Alternative to speed limits and cameras?
Discussion
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.
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).
0000 said:
Maybe, but the rest of your post was the debating equivalent of just shouting "NO, YOU'RE WRONG". He saved himself some hassle.
Strange that you both posted many times in response to other things I've written. Why didn't you save yourselves the hassle and not respond at all to this thread? 0000 said:
The full post was:"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 wasn't intentionally comparing anything to Hitler or the Nazis. I was listing some famous, historical cases of injustice. I was using those cases to show the ridiculousness of claiming that not being allowed to drive as fast as you like is somehow an important infraction of civil rights that would justify breaking the law. Which is clearly ridiculous. You might as well claim that food safety laws infringe the rights of people to work in an unhygienic way. It seems to me there are virtually no laws that couldn't be attacked - and therefore in your view ignored - because someone sees an "ethical" problem with them.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
When someone runs out of arguments in an Internet discussion they often resort to some or all of the following:- personal insults
- reference to straw man arguments / ad hominem attacks / fallacies (without reference to things the other person has said that demonstrate those supposed errors
- not addressing the arguments of the other person
- reference to the fact that the other poster wouldn't say it to them face to face
You seem to have a full house in your post!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
There is nothing incoherent with my views. Most people share them. Most people (perhaps not on PH) accept that speed limits are the law and should not be broken. However one is free to break them but then have to suffer the consequences if caught. I try not to speed but accept that if I occasionally slip and get caught then I have to accept the punishment. Your position is incoherent because you accept the need for speed limits but then say they are invalid for you (you haven't really set out why you should be exempt). I pointed out that it seems like cognitive dissonance to me. I assume you see yourself as law abiding. If speeding is breaking the law then that makes you a criminal. The only way to keep your view of yourselves as law abiding is to claim that the law is invalid.
You did not address the point above.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Which point have I not addressed? I explained why accepting that speeding is against the law yet still speeding is not incoherent. I have not shifted my position. I try not to speed - by speed I mean sit continually for long periods over the limit. I don't speed at all in 30. I try to stick to below an indicted 80 on the motorways and DCs and close to 60 in NSL. But when overtaking I expect I go over. I'm not an angel though and I love cars and bikes so it
Is a constant battle.
You keep saying I am misrepresenting you without saying how or why. Why don't you set out your position clearly?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I have already answered you twice. Why do you find it hard to accept that people do things they know are wrong? I don't think I consciously break any other laws. I had a few joints at uni but don't think that is abnormal (even presidents have done it...although apparently didn't inhale) but technically that was illegal. We are still waiting for a proper argument from you as to why your speeding is defendable. Without going back to your earlier threads you mentioned that it was defendable because you judge your speeding to be safe and the speeding laws are to keep people safe. I addressed that earlier by saying it was not coherent to accept the need for speed limits yet also claim that anyone can ignore them if they drive safely (in their own opinion). That is like arguing for no limits, which contradicts your acceptance of them as "a necessary evil". But no doubt you won't address that point nor anything I write (except bits you think you can attack).
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 bulls
t. 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.
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 bulls
t. 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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff