Alternative to speed limits and cameras?

[Digby]

You asked if we should have a different system.

One which in many areas is not based on money and bullst is the correct answer.

You then asked if anyone believes we should have no limits.

I don't think I have read a single post on PH where someone has suggested they don't want limits. Why would anyone? It's a pointless question although it is often used to lay foundations for the response of "Well, if you want limits, then they must be enforced" for petty point-scoring.

[robinessex]

The late L.J.K.Setright, probably the best motoring writer ever, once said there should bo only one motoring offence, dangerous driving. Does that answer the question ok?

[Esceptico]

Digby said:

You asked if we should have a different system.

One which in many areas is not based on money and bullst is the correct answer.

You then asked if anyone believes we should have no limits.

I don't think I have read a single post on PH where someone has suggested they don't want limits. Why would anyone? It's a pointless question although it is often used to lay foundations for the response of "Well, if you want limits, then they must be enforced" for petty point-scoring.

It isn't petty point scoring. It is stating the obvious that if you accept the need for limits then you accept the need for them to be enforced. I've noted that there are some easy ways of doing so - speed limiters, etc but strangely no one seems to comment on them. Plenty keep banging on about scameras and making money but what is your alternative? Please spell it out and explain why it will be not only fairer but also effective (enforcement has to try to keep people within the limits) and also affordable. All I get off these forums is that police should focus on dangerous habits like using mobile phones or hogging the middle lane. All valid points but seem a smokescreen to avoid issue of enforcing speed limits. Or people say that cameras should only be at accident black spots or near schools - but does that mean that speed limits elsewhere should not be enforced (like not having any?)

[otolith]

robinessex said:

The late L.J.K.Setright, probably the best motoring writer ever, once said there should bo only one motoring offence, dangerous driving. Does that answer the question ok?

I thought of that piece too.

[Hackney]

Digby and cmoose have pretty much covered it so won't repeat other than to ask,
when was the last journey you made where the most dangerous / careless / likely to cause an accident thing you witnessed was someone breaking the speed limit?

Edited by Hackney on Sunday 1st May 17:33

[Digby]

Esceptico said:

It isn't petty point scoring. It is stating the obvious that if you accept the need for limits then you accept the need for them to be enforced. I've noted that there are some easy ways of doing so - speed limiters, etc but strangely no one seems to comment on them. Plenty keep banging on about scameras and making money but what is your alternative? Please spell it out and explain why it will be not only fairer but also effective (enforcement has to try to keep people within the limits) and also affordable. All I get off these forums is that police should focus on dangerous habits like using mobile phones or hogging the middle lane. All valid points but seem a smokescreen to avoid issue of enforcing speed limits. Or people say that cameras should only be at accident black spots or near schools - but does that mean that speed limits elsewhere should not be enforced (like not having any?)

You make the mistake of thinking that I don't want limits, or cameras, or enforcement. If I take the time to spell out what is wrong with a large portion of the current system and list names, facts, figures etc etc etc, you will probably just ignore them or try to baffle us with incorrect mathmatical stats again.

For a change, why don't you spell out why you are happy that we have a system in place where it has been admitted by many of those involved that cash is often the objective. As I said in a previous thread, there is a huge court case looming in the USA where corruption charges etc have been brought against the operators and the company that took up those reins also owns the contract for almost all TFL cameras (and others) Tip of the iceberg type stuff if you go digging..

Why would you want a system in place that is often happy to admit they need to make up for budget cuts, a system in place that denies FOI requests and doctors stats, a system where numerous important people involved suggest it's no longer about safety and a system sold almost from the start as earning so much money, with so many tickets, "you won't know what to do with them all".

I want a fair system not focused on money generation as I don't think that makes for safer roads. It leads to frustration and unfair tickets. What possible reason can you spell out to me that you want something different to that?

[Digby]

4rephill said:

As I understand the US system in some cities, the traffic lights in are timed so that when they turn green, if you travel at the speed limit then you can hit all of the lights on green.

Now go and Google the traffic light timings scandal in the US. Alterations to amber times to fine more drivers without making the knowledge of the changes available.

Cameras and cash, yet again.

And before anyone jumps in with suggestions of not jumping lights, the majority of fines were dished out for those stopped and waiting to turn and not those who choose to fly through and 'take a chance' with their lives.

[Esceptico]

Digby said:

You make the mistake of thinking that I don't want limits, or cameras, or enforcement. If I take the time to spell out what is wrong with a large portion of the current system and list names, facts, figures etc etc etc, you will probably just ignore them or try to baffle us with incorrect mathmatical stats again.

For a change, why don't you spell out why you are happy that we have a system in place where it has been admitted by many of those involved that cash is often the objective. As I said in a previous thread, there is a huge court case looming in the USA where corruption charges etc have been brought against the operators and the company that took up those reins also owns the contract for almost all TFL cameras (and others) Tip of the iceberg type stuff if you go digging..

Why would you want a system in place that is often happy to admit they need to make up for budget cuts, a system in place that denies FOI requests and doctors stats, a system where numerous important people involved suggest it's no longer about safety and a system sold almost from the start as earning so much money, with so many tickets, "you won't know what to do with them all".

I want a fair system not focused on money generation as I don't think that makes for safer roads. It leads to frustration and unfair tickets. What possible reason can you spell out to me that you want something different to that?

I have spelled it out above a number of times. Here it is again:

People agree that speed limits are necessary

If you have limits they have to be enforced

It is unrealistic to expect no enforcement

There are lots of ways they could be enforced

What way is best for a driving enthusiast?

Do you want to have a speed limit fitted? That would be technically feasible and there are no real arguments against it as you can hardly argue that you need a right to break the law. I certainly do not favour this option.

Do you want a black box fitted so police could stop you and check whether you have been speeding? I certainly don't want that option either.

Do you want hidden cameras with really heavy fines and long bans? That is effective as people are too scared to speed much in Switzerland. I don't want that as it kills the joy of driving.

The current system of a concentration on fixed cameras and average speed traps on motorways and DCs has the weaknesses that you highlight - doesn't kerb dangerous driving and not sure about making it safer. But is focuses attention on stopping speeding where there is no enjoyment from speeding and it is a far lesser evil than the other options I've listed above.

My main point is that people on here bh about the current system without really taking time to think about how fortunate we are to be able to enjoy our vehicles. Please go and live in Switzerland for a year and you will be gagging to come back to the UK (at least with respect to driving)

I'm writing this having just stopped for a break in the middle of a blat on my BMW S 1000 R. Did I stick to the speed limits in town? Yes. On straight A roads where there could be traps? Yep. On those lovely, twisty B roads? ..........

[dci]

Esceptico said:

Personally I don't trust the average person (or at least a significant minority of drivers) to have the ability nor mindset to always drive at a safe speed for the conditions.

I'm a better driver than the average person blah blah bks...

The speed limits we have now are too low in most areas but we'll never be able to do anything about it because negativity on the subject always prevails and opinions like this don't help!

Who are you to decide that the bloke in the people carrier next to you at the lights is incapable of driving to a satisfactory standard?

[vonhosen]

robinessex said:

The late L.J.K.Setright, probably the best motoring writer ever, once said there should bo only one motoring offence, dangerous driving.

So no inconsiderate driving, no careless driving, no no insurance, no driving other than in accordance with your licence, no drink/drug driving?

robinessex said:

Does that answer the question ok?

It's an answer but not a satisfactory one, it's like saying there should be one violence offence, murder.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 1st May 14:29

[vonhosen]

There's no cognitive dissonance in wanting to be able to go faster for personal reasons, but at the same time seeing the societal view may not value your personal reasons for doing so as highly as you do & therefore seek to limit your choices in that. Also despite your personal wish to go faster, you may still quite reasonably be of a view that it is not unreasonable for society to seek to impose limits on you.

You may be willing to take risks that society doesn't want you to. You may understand their view point but say sod it anyway & do it, whilst just accepting the consequences of getting caught.

[Esceptico]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

There is no cognitive dissonance in recognising that speeding can't be defended and yet also speeding yourself. Do you never do something you know you shouldn't, like have too much to drink or mainline st from Greggs, even though you know it is unhealthy?

With respect to the other thread, I said it was possible that doing 140 was still safe. However, someone that is doing an average of 133 on a DC (which locals said had lots of junctions and slow traffic too) without noticing you were being tailed is an immediate red flag that the driver seems not to have the observation skills necessary to drive safely at twice the limit. At such speeds the burden of proof rests with the driver to show he was safe rather than the other way around (in my view).

[Esceptico]

dci said:

I'm a better driver than the average person blah blah bks...

The speed limits we have now are too low in most areas but we'll never be able to do anything about it because negativity on the subject always prevails and opinions like this don't help!

Who are you to decide that the bloke in the people carrier next to you at the lights is incapable of driving to a satisfactory standard?

What on odd post. I don't judge someone's driving ability just because they are in a people carrier. I only judge drivers based on their observed behaviour. If you don't see poor driving everywhere eg talking on a mobile, texting, tailgating, hogging the middle lane, aggressive overtakes, etc then you either are lucky to live in an area of good drivers or you are not looking close enough.

[delboy735]

Some people like to drive quicker than others...fact
Some people like to drive slower than others....fact
Some people are stupid..........................fact
Some people are sensible........................fact
There are always extremes.......................fact

How about keeping all town/city/village limits as they are. I'm more than happy with that. Lets have cameras outside all schools, but not just for speeders, also the inconsiderate "I'll park as close to the damn school as I can"brigade. Lets have these cameras switched on for two hours in the morning (8am 'till 10am) and two hours on an afternoon (3pm 'till 5pm).
Lets get rid of all mobile scamera vans ( sorry, couldn't help myself ) and instead, lets employ more Police for the open road. Put them in unmarked vehicles, and let them patrol anywhere they please, but lets enforce the use of common sense instead of out and out numbers in the book. There are far more drivers out there that drive way too dangerously, albeit within the "legal" limit, than drivers that "speed".
Now, AFAIK, nobody ever died from "speed" ( except the tablet type ) so lets get something done about dangerous and inconsiderate driving.
How about "suggested" limits rather than "legal" limits....only on the "open" road of course. If you are caught driving dangerously and without consideration for others, you lose your licence for a month, no question, no loophole...how many drivers would quickly change their driving style then?
It would be interesting to see how many people on PH have clean licences, especially as many on here have "performance" vehicles.

[0000]

Esceptico said:

0000 said:

Esceptico said:

It is irrelevant whether it is dangerous. If you think the limits are wrong then in a democracy you have the right to fight to have the laws changed. You don't have a right to pick and choose which laws you want to obey just because you personally disagree with them. That way lies anarchy.

That's just a matter of philosophy. Some would argue one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

I agree, if the laws truly are unjust eg apartheid or the Nuremberg laws or the civil rights movement in the US.
Are you equating speeding with those cases of injustice?

I did ask in my first post whether anyone had an argument for having no speed limits but didn't get a response.

Yes, that's exactly what I was equating, I would've thought that obvious.

[Crackie]

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.

No, its not just you...... A hinderance to many on the open road and ignorant of hazards and potential dangers in built up areas. Is it my imagination or do a surprising number of their cars have tow-bars fitted ?

[Esceptico]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I've copied a definition of cognitive dissonance below:

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas, or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

I am not suffering any mental stress nor holding conflicting views.

I certainly do know the difference between law and ethics but just find it odd that you are saying you have an ethical justification for speeding. Please do let us know what it is. Most debates about the conflict between legality and morality centre on more significant issues such as capital punishment, abortion or slavery. It's true I've not come across arguments that speeding is an area of conflict too.

Perhaps my arguments are touching a raw nerve as your posts are starting to get personally abusive. I started this thread for a debate and not to get a slanging match.

[Esceptico]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Your position is the one with contradictions, not mine. You have accepted that speed limits are a necessary evil yet at the same time claim you have an ethical right to ignore them. Either speed limits are necessary or not. If necessary, have been properly entered into law then you have no right to break them for your personal enjoyment of going fast.

You are the one with cognitive dissonance because you don't want to do something that is "wrong" or against the law yet speeding is against the law. That forces you into a self justifying argument that breaking the law was "ethical" because you were safe. Your position is nonsense because if every driver argued the same then no one would obey the law (as everyone thinks they are above average drivers and safe). Which is the same as arguing that we don't need limits.


Another relevant point is that your judgement of what is safe or not is just that - your subjective assessment. What gives you the right to decide what is a safe speed? Just because you didn't crash when speeding does not make it safe. I was out on my motorbike today. I didn't crash or die. Yet statistically it is an inherently dangerous activity (I have the scars to prove it).

Speed limits are like drink driving rules. The blood alcohol limits have to work on average not on the level of the individual. There are some people that can exceed the statutory limits without it significantly impairing their ability to drive. Yet there are also individuals that could be below the limit yet unsafe. The limit is a line in the sand and arbitrary but once set has to be respected, otherwise the law becomes unenforceable. Mitigating circumstances can be taken into account when sentencing: with drink drive if you are just over you are not treated the same as someone twice the limit. With speeding the higher you are above the legal limit the harsher the sentence (all else being equal).

[cmaguire]

This general term 'Speed Limits' is both tiresome and tedious.

I can happily say that on the whole I respect and obey urban speed limits.
I can happily say that on the whole I don't respect and ignore all other speed limits.

So am I pro or anti speed limits?

I'll tell you...
Do I see a need for speed limits to moderate driver behaviour? Yes
Do I believe the 30mph limit in urban areas is appropriate? Yes, and rarely 20mph also
Do I believe the other limits are appropriate? No, 40 often, 60 often but the others virtually never.
Do I believe the punishments and policing of non-urban speeding is acceptable? No, it's disproportionate to the supposed crime.

At least we aren't in Switzerland.

[Digby]

Esceptico said:

My main point is that people on here bh about the current system without really taking time to think about how fortunate we are to be able to enjoy our vehicles.

My main point on here is that people try to defend a system often based on revenue without really taking the time to think how much better it could be.

There's little point me adding in any other countries, because the 'scam' spread around the world like wildfire.