Alternative to speed limits and cameras?
Discussion
0000 said:
singlecoil said:
0000 said:
singlecoil said:
0000 said:
The majority, using the criteria of their speed.
So you are thinking they should keep raising the speed limit until hardly anyone breaks it?vonhosen said:
1) All limits aren't the same are they, or there would only be one speed limit & there'd only be one class of road.
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.
You see, I'm not willing to just accept things over which there are so many misconceptions, not to mention all the plain BS. 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.
I've got nothing in principle against sticking to the law, but that doesn't mean I have to accept things which I know to be wrong.
vonhosen said:
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?
Over so contentious an issue?Do you think it supports your assertion politicians don't like to change things?
There's just no way a politician, or anyone else, can know for sure whether an increase in the motorway limit will reduce or increase accidents and casualties - and they're unwilling to carry the can if it's seen to go the wrong way.
Edited by Pete317 on Wednesday 4th May 21:37
Pete317 said:
There's just no way a politician, or anyone else, can know for sure whether an increase in the motorway limit will reduce or increase accidents and casualties - and they're unwilling to carry the can if it's seen to go the wrong way.
Wiki:In Australia's Northern Territory, from September 2015 a 336 km stretch of Stuart Highway between Barrow Creek and Alice Springs had speed limits removed for a 12-month trial.[77][78][79] The Northern Territory had no blanket speed limits outside major towns until January 2007 when a general rural speed limit of 110 km/h (68 mph) was introduced although four major highways had higher 130 km/h (81 mph) zones.[80] Speed limit advocates note that the per-capita fatality rate in 2006 was the highest in the OECD and twice the Australian average.[81] In 2009, the opposition Country Liberal Party unsuccessfully sought the removal of the 130 km/h limits on three out of the four highways where it applied, arguing that total fatalities in the Northern Territory had increased significantly during the first two years of the speed limit. In argument against the motion, the government provided more detailed statistics than normally published, these statistics showed a reduction in fatalities along the highways where 130 km/h limits were introduced.[82][83][84] In 2011 the opposition argued for a return to "open speed limits" .[85] For the 2012 election the Country Liberals' transport policy promised an evidence based approach.[86] After winning, de-restriction of Stuart Highway was proposed;[87][88] a planned 12-month de-restriction was initiated on February 1, 2014. The trial on 200 km of Stuart Highway was expanded later in the year to another 72 km, and continued indefinitely in January 2015 during a review of the initial results since "in the first 11 months, there were no recorded fatalities."[89]
Ken Figenus said:
Pete317 said:
There's just no way a politician, or anyone else, can know for sure whether an increase in the motorway limit will reduce or increase accidents and casualties - and they're unwilling to carry the can if it's seen to go the wrong way.
Wiki:In Australia's Northern Territory, from September 2015 a 336 km stretch of Stuart Highway between Barrow Creek and Alice Springs had speed limits removed for a 12-month trial.[77][78][79] The Northern Territory had no blanket speed limits outside major towns until January 2007 when a general rural speed limit of 110 km/h (68 mph) was introduced although four major highways had higher 130 km/h (81 mph) zones.[80] Speed limit advocates note that the per-capita fatality rate in 2006 was the highest in the OECD and twice the Australian average.[81] In 2009, the opposition Country Liberal Party unsuccessfully sought the removal of the 130 km/h limits on three out of the four highways where it applied, arguing that total fatalities in the Northern Territory had increased significantly during the first two years of the speed limit. In argument against the motion, the government provided more detailed statistics than normally published, these statistics showed a reduction in fatalities along the highways where 130 km/h limits were introduced.[82][83][84] In 2011 the opposition argued for a return to "open speed limits" .[85] For the 2012 election the Country Liberals' transport policy promised an evidence based approach.[86] After winning, de-restriction of Stuart Highway was proposed;[87][88] a planned 12-month de-restriction was initiated on February 1, 2014. The trial on 200 km of Stuart Highway was expanded later in the year to another 72 km, and continued indefinitely in January 2015 during a review of the initial results since "in the first 11 months, there were no recorded fatalities."[89]
Positive political will CAN happen - see quoted text this was in response to.... Pragmatism? Logic and intelligence and fact v dogma/same old/status quo/your odd ambivalence of unrealistic limits when you responsibly and purposefully travel above them? That odd contradiction? NO STOP - I have stuff on TV to watch tonight 
Ken Figenus said:
Positive political will CAN happen - see quoted text this was in response to.... Pragmatism? Logic and intelligence and fact v dogma/same old/status quo/your odd ambivalence of unrealistic limits when you responsibly and purposefully travel above them? That odd contradiction? NO STOP - I have stuff on TV to watch tonight
It's not odd ambivalence of unrealistic limits or an odd contradiction in relation to them, it's respect & common decency for others in the right for their voices to be heard & considered, even for people whose views I don't share. it's recognising that it's not only my wishes that have to be considered & as such it's a complex compromise that has to be arrived at as a result of many often competing alternate views. There is a contradiction (but not in the way being suggested) in that I can also be selfish at times, but that's a common human frailty & if anything is the failing on my part, the failing isn't the respect or common decency to allow for others voices to be heard/considered. What we have is actually somewhere in the mid ground between those that would have no limits at all anywhere & those that would have us driving around with somebody walking in front of every vehicle with a red flag.
Australia as a rule has far more draconian attitude towards speed enforcement than we do & the Northern territories are a very different landscape to the UK (as such they don't have quite as many competing view points or considerations when in comes to arriving at an acceptable compromise for them).
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I said I don't have to agree with somebody's view, I'm talking about respect for them to be allowed to air it to those who have to make the decision on the compromise that is to be put in place. The quality has to be in those that will look at it all, decide on & implement the compromise. Any arguments to be heard are secondary to that.Those it falls to, to make those choices with all the facts before them, are the elected officials. Officials that have been elected under our democratic process. You may say that the elected officials aren't very intelligent, are corrupt etc. But that surely means that we as a populace aren't very intelligent for voting them in again & again if they are (policies in this area have been pretty consistent heading if anything in one direction under successive governments of different flavours for sometime). Or that we don't care enough to sacrifice ourselves to that service & seek election ourselves. I know I'm too selfish to put myself out to do the work in that area, are you too?
My selfishness doesn't end there though, i'd rather be doing other fun things than campaigning because again selfishly I don't find the current system much of a threat to me personally.
All of that leaves me to make the best of enjoying my life of work & leisure living under a system that I don't personally find too onerous. Of course if that changes then what I'm prepared to do may change, again for selfish reasons.
Looks like I'm even more selfish than I thought & my most generous attribute is speaking up for others to be allowed to express their viewpoint for consideration. Even you
anonymous said:
[redacted]
People's views will be what they are, informed, rational or not. As I say the important place for quality where we have freedom of speech is not that all views are of quality (freedom of speech will undoubtedly dilute the quality), but the quality & intelligence is in those collating & assessing them before making decisions.I'm not inferring anything about your personal views on elected officials, I'm seeking to highlight that is the important place for intelligence & integrity when it comes to the expressed compromise.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Any punishment received is what it is. We all have a right to complain about it, but it won't necessarily achieve anything positive for us (other than venting).If you want change it has to be addressed earlier in the process, complaining about punishment after you've made the choice to go outside the law isn't going to do it.
vonhosen said:
Any punishment received is what it is. We all have a right to complain about it, but it won't necessarily achieve anything positive for us (other than venting).
So what if people are venting? Who are you to try to stop them? Especially if, as you've been saying, you have no dog in the race.vonhosen said:
If you want change it has to be addressed earlier in the process, complaining about punishment after you've made the choice to go outside the law isn't going to do it.
Who on this thread has complained about having being caught and punished?Another one of your tangents?
Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
If you want change it has to be addressed earlier in the process, complaining about punishment after you've made the choice to go outside the law isn't going to do it.
Who on this thread has complained about having being caught and punished?anonymous said:
[redacted]
You are so absolutely on the button with this, but I fear you're wasting your time, as I have been for years on here.My empathy with this is at 110%, and it comes from years of personal experience trying to counter the injustice in the simplest of systems; injustice that flies in the face of the most basic common sense, but in the name of the law. We all just comply even when our conscience tells us something is so wrong, but it's convenient just to pay up.
And don't have me start on democracy. Just look at the state of the Westminster and European parliaments and how the wishes and requests of the common man are utterly washed away in a sea of corruption and claims of "we have a mandate from the people!" Sadly, most of them actually believe they can do whatever they please simply because they were elected!
I don't know what the answer is, but it sure as hell isn't the status quo!
J
Von (and apologies to Singlecoil's incisive post above, but I have now caught up with 'Vikings', 'Marcella' and 'Undercover' and am free again - ohh joy ) I had a good think about your excellent ('its not all about us') post on previous page, and sadly, sorry, I still feel it’s a conflicted hypocritical position.
You condone society's rationale in controlling and limiting your behaviour for the 'general good', you state why you understand, accept and respect that. You then go on to state why it is perfectly fair and reasonable; you add in other positive benefits regarding the noise and the environment but ultimately dismiss all that and give them the two fingers and go on in a manner that personally suits you.
Ironically I respect you more for it as it shows you to be open, honest and human - and unlike the sanctimonious crowd that would never even admit to stepping on a crack in the pavement (whilst we all full well know that they do...)!
