Alternative to speed limits and cameras?
Discussion
vonhosen said:
They don't satisfy the requirements of dangerous driving, it's part of the reason individual offences exist.
I think you are taking Setright too literally, I don't think he meant that the only legislation should be the then existing section of the RTA relating to the offence of dangerous driving exactly as written at the time. otolith said:
vonhosen said:
They don't satisfy the requirements of dangerous driving, it's part of the reason individual offences exist.
I think you are taking Setright too literally, I don't think he meant that the only legislation should be the then existing section of the RTA relating to the offence of dangerous driving exactly as written at the time. Without him offering up any alternative to that which the legislation describes that's all we can go on.
Esceptico said:
There seems to be a huge amount of b
hing on PH about speed limits and cameras. But does anyone have any sensible suggestions for a different system?
Is there anyone that believes we should have no speed limits - and if yes why?
Personally I don't trust the average person (or at least a significant minority of drivers) to have the ability nor mindset to always drive at a safe speed for the conditions. So even though under the right circumstances it could be perfectlly safe to drive 70 in what is now a 30 I accept that 30 limits are necessary. I think we could raise the speed limit on motorways but overall I think the limits are not too bad.
If you accept that speed limits are a necessary evil then you also have to accept that they should be enforced (otherwise they would be ignored). And penalties have to be linked to how much or how often you exceed the limits. One could argue about the detail but that seems to be covered by the current UK system. In Switzerland they had a different system. Low grade speeding (generally up to about 20 mph over) are treated with fixed fines (that increase as you get closer to the 20 mph) and thereafter mandatory bans and income related fines. More than 45 mph over and you risk prison. When you consider that their A and B roads have 80 kmh limits so you only need to be 140 kmh (about 85 mph) then you can see that prison is a real risk if you have a fast car or bike.
The current system in the UK - where cameras are painted yellow and even mobile police units are in marked vans or with police in HiVis seems to give UK speeders a pretty good chance of avoiding detection. I'm not sure how people can argue this is unfair. A more logical approach would be like in Switzerland where the cameras and police are usually hidden so you have no way of spotting them. That leads to paranoia because you know that you could be caught almost anywhere at any time. Great for stopping speeding but horrid for driving.
People argue that cameras should only be at accident black spots but effectively what they are saying is that speeding should not be policed where they speed - a speeding nimbyism. But isn't that like not having limits at all? A lot of people on here complain about driving standards of the average person - so would you be happy for them to feel free to drive as fast as they want, as well as as badly as they want?
I'm very pleased that you agree that some 30 mph limits are necessary, NB. They are near exclusive to built up areas which contain the greatest hazards. Lots of other cars. Lots of people. Lots of junctions etc.hing on PH about speed limits and cameras. But does anyone have any sensible suggestions for a different system? Is there anyone that believes we should have no speed limits - and if yes why?
Personally I don't trust the average person (or at least a significant minority of drivers) to have the ability nor mindset to always drive at a safe speed for the conditions. So even though under the right circumstances it could be perfectlly safe to drive 70 in what is now a 30 I accept that 30 limits are necessary. I think we could raise the speed limit on motorways but overall I think the limits are not too bad.
If you accept that speed limits are a necessary evil then you also have to accept that they should be enforced (otherwise they would be ignored). And penalties have to be linked to how much or how often you exceed the limits. One could argue about the detail but that seems to be covered by the current UK system. In Switzerland they had a different system. Low grade speeding (generally up to about 20 mph over) are treated with fixed fines (that increase as you get closer to the 20 mph) and thereafter mandatory bans and income related fines. More than 45 mph over and you risk prison. When you consider that their A and B roads have 80 kmh limits so you only need to be 140 kmh (about 85 mph) then you can see that prison is a real risk if you have a fast car or bike.
The current system in the UK - where cameras are painted yellow and even mobile police units are in marked vans or with police in HiVis seems to give UK speeders a pretty good chance of avoiding detection. I'm not sure how people can argue this is unfair. A more logical approach would be like in Switzerland where the cameras and police are usually hidden so you have no way of spotting them. That leads to paranoia because you know that you could be caught almost anywhere at any time. Great for stopping speeding but horrid for driving.
People argue that cameras should only be at accident black spots but effectively what they are saying is that speeding should not be policed where they speed - a speeding nimbyism. But isn't that like not having limits at all? A lot of people on here complain about driving standards of the average person - so would you be happy for them to feel free to drive as fast as they want, as well as as badly as they want?
To suggest that it could be perfectly safe to drive at 70 in these areas is foolhardy and most certainly naive.
Conditions. I would argue that the 'Conditions' are not THE conditions, but those that are perceived by the driver, which are seperate things.
My solution to the problem? Slow down a bit.
singlecoil said:
Willy Nilly said:
RobinOakapple said:
Speed limits exist not to stop PHers having fun and not to prevent accidents (although they do of course contribute to that) or make roads safe, or to provide fodder for Digby's villains to profit from. They are there to make accidents less serious if and when they occur and to provide more avoidance time than would be available if people drove at the speed they chose
Most accidents aren't serious, but even minor accidents are an utter pain in the arse, lower speed limits don't stop people bumping into each other and when they do bump into each other they won't stop the agro of explaining to various insurance companys for the next 5 years or getting your car fixed or being without your car or the expense... No matter how it is spun, people are very unlikely to die in an RTA and if they watch what they are doing no matter their mode of transport, they are even more unlikely to die. I also put it to you that peoples fear of going outside, or letting their children play outside in case a "speeding motorist" (or in reality, they didn't look) mows them down is storing up more premature deaths than if they had actually gone outside when they all turn into fat, diabetics.
A friend of mine spent 2 years dying from a brain tumor, I'd much rather be killed on the road.
Willy Nilly said:
The serious ones are very rare indeed, so rare as to not be worth spending much time worrying about them. Crashing is a pain the the arse though no matter the size of the impact, it's better not to crash at any speed than crash at a lower speed.
No matter how it is spun, people are very unlikely to die in an RTA and if they watch what they are doing no matter their mode of transport, they are even more unlikely to die. I also put it to you that peoples fear of going outside, or letting their children play outside in case a "speeding motorist" (or in reality, they didn't look) mows them down is storing up more premature deaths than if they had actually gone outside when they all turn into fat, diabetics.
A friend of mine spent 2 years dying from a brain tumor, I'd much rather be killed on the road.
Shame more people don't share your views.No matter how it is spun, people are very unlikely to die in an RTA and if they watch what they are doing no matter their mode of transport, they are even more unlikely to die. I also put it to you that peoples fear of going outside, or letting their children play outside in case a "speeding motorist" (or in reality, they didn't look) mows them down is storing up more premature deaths than if they had actually gone outside when they all turn into fat, diabetics.
A friend of mine spent 2 years dying from a brain tumor, I'd much rather be killed on the road.
Willy Nilly said:
singlecoil said:
Willy Nilly said:
RobinOakapple said:
Speed limits exist not to stop PHers having fun and not to prevent accidents (although they do of course contribute to that) or make roads safe, or to provide fodder for Digby's villains to profit from. They are there to make accidents less serious if and when they occur and to provide more avoidance time than would be available if people drove at the speed they chose
Most accidents aren't serious, but even minor accidents are an utter pain in the arse, lower speed limits don't stop people bumping into each other and when they do bump into each other they won't stop the agro of explaining to various insurance companys for the next 5 years or getting your car fixed or being without your car or the expense... singlecoil said:
Willy Nilly said:
singlecoil said:
Willy Nilly said:
RobinOakapple said:
Speed limits exist not to stop PHers having fun and not to prevent accidents (although they do of course contribute to that) or make roads safe, or to provide fodder for Digby's villains to profit from. They are there to make accidents less serious if and when they occur and to provide more avoidance time than would be available if people drove at the speed they chose
Most accidents aren't serious, but even minor accidents are an utter pain in the arse, lower speed limits don't stop people bumping into each other and when they do bump into each other they won't stop the agro of explaining to various insurance companys for the next 5 years or getting your car fixed or being without your car or the expense... If you have £X amount of money to spend on reducing premature deaths, would you spend it on reducing road crashes, or would you do something about all of the fat children you now see waddling about? These kids will have a shortened life expectancy and will cost the public purse a fortune to maintain. If we break the speed limit, it is very unlikely we will crash and even less unlikely we will die doing so.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
When someone runs out of arguments in an Internet discussion they often resort to some or all of the following:- personal insults
- reference to straw man arguments / ad hominem attacks / fallacies (without reference to things the other person has said that demonstrate those supposed errors
- not addressing the arguments of the other person
- reference to the fact that the other poster wouldn't say it to them face to face
You seem to have a full house in your post!
Willy Nilly said:
singlecoil said:
Willy Nilly said:
singlecoil said:
Willy Nilly said:
RobinOakapple said:
Speed limits exist not to stop PHers having fun and not to prevent accidents (although they do of course contribute to that) or make roads safe, or to provide fodder for Digby's villains to profit from. They are there to make accidents less serious if and when they occur and to provide more avoidance time than would be available if people drove at the speed they chose
Most accidents aren't serious, but even minor accidents are an utter pain in the arse, lower speed limits don't stop people bumping into each other and when they do bump into each other they won't stop the agro of explaining to various insurance companys for the next 5 years or getting your car fixed or being without your car or the expense... If you have £X amount of money to spend on reducing premature deaths, would you spend it on reducing road crashes, or would you do something about all of the fat children you now see waddling about? These kids will have a shortened life expectancy and will cost the public purse a fortune to maintain. If we break the speed limit, it is very unlikely we will crash and even less unlikely we will die doing so.
As for more police on the road, to catch the people who don't pay enough attention, there are some already and I expect there will be some more if the money can be found to pay for them.
RobinOakapple said:
Fermit The Krog and Sarah Sexy said:
vonhosen said:
robinessex said:
The late L.J.K.Setright, probably the best motoring writer ever, once said there should bo only one motoring offence, dangerous driving.
So no inconsiderate driving, no careless driving, no no insurance, no driving other than in accordance with your licence, no drink/drug driving?I would suggest that if you are drunk, on drugs, driving without insurance you can be considered a danger to others, therefore come under said offence.
Some time ago dad told me of a system he came across somewhere in Europe (I can't remember which country) for speeding in residential/built ups areas, which we agreed made more sense than speed cameras. There were cameras in place measuring your speed, but instead of ticketing you a traffic light past the camera in question turned red for (say) two minutes if you were speeding. Ignore the red light and then you'd be penalised. Think about it, it's really clever; speed, and your journey shall actually take you longer!
I tried to correct your sloppy formatting but am not sure if I put the missing end quote in the right place.
Traffic is not ALWAYS so heavy as to justify the 70mph limit. It really is about time the tax payers and users of the transport system had their needs addressed instead of myopic over use of blunt enforcement of outdated regulations. Surveys regularly indicate two things:
1. lots of traffic exceeds 70mph (lots exceeds 80mph)
2. The vast majority of drivers backed the stingy increase that never happened to legalise some of their every day behaviour (the 80mph limit increase)
Go figure
RobinOakapple said:
Fermit The Krog and Sarah Sexy said:
vonhosen said:
robinessex said:
The late L.J.K.Setright, probably the best motoring writer ever, once said there should bo only one motoring offence, dangerous driving.
So no inconsiderate driving, no careless driving, no no insurance, no driving other than in accordance with your licence, no drink/drug driving?I would suggest that if you are drunk, on drugs, driving without insurance you can be considered a danger to others, therefore come under said offence.
Some time ago dad told me of a system he came across somewhere in Europe (I can't remember which country) for speeding in residential/built ups areas, which we agreed made more sense than speed cameras. There were cameras in place measuring your speed, but instead of ticketing you a traffic light past the camera in question turned red for (say) two minutes if you were speeding. Ignore the red light and then you'd be penalised. Think about it, it's really clever; speed, and your journey shall actually take you longer!
I tried to correct your sloppy formatting but am not sure if I put the missing end quote in the right place.
)twoblacklines said:
They should charge people who want to speed more money. Say, £1k a year. After all, it is always about money!
They are already paying for it in reduced fuel economy, and if they have a "fast" car, then they pay more tax as well. Probably already adds up to more than £1k anyway.Esceptico said:
When someone runs out of arguments in an Internet discussion they often resort to some or all of the following:
- personal insults
- reference to straw man arguments / ad hominem attacks / fallacies (without reference to things the other person has said that demonstrate those supposed errors
- not addressing the arguments of the other person
- reference to the fact that the other poster wouldn't say it to them face to face
You seem to have a full house in your post!
I think it is that inner conflict thing that has lost you a bit of ground on this one mate. Its not CMooses fault and I think that is the exact point you were honestly exploring initially. Honesty is a great thing to have out here so nothing wrong there - the chat till now has been constructive.- personal insults
- reference to straw man arguments / ad hominem attacks / fallacies (without reference to things the other person has said that demonstrate those supposed errors
- not addressing the arguments of the other person
- reference to the fact that the other poster wouldn't say it to them face to face
You seem to have a full house in your post!
As I stated I have no such inner conflict if I occasionally and marginally break 60/70 laws set by 'people who know better and have a bigger picture'. If I do, I do it knowingly and because I feel it remains just as safe. I do it with full concentration, with all my driving training and knowing that I value my life and my passengers lives far more than any bit of a reckless speed thrill or seconds saved off a journey. I know maybe not everyone is like that but I think many here who put forward reasoned and coherent arguments often get dumbed down to de facto entitled boy racers; the debate then disappears into entrenched positions and total resentment on both 'sides'. Progress away from this resentment may be based in a more intelligent and pragmatic approach to all aspects of enforcement which could benefit motorists and all areas of real safety and genuine risk. May involve more effort/thinking!
Edited by Ken Figenus on Monday 2nd May 19:14
anonymous said:
[redacted]
There is nothing incoherent with my views. Most people share them. Most people (perhaps not on PH) accept that speed limits are the law and should not be broken. However one is free to break them but then have to suffer the consequences if caught. I try not to speed but accept that if I occasionally slip and get caught then I have to accept the punishment. Your position is incoherent because you accept the need for speed limits but then say they are invalid for you (you haven't really set out why you should be exempt). I pointed out that it seems like cognitive dissonance to me. I assume you see yourself as law abiding. If speeding is breaking the law then that makes you a criminal. The only way to keep your view of yourselves as law abiding is to claim that the law is invalid.
You did not address the point above.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Which point have I not addressed? I explained why accepting that speeding is against the law yet still speeding is not incoherent. I have not shifted my position. I try not to speed - by speed I mean sit continually for long periods over the limit. I don't speed at all in 30. I try to stick to below an indicted 80 on the motorways and DCs and close to 60 in NSL. But when overtaking I expect I go over. I'm not an angel though and I love cars and bikes so it
Is a constant battle.
You keep saying I am misrepresenting you without saying how or why. Why don't you set out your position clearly?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff