Speed Awareness Courses - Do they work?

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

Really? So how in practice has the democratic process affected things like speed limits and their enforcement? As I said in my previous post, I'm sure there are examples of local communities pushing successfully to have something like the speed limit changed on a specific piece of road but a meaningful democratic input on things like the level of national speed limits and their enforcement? Don't remember any political party making it an issue and asking for my views but perhaps I've missed something?

This is EXACTLY mt point. When one considers how important votes are to a political party, and how much they spend on research, it's clear that they are sure that the majority are happy with the status quo.

[Red Devil]

vonhosen said:

Willy Nilly said:

It's a good thing that aviation safety is a little more thorough than road safety.

Resulting in far less freedom for you to fly a plane than drive a car, more regulation & tighter controls.

What is the ideal cockpit crew? A pilot and a dog. The pilot is there to feed the dog, and the dog is there to bite the pilot in case he tries to touch anything.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

Really? So how in practice has the democratic process affected things like speed limits and their enforcement? As I said in my previous post, I'm sure there are examples of local communities pushing successfully to have something like the speed limit changed on a specific piece of road but a meaningful democratic input on things like the level of national speed limits and their enforcement? Don't remember any political party making it an issue and asking for my views but perhaps I've missed something?

This is EXACTLY mt point. When one considers how important votes are to a political party, and how much they spend on research, it's clear that they are sure that the majority are happy with the status quo.

I'd suggest the real reason it doesn't figure on the agenda or in the manifesto of any major political party is because they believe other issues are more important; I'd say that's a fair assumption but to translate that as meaning the majority are happy with the status quo regarding speed limits and the approach to enforcement is a huge assumption on your part! Historically you could have argued the same about people's attitude to the EU but give them a say on that issue in isolation - and take away the noise of everything else - and suddenly a rather different picture emerges. Speed limits and their enforcement are of a relatively low importance to most compared to things like the state of the economy, the NHS, education, etc; however, that doesn't mean you can assume people are happy with the status quo, they've just got other more important things to worry about first.

[JNW1]

Devil2575 said:

JNW1 said:

Really? So how in practice has the democratic process affected things like speed limits and their enforcement? As I said in my previous post, I'm sure there are examples of local communities pushing successfully to have something like the speed limit changed on a specific piece of road but a meaningful democratic input on things like the level of national speed limits and their enforcement? Don't remember any political party making it an issue and asking for my views but perhaps I've missed something?

It hasn't

Thank you, that's the only point I was trying to make!

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

Really? So how in practice has the democratic process affected things like speed limits and their enforcement? As I said in my previous post, I'm sure there are examples of local communities pushing successfully to have something like the speed limit changed on a specific piece of road but a meaningful democratic input on things like the level of national speed limits and their enforcement? Don't remember any political party making it an issue and asking for my views but perhaps I've missed something?

This is EXACTLY mt point. When one considers how important votes are to a political party, and how much they spend on research, it's clear that they are sure that the majority are happy with the status quo.

I'd suggest the real reason it doesn't figure on the agenda or in the manifesto of any major political party is because they believe other issues are more important; I'd say that's a fair assumption but to translate that as meaning the majority are happy with the status quo regarding speed limits and the approach to enforcement is a huge assumption on your part! Historically you could have argued the same about people's attitude to the EU but give them a say on that issue in isolation - and take away the noise of everything else - and suddenly a rather different picture emerges. Speed limits and their enforcement are of a relatively low importance to most compared to things like the state of the economy, the NHS, education, etc; however, that doesn't mean you can assume people are happy with the status quo, they've just got other more important things to worry about first.

That's the thing about the status quo, you don't have to happy about it.
Th fight may come when you try to introduce something drastically new that people don't like, but once it's in & established it will probably remain until people become extremely unhappy about it. In between people don't have to like it, they just have to be acquiescent towards it.

People didn't fight hard when speed limits or cameras came in, they are now in the main acquiescent about them, so they'll remain until people fight hard in sufficient numbers to get rid. I don't see that currently as being anywhere near likely.

