool).
Entusiasm & seriousness aside, it's the cultural/institutional focus (on what subject matter & delivery of it) within the training given I'm talking about.
You put them up (without any mention of reservation) as being a group that should be given the type of freedom you are talking about. I wouldn't put any group up without reservation & there is much still that could be done within that particular target group to improve performance in the most important areas by having greater emphasis on what is 'really' important within the training. Change is happening but it's not there yet.

Well, I guess my starting point is that the state itself assumes that Police Class 1 drivers (let's leave aside their instructors, who on average are surely on a higher plane) are able enough to engage in emergency calls for a "Police purpose" with general exemption from traffic laws, and sometimes to engage in even more dangerous pursuits, because their special training combined with their natural ability and character effect to reduce the risk of that sort of driving to a level that is acceptable.
That is to say, Class 1 holders on average must be better drivers than the average police officer or average civvy driver, elsewise there would be no point in giving them the extra training and the qualification.

I am happy to take your word for it that not every Class 1 driver is all that safe and responsible. Whether the dividing line should be "Class 1" or something else is a detail.

The essential point is that it is broadly agreed that, with training and testing, some drivers can demonstrably raise their game to a level far above average. Yet all our traffic rules treat mediocre drivers and the very best drivers exactly the same.

If we assume that too many people when left to their own devices will make poor driving judgments, and thus the state should impose upon them various formal constraints such as speed limits, surely it follows that, if an individual can demonstrate that he(/she) is capable of making sufficiently good driving judgments on his own, without relying on some of the constraints, the state is not entitled to impose upon him or her the constraints that the less good driver needs.

Indeed, this is the principle underlying the basic driving licence: "You're not allowed to go out on the road in a motor vehicle until you demonstrate that you can drive to a certain level. Once you demonstrate that you can drive to that level, you may drive wherever and whenever you like."

Unfortunately, as we know, that level is not a high one, which is why we have so many operational constraints that apply after the driver has gained the basic licence.

Beyond the limits of the basic licence, the state sanctions drivers who wish to undertake riskier driving activities: motorbikes, trailers, HGVs, coaches (not to mention aeroplanes, helicopters, etc). Each requires a special licence, achieved with specific qualifications.

We have all those exceptions and more to the basic licence. It seems straightforward to me that we should have another exception, one that would entitle a driver who had demonstrated sufficient skill, judgment and maturity to make his or her own decisions about speed (and perhaps other things, such as turning left on red).

My point is that we all make mistakes, what ever level of training & the exemption for emergency drivers is granted because of the role/perceived benefit, not the training. The training is a self imposed liability mitigation exercise, there still not being any requirement in law for training in order to claim the exemption (yet).
I can't see the public at large (or government) seeing a benefit from allowing the public a similar exemption from speed limits. Mistakes happen with Class 1s on occasion when the limit is being exceeded for a reason that would constitute a public benefit, it's going to be even harder to swallow if the inevitable mistakes happen where there was no such appreciable benefit to start with.

[LoonR1]

Kawasicki said:

LoonR1 said:

Yes, there's nothing ze Germans like more than being "better than average"

Explain the "treated like adults". You do know there's a chance other people will be involved in the outcome of someone's adult decision

Treated like adults...given the responsibility to determine how fast to drive.

Thought so. How does having an unrestricted limit on autobahns treat you like an adult?

Do they treat you like children on the restricted ones, or when it's wet, or on all the other speed limited roads, where the enforcement is more robust and penalties for speeding much higher?

[Kawasicki]

LoonR1 said:

Thought so. How does having an unrestricted limit on autobahns treat you like an adult?

Do they treat you like children on the restricted ones, or when it's wet, or on all the other speed limited roads, where the enforcement is more robust and penalties for speeding much higher?

Well if you "thought so" why do you need to ask questions which have obvious answers?

[LoonR1]

Kawasicki said:

LoonR1 said:

Thought so. How does having an unrestricted limit on autobahns treat you like an adult?

Do they treat you like children on the restricted ones, or when it's wet, or on all the other speed limited roads, where the enforcement is more robust and penalties for speeding much higher?

Well if you "thought so" why do you need to ask questions which have obvious answers?

I was just confirming what I thought. Any chance of you answering the question around the restricted speed roads in Germany?

[flemke]

vonhosen said:

flemke said:

vonhosen said:

Mileage will vary of course & as an aside I've probably spent a lot more time driving with people from that particular group than you have. (That's not deriding the individuals you have experience of, just that I probably have been swimming in a much larger pool).
Entusiasm & seriousness aside, it's the cultural/institutional focus (on what subject matter & delivery of it) within the training given I'm talking about.
You put them up (without any mention of reservation) as being a group that should be given the type of freedom you are talking about. I wouldn't put any group up without reservation & there is much still that could be done within that particular target group to improve performance in the most important areas by having greater emphasis on what is 'really' important within the training. Change is happening but it's not there yet.

Well, I guess my starting point is that the state itself assumes that Police Class 1 drivers (let's leave aside their instructors, who on average are surely on a higher plane) are able enough to engage in emergency calls for a "Police purpose" with general exemption from traffic laws, and sometimes to engage in even more dangerous pursuits, because their special training combined with their natural ability and character effect to reduce the risk of that sort of driving to a level that is acceptable.
That is to say, Class 1 holders on average must be better drivers than the average police officer or average civvy driver, elsewise there would be no point in giving them the extra training and the qualification.

I am happy to take your word for it that not every Class 1 driver is all that safe and responsible. Whether the dividing line should be "Class 1" or something else is a detail.

The essential point is that it is broadly agreed that, with training and testing, some drivers can demonstrably raise their game to a level far above average. Yet all our traffic rules treat mediocre drivers and the very best drivers exactly the same.

If we assume that too many people when left to their own devices will make poor driving judgments, and thus the state should impose upon them various formal constraints such as speed limits, surely it follows that, if an individual can demonstrate that he(/she) is capable of making sufficiently good driving judgments on his own, without relying on some of the constraints, the state is not entitled to impose upon him or her the constraints that the less good driver needs.

Indeed, this is the principle underlying the basic driving licence: "You're not allowed to go out on the road in a motor vehicle until you demonstrate that you can drive to a certain level. Once you demonstrate that you can drive to that level, you may drive wherever and whenever you like."

Unfortunately, as we know, that level is not a high one, which is why we have so many operational constraints that apply after the driver has gained the basic licence.

Beyond the limits of the basic licence, the state sanctions drivers who wish to undertake riskier driving activities: motorbikes, trailers, HGVs, coaches (not to mention aeroplanes, helicopters, etc). Each requires a special licence, achieved with specific qualifications.

We have all those exceptions and more to the basic licence. It seems straightforward to me that we should have another exception, one that would entitle a driver who had demonstrated sufficient skill, judgment and maturity to make his or her own decisions about speed (and perhaps other things, such as turning left on red).

My point is that we all make mistakes, what ever level of training & the exemption for emergency drivers is granted because of the role/perceived benefit, not the training. The training is a self imposed liability mitigation exercise, there still not being any requirement in law for training in order to claim the exemption (yet).
I can't see the public at large (or government) seeing a benefit from allowing the public a similar exemption from speed limits. Mistakes happen with Class 1s on occasion when the limit is being exceeded for a reason that would constitute a public benefit, it's going to be even harder to swallow if the inevitable mistakes happen where there was no such appreciable benefit to start with.

I agree with all you say, as you are describing the reality of the British political environment.

Not everything within the reality around us is logical or fair, however, and this is a good example of that regrettable fact. The state is not entitled to impose itself on people without good reason, and in this case there is none. I'm not expecting this to change, nonetheless it is wrong-headed and unfair and it stinks.

[Phatboy317]

Jon1967x said:

Phatboy317 said:

total and utter bks

You talk in absolute riddles. But then you know that too I guess

Please enlighten us to your definition of a "straw man" because its clearly not the same as anyone elses

Edited by Jon1967x on Tuesday 24th March 16:44

A straw man is when you misrepresent someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

I refer to your earlier comment:

Jon1967x said:

I was quoting the various people (not you) on here that think because they've done something and lived then its safe - so more for other peoples benefit. Some would even have it you were safer because you were on the road for less time.

I don't recall anyone taking that position in the context of this thread, which is why I believe your comment to be a misrepresentation.

[Kawasicki]

LoonR1 said:

I was just confirming what I thought. Any chance of you answering the question around the restricted speed roads in Germany?

Restricted speed roads in Germany show that..

a) The road is unsuitable for higher speeds and that a reasonable adult may not have the information to make a good judgement, for instance autobahn stretches where the wet friction level is less than normal, or where a village is close to the autobahn and they would like a little less noise during the night, etc.

or...

b) The government is treating the population like children who lack the judgement to choose a reasonable speed.

Either is possible. I think speed limits derived for reasons like in paragraph a are fine, and I dislike speed limits set for reasons found in paragraph b.

[Devil2575]

flemke said:

I agree with all you say, as you are describing the reality of the British political environment.

Not everything within the reality around us is logical or fair, however, and this is a good example of that regrettable fact. The state is not entitled to impose itself on people without good reason, and in this case there is none. I'm not expecting this to change, nonetheless it is wrong-headed and unfair and it stinks.

How is it illogical?

Driving at high speeds creates an increased risk, regardless of how well trained the driver is, not least because of the fact that other roads users may not react appropriately for the higher speed that a vehicle is travelling. Hence why emergency response vehicles use sirens and lights to alert others to their presence. This increased risk is partially mitigated by training in many cases and it is considered acceptable because of the benefits of having a faster emergency response. Allowing highly qualified drivers to simply choose their speed offers no such benefits other than to the drvers themselves. So everyone else has to accept an increase in risk for no benefit. This is not logical. I don't see this as the stae imposing itself on us for no good reason, I see it as a restriction to an activity where our actions can have a significant negative impact on others.

It may feel unfair on an individual basis but it would also be unfair to place others at greater risk for no benefit to them.

[flemke]

Devil2575 said:

flemke said:

I agree with all you say, as you are describing the reality of the British political environment.

Not everything within the reality around us is logical or fair, however, and this is a good example of that regrettable fact. The state is not entitled to impose itself on people without good reason, and in this case there is none. I'm not expecting this to change, nonetheless it is wrong-headed and unfair and it stinks.

How is it illogical?

Driving at high speeds creates an increased risk, regardless of how well trained the driver is, not least because of the fact that other roads users may not react appropriately for the higher speed that a vehicle is travelling. Hence why emergency response vehicles use sirens and lights to alert others to their presence. This increased risk is partially mitigated by training in many cases and it is considered acceptable because of the benefits of having a faster emergency response. Allowing highly qualified drivers to simply choose their speed offers no such benefits other than to the drvers themselves. So everyone else has to accept an increase in risk for no benefit. This is not logical. I don't see this as the stae imposing itself on us for no good reason, I see it as a restriction to an activity where our actions can have a significant negative impact on others.

It may feel unfair on an individual basis but it would also be unfair to place others at greater risk for no benefit to them.

You are, if I may say so, starting from the wrong place.

The position of the state should not be to tell us what we may do. A person ought to be able to do whatever he(/she) considers to be in his own interests.
The position of the state should be to intercede only when what a person considers to be in his own interests would unreasonably threaten to cause harm to others.

Speed limits are a lowest-common-denominator restraint. Anyone who passes the basic driving test is allowed to travel at 70 mph on a motorway (notwithstanding that the driving test absurdly does not include motorway driving) or even more risky NSL DC.

By definition, "we" as a society have decided to accept the level of risk inherent in having the most mediocre drivers

- who were just barely able to scrape by on their driving test, or
- who passed their test decades ago and may be in declining health, or
- for whom driving is merely a necessary evil and who have not the tiniest interest in improving or even thinking about their driving

motor along at 70 mph amongst us all, amongst vehicles carrying children, amongst cyclists, bikers and other vulnerable road users. We tolerate the risk of driving alongside the most mediocre drivers, regardless of whether their reason for driving is a socially vital purpose or a selfish and trivial purpose.

We deem the right of mediocre drivers to drive in pursuit of their own interests to justify the risk they create by going at 70 mph.

Having agreed to tolerate the level of risk created by mediocre drivers driving at 70mph, why should we be intolerant of excellent drivers who by driving at 80mph would be creating less risk than do the mediocre cohort driving at 70mph?

The default measure should be risk created. That is the real issue, isn't it - how much risk is acceptable or justified?

[LoonR1]

Kawasicki said:

Restricted speed roads in Germany show that..

a) The road is unsuitable for higher speeds and that a reasonable adult may not have the information to make a good judgement, for instance autobahn stretches where the wet friction level is less than normal, or where a village is close to the autobahn and they would like a little less noise during the night, etc.

or...

b) The government is treating the population like children who lack the judgement to choose a reasonable speed.

Either is possible. I think speed limits derived for reasons like in paragraph a are fine, and I dislike speed limits set for reasons found in paragraph b.

You seem to think that every adult is capable of making a rational decision around their speed. wby do you think this? We have a huge problem with young and inexperienced drivers crashing and injuring themselves and others, alongside a pretty high claim rate for those older and more experienced drivers too. These accidents MIGHT be to some extent regulated by the existence of a speed limit (even if ignored people tend to ignore it by a set margin). If you remove that element of regulation then what happens?

[Kawasicki]

LoonR1 said:

Kawasicki said:

Restricted speed roads in Germany show that..

a) The road is unsuitable for higher speeds and that a reasonable adult may not have the information to make a good judgement, for instance autobahn stretches where the wet friction level is less than normal, or where a village is close to the autobahn and they would like a little less noise during the night, etc.

or...

b) The government is treating the population like children who lack the judgement to choose a reasonable speed.

Either is possible. I think speed limits derived for reasons like in paragraph a are fine, and I dislike speed limits set for reasons found in paragraph b.

You seem to think that every adult is capable of making a rational decision around their speed. wby do you think this? We have a huge problem with young and inexperienced drivers crashing and injuring themselves and others, alongside a pretty high claim rate for those older and more experienced drivers too. These accidents MIGHT be to some extent regulated by the existence of a speed limit (even if ignored people tend to ignore it by a set margin). If you remove that element of regulation then what happens?

Yes, I think the vast majority of adults make rational decisions about the speed they drive, whether or not a speed limit is in place.

Why do I think this? Observations mainly. Most people don't want to hurt themselves or others. Even where speed limits don't exist or are never enforced, I don't see evidence that the crash rate is massively higher. Most people drive within their comfort/safety zone*. I agree the accident rate is probably slightly higher, but I think the trade off is worth it.

It all comes down to risk level versus freedom of choice. Some people say we should keep restricting driving freedom until there are no road deaths. There is only justification for ever slower speed limits. I don't agree with this philosophy.

(*there is a small group of drivers that actively seeks risk, the danger is the whole point, I'm pretty sure their behaviour is not tempered by speed limits to any great extent, in fact flouting the limits might be something that is seen as a further challenge. I'm not sure what to do with this group, but I wouldn't restrict the vast majority of careful drivers because of them)

[anonymous-user]

I'm not sure treating people like adults equates to allowing them (as a collective) to increase the risk to one another unnecessarily.

[Kawasicki]

La Liga said:

I'm not sure treating people like adults equates to allowing them (as a collective) to increase the risk to one another unnecessarily.

Why are we allowed to drive at 70mph on the motorway? That's very fast. Unnecessarily fast. 50mph would be safer.

[flemke]

La Liga said:

I'm not sure treating people like adults equates to allowing them (as a collective) to increase the risk to one another unnecessarily.

But what is "unnecessarily"? A huge amount of driving is "unnecessary", in that the journey could have been either taken by another means or avoided altogether.

It is precisely because we treat people like adults that we allow them to decide for themselves what journeys to take and by what means.

What is necessary for one person is likely to be unnecessary to most others. Do you need to drive 2 miles to the shop to get some milk? Well, most people could walk 2 miles. For that matter, do you need milk? In all probability, no. You might want milk, but that is a different story.

Why should I tolerate your increasing the risk to me by making your unnecessary journey to get the milk that you don't really need? Because I want you to tolerate my making my unnecessary journey to, say, a football match. Your journey will increase the risk to me, and my journey will increase the risk to you.

[anonymous-user]

We accept and empower adults to make journeys at their discretion and use their private transport when they want. I don't think that's a point anyone on here would dispute or encompass into the way I was using the word "necessary".

We do question the necessity of how they undertake such journeys. We don't want them to do so in a manner which adds unreasonable risk relative to any rational and objective benefits.

I see no evidence there'd be any justifiable benefits anchored around the fundamental purposes of our road network i.e. facilitating movement and it being fundamental to our economic infrastructure. Indeed, the assessment of increasing speeds on our motorways concluded there'd likely be more deaths / injuries per year.

Now an increase in risk itself doesn't necessarily dictate the outcome (nuclear power has more risk than other power sources, but the benefits justify it), but I simply can't see the benefit/s to offset the increased risk with unlimited speeds on the motorway.