Alternative to speed limits and cameras?
Discussion
vonhosen said:
Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
But it wasn't (a clue, it's not all about you).
The poster I was replying to stated real life was shades of grey not so black & white, I was pointing out to him a real world example that rebutted that position on the topic of this debate & that exceeding the speed limit is black/white & for pretty much as long as cars have existed there have been people prosecuted on that basis. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that's going to change anytime soon.
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 devicesThe poster I was replying to stated real life was shades of grey not so black & white, I was pointing out to him a real world example that rebutted that position on the topic of this debate & that exceeding the speed limit is black/white & for pretty much as long as cars have existed there have been people prosecuted on that basis. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that's going to change anytime soon.
Aside from the fact that I've been around for a while, one only has to look at the great many roads on which most people used to drive at or around the limit, which have now had their limits reduced without anything else having changed.
Examples are: NSL to 50, 40 or even 30, and 30 to 20
Edited by Pete317 on Tuesday 3rd May 12:51
vonhosen said:
How do you know what speed most drivers would drive at left to their own devices?
It used to be known. It was the 85th percentile. Seemed to work ok forever, until some people thought it would be a great way to relieve drivers of their money by posting unrealistic speed limits on most roadsKen Figenus said:
We are actually not that far off then, and what Robin said above.
I guess what we are exploring is why some are less pliable and averse to pragmatism based on what actually really happens and are perfectly happy that millions of drivers are needlessly turned over through the machine. I guess some of us are right of centre here (plus) and others left (minus)? The machine is absolutely necessary but is it always right, is it always doing the best by us, is it honest and is it always on the most appropriate setting? Telling us (again) that the law is the law never adds to the discussion and almost always sidesteps the larger point being made.
It's imperfect & a compromise for many competing values, because we don't live in eutopia.I guess what we are exploring is why some are less pliable and averse to pragmatism based on what actually really happens and are perfectly happy that millions of drivers are needlessly turned over through the machine. I guess some of us are right of centre here (plus) and others left (minus)? The machine is absolutely necessary but is it always right, is it always doing the best by us, is it honest and is it always on the most appropriate setting? Telling us (again) that the law is the law never adds to the discussion and almost always sidesteps the larger point being made.
Where we basically are, is some people think that the current system of limits & their enforcement is unreasonable, whilst others think that it isn't unreasonable.
Unless the current system changes in such a way that it becomes unreasonable or unpalatable for those that don't currently find it unreasonable, they aren't going to change from that position, because they haven't got to that position already without consideration.
Myself I'd happily drive a lot lot quicker a lot of the time, but at the same time I can understand why those in control & others wouldn't want me to (for many reasons). I don't think my reasons for wanting to go quicker are invalid, but I don't think their reasons for not wanting me to are invalid either. As I said we then have to compromise.
I don't find the current system of compromise too onerous, even if I don't or can't stick 100% to the rules 100% of the time for my own reasons or failings.
Big Rumbly said:
vonhosen said:
How do you know what speed most drivers would drive at left to their own devices?
It used to be known. It was the 85th percentile. Seemed to work ok forever, until some people thought it would be a great way to relieve drivers of their money by posting unrealistic speed limits on most roadsAs an example, people who drive at 95 in a 70, because the risk of an immediate ban as opposed to points at speeds 100+, yet who would happily do 160+ in our current 70 limits at times.
Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
But it wasn't (a clue, it's not all about you).
The poster I was replying to stated real life was shades of grey not so black & white, I was pointing out to him a real world example that rebutted that position on the topic of this debate & that exceeding the speed limit is black/white & for pretty much as long as cars have existed there have been people prosecuted on that basis. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that's going to change anytime soon.
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 devicesThe poster I was replying to stated real life was shades of grey not so black & white, I was pointing out to him a real world example that rebutted that position on the topic of this debate & that exceeding the speed limit is black/white & for pretty much as long as cars have existed there have been people prosecuted on that basis. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that's going to change anytime soon.
Aside from the fact that I've been around for a while, one only has to look at the great many roads on which most people used to drive at or around the limit, which have now had their limits reduced without anything else having changed.
Examples are: NSL to 50, 40 or even 30, and 30 to 20
RobinOakapple said:
... complaining about speed limits and their enforcement is like complaining about the weather, it's good fun for like-minded individuals to do but is certainly not going to change anything.
Perhaps the people on the right of centre should be discussing strategies for bringing about the changes they would like, and not just moaning about the status quo?
I don't think I am moaning and complaining (esp as I have a clean licence too Perhaps the people on the right of centre should be discussing strategies for bringing about the changes they would like, and not just moaning about the status quo?
) and I don't think just rolling over and shrugging in a cest la vie kind of way is an option either. The counter view has to be aired (and things are done outside PH of course) or otherwise there will only be the establishment and vested interests view being put out there - and sometimes you can drive a horse and cart through what they tell us...otolith said:
vonhosen said:
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.
Crackie said:
Esceptico said:
is it just me that constantly comes across people doing 45 in a 60 yet, when they come to the 30 limit, only drop down to 40 irrespective of whether there are hazards.
So why not make a minimum enforceable speed limit of say within 5mph of the posted speed limit except for:certain vehicles ie. farm machinery, etc.
and in bad weather conditions ie. fog, snow, heavy rain.
Penalities to include fines and points.
RobinOakapple said:
His example won't enlighten people who don't want to be enlightened.
He's simply pointing out that there are speed limits and we all have to bear them in mind even if we are exceeding them, and that there are always going to be speed limits and that they are not going to be set at the speeds which enthusiast drivers would prefer. If they raised the motorway limit tomorrow then pretty soon people would start a) driving at whatever margin over the new limit they thought they could get away with and b) claiming the new limits are still too low.
The people being successfully prosecuted for speeding aren't enthusiasts, they are just people going about their day to day business. Do you think it has been in the public interest to prosecute all of these people? He's simply pointing out that there are speed limits and we all have to bear them in mind even if we are exceeding them, and that there are always going to be speed limits and that they are not going to be set at the speeds which enthusiast drivers would prefer. If they raised the motorway limit tomorrow then pretty soon people would start a) driving at whatever margin over the new limit they thought they could get away with and b) claiming the new limits are still too low.
vonhosen said:
How do you know what speed most drivers would drive at left to their own devices?
when I worked in the sate of Montana the speed limit was "a reasonable and prudent" speed, basically no limit. Did people hurtle about like idiots? No really, it was actually quite hard to tell the difference in speed from any other state, but was much more relaxing to drive knowing that you weren't going to get nicked unless you really took the piss. The crash statistics also were favourable in that less people got hurt too. So win win. Willy Nilly said:
vonhosen said:
How do you know what speed most drivers would drive at left to their own devices?
when I worked in the sate of Montana the speed limit was "a reasonable and prudent" speed, basically no limit. Did people hurtle about like idiots? No really, it was actually quite hard to tell the difference in speed from any other state, but was much more relaxing to drive knowing that you weren't going to get nicked unless you really took the piss. The crash statistics also were favourable in that less people got hurt too. So win win. 2) I said a no limits & a culture of it, it takes time for cultural norms to change.
3) The crash stats weren't favourable, it's an oft quoted fallacy that they were. Their best performance (trend & outcome) was with lower (65mph) limits.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 3rd May 14:22
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Very good.I sat through another Speed Awareness Course yesterday (speeding on a Dual Carriageway got me there), and in essence the underlying theme of the whole 4 hours centred on urban areas and the impact of kids getting run over. Tedious scaremongering in the extreme and cherry-picking propoganda of epic proportions.
Not unlike the paedos on every corner stopping kids walking to school or every discussion about using smacking to discipline children sinking into rants about child abuse (broken arms, noses, baby P etc ).
Edited by cmaguire on Tuesday 3rd May 14:31
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Let me see if I can help you over this 'indefensible' thing, you have been somewhat labouring it.What he is saying is that he breaks the law when it suits him but he realises that he can't defend his doing that, whereas many here do with stuff like "it's a stupid law" etc.
It really is very simple, and there's no conflict there. He breaks a law and doesn't pretend he has a right to do that.
Ken Figenus said:
I don't think I am moaning and complaining (esp as I have a clean licence too ) and I don't think just rolling over and shrugging in a cest la vie kind of way is an option either. The counter view has to be aired (and things are done outside PH of course) or otherwise there will only be the establishment and vested interests view being put out there - and sometimes you can drive a horse and cart through what they tell us...
Are they indeed? Presumably these are secret things. ) and I don't think just rolling over and shrugging in a cest la vie kind of way is an option either. The counter view has to be aired (and things are done outside PH of course) or otherwise there will only be the establishment and vested interests view being put out there - and sometimes you can drive a horse and cart through what they tell us...Willy Nilly said:
RobinOakapple said:
His example won't enlighten people who don't want to be enlightened.
He's simply pointing out that there are speed limits and we all have to bear them in mind even if we are exceeding them, and that there are always going to be speed limits and that they are not going to be set at the speeds which enthusiast drivers would prefer. If they raised the motorway limit tomorrow then pretty soon people would start a) driving at whatever margin over the new limit they thought they could get away with and b) claiming the new limits are still too low.
The people being successfully prosecuted for speeding aren't enthusiasts, they are just people going about their day to day business. Do you think it has been in the public interest to prosecute all of these people? He's simply pointing out that there are speed limits and we all have to bear them in mind even if we are exceeding them, and that there are always going to be speed limits and that they are not going to be set at the speeds which enthusiast drivers would prefer. If they raised the motorway limit tomorrow then pretty soon people would start a) driving at whatever margin over the new limit they thought they could get away with and b) claiming the new limits are still too low.
h about it like I hope the people you refer to do.I can understand why you and others are keen to see people exceeding the urban limits being punished and hopefully deterred from continuing to do so.
But why exactly are you so keen to see people exceeding the 70 being stopped? To me the two are wildly different 'crimes', one being very undesirable and the other mostly trivial. The distinction for me being urban/non-urban and the obvious implications of that.
But why exactly are you so keen to see people exceeding the 70 being stopped? To me the two are wildly different 'crimes', one being very undesirable and the other mostly trivial. The distinction for me being urban/non-urban and the obvious implications of that.
cmaguire said:
I can understand why you and others are keen to see people exceeding the urban limits being punished and hopefully deterred from continuing to do so.
But why exactly are you so keen to see people exceeding the 70 being stopped? To me the two are wildly different 'crimes', one being very undesirable and the other mostly trivial. The distinction for me being urban/non-urban and the obvious implications of that.
Doing so would be inconsistent with their position as they do not differentiate. The state does not empower them to do so. Cutting some slack/pragmatism/real world type common sense stuff does not compute as it undermines the backbone of their absolute and rigid position.But why exactly are you so keen to see people exceeding the 70 being stopped? To me the two are wildly different 'crimes', one being very undesirable and the other mostly trivial. The distinction for me being urban/non-urban and the obvious implications of that.
vonhosen said:
Offences like theft etc are defensible in some people's minds.
They can accept why society doesn't want them to do it & outlaws it, but their personal circumstances or desires justify it to them & they are willing to run the gauntlet because they see the risk/gain etc as favourable.
All it does is put them outside the societal values expressed through the law, but they are willing to go there for personal reasons.
You're getting a bit desperate now, comparing speeders to individuals more often than not with extensive records, questionable backgrounds, drug addictions, historical abuse etc. They aren't usually 'just' otherwise normal people who fancy a bit of nicking because it suits them. They are also very small in number, as you would expect considering their C.V.s. Speeders are in the millions.They can accept why society doesn't want them to do it & outlaws it, but their personal circumstances or desires justify it to them & they are willing to run the gauntlet because they see the risk/gain etc as favourable.
All it does is put them outside the societal values expressed through the law, but they are willing to go there for personal reasons.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
Offences like theft etc are defensible in some people's minds.
They can accept why society doesn't want them to do it & outlaws it, but their personal circumstances or desires justify it to them & they are willing to run the gauntlet because they see the risk/gain etc as favourable.
All it does is put them outside the societal values expressed through the law, but they are willing to go there for personal reasons.
You're getting a bit desperate now, comparing speeders to individuals more often than not with extensive records, questionable backgrounds, drug addictions, historical abuse etc. They aren't usually 'just' otherwise normal people who fancy a bit of nicking because it suits them. They are also very small in number, as you would expect considering their C.V.s. Speeders are in the millions.They can accept why society doesn't want them to do it & outlaws it, but their personal circumstances or desires justify it to them & they are willing to run the gauntlet because they see the risk/gain etc as favourable.
All it does is put them outside the societal values expressed through the law, but they are willing to go there for personal reasons.
I'm not comparing the actions themselves, but the mind sets that lead to transgression when seeing your personal needs/desires at the time trumping societal needs/desires/concerns & you willing to run the gauntlet as you see the risk/benefit.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff