Alternative to speed limits and cameras?

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

Simple logic escapes you.

My original point was about the limits being set lower than people would choose.
It's not necessary to know their exact choice, only that the limit is set lower.

Cappiche?

Plain English escapes you.

Pete317 said:

The big difference is, it's only recently that they've started setting some speed limits to lower than the speed which most drivers would choose if left to their own devices

If all that mattered was the limit being lowered, then their own devices doesn't come into it & shouldn't have been mentioned.

A lower limit was probably set because they wanted them to go slower still.

It's not only recently that limits have been lower than a speed I would choose if left to my own devices.
Limits invariably are to encourage me to travel slower than I would personally choose, it's kind of their point in introducing them.
By their nature they are pretty conservative & not set anywhere close to what is achievable in optimum conditions (nor would I expect them to be or they'd be kind of pointless).

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 3rd May 21:13

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

Simple logic escapes you.

My original point was about the limits being set lower than people would choose.
It's not necessary to know their exact choice, only that the limit is set lower.

Cappiche?

Plain English escapes you.
If all that mattered was the limit being lowered then their own devices doesn't come into it & shouldn't have been mentioned.

You're just twisting things.

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

The big difference is, it's only recently that they've started setting some speed limits to lower than the speed which most drivers would choose if left to their own devices

A lower limit was probably set because they wanted them to go slower still.

Limits invariably are to encourage me to travel slower than I would personally choose, it's kind of their point in introducing them.

No! That attitude typifies everything that's wrong with the system.
Limits are supposed to curb unreasonable excess, not to micro-manage behaviour.

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

Simple logic escapes you.

My original point was about the limits being set lower than people would choose.
It's not necessary to know their exact choice, only that the limit is set lower.

Cappiche?

Plain English escapes you.
If all that mattered was the limit being lowered then their own devices doesn't come into it & shouldn't have been mentioned.

You're just twisting things.

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

The big difference is, it's only recently that they've started setting some speed limits to lower than the speed which most drivers would choose if left to their own devices

A lower limit was probably set because they wanted them to go slower still.

Limits invariably are to encourage me to travel slower than I would personally choose, it's kind of their point in introducing them.

No! That attitude typifies everything that's wrong with the system.
Limits are supposed to curb unreasonable excess, not to micro-manage behaviour.

And who decides what amounts to unreasonable excess?

The societal view would no doubt be that I'm into unreasonable excess way before I get to what I'd choose left to my own devices (i.e. what I do on the autobahn).

[singlecoil]

Pete317 said:

Limits are supposed to curb unreasonable excess, not to micro-manage behaviour.

That isn't true. They are there to encourage people to drive within a speed which is a balance between the various factors influencing the choice of limit.

[Kawasicki]

vonhosen said:

And who decides what amounts to unreasonable excess?

The societal view would no doubt be that I'm into unreasonable excess way before I get to what I'd choose left to my own devices (i.e. what I do on the autobahn).

Who decides? The people who most hassle local politicians.

[vonhosen]

Kawasicki said:

vonhosen said:

And who decides what amounts to unreasonable excess?

The societal view would no doubt be that I'm into unreasonable excess way before I get to what I'd choose left to my own devices (i.e. what I do on the autobahn).

Who decides? The people who most hassle local politicians.

The politicians decide (sure they can be lobbied by all sides).

The result is that one man's idea of unreasonable excess can result in another man's idea of micro management.

Of course it isn't only unreasonable excess in relation to risk or numbers on a speedo, there are other factors to consider.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

And who decides what amounts to unreasonable excess?

Unreasonable excess is defined as being beyond the boundaries of normal behaviour.
And normal behaviour is defined by how we all behave.

vonhosen said:

The societal view would no doubt be that I'm into unreasonable excess way before I get to what I'd choose left to my own devices (i.e. what I do on the autobahn).

Reductio ad absurdum
When driving most places you drive, you wouldn't choose to do anything resembling autobahn-type speeds.

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

And who decides what amounts to unreasonable excess?

Unreasonable excess is defined as being beyond the boundaries of normal behaviour.
And normal behaviour is defined by how we all behave.

But we don't all behave the same.

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

The societal view would no doubt be that I'm into unreasonable excess way before I get to what I'd choose left to my own devices (i.e. what I do on the autobahn).

Reductio ad absurdum
When driving most places you drive, you wouldn't choose to do anything resembling autobahn-type speeds.

I'd be far in excess of our current limits a lot of the time & on our motorways/dual carriageways I would be doing autobahn speeds where I deemed it appropriate to.

[Pete317]

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

Limits are supposed to curb unreasonable excess, not to micro-manage behaviour.

That isn't true. They are there to encourage people to drive within a speed which is a balance between the various factors influencing the choice of limit.

Let's discuss those various factors then.

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

Limits are supposed to curb unreasonable excess, not to micro-manage behaviour.

That isn't true. They are there to encourage people to drive within a speed which is a balance between the various factors influencing the choice of limit.

Let's discuss those various factors then.

We have done ad nauseam.

[cmaguire]

Beats me why we can't all acknowledge specifically that the real problem here is the 70 limit. Is anybody actually disputing the 30, I doubt it very much. The daft re-jigging of various 60 limits is some sort or weird occurance that is probably best ignored in all instances where no camera exists.

The 70 is just plain pedestrian and entirely unnecessary, particularly when an 80 precedent exists in mainland Europe on the whole and thereby blows all the arguments against (which never seem to actually be made) anyway.
I'd be happy going whatever speed I feel like, and frequently do, but 80 is not an unreasonable expectation is it?

It would probabably be easier to accept if I hadn't been around when driving was fun.

[witko999]

Esceptico said:

For speed limits to function they have to be enforced

You keep banging on about this. Based on what evidence? What level of enforcement do you think is reasonable? More cameras than now?

I am curious as to your age and how long you've been driving. When I started driving (late nineties) speed cameras were few and far between, yet the roads were not horrifically dangerous as you seem to suggest they would be. People didn't just completely ignore speed limits. They got on with their journey as normal without having to glance at the speedo every 10 seconds. The KSI stats were no doubt slightly higher, which I would far prefer over this pointless attempt to reduce them to zero by micro management.

[cmaguire]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Now I just find driving is a chore most of the time, whereas 20 years back I didn't mind the drive to customers. Cameras, road narrowing, speed bumps, vanishing lanes now painted over, roads in increasingly poor condition and other road users going progressively slower every year and appearing to resent being overtaken more and more.
Even social driving or riding falls foul of the same crap.
And all totally unnecessary.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

And who decides what amounts to unreasonable excess?

Unreasonable excess is defined as being beyond the boundaries of normal behaviour.
And normal behaviour is defined by how we all behave.

But we don't all behave the same.

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

And who decides what amounts to unreasonable excess?

Unreasonable excess is defined as being beyond the boundaries of normal behaviour.
And normal behaviour is defined by how we all behave.

But we don't all behave the same.

How we all collectively behave.
Some of us drive a bit faster, some a bit slower, but mostly within an envelope which can be defined as normal.
Lots of things influence our choice of speed, such as road geometry, number of junctions, lines of sight, traffic density, weather etc etc.

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

The societal view would no doubt be that I'm into unreasonable excess way before I get to what I'd choose left to my own devices (i.e. what I do on the autobahn).

Reductio ad absurdum
When driving most places you drive, you wouldn't choose to do anything resembling autobahn-type speeds.

I'd be far in excess of our current limits a lot of the time & on our motorways/dual carriageways I would be doing autobahn speeds where I deemed it appropriate to.

We're talking about 30, 40 and 50 limits and you come along with autobahn speeds.
Sure, I might also choose to do autobahn speeds sometimes on a quiet motorway - not that I do - but, overall, on most other roads, my choice of speed is MUCH lower.
I would never dream of hooning it down the high street, for example.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

Limits are supposed to curb unreasonable excess, not to micro-manage behaviour.

That isn't true. They are there to encourage people to drive within a speed which is a balance between the various factors influencing the choice of limit.

Let's discuss those various factors then.

We have done ad nauseam.

The way I remember it is people like you making assertions and avoiding detail ad nauseam

[RobinOakapple]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

Limits are supposed to curb unreasonable excess, not to micro-manage behaviour.

That isn't true. They are there to encourage people to drive within a speed which is a balance between the various factors influencing the choice of limit.

Let's discuss those various factors then.

We have done ad nauseam.

The way I remember it is people like you making assertions and avoiding detail ad nauseam

You are evidently not a man to be argued with on this subject.

[Ken Figenus]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That is pragmatism gone too far! The motorway bridge camera vans nabbing people for 79mph may prey on the unobservant and cause a bit of panic braking, but my issue is that its probably the worse way to apply that resource if safety via deterrence and/or enforcement is remotely a desired goal (as is stated on every single partnership website).

Its not hypocritical to robo-enforce an absolute legal limit (even if many of us feel we might be trusted to go at a similar 81mph pace as our continental cousins rather than 'criminalised' and invoiced in UKP sterling) but its criminal the bullcr@p they espouse about why and how they do it. Others here may be all fine and dandy with it mind and feel its 100% correct, by the book, and a positive contribution to society of course (even when they themselves do 79mph on a motorway after an earlier hold up and get an invoice for their selfish transgression; even then they are not conflicted in this duality of position - to them it is karma and all good and needs no change)

[RobinOakapple]

Ken Figenus said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That is pragmatism gone too far! The motorway bridge camera vans nabbing people for 79mph may prey on the unobservant and cause a bit of panic braking, but my issue is that its probably the worse way to apply that resource if safety via deterrence and/or enforcement is remotely a desired goal (as is stated on every single partnership website).

Its not hypocritical to robo-enforce an absolute legal limit (even if many of us feel we might be trusted to go at a similar 81mph pace as our continental cousins rather than 'criminalised' and invoiced in UKP sterling) but its criminal the bullcr@p they espouse about why and how they do it. Others here may be all fine and dandy with it mind and feel its 100% correct, by the book, and a positive contribution to society of course (even when they themselves do 79mph on a motorway after an earlier hold up and get an invoice for their selfish transgression; even then they are not conflicted in this duality of position - to them it is karma and all good and needs no change)

End of this month it will be time to get some straw under my strawberries, I'll know where to come if I run out.

[Ken Figenus]

RobinOakapple said:

End of this month it will be time to get some straw under my strawberries, I'll know where to come if I run out.

What part of that is made up, exaggerated or developed far beyond the reality and de-facto position of what some people (not necessarily you) are saying here? If all else fails reach for the straw time and time again - happy bedding hayman!

[vonhosen]

Ken Figenus said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That is pragmatism gone too far! The motorway bridge camera vans nabbing people for 79mph may prey on the unobservant and cause a bit of panic braking, but my issue is that its probably the worse way to apply that resource if safety via deterrence and/or enforcement is remotely a desired goal (as is stated on every single partnership website).

Its not hypocritical to robo-enforce an absolute legal limit (even if many of us feel we might be trusted to go at a similar 81mph pace as our continental cousins rather than 'criminalised' and invoiced in UKP sterling) but its criminal the bullcr@p they espouse about why and how they do it. Others here may be all fine and dandy with it mind and feel its 100% correct, by the book, and a positive contribution to society of course (even when they themselves do 79mph on a motorway after an earlier hold up and get an invoice for their selfish transgression; even then they are not conflicted in this duality of position - to them it is karma and all good and needs no change)

Seeing your own reasons to exceed a limit as valid, but also recognising that other's can hold alternate valid reasons for you not to, isn't duality or cognitive dissonance.
it's ascribing to your own personal choice & recognising your (as are all our) personal choices aren't without consequence.

I've plenty of experience of driving at very high speeds over many many miles & not just on motorways. Far far more than most I'd imagine.
I haven't killed myself or anyone else doing it.
I'm quite happy with the risk, but I'm not kidding myself that I didn't pose a higher risk than if my speed had been a lot lower.
You might say the risk was only a bit higher & that may be true, but it was still higher.
It's not an unreasonable position to accept that other's may not share my acceptance of those risks where I am prepared to take them for my own personal reasons & seek to limit my ability to take them by imposing legal limits.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 4th May 11:26