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

I'd suggest the real reason it doesn't figure on the agenda or in the manifesto of any major political party is because they believe other issues are more important...

http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/BritainCanBeBetter-TheLabourPartyManifesto2015.pdf

86 pages, they would have found space to squeeze it in somewhere, especially when you consider how many PHers would be in favour of it

No, the real reason it isn't in there is because they know it wouldn't get them any votes.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

I'd suggest the real reason it doesn't figure on the agenda or in the manifesto of any major political party is because they believe other issues are more important...

http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/BritainCanBeBetter-TheLabourPartyManifesto2015.pdf

86 pages, they would have found space to squeeze it in somewhere, especially when you consider how many PHers would be in favour of it

No, the real reason it isn't in there is because they know it wouldn't get them any votes.

Not arguing with any of that but you said it was clear people are happy with the status quo where speed limits and their enforcement are concerned and I don't understand how you can sensibly draw that conclusion. The only thing that's clear is that it's not enough of an issue to warrant inclusion in a manifesto but you can't conclude from that that people are happy with the status quo - they might be but equally they might not!

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

I'd suggest the real reason it doesn't figure on the agenda or in the manifesto of any major political party is because they believe other issues are more important...

http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/BritainCanBeBetter-TheLabourPartyManifesto2015.pdf

86 pages, they would have found space to squeeze it in somewhere, especially when you consider how many PHers would be in favour of it

No, the real reason it isn't in there is because they know it wouldn't get them any votes.

Not arguing with any of that but you said it was clear people are happy with the status quo where speed limits and their enforcement are concerned and I don't understand how you can sensibly draw that conclusion. The only thing that's clear is that it's not enough of an issue to warrant inclusion in a manifesto but you can't conclude from that that people are happy with the status quo - they might be but equally they might not!

I guarantee you if they thought it would pick up a few votes here and there they would have found space for it. Apart from anything else, if it became known they were in favour of higher limits some people who want to go faster would check out the rest of their policies and maybe vote for them, in much the same way as book shops will often sell coffee as well in the hope of getting add-on sales.

[Digby]

vonhosen said:

People didn't fight hard when speed limits or cameras came in...

Wow. Quite surprised you said that.

Did we all get a letter asking our opinions?

Must have missed that. Must have missed it again when the infrastructure was upgraded ready for SPECS etc and they asked if we all wanted it...

I do remember as the cancer spread, hundreds of newspaper articles, radio reports, TV shows, online conversations and forums springing up related to them and those behind them etc. They still happen today.

And who can forget the web pages full of those cameras set on fire and those being carefuly hidden for max profit etc.

Thing is, you need to take to the streets and start a war to stop something so unstoppable. We couldn't stop our country going to war based on BS and had to riot to avoid a tax, what possible chance is there on demanding a better and more fair road system? That's why people don't bother.

You may aswell be asking why people are not fighting hard to rid the UK of paedophiles or see bankers locked up.

The man in the street doesn't stand a chance and you know it.

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

Really? So how in practice has the democratic process affected things like speed limits and their enforcement? As I said in my previous post, I'm sure there are examples of local communities pushing successfully to have something like the speed limit changed on a specific piece of road but a meaningful democratic input on things like the level of national speed limits and their enforcement? Don't remember any political party making it an issue and asking for my views but perhaps I've missed something?

This is EXACTLY mt point. When one considers how important votes are to a political party, and how much they spend on research, it's clear that they are sure that the majority are happy with the status quo.

I'd suggest the real reason it doesn't figure on the agenda or in the manifesto of any major political party is because they believe other issues are more important; I'd say that's a fair assumption but to translate that as meaning the majority are happy with the status quo regarding speed limits and the approach to enforcement is a huge assumption on your part! Historically you could have argued the same about people's attitude to the EU but give them a say on that issue in isolation - and take away the noise of everything else - and suddenly a rather different picture emerges. Speed limits and their enforcement are of a relatively low importance to most compared to things like the state of the economy, the NHS, education, etc; however, that doesn't mean you can assume people are happy with the status quo, they've just got other more important things to worry about first.

That's the thing about the status quo, you don't have to happy about it.
Th fight may come when you try to introduce something drastically new that people don't like, but once it's in & established it will probably remain until people become extremely unhappy about it. In between people don't have to like it, they just have to be acquiescent towards it.

People didn't fight hard when speed limits or cameras came in, they are now in the main acquiescent about them, so they'll remain until people fight hard in sufficient numbers to get rid. I don't see that currently as being anywhere near likely.

I'm not saying people are or aren't happy with the status quo; my argument is with those who are saying people are "clearly happy with the status quo" when I don't think they've got any evidence to support that assertion! The fact speed limits and their enforcement don't appear as a subject in any party election manifesto can't be interpreted as clear evidence that people are happy with the way things are; they might be but equally they might be unhappy and are just far more concerned about other things. My guess is the latter but at least I'm honest enough to admit I'm guessing rather than stating an opinion as if it was a fact!

[Digby]

And who can forget ending the war against the mtorist?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278161/La...

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

Really? So how in practice has the democratic process affected things like speed limits and their enforcement? As I said in my previous post, I'm sure there are examples of local communities pushing successfully to have something like the speed limit changed on a specific piece of road but a meaningful democratic input on things like the level of national speed limits and their enforcement? Don't remember any political party making it an issue and asking for my views but perhaps I've missed something?

This is EXACTLY mt point. When one considers how important votes are to a political party, and how much they spend on research, it's clear that they are sure that the majority are happy with the status quo.

I'd suggest the real reason it doesn't figure on the agenda or in the manifesto of any major political party is because they believe other issues are more important; I'd say that's a fair assumption but to translate that as meaning the majority are happy with the status quo regarding speed limits and the approach to enforcement is a huge assumption on your part! Historically you could have argued the same about people's attitude to the EU but give them a say on that issue in isolation - and take away the noise of everything else - and suddenly a rather different picture emerges. Speed limits and their enforcement are of a relatively low importance to most compared to things like the state of the economy, the NHS, education, etc; however, that doesn't mean you can assume people are happy with the status quo, they've just got other more important things to worry about first.

That's the thing about the status quo, you don't have to happy about it.
Th fight may come when you try to introduce something drastically new that people don't like, but once it's in & established it will probably remain until people become extremely unhappy about it. In between people don't have to like it, they just have to be acquiescent towards it.

People didn't fight hard when speed limits or cameras came in, they are now in the main acquiescent about them, so they'll remain until people fight hard in sufficient numbers to get rid. I don't see that currently as being anywhere near likely.

I'm not saying people are or aren't happy with the status quo; my argument is with those who are saying people are "clearly happy with the status quo" when I don't think they've got any evidence to support that assertion! The fact speed limits and their enforcement don't appear as a subject in any party election manifesto can't be interpreted as clear evidence that people are happy with the way things are; they might be but equally they might be unhappy and are just far more concerned about other things. My guess is the latter but at least I'm honest enough to admit I'm guessing rather than stating an opinion as if it was a fact!

That's why I said what I said, acquiescence is all that's required.

[vonhosen]

Digby said:

vonhosen said:

People didn't fight hard when speed limits or cameras came in...

Wow. Quite surprised you said that.

Did we all get a letter asking our opinions?

Must have missed that. Must have missed it again when the infrastructure was upgraded ready for SPECS etc and they asked if we all wanted it...

I do remember as the cancer spread, hundreds of newspaper articles, radio reports, TV shows, online conversations and forums springing up related to them and those behind them etc. They still happen today.

And who can forget the web pages full of those cameras set on fire and those being carefuly hidden for max profit etc.

Thing is, you need to take to the streets and start a war to stop something so unstoppable. We couldn't stop our country going to war based on BS and had to riot to avoid a tax, what possible chance is there on demanding a better and more fair road system? That's why people don't bother.

You may aswell be asking why people are not fighting hard to rid the UK of paedophiles or see bankers locked up.

The man in the street doesn't stand a chance and you know it.

People didn't get asked their opinion on the introduction of the poll tax.
Activism has changed policy on all number of issues. People weren't by and large active in relation to & against those issues.

[FidoGoRetroGo]

People don't get asked their opinion on most things. The idea is you vote for the person on your GE ballot paper whose views agree most closely with yours.

Speed cameras. There to make money, pure and simple.

[JNW1]

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

vonhosen said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

Really? So how in practice has the democratic process affected things like speed limits and their enforcement? As I said in my previous post, I'm sure there are examples of local communities pushing successfully to have something like the speed limit changed on a specific piece of road but a meaningful democratic input on things like the level of national speed limits and their enforcement? Don't remember any political party making it an issue and asking for my views but perhaps I've missed something?

This is EXACTLY mt point. When one considers how important votes are to a political party, and how much they spend on research, it's clear that they are sure that the majority are happy with the status quo.

I'd suggest the real reason it doesn't figure on the agenda or in the manifesto of any major political party is because they believe other issues are more important; I'd say that's a fair assumption but to translate that as meaning the majority are happy with the status quo regarding speed limits and the approach to enforcement is a huge assumption on your part! Historically you could have argued the same about people's attitude to the EU but give them a say on that issue in isolation - and take away the noise of everything else - and suddenly a rather different picture emerges. Speed limits and their enforcement are of a relatively low importance to most compared to things like the state of the economy, the NHS, education, etc; however, that doesn't mean you can assume people are happy with the status quo, they've just got other more important things to worry about first.

That's the thing about the status quo, you don't have to happy about it.
Th fight may come when you try to introduce something drastically new that people don't like, but once it's in & established it will probably remain until people become extremely unhappy about it. In between people don't have to like it, they just have to be acquiescent towards it.

People didn't fight hard when speed limits or cameras came in, they are now in the main acquiescent about them, so they'll remain until people fight hard in sufficient numbers to get rid. I don't see that currently as being anywhere near likely.

I'm not saying people are or aren't happy with the status quo; my argument is with those who are saying people are "clearly happy with the status quo" when I don't think they've got any evidence to support that assertion! The fact speed limits and their enforcement don't appear as a subject in any party election manifesto can't be interpreted as clear evidence that people are happy with the way things are; they might be but equally they might be unhappy and are just far more concerned about other things. My guess is the latter but at least I'm honest enough to admit I'm guessing rather than stating an opinion as if it was a fact!

That's why I said what they said, acquiescence is all that's required.

But being acquiescent is rather different from being clearly happy; the two are not the same at all (at least not in my book!).

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

I'd suggest the real reason it doesn't figure on the agenda or in the manifesto of any major political party is because they believe other issues are more important...

http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/BritainCanBeBetter-TheLabourPartyManifesto2015.pdf

86 pages, they would have found space to squeeze it in somewhere, especially when you consider how many PHers would be in favour of it

No, the real reason it isn't in there is because they know it wouldn't get them any votes.

Not arguing with any of that but you said it was clear people are happy with the status quo where speed limits and their enforcement are concerned and I don't understand how you can sensibly draw that conclusion. The only thing that's clear is that it's not enough of an issue to warrant inclusion in a manifesto but you can't conclude from that that people are happy with the status quo - they might be but equally they might not!

I guarantee you if they thought it would pick up a few votes here and there they would have found space for it. Apart from anything else, if it became known they were in favour of higher limits some people who want to go faster would check out the rest of their policies and maybe vote for them, in much the same way as book shops will often sell coffee as well in the hope of getting add-on sales.

So your contention is that just because an issue doesn't appear in a party election manifesto it means by definition people must be happy with the status quo in that area? Words like "huge assumption" and "leap of faith" spring to mind!

To be honest even if parties felt there might be a few votes in increasing speed limits I doubt many if any would support it and include anything in an election manifesto. Why? Simply because the last thing many of our political parties want is an increase in speed limits or a relaxation in enforcement. In truth I suspect Labour, the Lib-Dems and the Green Party would almost certainly want to see the exact opposite and I actually think there's more chance of Lord Lucan riding up my drive on Shergar than there is of any of those parties supporting an increase in speed limits!

[vonhosen]

JNW1 said:

But being acquiescent is rather different from being clearly happy; the two are not the same at all (at least not in my book!).

And I'm not saying they have to be happy about it for it to remain once a status quo is established.

That's why I said

vonhosen said:

That's the thing about the status quo, you don't have to happy about it.

I was agreeing with you on that score. All that is required is acquiescence for the status quo to remain.

Dictionary said:

noun
1.
the act or condition of acquiescing or giving tacit assent; agreement or consent by silence or without objection; compliance (usually followed by to or in):
acquiescence to his boss's demands.

[cmaguire]

JNW1 said:

I'd suggest the real reason it doesn't figure on the agenda or in the manifesto of any major political party is because they believe other issues are more important; I'd say that's a fair assumption but to translate that as meaning the majority are happy with the status quo regarding speed limits and the approach to enforcement is a huge assumption on your part! Historically you could have argued the same about people's attitude to the EU but give them a say on that issue in isolation - and take away the noise of everything else - and suddenly a rather different picture emerges. Speed limits and their enforcement are of a relatively low importance to most compared to things like the state of the economy, the NHS, education, etc; however, that doesn't mean you can assume people are happy with the status quo, they've just got other more important things to worry about first.

I agree with this and your other posts mostly.
As far as the Labour manifesto for 2015 went, it could have been a recipe for Black Forest gateaux for all it mattered and the idea of Labour or the Liberals promoting increasing speed limits is counter-intuitive anyway. Blair might have done it, but Corbyn never will for obvious reasons (one of which being that he is un-electable anyway).

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

So your contention is that just because an issue doesn't appear in a party election manifesto it means by definition people must be happy with the status quo in that area? Words like "huge assumption" and "leap of faith" spring to mind!

To be honest even if parties felt there might be a few votes in increasing speed limits I doubt many if any would support it and include anything in an election manifesto. Why? Simply because the last thing many of our political parties want is an increase in speed limits or a relaxation in enforcement. In truth I suspect Labour, the Lib-Dems and the Green Party would almost certainly want to see the exact opposite and I actually think there's more chance of Lord Lucan riding up my drive on Shergar than there is of any of those parties supporting an increase in speed limits!

You've said that all the parties do not want to raise speed limits, but you forgot to say why. At least I support my 'huge assumptions' with logical reasons, even if you don't agree with them.

Incidentally when I say people are happy with the way things are I don't mean that the status quo literally makes them happy, I mean that they are indifferent to it. It's a figure of speech.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

So your contention is that just because an issue doesn't appear in a party election manifesto it means by definition people must be happy with the status quo in that area? Words like "huge assumption" and "leap of faith" spring to mind!

To be honest even if parties felt there might be a few votes in increasing speed limits I doubt many if any would support it and include anything in an election manifesto. Why? Simply because the last thing many of our political parties want is an increase in speed limits or a relaxation in enforcement. In truth I suspect Labour, the Lib-Dems and the Green Party would almost certainly want to see the exact opposite and I actually think there's more chance of Lord Lucan riding up my drive on Shergar than there is of any of those parties supporting an increase in speed limits!

You've said that all the parties do not want to raise speed limits, but you forgot to say why. At least I support my 'huge assumptions' with logical reasons, even if you don't agree with them.

Incidentally when I say people are happy with the way things are I don't mean that the status quo literally makes them happy, I mean that they are indifferent to it. It's a figure of speech.

Err, I haven't actually said all parties don't want to raise speed limits and at one stage in the not too distant past I seem to recall the Conservatives were actually considering raising the limit on motorways to 80mph (not that anything ever came of it). The ones who I suggested were likely to be against an increase generally have agendas which have more than whiff of anti-car and anti-motorist; for example, I imagine the Greens would probably like to see car use curtailed significantly and hence the idea they'd support the notion of people being allowed to drive faster doesn't seem very plausible (at least not to me).

I see you're shifting the goalposts on "clearly happy" but even if you meant "clearly content" you're still not necessarily correct. You seem to be under an illusion that political parties always react to public opinion and will immediately adopt as policy - and include in their manifesto - something they think might be popular; well, sometimes they do but a lot of the time they follow their own agendas and the electorate is given no choice.

If you want an example of that just consider capital punishment; for many years opinion polls suggested there was a clear majority in favour of reintroduction of the death penalty but did that ever find its way into a pledge to the electorate in an election manifesto from one of the major parties? No it didn't and, even though a majority of the electorate was apparently far from happy (content) with the law of the land on that particular issue, nothing changed. Why? Well, because although the people weren't happy they didn't feel strongly enough to riot or cause civil unrest on the matter; they had other more important things to consider and hence the political establishment could quietly ignore the issue and hope it went away (which eventually it did). Now I'm not making any case for or against capital punishment here, I'm just using it to illustrate that just because the people aren't happy about something doesn't mean politicians will react and do something about it; perhaps they will but not always.

To return to speed limits and their enforcement, do we know people are unhappy about them? Well to be honest no we don't but even if they are would the political establishment react to the dissatisfaction with the status quo - not necessarily as their response to the capital punishment issue demonstrates. Therefore, does the absence of any reference to speed limits and their enforcement in election manifestoes mean the electorate is happy or content? Of course it doesn't - they could be completely hacked-off and that still wouldn't guarantee a reaction from politicians! Current speed limits aren't going to cause civil unrest so, to use the word of a previous poster, we have acquiescence with the status quo - however, that doesn't necessarily mean people are happy or content, it could be they're just too busy with other things to make a big deal of their discontent on this particular issue!