Alternative to speed limits and cameras?

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

It's still for personal reasons to them placing them outside defined societal values.
I'm not comparing the actions but the mind sets that lead to transgression of seeing your personal needs/desires at the time trumping societal needs/desires/concerns.

However comparing the actions of two groups, one of which is minute compared to the other and also highly populated with individuals with diagnosed mental disorders, is not particularly relevant. Unless you believe a high proportion of speeders to have undiagnosed mental disorders.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

It's still for personal reasons to them placing them outside defined societal values.
I'm not comparing the actions but the mind sets that lead to transgression of seeing your personal needs/desires at the time trumping societal needs/desires/concerns.

However comparing the actions of two groups, one of which is minute compared to the other and also highly populated with individuals with diagnosed mental disorders, is not particularly relevant. Unless you believe a high proportion of speeders to have undiagnosed mental disorders.

Not everybody committing crime has mental disorders.
People make choices for their own benefit over society when breaking the law & is entirely relevant whether it's minor or major law breaking.
The only difference is where people choose to draw their own line & of course that line can & does change as their circumstances change.
I would expect minor transgression to broken by more people than major transgressions, it's hardly a surprise.

[Ken Figenus]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Agree - especially as we know its quite likely they WILL 'speed' on occasion and likely without prejudicing anyone. So its the hypocrisy and disconnect - something CMoose has nailed to the mast far too many times now. Bang to rights!

[vonhosen]

Ken Figenus said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Agree - especially as we know its quite likely they WILL 'speed' on occasion and likely without prejudicing anyone. So its the hypocrisy and disconnect - something CMoose has nailed to the mast far too many times now. Bang to rights!

How many people have claimed speeding is indefensible in their view (or any other offence come to that)?
An individual's view on that has little bearing or consequence beyond their own actions.

[RobinOakapple]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That's your reading of his position but quite frankly it's getting very tiresome and I think you should drop it now.

[Esceptico]

Mr Moose's arguments are baffling. He seems a stranger to logic and reason as well as the rationale and functioning of the criminal justice system. Comparing the cynical breaking of speed limits with murder is laughable and as rich in hyperbole as the speed kills crew who he deprecates.

Speeding laws promote not only safety but also order: the roads would be very chaotic without rules. Anyone doubting it should try driving in India where rules are few (in practice). For speed limits to function they have to be enforced (as it is in the nature of many people to ignore or break rules, especially if they infringe on personal freedom). To be enforced there has to be a risk of being caught and there have to be sanctions. I suspect the reason why I see people driving and phoning every day is that there is hardly any risk of being caught.

For laws to be valid they have to apply to all. You can't decide that the law doesn't apply to you. Well you can decide that but it doesn't make you right. Of course, laws are made by humans and are subject to bias, imperfection or being "wrong" because they are inconsistent, unfair or contrary to natural justice. That is very subjective and laws that were once thought valid (prosecution of homosexuals) and now recognised as having been wrong.

Personally I find it laughable that someone can think our "right" to drive fast is somehow a civil right that gives us justification for breaking the law. It is just bullst. Like those greedy bds that hide their money offshore because they think that taxation is wrong (what they really mean is taxation of my money is wrong but it is okay for the little people).

Some people speed on occasion because it is fun. Breaking a speeding regulation is not equivalent to murdering someone.
Not even to stealing something as it is a victimless crime. Yet it is a crime of sorts. The cynical speeder will weigh up the risk of being caught and consequences against the benefits of speeding. That doesn't mean that the cynical speeder doesn't realise what they are doing is against the law, nor that the laws are necessary.

Another simple example. I've gone to pick my daughter up. I've parked next to a meter. I only need 5 minutes to pick her up but find I don't have any change in my pocket. But I still park. That doesn't mean I don't agree with parking meters nor that I have some sort of civil right to park where I like.

It might be better to live in Moose's fantasy world where people only break rules they thought they had an ethical reason to disobey. People are not like that. A pity as we wouldn't really need the civil nor criminal courts if we did.

[RobinOakapple]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

He's already provided a very good answer, just as I (and he) did earlier. You have decided not to accept any of them. Fair enough, that's your right. But your harping on this point is getting very tedious and obstructing what would otherwise be an interesting discussion. Can you not just agree to disagree on this one point?

[Ken Figenus]

This is so far over-thunk that it is has gone full circle and is become a stating the bleeding obvious fest again . Its is so much simpler and a lot more mundane than made out to be with all this hyperbole and posturing plus extra morals for added value (even if they are, in reality, often hypocritical). What I do know is that CMoose has no inner conflict and he has explained why very well! Out.

[RobinOakapple]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave earlier. But there's little point because you didn't accept it the first time you read it so you are hardly going to accept it now.

[RobinOakapple]

Ken Figenus said:

This is so far over-thunk that it is has gone full circle and is become a stating the bleeding obvious fest again . Its is so much simpler and a lot more mundane than made out to be with all this hyperbole and posturing plus extra morals for added value (even if they are, in reality, often hypocritical). What I do know is that CMoose has no inner conflict and he has explained why very well! Out.

His conflict is not inner, it's out there for us all to look at and get involved with.

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

It's imperfect & a compromise for many competing values, because we don't live in eutopia.

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.

I agree with most of that, all I also want is for those, as an example, who are in charge of this lot...



...to not have their prosecutions described by a Judge as “badly and appallingly put together", not have them face allegations of corruption, not fine innocent drivers, to not remove points from officers private cars, to not have whistleblowers fired or terrified to expose..

You get the point. It's a global thing.

"inconsistent and widespread breaches of penalty points policy" Etc, etc, etc.. As usual, there's a LOT you can add to this list.

Same old story, really. These types of people are operating safety cameras and you wonder why some don't like it? Your jaw, along with mine, should be on the floor. Instead, you get those simply saying "Don't speed" or that if a 60 mph road is lowered for no obvious reason to 40 mph and is targeted, you must never question why etc.

Then there's the classic "Vote them out" suggestions.

I never seem to get an answer, but why would anyone defend a system often put in place by these types of people?

[RobinOakapple]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I haven't provided an answer that suits you, that's plainly obvious, If you want to claim that that's the same as not providing an answer at all then I can't stop you.

It really is time you let this go now. I've known dogs let go of bones more easily.

[RobinOakapple]

^^

[Digby]

Esceptico said:

That doesn't mean I don't agree with parking meters...

And what if those meters were earning an estimated £594million for councils due to them not giving change and FOI requests revealed how they were cashing in?

What if wardens were ignoring guidlines and were hiding and waiting to pounce?

What if you were fined when the meter was out of order?

Would you agree with them, then?

What if, after those who DID complain (rather than some here who just tell us all to suck it up), the Government put in to practice some 'common sense' policies and started to offer ten minute grace periods etc? Would you be happy with the changes and admit that the system was much improved, or would you just defend it regardless of what was happening?

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

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 devices

How do you know what speed most drivers would drive at left to their own devices?

How do I know?

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

That doesn't tell you the speed drivers would drive at left to their own devices (i.e. no limits & a culture of them is to their own devices).

Are you suggesting that drivers go faster than their choice of speed, just because a higher limit allows them to?

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

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 devices

How do you know what speed most drivers would drive at left to their own devices?

How do I know?

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

That doesn't tell you the speed drivers would drive at left to their own devices (i.e. no limits & a culture of them is to their own devices).

Are you suggesting that drivers go faster than their choice of speed, just because a higher limit allows them to?

I'm saying that more often than not speed limits affect people's choice of speed. If there was a higher limit before you can't know what speed they would have chosen left to their own devices as they were more often than not limited by the higher limit.

i.e. if the driver would (left to their own devices) have gone faster than the 60 limit, introducing a 50 limit doesn't change that fact.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

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 devices

How do you know what speed most drivers would drive at left to their own devices?

How do I know?

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

That doesn't tell you the speed drivers would drive at left to their own devices (i.e. no limits & a culture of them is to their own devices).

Are you suggesting that drivers go faster than their choice of speed, just because a higher limit allows them to?

I'm saying that more often than not speed limits affect people's choice of speed. If there was a higher limit before you can't know what speed they would have chosen left to their own devices as they were more often than not limited by the higher limit.

i.e. if the driver would (left to their own devices) have gone faster than the 60 limit, introducing a 50 limit doesn't change that fact.

If the 60 limit was lower than their choice of speed, then the new 50 limit would be even more so.

Is this the five-minute argument or the full half-hour?

[Esceptico]

Moose - I'm bored of your crap, so sorry, but given up reading your responses. You say the same rubbish so don't think I'm missing much.

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

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 devices

How do you know what speed most drivers would drive at left to their own devices?

How do I know?

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

That doesn't tell you the speed drivers would drive at left to their own devices (i.e. no limits & a culture of them is to their own devices).

Are you suggesting that drivers go faster than their choice of speed, just because a higher limit allows them to?

I'm saying that more often than not speed limits affect people's choice of speed. If there was a higher limit before you can't know what speed they would have chosen left to their own devices as they were more often than not limited by the higher limit.

i.e. if the driver would (left to their own devices) have gone faster than the 60 limit, introducing a 50 limit doesn't change that fact.

If the 60 limit was lower than their choice of speed, then the new 50 limit would be even more so.

And?

The result is you still have no idea what their choice of speed would be left to their own devices.
The lower limit hasn't changed that, because you didn't know before.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

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 devices

How do you know what speed most drivers would drive at left to their own devices?

How do I know?

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

That doesn't tell you the speed drivers would drive at left to their own devices (i.e. no limits & a culture of them is to their own devices).

Are you suggesting that drivers go faster than their choice of speed, just because a higher limit allows them to?

I'm saying that more often than not speed limits affect people's choice of speed. If there was a higher limit before you can't know what speed they would have chosen left to their own devices as they were more often than not limited by the higher limit.

i.e. if the driver would (left to their own devices) have gone faster than the 60 limit, introducing a 50 limit doesn't change that fact.

If the 60 limit was lower than their choice of speed, then the new 50 limit would be even more so.

And?

The result is you still have no idea what their choice of speed would be left to their own devices.
The lower limit hasn't changed that, because you didn't know before.

It seems that simple logic escapes you.

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

Cappiche?

Edited by Pete317 on Tuesday 3rd May 21:04