Alternative to speed limits and cameras?
Discussion
vonhosen said:
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?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.
Glad you're happy with such an in-depth explanation - forgive me if I'm not.
As for the motorway limit raise, I think they're just using noise as an excuse, because when it comes down to it, politicians don't really like changing things.
Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
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?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.
Glad you're happy with such an in-depth explanation - forgive me if I'm not.
Pete317 said:
As for the motorway limit raise, I think they're just using noise as an excuse, because when it comes down to it, politicians don't really like changing things.
A that's your in-depth explanation is it?Forgive me if I don't think it is.
How many legislative changes did they make last year?
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 4th May 18:59
I've just been subjected to the M1 North of Leicester for the first time in a few weeks. This section is being converted into a Smart Motorway although finding anything smart about it isn't easy. Before all this nonsence I quite liked this section, it was entirely possible to use it without incident at 120+ if inclined and traffic permitting, so 85 (the speed a lot of people seem to like in the outside lane) was a cakewalk.
Now you've got no chance. The whole thing has been carpet-bombed by Hadecs cameras, which have slowed everyone down even when there is no variable limit in force, I expect because the authorities are known to now use the cameras on Motorways to enforce the NSL (so 79mph trigger) even when no signs are active. Because the outside lane speed has now slowed, many of the tiresome individuals who used to reside in the inside two lanes have now migrated into a queue in the outside one or two lanes, so the whole Motorway had the feel of an American Highway about it where all lanes were pootling along at some pedestrian pace. If, like there, undertaking was OK that might have improved things somewhat.
And the bloody cameras were flashing away as well, no doubt for vans/lorries that they are now clever enough to distinguish, as nobody was going fast in any real sense.
I've never been so pleased to get on the two-lane A14, where traffic speed immediately increased.
Now you've got no chance. The whole thing has been carpet-bombed by Hadecs cameras, which have slowed everyone down even when there is no variable limit in force, I expect because the authorities are known to now use the cameras on Motorways to enforce the NSL (so 79mph trigger) even when no signs are active. Because the outside lane speed has now slowed, many of the tiresome individuals who used to reside in the inside two lanes have now migrated into a queue in the outside one or two lanes, so the whole Motorway had the feel of an American Highway about it where all lanes were pootling along at some pedestrian pace. If, like there, undertaking was OK that might have improved things somewhat.
And the bloody cameras were flashing away as well, no doubt for vans/lorries that they are now clever enough to distinguish, as nobody was going fast in any real sense.
I've never been so pleased to get on the two-lane A14, where traffic speed immediately increased.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You have said that speed limits are a necessary evil. Did you say that or not?
If you accept that speed limits are necessary (ignoring what the "correct" limits should be) then you must accept that speed limits have to be enforced (again it is not relevant how they are enforced). If you think you can have a law that doesn't need to be enforced please explain why it doesn't need to be enforced and what purpose the law is supposed have if it is not enforced.
Clearly any valid law must carry a sanction if it is broken. It is not relevant to the argument what those sanctions are.
Breaking speed limits is an objective test. Intention is irrelevant. If you have exceeded the speed posted you have broken the law.
You have claimed that you breaking speed limits is defendable. But as yet I'm waiting for a justification from you for that leap. You stating it is defendable is not an argument. But saying that speeding is defendable is the same as saying that speed limits are not valid. Yet that brings us back to your first statement where you say that speed limits are a necessary evil. Please explain how you can say speed limits are necessary yet also that they can be ignored.
Be true to your word and go through each argument line by line above.
0000 said:
Esceptico said:
Clearly any valid law must carry a sanction if it is broken. It is not relevant to the argument what those sanctions are.
Proportionality and necessity should be considered before deciding if a sanction is appropriate, probably amongst other aspects.With that in mind & if the government want people to observe them, how would you suggest the government proceed?
vonhosen said:
0000 said:
Esceptico said:
Clearly any valid law must carry a sanction if it is broken. It is not relevant to the argument what those sanctions are.
Proportionality and necessity should be considered before deciding if a sanction is appropriate, probably amongst other aspects.With that in mind & if the government want people to observe them, how would you suggest the government proceed?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Doesn't seem disproportionate in application though.They target areas where there are high numbers of speeders & they target vulnerable areas too.
The total cameras deployed to do that at any one time aren't that high considering how many miles of road are out there.
You then have a little bit of enforcement that takes place anytime/anywhere to re-enforce that limits apply anytime/anywhere.
On top of that there is no zero tolerance & a graduated scale of penalties dependent on margin of transgression.
0000 said:
vonhosen said:
0000 said:
Esceptico said:
Clearly any valid law must carry a sanction if it is broken. It is not relevant to the argument what those sanctions are.
Proportionality and necessity should be considered before deciding if a sanction is appropriate, probably amongst other aspects.With that in mind & if the government want people to observe them, how would you suggest the government proceed?
vonhosen said:
Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
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?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.
Glad you're happy with such an in-depth explanation - forgive me if I'm not.
vonhosen said:
Pete317 said:
As for the motorway limit raise, I think they're just using noise as an excuse, because when it comes down to it, politicians don't really like changing things.
A that's your in-depth explanation is it?Forgive me if I don't think it is.
How many legislative changes did they make last year?
How can I have an in-depth discussion about anything when there's such a seeming paucity of detail?
I've heard figures like 2dB being bandied around, without context of course, and you just have to play around with a sound meter app on your phone for a bit to realise just how insignificant a difference 2dB makes.
Besides, the noisiest vehicles by far (as well as the most dangerous by far) are those which are limited to 56mph
vonhosen said:
0000 said:
vonhosen said:
0000 said:
Esceptico said:
Clearly any valid law must carry a sanction if it is broken. It is not relevant to the argument what those sanctions are.
Proportionality and necessity should be considered before deciding if a sanction is appropriate, probably amongst other aspects.With that in mind & if the government want people to observe them, how would you suggest the government proceed?
0000 said:
vonhosen said:
0000 said:
vonhosen said:
0000 said:
Esceptico said:
Clearly any valid law must carry a sanction if it is broken. It is not relevant to the argument what those sanctions are.
Proportionality and necessity should be considered before deciding if a sanction is appropriate, probably amongst other aspects.With that in mind & if the government want people to observe them, how would you suggest the government proceed?
How about they skip their pre-occupation with controlling people on Motorways (which account for 5% of fatalities) and put that effort to better use in urban areas where most deaths occur (or just not bother and consider the 3800 odd that die from falls instead, as I don't see any legislation in place to ban stairs and make us all live in bungalows)
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So you didn't do what you promised to do. You didn't deal with each point. And your objection is nonsense, unless you can provide a concrete example of a valid law that has been taken off the stature because of how it was enforced. Can you reference your objection to a book on jurisprudence? Your approach to my posts is that you raise a non valid objection to one point and then refuse to deal with any subsequent points (how convenient).
Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
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?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.
Glad you're happy with such an in-depth explanation - forgive me if I'm not.
2) Also how much the limit is going to change would be a factor.
3) For me personally I've already indicated that I'd willingly drive faster than any of the limits (to what degree dependent on circumstances) if it weren't an offence to, but the difference is I recognise it's not all about what I want to do & the viewpoint of others matters when the compromise is to be set (me being willing to take more risks than perhaps they'd like me to).
I also recognise that could result in me being prosecuted where I decide to place my personal reasons ahead of the expressed compromise.
I don't think that's unreasonable on their part.
Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
Pete317 said:
As for the motorway limit raise, I think they're just using noise as an excuse, because when it comes down to it, politicians don't really like changing things.
A that's your in-depth explanation is it?Forgive me if I don't think it is.
How many legislative changes did they make last year?
How can I have an in-depth discussion about anything when there's such a seeming paucity of detail?
I've heard figures like 2dB being bandied around, without context of course, and you just have to play around with a sound meter app on your phone for a bit to realise just how insignificant a difference 2dB makes.
Besides, the noisiest vehicles by far (as well as the most dangerous by far) are those which are limited to 56mph
Have you had a look yet how many legislatives changes take place?
Do you think it supports your assertion politicians don't like to change things?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff