Is jail really the smart solution for speeding?

[singlecoil]

Crackie said:

singlecoil said:

I haven't the energy or the will to reply in detail to all three posts, I'm afraid.

Regarding confirming what percentage of drivers are sensible ? You said most drivers so that implies you have an approximate figure in mind already. Hope you're feeling better soon and feel well enough to answer.

The only thing you should have inferred from my post is that I believe the number involved to be decidedly more than half. 'Most' is a vague but simple word, but it does have a definition and I'm sure you will have no trouble finding it.

I'm feeling fine thanks, I've had a very good day so far. I didn't want to exert myself by writing full replies because I gauged that the effort involved would be greater than the reward. We've been covering pretty much the same ground for some time now.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

I haven't the energy or the will to reply in detail to all three posts, I'm afraid.

I think a lot of arguments about speed limits and their enforcement come about because some people want to be able to choose their own speed without interference from the authorities. I on the other hand am prepared to drive within the limits (for the most part) because I don't want other drivers to be given free rein. I have little respect for the abilities of most drivers to choose suitable speeds. And that's because of the stuff I used to do myself. Fortunately nothing bad came of any of it, but I realise now that was sheer luck

Well I hope in time you also come to realise it's only through sheer luck that more accidents and fatalities aren't caused by a distraction which you're happy to see remain legal despite clear evidence it's a problem.

I do get the point that the prosecution and sentence of an offence needs to look at what the offence was rather than the luck (good or bad) that was associated with the outcome. However, in terms of our biker, I'm afraid I still don't see that the sentence was proportionate to the crime; probably another way of saying I don't agree with the treatment of the offence, or at least the way it's treated and dealt with in Scotland.

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

I haven't the energy or the will to reply in detail to all three posts, I'm afraid.

I think a lot of arguments about speed limits and their enforcement come about because some people want to be able to choose their own speed without interference from the authorities. I on the other hand am prepared to drive within the limits (for the most part) because I don't want other drivers to be given free rein. I have little respect for the abilities of most drivers to choose suitable speeds. And that's because of the stuff I used to do myself. Fortunately nothing bad came of any of it, but I realise now that was sheer luck

Well I hope in time you also come to realise it's only through sheer luck that more accidents and fatalities aren't caused by a distraction which you're happy to see remain legal despite clear evidence it's a problem.

I didn't say I was happy to see it remain legal (please stop reading between the lines). It may be that for some people it's a problem, but those are the people who are going to be distracted by all sorts of things. I know people like that and I am sure you do too. I would like to see those people taken off the roads but cannot think of a practical way of doing that.

JNW1 said:

I do get the point that the prosecution and sentence of an offence needs to look at what the offence was rather than the luck (good or bad) that was associated with the outcome. However, in terms of our biker, I'm afraid I still don't see that the sentence was proportionate to the crime; probably another way of saying I don't agree with the treatment of the offence, or at least the way it's treated and dealt with in Scotland.

I agree that the sentence was more than I would have imposed, which in a sense means I don't agree with it. It is well known though that extreme speeding is harshly dealt with in Scotland so he only has himself to blame.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

I didn't say I was happy to see it remain legal (please stop reading between the lines). It may be that for some people it's a problem, but those are the people who are going to be distracted by all sorts of things. I know people like that and I am sure you do too. I would like to see those people taken off the roads but cannot think of a practical way of doing that.

To be clear, then, are you happy for hands-free to remain legal or not? Given the content of your previous posts (dismissing evidence that hands-free is distracting, seeking to draw a clear distinction between hands-free and hand-held use, etc) I think most would have concluded you support the continued use of hands-free; is that not the case?

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

I didn't say I was happy to see it remain legal (please stop reading between the lines). It may be that for some people it's a problem, but those are the people who are going to be distracted by all sorts of things. I know people like that and I am sure you do too. I would like to see those people taken off the roads but cannot think of a practical way of doing that.

To be clear, then, are you happy for hands-free to remain legal or not? Given the content of your previous posts (dismissing evidence that hands-free is distracting, seeking to draw a clear distinction between hands-free and hand-held use, etc) I think most would have concluded you support the continued use of hands-free; is that not the case?

I thought I had already been clear. I neither support hands-free nor think it should be made illegal. If there was a way of removing all the distractions a driver might be subject to then that would be a good thing and I would support that, but I would not support singling out one of them while allowing the others.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

singlecoil said:

I didn't say I was happy to see it remain legal (please stop reading between the lines). It may be that for some people it's a problem, but those are the people who are going to be distracted by all sorts of things. I know people like that and I am sure you do too. I would like to see those people taken off the roads but cannot think of a practical way of doing that.

To be clear, then, are you happy for hands-free to remain legal or not? Given the content of your previous posts (dismissing evidence that hands-free is distracting, seeking to draw a clear distinction between hands-free and hand-held use, etc) I think most would have concluded you support the continued use of hands-free; is that not the case?

I thought I had already been clear. I neither support hands-free nor think it should be made illegal. If there was a way of removing all the distractions a driver might be subject to then that would be a good thing and I would support that, but I would not support singling out one of them while allowing the others.

If you don't think hands-free should be made illegal aren't you by definition saying you're happy (content) for it to remain legal?!

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

If you don't think hands-free should be made illegal aren't you by definition saying you're happy (content) for it to remain legal?!

What would make me happy would be for people to take me at my word, and to stop trying to make my words into something that serves their agenda.

If you want to know what I am saying, all you need to do is to read it. There are very few synonyms in the English language, and very few phrases that mean exactly the same as other phrases made of different words.

[Heaveho]

singlecoil said:

I thought I had already been clear. I neither support hands-free nor think it should be made illegal. If there was a way of removing all the distractions a driver might be subject to then that would be a good thing and I would support that, but I would not support singling out one of them while allowing the others.

But they already have singled out one distraction, that being the use of a hand held device, whilst ignoring the fact that a hands free is no less of a distraction. If the lawmakers didn't tend to react in such a knee jerk manner to every " good idea " touted in the name of safety that soon afterwards shows itself to be, in fact, quite poorly thought through, the people who care about cars and driving that have to live with the consequences and see the reality of the conditions posed upon them might be less critical. It's pretty clear that those same people responsible for those decisions have no real interest in cars or driving, and therefore don't have a clear comprehension of the things that matter. If they did, the outcome of their reasoning would stand a chance of being significantly more appropriate. You can say what you like about a 70mph motorway speed limit, but it's the fact that people are bored rigid whilst observing it that causes attention to wander. Tell me you don't concentrate more at higher speeds.

If what we have on our roads now represents the results of the current driving test, with all of the poor lane discipline, short attention spans, and all other assortment of hopeless inability that can be seen everywhere on any given day on any journey, then that's the source of the problem and it should be addressed as the cause.

[singlecoil]

Heaveho said:

singlecoil said:

I thought I had already been clear. I neither support hands-free nor think it should be made illegal. If there was a way of removing all the distractions a driver might be subject to then that would be a good thing and I would support that, but I would not support singling out one of them while allowing the others.

But they already have singled out one distraction, that being the use of a hand held device, whilst ignoring the fact that a hands free is no less of a distraction...

The fact? You are stating that that is a fact? It's not a fact, it's the opinion of some people who have apparently done some research. That doesn't make it a fact.

[vonhosen]

Heaveho said:

If what we have on our roads now represents the results of the current driving test, with all of the poor lane discipline, short attention spans, and all other assortment of hopeless inability that can be seen everywhere on any given day on any journey, then that's the source of the problem and it should be addressed as the cause.

It's a lack of interest that results in it. The majority of people have little passion for excellence in their roadcraft (I don't mean following roadcraft the book). The car is just another convenience white goods & they neither care or have forgotten what they should be doing as good practice, it's not that they didn't know.
Selfishness & expediency are the order of the day.
I think it's frankly unrealistic to expect the sort of interest/application that I suspect you desire from them & as such addressing the problem so to speak is only likely to be managing the problem not eradicating it (at least a lot of it until we have driverless cars as main stream).

[p1esk]

JNW1 said:

...the available research and evidence shows that most of the distraction comes from having the conversation; whether it's hand-held or hands-free makes little difference.

That has long been my understanding; but is it the case that hand-held phone use by drivers was banned before it was discovered that hands-free phone usage was almost as bad?

In any event the distinction between the two seems hard to justify.

FWIW, I wouldn't have banned any of it. We should have left the 'problem' to be covered by use of the 'not in proper control' arrangements etc.

[p1esk]

singlecoil said:

I personally am not distracted by having a conversation while driving but maybe some people are. Whether they are talking to someone in the car or on the phone makes no real-world difference.

Oh, I thought that research had supposedly shown that a driver suffered much more distraction when having a mobile phone conversation, than occurred when conversing with a passenger.

The point often made is that if a passenger sees that a driver is busy dealing with a situation that requires particular concentration they shut up and leave him to it, whereas a person on the other end of the phone does not know this, and carries on with the conversation. This does not tally with my experience: I've generally found that most passengers continue to chatter, even when the driver is clearly quite busy.

[singlecoil]

p1esk said:

singlecoil said:

I personally am not distracted by having a conversation while driving but maybe some people are. Whether they are talking to someone in the car or on the phone makes no real-world difference.

Oh, I thought that research had supposedly shown that a driver suffered much more distraction when having a mobile phone conversation, than occurred when conversing with a passenger.

If a link to authoritative research had been produced I would have had a look at it but it ignores the fact that there is more to it than just 'distraction'. There's the actual handling of the phone, hand held phone use involves the use of a hand, which reduces the number of hands available for operating the car.

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

JNW1 said:

If you don't think hands-free should be made illegal aren't you by definition saying you're happy (content) for it to remain legal?!

What would make me happy would be for people to take me at my word, and to stop trying to make my words into something that serves their agenda.

If you want to know what I am saying, all you need to do is to read it. There are very few synonyms in the English language, and very few phrases that mean exactly the same as other phrases made of different words.

If someone says they don't wish something to be made illegal to my mind that's the same as saying they're happy (content) for it to remain legal; therefore, if you're saying the two statements don't mean the same can you explain what the difference is? I have no agenda other than, at this point, to try to understand why you appear to be splitting hairs on something I said earlier; I certainly wasn't looking to misrepresent your position on hands-free use and am actually still not convinced I did!

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

Heaveho said:

singlecoil said:

I thought I had already been clear. I neither support hands-free nor think it should be made illegal. If there was a way of removing all the distractions a driver might be subject to then that would be a good thing and I would support that, but I would not support singling out one of them while allowing the others.

But they already have singled out one distraction, that being the use of a hand held device, whilst ignoring the fact that a hands free is no less of a distraction...

The fact? You are stating that that is a fact? It's not a fact, it's the opinion of some people who have apparently done some research. That doesn't make it a fact.

Perhaps but nevertheless reputable, independent, organisations like the Transport Research Laboratory (amongst others) have undertaken research which suggests the distraction associated with mobile phones used whilst driving comes primarily from the conversation and not from holding the handset. You choose not to believe their work but, despite having been challenged several times, have failed to produce anything whatsoever to support the notion that holding the handset is actually the main distraction (and from a safety perspective that would be the only reason to differentiate between hand-held and hands-free use).

You repeatedly demand evidence from others, dismiss it as nonsense when it doesn't suit you and all the while fail to provide any evidence of your own to support your position; pretty pathetic really.....

[JNW1]

singlecoil said:

p1esk said:

singlecoil said:

I personally am not distracted by having a conversation while driving but maybe some people are. Whether they are talking to someone in the car or on the phone makes no real-world difference.

Oh, I thought that research had supposedly shown that a driver suffered much more distraction when having a mobile phone conversation, than occurred when conversing with a passenger.

If a link to authoritative research had been produced I would have had a look at it but it ignores the fact that there is more to it than just 'distraction'. There's the actual handling of the phone, hand held phone use involves the use of a hand, which reduces the number of hands available for operating the car.

You'll have a look at it? That's big of you except, as we've seen, you'll just dismiss any research you don't like. And where is your authoritative research to show that talking on a hands-free mobile whilst driving is significantly less of a distraction than talking with a hands-held device? We're still waiting Mr Evidence man.....

[singlecoil]

JNW1 said:

You repeatedly demand evidence from others, dismiss it as nonsense when it doesn't suit you and all the while fail to provide any evidence of your own to support your position; pretty pathetic really.....

I haven't demanded any evidence from anyone once. let alone repeatedly. Kindly withdraw your inaccurate remark.

JNW1 said:

You'll have a look at it? That's big of you except, as we've seen, you'll just dismiss any research you don't like. And where is your authoritative research to show that talking on a hands-free mobile whilst driving is significantly less of a distraction than talking with a hands-held device? We're still waiting Mr Evidence man.....

Once again you misrepresent my position. I'll ignore your re-writing of my posts apart from pointing out that you are doing it.

[Heaveho]

singlecoil said:

Heaveho said:

singlecoil said:

I thought I had already been clear. I neither support hands-free nor think it should be made illegal. If there was a way of removing all the distractions a driver might be subject to then that would be a good thing and I would support that, but I would not support singling out one of them while allowing the others.

But they already have singled out one distraction, that being the use of a hand held device, whilst ignoring the fact that a hands free is no less of a distraction...

The fact? You are stating that that is a fact? It's not a fact, it's the opinion of some people who have apparently done some research. That doesn't make it a fact.

Yes, badly worded. Fortunately, I seem to remember someone not a million miles away doing the same thing earlier in the thread when the conversation had turned to what may or not have been in the bikers mind when he set out on his journey, so in this instance I'm prepared to forgive myself.

Do you regard yourself as lass distracted using a phone hands free than hand held? In all honesty?

[singlecoil]

Heaveho said:

Yes, badly worded. Fortunately, I seem to remember someone not a million miles away doing the same thing earlier in the thread when the conversation had turned to what may or not have been in the bikers mind when he set out on his journey, so in this instance I'm prepared to forgive myself.

Do you regard yourself as less distracted using a phone hands free than hand held? In all honesty?

You and JNW1 are fixating on distraction. Have another read of this-

singlecoil said:

If a link to authoritative research had been produced I would have had a look at it but it ignores the fact that there is more to it than just 'distraction'. There's the actual handling of the phone, hand held phone use involves the use of a hand, which reduces the number of hands available for operating the car.

[Heaveho]

vonhosen said:

It's a lack of interest that results in it. The majority of people have little passion for excellence in their roadcraft (I don't mean following roadcraft the book). The car is just another convenience white goods & they neither care or have forgotten what they should be doing as good practice, it's not that they didn't know.
Selfishness & expediency are the order of the day.
I think it's frankly unrealistic to expect the sort of interest/application that I suspect you desire from them & as such addressing the problem so to speak is only likely to be managing the problem not eradicating it (at least a lot of it until we have driverless cars as main stream).

All fair comment. I've seen in all walks of life that if someone isn't interested in the subject at hand, they'll almost invariably be poorer at it than the guy who is, no reason to think that doesn't apply to driving. However, whether or not a person is interested or not, it's an important enough activity that it's reasonable to expect people to pay attention to it, should they choose to participate. I know people who are scared to drive on the motorway, ffs, how the hell do people with that level of inability get a license?