Alternative to speed limits and cameras?

[vonhosen]

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

And the way I remember it is people like you wishing to only consider factors that you consider as pertinent.

[Ken Figenus]

vonhosen said:

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

Now that is a very good post. Lots of common ground and bang on topic rather than being poles apart just for the sake of argument or dogma - as others can be This 79mph motorway thing though - can we agree that errs towards revenue raising rather than anything a bit more positive and constructive and useful? We will have gone a good few autobahn kilometres then

[vonhosen]

Ken Figenus said:

vonhosen said:

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.

Now that is a very good post. Lots of common ground and bang on topic rather than being poles apart just for the sake of argument or dogma - as others can be This 79mph motorway thing though - can we agree that errs towards revenue raising rather than anything a bit more positive and constructive and useful? We will have gone a good few autobahn kilometres then

I've said before a 70 or 80 limit doesn't make any difference to me, I'm not getting out of bed to campaign for it either way.
I believe the last time it was looked at raising the 70 limit to 80, increased noise was a big part of it not happening.

[0000]

I thought it was just some bluster about women voters.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

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

And the way I remember it is people like you wishing to only consider factors that you consider as pertinent.

If you think you have a convincing argument as to why the factors which you consider to be pertinent, should be pertinent, then let's hear them.

[Type R Tom]

I've often thought get rid of all speed limits and allow drivers to make their own decisions but when it goes wrong severely punish them - if their speed is a contributory factor. I'm talking prison for injuries, nurburgring style charges for damages etc.

That way people can weigh up the risk themselves and can be held responsible for the actions. Would suit the driving gods on here, they never crash!

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

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

And the way I remember it is people like you wishing to only consider factors that you consider as pertinent.

If you think you have a convincing argument as to why the factors which you consider to be pertinent, should be pertinent, then let's hear them.

It's not what I just consider pertinent, or you. It's what anybody does.
We've been through it before & people saying speed limits are only justifiable & can only be based on safety criteria.
I'm saying for others there are other criteria that they would like to see given consideration in limit setting (e.g. environmental, life quality factors)
I don't think that's unreasonable on their part.

[vonhosen]

Type R Tom said:

I've often thought get rid of all speed limits and allow drivers to make their own decisions but when it goes wrong severely punish them - if their speed is a contributory factor. I'm talking prison for injuries, nurburgring style charges for damages etc.

That way people can weigh up the risk themselves and can be held responsible for the actions. Would suit the driving gods on here, they never crash!

What about victims of their choices who don't wish to be willing participants in their gambling?
Does any government have a duty to consider their wishes & the fairness of that to them?

[RobinOakapple]

Pete317 said:

If you think you have a convincing argument as to why the factors which you consider to be pertinent, should be pertinent, then let's hear them.

Why not say which ones you are having difficulty with, it would make the reply much more concise.

[Type R Tom]

vonhosen said:

Type R Tom said:

I've often thought get rid of all speed limits and allow drivers to make their own decisions but when it goes wrong severely punish them - if their speed is a contributory factor. I'm talking prison for injuries, nurburgring style charges for damages etc.

That way people can weigh up the risk themselves and can be held responsible for the actions. Would suit the driving gods on here, they never crash!

What about victims of their choices who don't wish to be willing participants in their gambling?
Does any government have a duty to consider their wishes & the fairness of that to them?

Can't argue with that but spend a few minutes on this site and just about everything that governments / councils do to improve road safety is met with such resistance by the "want to get from A to B as quickly as possible" you wonder what the alternative is.

[Esceptico]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You are an add bird Mr Moose. You have been attacking my posts yet I find above that what you have written above pretty much agrees 100% with what I wrote earlier:

"I think you missed the whole thrust of my argument, which is that as an enthusiast I am not sure I want limits to be enforced more intelligently. Being more intelligent the authorities could just force upon us a GPS enabled speed limiter or black boxes or use hidden cameras so that you never feel safe speeding. As an enthusiast I am happy to trade yellow fixed cameras and even mobile vans on motorway, dual carriageways and long straight roads if that means that limits are not enforced on all roads -
particularly the ones that are fun to drive fast."

Are you being argumentative for its own sake?

Or perhaps you will argue that I am misrepresenting you and what you wrote doesn't agree with what I said?

If I haven't misrepresented you then perhaps we are not so far apart as either of us likes to think.

As an aside, I would like to apologise for insulting you in my last post. I was frustrated with your responses but that doesn't excuse rudeness on my part.

[Esceptico]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The point for me is that I started this thread to discuss alternatives to speed cameras and whether the current system is actually good for enthusiasts. You have hijacked the thread with a completely different topic (people gloating). I'm happy to discuss that but perhaps you could have (or still can) start a different, new thread to do so.

[Esceptico]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

we will have to agree to disagree because I am fully aware of the implications of my arguments and IMO there is an inherent inconsistency in your approach. Further discussion seems futile as we don't seem to have common ground.

[RobinOakapple]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not going to let it go, are you?

[Ken Figenus]

Moose has a pragmatic approach (that isn't for me) but is consistent, non hypocritical and doesn't present as conflicted. There is a big penny not dropping here with a few I'm afraid.

I really will bow out now but lots of points have made me think - all good!

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

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

And the way I remember it is people like you wishing to only consider factors that you consider as pertinent.

If you think you have a convincing argument as to why the factors which you consider to be pertinent, should be pertinent, then let's hear them.

It's not what I just consider pertinent, or you. It's what anybody does.
We've been through it before & people saying speed limits are only justifiable & can only be based on safety criteria.
I'm saying for others there are other criteria that they would like to see given consideration in limit setting (e.g. environmental, life quality factors)
I don't think that's unreasonable on their part.

There you go again, with your nebulous "environmental, life quality factors", without any details and specifics.
Nothing to help anyone to quantify the effects.

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

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

And the way I remember it is people like you wishing to only consider factors that you consider as pertinent.

If you think you have a convincing argument as to why the factors which you consider to be pertinent, should be pertinent, then let's hear them.

It's not what I just consider pertinent, or you. It's what anybody does.
We've been through it before & people saying speed limits are only justifiable & can only be based on safety criteria.
I'm saying for others there are other criteria that they would like to see given consideration in limit setting (e.g. environmental, life quality factors)
I don't think that's unreasonable on their part.

There you go again, with your nebulous "environmental, life quality factors", without any details and specifics.
Nothing to help anyone to quantify the effects.

That's because they aren't mine, I'm voicing the sort of thing that others consider important.
As I said earlier, I believe the last time the motorway limit was seriously looked at being raised a big part of t not being raised was increased noise.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

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

And the way I remember it is people like you wishing to only consider factors that you consider as pertinent.

If you think you have a convincing argument as to why the factors which you consider to be pertinent, should be pertinent, then let's hear them.

It's not what I just consider pertinent, or you. It's what anybody does.
We've been through it before & people saying speed limits are only justifiable & can only be based on safety criteria.
I'm saying for others there are other criteria that they would like to see given consideration in limit setting (e.g. environmental, life quality factors)
I don't think that's unreasonable on their part.

There you go again, with your nebulous "environmental, life quality factors", without any details and specifics.
Nothing to help anyone to quantify the effects.

That's because they aren't mine, I'm voicing the sort of thing that others consider important.
As I said earlier, I believe the last time the motorway limit was seriously looked at being raised a big part of t not being raised was increased noise.

And that justifies the speed limit settings, does it?

Glad you're happy with such an in-depth explanation - forgive me if I'm not.

[Esceptico]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I have highlighted the inconsistencies in your argument but you don't address them, do address points I haven't been made or reject them out of hand.

Similarly you have convinced yourself you have seen inconsistencies in my approach that are invalid,
in my opinion.

In real life we would have to go to arbitration (or the courts) where a neutral expert could weigh up the arguments from both sides. This however is just a debate on a car forum so we will both have to remain convinced we are in the right.

The problem with people arguing on the Internet is that they don't get a reality check from independent third parties. Just asserting you are right does not make you right. Bludgeoning people into submission by repeatedly saying the same thing doesn't work quite as well in the real world.

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

That's because they aren't mine, I'm voicing the sort of thing that others consider important.
As I said earlier, I believe the last time the motorway limit was seriously looked at being raised a big part of t not being raised was increased noise.

And that justifies the speed limit settings, does it?

Glad you're happy with such an in-depth explanation - forgive me if I'm not.

The proposal turned down was for a limit raise from 70 to 80. As I've already said if such a rise takes place or not makes no difference to me at all so why would I worry about it?