So, parking that more philosophical issue, as we'll have to agree to disagree there I guess, and moving on to practicalities that are based on a lack of inner conflict on such issues:
You are on 9 points. You have been caught at 79mph 3 times by the proliferating HADECS 3 motorway cameras. Yes, its odd you didn't spot them, but they got real sneaky with placements in order to plug the coffers. Falko Dresden-Schmitt at Siemens did a ‘no-brainer’ 'share of revenue' deal with the DOT which meant no funding was needed and all profits are shared 50/50. They also got headlines like 'the roads would be safer (despite vehicles being doorhandle to doorhandle and bunched nose to tail, plus 'journeys would be quicker and safer' - win win - sehr gut, Bonus-Zeit). How Falko chuckled in his Porsche Panamera (ironically cruising at 90mph on the autobahn) when he drove up to sign the contract with the dumb ‘stuck in the 60’s’ crossply Britishers...
So now your livelihood is under threat as you need your licence to earn your crust (knowing you aren’t a Bobby, I see you as an ice cream van man darting between locations before Mr Whippy goes too soft). However, you have stated you are not bothered by such punishment or enforcement issues or that the speed on the UK motorway is limited to far below what Dresden-Schmitt is allowed or in fact most of Continental Europe’s 81mph.
So you are British, feel you are being treated fairly and with respect, but your licence is on the line. In Italy you wouldn't be this 'criminal' and you would be happily trundling along in Spain too with a clean licence. But you are British and you are good with all that? You knew the limit was 70 for the greater good after all didn’t you… You are a bit of a stoic martyr!
But I'm not good with any of that - I'm really angry for you! I guess this is why I post! I don’t see it as right. I don’t see it as reasonable. And, worse, the poor children may never get another Mr Whippy!
Let’s revisit this in 10 years and see where we are and who was right to accept things passively as they are dished up or who was right to rant, rave and campaign a bit
) I had a good think about your excellent ('its not all about us') post on previous page, and sadly, sorry, I still feel it’s a conflicted hypocritical position. You condone society's rationale in controlling and limiting your behaviour for the 'general good', you state why you understand, accept and respect that. You then go on to state why it is perfectly fair and reasonable; you add in other positive benefits regarding the noise and the environment but ultimately dismiss all that and give them the two fingers and go on in a manner that personally suits you.
Ironically I respect you more for it as it shows you to be open, honest and human - and unlike the sanctimonious crowd that would never even admit to stepping on a crack in the pavement (whilst we all full well know that they do...)!
So, parking that more philosophical issue, as we'll have to agree to disagree there I guess, and moving on to practicalities that are based on a lack of inner conflict on such issues:
You are on 9 points. You have been caught at 79mph 3 times by the proliferating HADECS 3 motorway cameras. Yes, its odd you didn't spot them, but they got real sneaky with placements in order to plug the coffers. Falko Dresden-Schmitt at Siemens did a ‘no-brainer’ 'share of revenue' deal with the DOT which meant no funding was needed and all profits are shared 50/50. They also got headlines like 'the roads would be safer (despite vehicles being doorhandle to doorhandle and bunched nose to tail, plus 'journeys would be quicker and safer' - win win - sehr gut, Bonus-Zeit). How Falko chuckled in his Porsche Panamera (ironically cruising at 90mph on the autobahn) when he drove up to sign the contract with the dumb ‘stuck in the 60’s’ crossply Britishers...
So now your livelihood is under threat as you need your licence to earn your crust (knowing you aren’t a Bobby, I see you as an ice cream van man darting between locations before Mr Whippy goes too soft). However, you have stated you are not bothered by such punishment or enforcement issues or that the speed on the UK motorway is limited to far below what Dresden-Schmitt is allowed or in fact most of Continental Europe’s 81mph.
So you are British, feel you are being treated fairly and with respect, but your licence is on the line. In Italy you wouldn't be this 'criminal' and you would be happily trundling along in Spain too with a clean licence. But you are British and you are good with all that? You knew the limit was 70 for the greater good after all didn’t you… You are a bit of a stoic martyr!
But I'm not good with any of that - I'm really angry for you! I guess this is why I post! I don’t see it as right. I don’t see it as reasonable. And, worse, the poor children may never get another Mr Whippy!
Let’s revisit this in 10 years and see where we are and who was right to accept things passively as they are dished up or who was right to rant, rave and campaign a bit
Edited by Ken Figenus on Thursday 5th May 10:26
RobinOakapple said:
I'd love to here about your campaign. What exactly are its aims? I ask because as I am sure you know, any potentially effective campaign has to have a 'definition of success'.
All in good time - but here is a taster https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4Ken Figenus said:
RobinOakapple said:
I'd love to here about your campaign. What exactly are its aims? I ask because as I am sure you know, any potentially effective campaign has to have a 'definition of success'.
All in good time - but here is a taster https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4RobinOakapple said:
So pipedream then. Thought as much. Dream on.
Robin I've campaigned and acted on many issues in my life where I see injustice or a need for improvement and change. I actually properly get going on animal rights (far more important than this) and just put together a viral campaign video for a charity...free...because I believe in it and wanted to do something. Don't judge others by your own ambivalence, cynicism or apathy. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff