A poem for those that love speed limits
Discussion
It's quite simple really-were the police to follow, pace, and then pull over and 'talk to' every speeding motorist then they'd need a huge traffic police force to do this, massively big lay-bys, all of which costs money, which terrifies the government as they'd have to raise taxes and so lose the next election.
So the 'production line' & 'pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap' philosophies are applied to speed enforcement, and we have the cameras.
The government loves them, the police love them, and the vast majority of the voting, motoring public distrust them.
So the government and police chiefs then have to sit round and compose sanctimonious throwaway statements to inflict upon the general motoring public to try and convince us to support one of the greatest and most flawed campaigns in modern history.
If speed kills, then surely everyone who's ever received a speeding ticket should have killed someone on the road? That means there should have been 1.4 million road deaths last year.
Funny how there were only around 3500, of which a large proportion were not even caused by speeding as the primary cause of the accident.
If I was able to legally use such flawed statistical evidence to promote such a worthless cause, and then to inflict it upon the populus at large, then I'd qualify to be a dictator in a banana republic.
Then comes the emotional card. 'How would you feel if you ran over and killed a child because you were speeding? What sort of a stupid question is that? I imagine that, like anyone else, I'd feel not quite the round shilling. If you really want to know, then why don't you come back and ask me when I have done it? I imagine you'll have a very long wait though, but until then, shut up and don't waste my time with pointless questions designed to tug at the heart strings and make us question our own abilities behind the wheel.
This obsession with speed above everything else fills me with the desire to run over Richard Brunstrom doing 39 mph in a 40mph zone and then shout at him 'why are you lying there all maimed-I wasn't speeding', and 'sorry I didn't see you, I was watching my speedo, as I know how important you feel it is for me to watch my speedo rather than the road directly in front of me'.
By getting drivers to focus predominantly on a dashboard instrument that measures their vehicle's velocity, the authorities are guilty of causing us to become distracted from the actual road itself by 'speedo watching' for fear of getting a ticket, maybe a ban, perhaps even loss of job, loss of income, loss of home, divorce, depression etc.
What a pathetically worthless cause to promote.
At least one coroner has stated that, in his opinion, a particular crash was partly caused by the driver watching the speedo for fear of camera fines, and not the road.
Yet still they try to flog this childishly simplistic view of speed=mass carnage and death on the roads.
Well it hasn't happened, has it, so the authorities are WRONG, on a scale of wrongness not seen since Adolf Hitler said he didn't want a war with another country.
For all those people who have suffered loss as a result of a motoring accident, you can only take up your individual quarrel with the particular individual who caused the accident-please don't go on a well-meant but technically flawed crusade against everyone else in the country-we didn't cause your troubles, someone else did, so take it up with them in a court of law.
The obsession in these islands is with law enforcement period, not as to whether that law is either respected or sensible.
The only thing that seems to matter to some elements of society is that we've broken 'the law', and must be punished accordingly from on high, regardless of whether that 'law' actually served any useful purpose to the general good of the populus.
Such fanatical crusaders are ultimately detached from reality, and most sensible people can see right through them. It's just an annoyance that they always end up in charge of some new flawed scheme.
I would personally like to see all speed camera enthusiasts and supporters burned at the stake, and all speed cameras melted down to make big engine blocks and superchargers.
There will always be a small minority (ever seen a large minority, or a small majority!) of criminally irresponsible drivers on our roads, and it is these who cause most of the accidents, not the vast majority of normal people who get by with common sense and a belief in their own ability to control their own vehicles safely without nannying interference from 'on high'
Someone once said that 'rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of the wise'
Draw your own conclusions...
So the 'production line' & 'pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap' philosophies are applied to speed enforcement, and we have the cameras.
The government loves them, the police love them, and the vast majority of the voting, motoring public distrust them.
So the government and police chiefs then have to sit round and compose sanctimonious throwaway statements to inflict upon the general motoring public to try and convince us to support one of the greatest and most flawed campaigns in modern history.
If speed kills, then surely everyone who's ever received a speeding ticket should have killed someone on the road? That means there should have been 1.4 million road deaths last year.
Funny how there were only around 3500, of which a large proportion were not even caused by speeding as the primary cause of the accident.
If I was able to legally use such flawed statistical evidence to promote such a worthless cause, and then to inflict it upon the populus at large, then I'd qualify to be a dictator in a banana republic.
Then comes the emotional card. 'How would you feel if you ran over and killed a child because you were speeding? What sort of a stupid question is that? I imagine that, like anyone else, I'd feel not quite the round shilling. If you really want to know, then why don't you come back and ask me when I have done it? I imagine you'll have a very long wait though, but until then, shut up and don't waste my time with pointless questions designed to tug at the heart strings and make us question our own abilities behind the wheel.
This obsession with speed above everything else fills me with the desire to run over Richard Brunstrom doing 39 mph in a 40mph zone and then shout at him 'why are you lying there all maimed-I wasn't speeding', and 'sorry I didn't see you, I was watching my speedo, as I know how important you feel it is for me to watch my speedo rather than the road directly in front of me'.
By getting drivers to focus predominantly on a dashboard instrument that measures their vehicle's velocity, the authorities are guilty of causing us to become distracted from the actual road itself by 'speedo watching' for fear of getting a ticket, maybe a ban, perhaps even loss of job, loss of income, loss of home, divorce, depression etc.
What a pathetically worthless cause to promote.
At least one coroner has stated that, in his opinion, a particular crash was partly caused by the driver watching the speedo for fear of camera fines, and not the road.
Yet still they try to flog this childishly simplistic view of speed=mass carnage and death on the roads.
Well it hasn't happened, has it, so the authorities are WRONG, on a scale of wrongness not seen since Adolf Hitler said he didn't want a war with another country.
For all those people who have suffered loss as a result of a motoring accident, you can only take up your individual quarrel with the particular individual who caused the accident-please don't go on a well-meant but technically flawed crusade against everyone else in the country-we didn't cause your troubles, someone else did, so take it up with them in a court of law.
The obsession in these islands is with law enforcement period, not as to whether that law is either respected or sensible.
The only thing that seems to matter to some elements of society is that we've broken 'the law', and must be punished accordingly from on high, regardless of whether that 'law' actually served any useful purpose to the general good of the populus.
Such fanatical crusaders are ultimately detached from reality, and most sensible people can see right through them. It's just an annoyance that they always end up in charge of some new flawed scheme.
I would personally like to see all speed camera enthusiasts and supporters burned at the stake, and all speed cameras melted down to make big engine blocks and superchargers.
There will always be a small minority (ever seen a large minority, or a small majority!) of criminally irresponsible drivers on our roads, and it is these who cause most of the accidents, not the vast majority of normal people who get by with common sense and a belief in their own ability to control their own vehicles safely without nannying interference from 'on high'
Someone once said that 'rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of the wise'
Draw your own conclusions...
mybrainhurts said:
None of us are free to do whatever we like in life...
I would dispute that, old boy...
I like to visit the toilet, therefore I shall......
Yes, but legally you can't just drop your strides where ever you like can you ?
>> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 14th April 22:30
vonhosen said:You might not be free, but I am
But if we all comply without thought we are not free... And if man isn't free then he is merely existing
None of us are free to do whatever we like in life.
(We have to comply with thought, because even driving at a safe speed under the limit requires care.)
You'll never guess how fast I went today with the top down, the music blaring and the sun shining in my face... And I'm certainly not going to tell you... But it was definitely very liberating.
I am free to choose whether I comply with the law or I don't. Today, like every other day of my driving life I chose not to.
It was safe, but it wasn't legal. Know what, the fact that it's illegal makes it even more fun.
I'm bored with argueing along the lines of "I drive fast, but it's all done eminently sensibly and within a system" Yes, I've had advanced motorcycle training, but I drive fast because it feels good and because I want to.
vonhosen said:
But if we all comply without thought we are not free... And if man isn't free then he is merely existing
None of us are free to do whatever we like in life.
(We have to comply with thought, because even driving at a safe speed under the limit requires care.)
No sh1t Sherlock, shame the emphasis is on sticking to the speed limit rather than safe driving isnt it?
s2art said:
But if we all comply without thought we are not free... And if man isn't free then he is merely existing
None of us are free to do whatever we like in life.
(We have to comply with thought, because even driving at a safe speed under the limit requires care.)
No sh1t Sherlock, shame the emphasis is on sticking to the speed limit rather than safe driving isnt it?
It isn't though.
Firstly you must be safe, secondly you must remain within the limit.
After all you must only drive at a speed safe for the circumstances up to the limit & travelling under the limit is no guarantee of it being a safe speed itself.
BliarOut said:
But if we all comply without thought we are not free... And if man isn't free then he is merely existing
None of us are free to do whatever we like in life.
(We have to comply with thought, because even driving at a safe speed under the limit requires care.)
You'll never guess how fast I went today with the top down, the music blaring and the sun shining in my face... And I'm certainly not going to tell you... But it was definitely very liberating.
I am free to choose whether I comply with the law or I don't. Today, like every other day of my driving life I chose not to.
It was safe, but it wasn't legal. Know what, the fact that it's illegal makes it even more fun.
I'm bored with argueing along the lines of "I drive fast, but it's all done eminently sensibly and within a system" Yes, I've had advanced motorcycle training, but I drive fast because it feels good and because I want to.
You're right, you have the choice to break the law or not.
What you don't have a choice over though, is whether you are going to get prosecuted & what happens should you be convicted. You have no freedom over that, the decisions are out of your hands.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 14th April 22:54
vonhosen said:Caught you before the edit VH
But if we all comply without thought we are not free... And if man isn't free then he is merely existing
None of us are free to do whatever we like in life.
(We have to comply with thought, because even driving at a safe speed under the limit requires care.)
You'll never guess how fast I went today with the top down, the music blaring and the sun shining in my face... And I'm certainly not going to tell you... But it was definitely very liberating.
I am free to choose whether I comply with the law or I don't. Today, like every other day of my driving life I chose not to.
It was safe, but it wasn't legal. Know what, the fact that it's illegal makes it even more fun.
I'm bored with argueing along the lines of "I drive fast, but it's all done eminently sensibly and within a system" Yes, I've had advanced motorcycle training, but I drive fast because it feels good and because I want to.
You're right, you have the choice to break the law or not.
What you don't have a choice over though, is whether you are going to get prosecuted & what happens should you be convicted.
You should try the preview button, it's great! 
And I do actually, it's called observation, the very skill that let's me drive fast while remaining safe and having fun. Add observation to a decemated trafpol and a scameraship that tells me where it's going to be and I pretty much have free reign to enjoy my freedom... Sure, a couple of roads are off limits for having fun, but the B roads, they're unpoliced I tell ya!
BliarOut said:
But if we all comply without thought we are not free... And if man isn't free then he is merely existing
None of us are free to do whatever we like in life.
(We have to comply with thought, because even driving at a safe speed under the limit requires care.)
You'll never guess how fast I went today with the top down, the music blaring and the sun shining in my face... And I'm certainly not going to tell you... But it was definitely very liberating.
I am free to choose whether I comply with the law or I don't. Today, like every other day of my driving life I chose not to.
It was safe, but it wasn't legal. Know what, the fact that it's illegal makes it even more fun.
I'm bored with argueing along the lines of "I drive fast, but it's all done eminently sensibly and within a system" Yes, I've had advanced motorcycle training, but I drive fast because it feels good and because I want to.
You're right, you have the choice to break the law or not.
What you don't have a choice over though, is whether you are going to get prosecuted & what happens should you be convicted.
And I do actually, it's called observation, the very skill that let's me drive fast while remaining safe and having fun. Add observation to a decemated trafpol and a scameraship that tells me where it's going to be and I pretty much have free reign to enjoy my freedom... Sure, a couple of roads are off limits for having fun, but the B roads, they're unpoliced I tell ya!
They're not unpoliced everywhere, because I use a lot of them (in a lot of different unmarked cars, which are not always your usual Police car fodder)
>> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 14th April 23:05
vonhosen said:
But if we all comply without thought we are not free... And if man isn't free then he is merely existing
None of us are free to do whatever we like in life.
(We have to comply with thought, because even driving at a safe speed under the limit requires care.)
No sh1t Sherlock, shame the emphasis is on sticking to the speed limit rather than safe driving isnt it?
It isn't though.
Firstly you must be safe, secondly you must remain within the limit.
After all you must only drive at a speed safe for the circumstances up to the limit & travelling under the limit is no guarantee of it being a safe speed itself.
Nope, the entire emphasis at the moment is about speed rather than safety. You said yourself that there is little or no effort policing poor driving below the speed limit.
s2art said:
Nope, the entire emphasis at the moment is about speed rather than safety. You said yourself that there is little or no effort policing poor driving below the speed limit.
I didn't say that.
I said that prosecuting for inappropriate speed alone below the limit is difficult.
And I said that you don't get much priority put into roads policing (trafpol) but any Police officer can actually deal with poor driving, it doesn't have to be a trafpol.
vonhosen said:You've bloody edited it again
But if we all comply without thought we are not free... And if man isn't free then he is merely existing
None of us are free to do whatever we like in life.
(We have to comply with thought, because even driving at a safe speed under the limit requires care.)
You'll never guess how fast I went today with the top down, the music blaring and the sun shining in my face... And I'm certainly not going to tell you... But it was definitely very liberating.
I am free to choose whether I comply with the law or I don't. Today, like every other day of my driving life I chose not to.
It was safe, but it wasn't legal. Know what, the fact that it's illegal makes it even more fun.
I'm bored with argueing along the lines of "I drive fast, but it's all done eminently sensibly and within a system" Yes, I've had advanced motorcycle training, but I drive fast because it feels good and because I want to.
You're right, you have the choice to break the law or not.
What you don't have a choice over though, is whether you are going to get prosecuted & what happens should you be convicted.
And I do actually, it's called observation, the very skill that let's me drive fast while remaining safe and having fun. Add observation to a decemated trafpol and a scameraship that tells me where it's going to be and I pretty much have free reign to enjoy my freedom... Sure, a couple of roads are off limits for having fun, but the B roads, they're unpoliced I tell ya!
They're not everywhere, because I use a lot of them (in a lot of different unmarked cars, which are not always your usual Police car fodder)
>> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 14th April 23:02
Preview man, preview! Hey, we've even got a Y reg Cavalier on my patch... Still drives using "the system" though
Harder to spot, but not impossible... Always always check the driver, their age and sex gives clues to how they may react... And occasionally their occupation.vonhosen said:
Nope, the entire emphasis at the moment is about speed rather than safety. You said yourself that there is little or no effort policing poor driving below the speed limit.
I didn't say that.
I said that prosecuting for inappropriate speed alone below the limit is difficult.
And I said that you don't get much priority put into roads policing (trafpol) but any Police officer can actually deal with poor driving, it doesn't have to be a trafpol.
Nice try, but if there is no money in it, then the effort spent will be small.
vonhosen said:Ahem, IIRC pregnant women can completely legally
None of us are free to do whatever we like in life...
I would dispute that, old boy...
I like to visit the toilet, therefore I shall......
Yes, but legally you can't just drop your strides where ever you like can you ?
>> Edited by vonhosen on Friday 14th April 22:30
RedOctober said:
It's quite simple really-were the police to follow, pace, and then pull over and 'talk to' every speeding motorist then they'd need a huge traffic police force to do this, massively big lay-bys, all of which costs money, which terrifies the government as they'd have to raise taxes and so lose the next election.
So the 'production line' & 'pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap' philosophies are applied to speed enforcement, and we have the cameras.
The government loves them, the police love them, and the vast majority of the voting, motoring public distrust them.
So the government and police chiefs then have to sit round and compose sanctimonious throwaway statements to inflict upon the general motoring public to try and convince us to support one of the greatest and most flawed campaigns in modern history.
If speed kills, then surely everyone who's ever received a speeding ticket should have killed someone on the road? That means there should have been 1.4 million road deaths last year.
Funny how there were only around 3500, of which a large proportion were not even caused by speeding as the primary cause of the accident.
If I was able to legally use such flawed statistical evidence to promote such a worthless cause, and then to inflict it upon the populus at large, then I'd qualify to be a dictator in a banana republic.
Then comes the emotional card. 'How would you feel if you ran over and killed a child because you were speeding? What sort of a stupid question is that? I imagine that, like anyone else, I'd feel not quite the round shilling. If you really want to know, then why don't you come back and ask me when I have done it? I imagine you'll have a very long wait though, but until then, shut up and don't waste my time with pointless questions designed to tug at the heart strings and make us question our own abilities behind the wheel.
This obsession with speed above everything else fills me with the desire to run over Richard Brunstrom doing 39 mph in a 40mph zone and then shout at him 'why are you lying there all maimed-I wasn't speeding', and 'sorry I didn't see you, I was watching my speedo, as I know how important you feel it is for me to watch my speedo rather than the road directly in front of me'.
By getting drivers to focus predominantly on a dashboard instrument that measures their vehicle's velocity, the authorities are guilty of causing us to become distracted from the actual road itself by 'speedo watching' for fear of getting a ticket, maybe a ban, perhaps even loss of job, loss of income, loss of home, divorce, depression etc.
What a pathetically worthless cause to promote.
At least one coroner has stated that, in his opinion, a particular crash was partly caused by the driver watching the speedo for fear of camera fines, and not the road.
Yet still they try to flog this childishly simplistic view of speed=mass carnage and death on the roads.
Well it hasn't happened, has it, so the authorities are WRONG, on a scale of wrongness not seen since Adolf Hitler said he didn't want a war with another country.
For all those people who have suffered loss as a result of a motoring accident, you can only take up your individual quarrel with the particular individual who caused the accident-please don't go on a well-meant but technically flawed crusade against everyone else in the country-we didn't cause your troubles, someone else did, so take it up with them in a court of law.
The obsession in these islands is with law enforcement period, not as to whether that law is either respected or sensible.
The only thing that seems to matter to some elements of society is that we've broken 'the law', and must be punished accordingly from on high, regardless of whether that 'law' actually served any useful purpose to the general good of the populus.
Such fanatical crusaders are ultimately detached from reality, and most sensible people can see right through them. It's just an annoyance that they always end up in charge of some new flawed scheme.
I would personally like to see all speed camera enthusiasts and supporters burned at the stake, and all speed cameras melted down to make big engine blocks and superchargers.
There will always be a small minority (ever seen a large minority, or a small majority!) of criminally irresponsible drivers on our roads, and it is these who cause most of the accidents, not the vast majority of normal people who get by with common sense and a belief in their own ability to control their own vehicles safely without nannying interference from 'on high'
Someone once said that 'rules are for the obedience of fools, and the guidance of the wise'
Draw your own conclusions...
An excellent factual post, one of the best I've read, I hope you participate more often, please.
I've quoted the whole lot because it should be read more than once.
Jesus I'm editing too
>> Edited by deeps on Saturday 15th April 01:40
vonhosen said:
No sh1t Sherlock, shame the emphasis is on sticking to the speed limit rather than safe driving isnt it?
It isn't though.
Firstly you must be safe, secondly you must remain within the limit.
Von please, your nose will be growing very big at this rate.
Speaking as a member of the public I can say that yes, I am told by the powers that be that I must not exceed the speed limit...20 is plenty, hit someone at 30 blah blah.
But nobody has ever told me that I must drive safely, only that I must not exceed the limit. I assume from that that the two go hand in hand? Don't exceed limit... must be safe.
If I may adjust your sentence above that I have high-lighted in bold, we will see the message that present policy is sending me..."Firstly you must remain within the limit, secondly you must (then) be safe".
Your words, slightly re-arranged to reflect a little bit of reality.
vonhosen said:
...whereas arbitrary speed limits constrain your freedom and mine.
Prosecute reckless endangerment by all means but don't pretend that blanket speed limits protect anyone's freedom.
I disagree.
Arbitrary limits are the only "practical" way to strike a balance between those freedoms.
Considering how many accidents happen below the limit it seems doubtful that speed limits are a practical solution for anything.
What is certain is that they constrain freedoms.
That makes 'em oppressive.
vonhosen said:
What is more up for debate (IMHO), is what each individual limit should be set at for each road.
Unless they are set dynamicly to vary with conditions they will be very nearly as useless as the current ones.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff