150 mph M25 8-10
Discussion
flemke said:
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?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.
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.
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?
Emergency drivers have the advantage of having lights and sirens, which can serve to mitigate the risk in situations where the presence of other road users who might not be aware of them means it might not be as safe as they would like it to be to do speed x.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Wednesday 25th March 13:05
Kawasicki said:
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)
The aw in this argument is that you're assjming the only potential adverse consequence is on the person choosing ye higher speed. It isn't. 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)
What happens to the adult who chooses to drive at a lower speed and is hit by the driver making the adult decision to drive at the higher speed?
Kawasicki said:
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)
The aw in this argument is that you're assjming the only potential adverse consequence is on the person choosing ye higher speed. It isn't. 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)
What happens to the adult who chooses to drive at a lower speed and is hit by the driver making the adult decision to drive at the higher speed?
Kawasicki said:
LoonR1 said:
What happens to the adult who chooses to drive at a lower speed and is hit by the driver making the adult decision to drive at the higher speed?
That's no different from what can happen today. Each case should be examined to determine the share of the fault.La Liga said:
Kawasicki said:
LoonR1 said:
What happens to the adult who chooses to drive at a lower speed and is hit by the driver making the adult decision to drive at the higher speed?
That's no different from what can happen today. Each case should be examined to determine the share of the fault.flemke said:
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.
You could easily argue that allowing people to drive at very high speeds meets the critera for the state to intercede.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.
There are lots of examples where laws restrict our freedom, speed limits is just one. Gun laws and drug laws are other examples.
The other issue to consider here is that if the population as a whole decided they didn't like these laws they could force change via the ballot box. When you talk about state imposed restrictions it all sounds very authoritarian, however in this country we Police by consent. If everyone decided to break the laws the state would not be able to enforce them. So you could say that the majority of the population are imposing their will on the minority in terms of personal freedoms that are deemed to cause harm to others and so restricted.
flemke said:
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?
We allow anyone who can meet the required standard drive a car. Our ecomony is based on universal access to cars for both travel too and from work as well as leisure persuits (which are also part of the economy). We apply the same standard to all road users and this doesn't seem to be an unpopular decision. Your description of mediocre I suspect includes the majority of drivers, most of whom consider driving to be a means to an end. The idea that an elite of drivers would be given special treatment purely for their own benefit and at an increase in risk to others is frankly absurd. Unless it applied to the majority it would never get acceptance from the voting public. It would also create a major headache for enforcement of current laws.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?
If someone invented the car today it's highly likely that it would be banned because of the risk it poses. The fact that it isn't banned is more a function that they've been around for a hundred or so years and the vast majority of the electorate expect to be able to drive. It's similar to why alcohol is legal but other mnd altering drugs aren't. You can probably apply the same logic to why Germany still has derestricted Autobahns.
Devil2575 said:
You could easily argue that allowing people to drive at very high speeds meets the critera for the state to intercede.
There are lots of examples where laws restrict our freedom, speed limits is just one. Gun laws and drug laws are other examples.
The other issue to consider here is that if the population as a whole decided they didn't like these laws they could force change via the ballot box. When you talk about state imposed restrictions it all sounds very authoritarian, however in this country we Police by consent. If everyone decided to break the laws the state would not be able to enforce them. So you could say that the majority of the population are imposing their will on the minority in terms of personal freedoms that are deemed to cause harm to others and so restricted.
You give good examples. Guns are incredibly dangerous when misused, we have gun laws to guard against that, and yet thousands of people go out and get special training and qualifications, demonstrate that they are responsible, obtain a special gun licence, and then buy guns for themselves.There are lots of examples where laws restrict our freedom, speed limits is just one. Gun laws and drug laws are other examples.
The other issue to consider here is that if the population as a whole decided they didn't like these laws they could force change via the ballot box. When you talk about state imposed restrictions it all sounds very authoritarian, however in this country we Police by consent. If everyone decided to break the laws the state would not be able to enforce them. So you could say that the majority of the population are imposing their will on the minority in terms of personal freedoms that are deemed to cause harm to others and so restricted.
Guns have no appeal whatsoever to me personally, and if anything the fact that there are many thousands of guns floating around this country makes it more dangerous for me, but I would oppose the banning of long guns for them who are qualified and deemed by the authorities to be responsible and of good character.
Devil2575 said:
We allow anyone who can meet the required standard drive a car. Our ecomony is based on universal access to cars for both travel too and from work as well as leisure persuits (which are also part of the economy). We apply the same standard to all road users and this doesn't seem to be an unpopular decision. Your description of mediocre I suspect includes the majority of drivers, most of whom consider driving to be a means to an end. The idea that an elite of drivers would be given special treatment purely for their own benefit and at an increase in risk to others is frankly absurd. Unless it applied to the majority it would never get acceptance from the voting public. It would also create a major headache for enforcement of current laws.
If someone invented the car today it's highly likely that it would be banned because of the risk it poses. The fact that it isn't banned is more a function that they've been around for a hundred or so years and the vast majority of the electorate expect to be able to drive. It's similar to why alcohol is legal but other mnd altering drugs aren't. You can probably apply the same logic to why Germany still has derestricted Autobahns.
There already are different levels of the basic driving licence. Somehow we have been able to cope.If someone invented the car today it's highly likely that it would be banned because of the risk it poses. The fact that it isn't banned is more a function that they've been around for a hundred or so years and the vast majority of the electorate expect to be able to drive. It's similar to why alcohol is legal but other mnd altering drugs aren't. You can probably apply the same logic to why Germany still has derestricted Autobahns.
There already are differential speed limits for different types of vehicles on the same road at the same time. Again, we manage to cope.
Different drivers being given different degrees of driving freedom and being allowed to drive at different speeds is not rocket science.
I agree with what I think you are implying, namely that some people would feel jealous if someone else may legally drive a car at a faster speed than they themselves may do. That sort of phenomenon has a lot to with why we have spineless politicians pretending to be leaders whilst almost always avoiding actions of substance.
I would strongly disagree, however, that the change that I am advocating would serve no worthwhile purpose.
There are now loads of people on the roads who drive faster than the speed limit. Some of them will also drive too fast for the conditions, which is where the problems arise.
If people were able to legalise their exceeding of the posted limits by taking extensive training and over time qualifying for an advanced licence, their driving would in most cases improve, and we all would be safer. An advanced licence would be aspirational. Anything that has the effect of causing people to take their driving more seriously is a good thing.
xjay1337 said:
No limits in Germany works pretty well.
Well it had to happen. It's been a few days, since the last idiot cropped up spouting this without having read the thread. So there are no limits at all in Germany? Or just no limits at all on their autobahns?
Check your facts before answering. The answers are in this thread
flemke said:
You give good examples. Guns are incredibly dangerous when misused, we have gun laws to guard against that, and yet thousands of people go out and get special training and qualifications, demonstrate that they are responsible, obtain a special gun licence, and then buy guns for themselves.
Guns have no appeal whatsoever to me personally, and if anything the fact that there are many thousands of guns floating around this country makes it more dangerous for me, but I would oppose the banning of long guns for them who are qualified and deemed by the authorities to be responsible and of good character..
That doesn't make your argument. Guns have no appeal whatsoever to me personally, and if anything the fact that there are many thousands of guns floating around this country makes it more dangerous for me, but I would oppose the banning of long guns for them who are qualified and deemed by the authorities to be responsible and of good character..
Firearms permit holders are not allowed to carry or use them in public. A race licence does not permit you to drive on the roads
Use is limited to certain events on private land. Race licences are limited to use on private tracks
The use of the gun is heavily regulated and no modifications are permitted. Like scrutineering and rules & regs on a race car and the annual renewal of a race permit
The storage of the gun and ammunition is highly regulated.
You spoke earlier as if holding a firearms permit gave you free reign to wander the streets fully tooled up. It doesn't. Nobody has that right, other than specially trained police officers. Oh wow, look at that. Just like Class 1 trained drivers.
LoonR1 said:
xjay1337 said:
No limits in Germany works pretty well.
Well it had to happen. It's been a few days, since the last idiot cropped up spouting this without having read the thread. So there are no limits at all in Germany? Or just no limits at all on their autobahns?
Check your facts before answering. The answers are in this thread
I don't think many people would confuse your comments in this thread with the writings of Shakespeare, or of Vonhosen either.
flemke said:
Can you show people a bit more respect, please?
I don't think many people would confuse your comments in this thread with the writings of Shakespeare, or of Vonhosen either.
Probably not, but at least I'm putting together a coherent argument, even if you don't like it. Whereas this poster and a few of the others with the same tired comments, come across like the bloke who walks around saying "wasn't like this in my day" then wandering off again, as if they've made some earth shattering comment. I don't think many people would confuse your comments in this thread with the writings of Shakespeare, or of Vonhosen either.
LoonR1 said:
Kawasicki said:
No one is saying there isn't more risk with higher speeds. What's your point?
That's the circle complete for this discussion. Any increase in the speed limit will increase the risks, with more people obviously injured, killed. No argument there.
What about decreasing the limit, what about the lives saved? It looks (from the comments on PH anyway) as if driving standards have decreased of late, maybe it's time.
Kawasicki said:
LoonR1 said:
Kawasicki said:
No one is saying there isn't more risk with higher speeds. What's your point?
That's the circle complete for this discussion. Any increase in the speed limit will increase the risks, with more people obviously injured, killed. No argument there.
What about decreasing the limit, what about the lives saved? It looks (from the comments on PH anyway) as if driving standards have decreased of late, maybe it's time.
vonhosen said:
Deaths have been in decline.
In Germany too. 1/4 as many die as in the 70's, yet speeds are way, way higher.Now getting back to the UK, what have you against a 60mph motorway limit? Wouldn't it save many lives, the speed differential would drop to near nothing and there would be less bunching.
Kawasicki said:
In Germany too. 1/4 as many die as in the 70's, yet speeds are way, way higher.
Now getting back to the UK, what have you against a 60mph motorway limit? Wouldn't it save many lives, the speed differential would drop to near nothing and there would be less bunching.
Now what do they call that thing where someone ridicules someone else's argument to try to strengthen their own Now getting back to the UK, what have you against a 60mph motorway limit? Wouldn't it save many lives, the speed differential would drop to near nothing and there would be less bunching.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff