Avg. speed cameras at A34 at Milton, Oxfordshire
Discussion
flemke said:
As I suggested above, it is of course quite possible that my personal "poll" is unrepresentative. Fair enough.
Our point of departure for this discussion was, however, the local authority-gleaned data showing that roughly 50% of drivers in the sample 20 mph zone exceeded that speed limit. These were the data that mattered. If half those persons covered by a particular law choose to break that law, it hardly shows widespread acceptance of that law. This was my point about lack of consent by the governed.
Maybe there has indeed been a failure by local authorities to communicate the rationale for various 20 mph zones. If so, the burden is on the LAs to justify them, not for drivers to go off and do their own independent research and draw their own inferences.
The justifications that I mentioned above (global warming, air quality, et al) cover a fairly wide territory, and comprise pretty much every justification that I have heard an authority give for a 20 mph limit. If there are other justifications, it would be helpful if you could share them with us.
While I agree that it is fair and reasonable to justify speed limits when they are made I don't think it is at all reasonable to suggest that drivers need to see or indeed agree with the justification when they are aware of that justification before they comply with the limit.Our point of departure for this discussion was, however, the local authority-gleaned data showing that roughly 50% of drivers in the sample 20 mph zone exceeded that speed limit. These were the data that mattered. If half those persons covered by a particular law choose to break that law, it hardly shows widespread acceptance of that law. This was my point about lack of consent by the governed.
Maybe there has indeed been a failure by local authorities to communicate the rationale for various 20 mph zones. If so, the burden is on the LAs to justify them, not for drivers to go off and do their own independent research and draw their own inferences.
The justifications that I mentioned above (global warming, air quality, et al) cover a fairly wide territory, and comprise pretty much every justification that I have heard an authority give for a 20 mph limit. If there are other justifications, it would be helpful if you could share them with us.
There is no way that the 50% non compliant drivers were aware of the reasoning behind the limit so decided to ignore it. That is simply unreasonable.
If the limit is signed then it is reasonable to comply. 20 limits and zones are generally ignored, perhaps someone should enforce them as generally they are not enforced. If they were then I am willing to predict that the 50% compliance will very quickly rise to more than 90%...especially with the use of average speed enforcement.
^This is a good point - everyone knows that the coppers ignore 20mph limits, they've said so to the press on a number of occasions.
That to one side for the moment, this is a great book:
In which Khaneman outlines system 1 (instinctive) and system 2 (calculating) types of thinking, and the uses of, and reasons behind the two.
Driving, once learned, becomes a system 1 type activity - most of us do it unthinkingly.
Anything which requires (amongst other things) statistical analysis is a system 2 activity, which most humans will avoid if possible as it takes effort.
Indeed, you can watch Fatboy making as much reasoned, logical sense as a Holocaust denier standing in an oven at Auschwitz when he attempts to explain his view of statistics, physics etc whilst stuck in system 1. Or he might just be very thick, of course.
Anyway - in order to actually reason we need to make an effort, to jump to system 2 in order to be able to understand concepts such as kinetic energy, effects on reaction time of small speed increases etc etc. Most of us won't do it, don't want to and therefore never do.
You can see this when people say "it's just common sense", which is modern day shorthand for "I've given this no thought whatsoever, and can't actually defend my position rationally".
So when people glance at the 20mph limit sign they a) know the coppers won't do anything if they drive through at 35 and b) won't bother making the effort to work out why they might want to slow down a bit.
That to one side for the moment, this is a great book:
In which Khaneman outlines system 1 (instinctive) and system 2 (calculating) types of thinking, and the uses of, and reasons behind the two.
Driving, once learned, becomes a system 1 type activity - most of us do it unthinkingly.
Anything which requires (amongst other things) statistical analysis is a system 2 activity, which most humans will avoid if possible as it takes effort.
Indeed, you can watch Fatboy making as much reasoned, logical sense as a Holocaust denier standing in an oven at Auschwitz when he attempts to explain his view of statistics, physics etc whilst stuck in system 1. Or he might just be very thick, of course.
Anyway - in order to actually reason we need to make an effort, to jump to system 2 in order to be able to understand concepts such as kinetic energy, effects on reaction time of small speed increases etc etc. Most of us won't do it, don't want to and therefore never do.
You can see this when people say "it's just common sense", which is modern day shorthand for "I've given this no thought whatsoever, and can't actually defend my position rationally".
So when people glance at the 20mph limit sign they a) know the coppers won't do anything if they drive through at 35 and b) won't bother making the effort to work out why they might want to slow down a bit.
tapereel said:
flemke said:
As I suggested above, it is of course quite possible that my personal "poll" is unrepresentative. Fair enough.
Our point of departure for this discussion was, however, the local authority-gleaned data showing that roughly 50% of drivers in the sample 20 mph zone exceeded that speed limit. These were the data that mattered. If half those persons covered by a particular law choose to break that law, it hardly shows widespread acceptance of that law. This was my point about lack of consent by the governed.
Maybe there has indeed been a failure by local authorities to communicate the rationale for various 20 mph zones. If so, the burden is on the LAs to justify them, not for drivers to go off and do their own independent research and draw their own inferences.
The justifications that I mentioned above (global warming, air quality, et al) cover a fairly wide territory, and comprise pretty much every justification that I have heard an authority give for a 20 mph limit. If there are other justifications, it would be helpful if you could share them with us.
While I agree that it is fair and reasonable to justify speed limits when they are made I don't think it is at all reasonable to suggest that drivers need to see or indeed agree with the justification when they are aware of that justification before they comply with the limit.Our point of departure for this discussion was, however, the local authority-gleaned data showing that roughly 50% of drivers in the sample 20 mph zone exceeded that speed limit. These were the data that mattered. If half those persons covered by a particular law choose to break that law, it hardly shows widespread acceptance of that law. This was my point about lack of consent by the governed.
Maybe there has indeed been a failure by local authorities to communicate the rationale for various 20 mph zones. If so, the burden is on the LAs to justify them, not for drivers to go off and do their own independent research and draw their own inferences.
The justifications that I mentioned above (global warming, air quality, et al) cover a fairly wide territory, and comprise pretty much every justification that I have heard an authority give for a 20 mph limit. If there are other justifications, it would be helpful if you could share them with us.
There is no way that the 50% non compliant drivers were aware of the reasoning behind the limit so decided to ignore it. That is simply unreasonable.
If the limit is signed then it is reasonable to comply. 20 limits and zones are generally ignored, perhaps someone should enforce them as generally they are not enforced. If they were then I am willing to predict that the 50% compliance will very quickly rise to more than 90%...especially with the use of average speed enforcement.
With nothing whatsoever having perceptibly changed, however, suddenly drivers are confronted with 20 mph limits that only the week before were 30.
You can suggest, as you seem to be doing, that drivers do not need to know why a limit is what it is, they need only to obey. Although that logic would apply to the extent that drivers do not need to know the background and advice relating to the limit for every individual site, the logic would not extend to a broad and fundamental change to UK speed limit protocols. The proliferation of 20 mph limits is such a change.
Not only are drivers entitled, as the "governed", to have it explained to them why 20 mph limits are, supposedly, a good thing. If drivers are made aware of the rationale - and assuming that the rationale is sensible - there is a much greater likelihood that they will accept it and heed the limit, especially a limit that intuitively seems wrong.
How to communicate it is quite an interesting question - fairly challenging, I would say.
Making a one size fits all campaign to explain the various factors behind the move to 20 mph makes sense is probably a) impossible and b) if it wasn't impossible, impractical.
i.e. you have to factor in level of education, attention span, media etc etc, and then take into account that a lot of people will reject anything, no matter how well reasoned, as Green propaganda and start braying about "may as well have a man with a red flag in front !!!111!!11!!".
It's perfectly possible to find this stuff out, but few will bother - that doesn't mean that you should not do things that make the world a safer place though.
Making a one size fits all campaign to explain the various factors behind the move to 20 mph makes sense is probably a) impossible and b) if it wasn't impossible, impractical.
i.e. you have to factor in level of education, attention span, media etc etc, and then take into account that a lot of people will reject anything, no matter how well reasoned, as Green propaganda and start braying about "may as well have a man with a red flag in front !!!111!!11!!".
It's perfectly possible to find this stuff out, but few will bother - that doesn't mean that you should not do things that make the world a safer place though.
Dammit said:
How to communicate it is quite an interesting question - fairly challenging, I would say.
Making a one size fits all campaign to explain the various factors behind the move to 20 mph makes sense is probably a) impossible and b) if it wasn't impossible, impractical.
i.e. you have to factor in level of education, attention span, media etc etc, and then take into account that a lot of people will reject anything, no matter how well reasoned, as Green propaganda and start braying about "may as well have a man with a red flag in front !!!111!!11!!".
It's perfectly possible to find this stuff out, but few will bother - that doesn't mean that you should not do things that make the world a safer place though.
Do you really believe that, "We'd like to tell you, but you just wouldn't understand," is an acceptable explanation for a public policy affecting almost every adult in this country?Making a one size fits all campaign to explain the various factors behind the move to 20 mph makes sense is probably a) impossible and b) if it wasn't impossible, impractical.
i.e. you have to factor in level of education, attention span, media etc etc, and then take into account that a lot of people will reject anything, no matter how well reasoned, as Green propaganda and start braying about "may as well have a man with a red flag in front !!!111!!11!!".
It's perfectly possible to find this stuff out, but few will bother - that doesn't mean that you should not do things that make the world a safer place though.
It's not my policy, I'm just considering the difficulties. I would expect that there has been communication at a local level when these things are done - there was when Southwark went to 20mph. If people consider the communication to be insufficient then they can always ask questions, after all.
But as has been pointed out, given that the police have stated that they won't enforce 20mph it's not really a huge issue is it?
But as has been pointed out, given that the police have stated that they won't enforce 20mph it's not really a huge issue is it?
Dammit said:
It's not my policy, I'm just considering the difficulties. I would expect that there has been communication at a local level when these things are done - there was when Southwark went to 20mph. If people consider the communication to be insufficient then they can always ask questions, after all.
Ask questions? To whom? What sort of answer (if any) would be forthcoming - the usual robotic tautology from a call centre employee who is as far removed from them who set policy as the North Pole is from the South?Dammit said:
But as has been pointed out, given that the police have stated that they won't enforce 20mph it's not really a huge issue is it?
The Police aren't the only enforcement mechanism. The OP included a brochure from some average speed measuring assholes who are trying to flog their devices to camera partnerships. The brochure specifically included references to 20 mph limits.When it comes to inappropriate enforcement of inappropriate speed limits, the camera partnerships are often as bad as or worse than the Police.
flemke said:
Dammit said:
It's not my policy, I'm just considering the difficulties. I would expect that there has been communication at a local level when these things are done - there was when Southwark went to 20mph. If people consider the communication to be insufficient then they can always ask questions, after all.
Ask questions? To whom? What sort of answer (if any) would be forthcoming - the usual robotic tautology from a call centre employee who is as far removed from them who set policy as the North Pole is from the South?Dammit said:
But as has been pointed out, given that the police have stated that they won't enforce 20mph it's not really a huge issue is it?
The Police aren't the only enforcement mechanism. The OP included a brochure from some average speed measuring assholes who are trying to flog their devices to camera partnerships. The brochure specifically included references to 20 mph limits.When it comes to inappropriate enforcement of inappropriate speed limits, the camera partnerships are often as bad as or worse than the Police.
There are a number of 20mph speed limits enforced, some by average speed systems some by mobile units.
Police tend to resist enforcing 20mph zones that should be self enforcing but there is no blanket refusal or policy not to enforce any speed limit, 20mph limits included.
Edited to add: if you want information about a 20mph speed limit ask the council; I am sure they will be absolutely delighted to point you to their justification for it. It is public information after all; it cannot be withheld.
You seem to have already decided it will not meet your needs so you are not going to ask for it; I suggest you do ask, you never know, you may learn something rather than just making your mind up first.
Let us all know how you get on.
Edited by tapereel on Monday 1st June 16:34
Dammit said:
It's not my policy, I'm just considering the difficulties. I would expect that there has been communication at a local level when these things are done - there was when Southwark went to 20mph. If people consider the communication to be insufficient then they can always ask questions, after all.
But as has been pointed out, given that the police have stated that they won't enforce 20mph it's not really a huge issue is it?
It would be unusual for the police to make a complete refusal to enforce a limit but 20mph limit enforcement is unusual...just not something that is 'never' doneBut as has been pointed out, given that the police have stated that they won't enforce 20mph it's not really a huge issue is it?
tapereel said:
flemke said:
Dammit said:
It's not my policy, I'm just considering the difficulties. I would expect that there has been communication at a local level when these things are done - there was when Southwark went to 20mph. If people consider the communication to be insufficient then they can always ask questions, after all.
Ask questions? To whom? What sort of answer (if any) would be forthcoming - the usual robotic tautology from a call centre employee who is as far removed from them who set policy as the North Pole is from the South?Dammit said:
But as has been pointed out, given that the police have stated that they won't enforce 20mph it's not really a huge issue is it?
The Police aren't the only enforcement mechanism. The OP included a brochure from some average speed measuring assholes who are trying to flog their devices to camera partnerships. The brochure specifically included references to 20 mph limits.When it comes to inappropriate enforcement of inappropriate speed limits, the camera partnerships are often as bad as or worse than the Police.
tapereel said:
There are a number of 20mph speed limits enforced, some by average speed systems some by mobile units.
Police tend to resist enforcing 20mph zones that should be self enforcing but there is no blanket refusal or policy not to enforce any speed limit, 20mph limits included.
Edited to add: if you want information about a 20mph speed limit ask the council; I am sure they will be absolutely delighted to point you to their justification for it. It is public information after all; it cannot be withheld.
You seem to have already decided it will not meet your needs so you are not going to ask for it; I suggest you do ask, you never know, you may learn something rather than just making your mind up first.
Let us all know how you get on.
As I wrote above, I have heard several justifications trotted out for 20 mph limits. (It is interesting that none of the limits' defenders on this thread have thus far provided us with a single one.)Police tend to resist enforcing 20mph zones that should be self enforcing but there is no blanket refusal or policy not to enforce any speed limit, 20mph limits included.
Edited to add: if you want information about a 20mph speed limit ask the council; I am sure they will be absolutely delighted to point you to their justification for it. It is public information after all; it cannot be withheld.
You seem to have already decided it will not meet your needs so you are not going to ask for it; I suggest you do ask, you never know, you may learn something rather than just making your mind up first.
Let us all know how you get on.
Whether it is possible for someone to contrive a sophistic justification for widespread 20 mph limits is however not the point. Rather, the points are that:
- it is a condition for a functioning democracy that most people respect (as in, accept as being fair, sensible and valid) the law. If millions of otherwise law-abiding people flout a given law, it is probable that the fault lies not in the law-breakers, but rather in the law itself, and that
- the only exception to the above would be if those law-breakers were not aware of the given law. As that explanation is the only defence that local authorities have for imposing and continuing a law that is so widely broken, in order to maintain that law the onus is on the authority to make its case for why people should be in favour of it.
Do you seriously expect the millions of drivers who apparently do not accept 20 mph limits individually to contact the authorities and seek out the explanation?
If it is so clear that the major inconvenience of blanket 20 mph limits is justified, why can't the authorities properly explain it to the public?
Flemke, here's a question for you: have you ever sought an explanation from a council for a 20mph speed limit?
Here's another: when you got that explanation was it deficient or unreasonable in any way?
I certainly have seen no evidence from you that you have done so. Until you just ask and then receive something you can post and explain is unreasonable then I can't see why your opinion is of any worth. Perhaps I have missed the evidence but if not you are showing the signs of being a gobs
te. Apologies to readers for putting it plain but I do think that is where we are. 
Here's another: when you got that explanation was it deficient or unreasonable in any way?
I certainly have seen no evidence from you that you have done so. Until you just ask and then receive something you can post and explain is unreasonable then I can't see why your opinion is of any worth. Perhaps I have missed the evidence but if not you are showing the signs of being a gobs
te. Apologies to readers for putting it plain but I do think that is where we are. tapereel said:
Flemke, here's a question for you: have you ever sought an explanation from a council for a 20mph speed limit?
Here's another: when you got that explanation was it deficient or unreasonable in any way?
I certainly have seen no evidence from you that you have done so. Until you just ask and then receive something you can post and explain is unreasonable then I can't see why your opinion is of any worth. Perhaps I have missed the evidence but if not you are showing the signs of being a gobste. Apologies to readers for putting it plain but I do think that is where we are.
I would not mind answering your personal questions if you could show how they are germane to what others have been discussing here (not to be confused with the irrelevant diversions that you have tried to create).Here's another: when you got that explanation was it deficient or unreasonable in any way?
I certainly have seen no evidence from you that you have done so. Until you just ask and then receive something you can post and explain is unreasonable then I can't see why your opinion is of any worth. Perhaps I have missed the evidence but if not you are showing the signs of being a gobs
te. Apologies to readers for putting it plain but I do think that is where we are. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff