RE: Speed camera onslaught halted
Discussion
flemke said:
Someone on this thread or a similar one lately made the oft-repeated comment that a person does not have a "right to drive". To the contrary, a person has a right to pursue his (or her) interests at the very least until that impinges on the interests of others. It is the government, its bureaucratic extensions and the mob that have a case to answer: How do they justify imposing themselves upon the individual and his pursuit of his interests?
A person does not have the rite to drive. It is a privilage, a luxury. All be it a luxury available to many. A person does have the rite to pursue their interests until they impinge on the interests of others but driving is not an 'interest' integral to the well being and survival of people/society. The basic human rites are that of food, water and shelter/protection. You can add to this the rite to an education and healthcare. You certainly cannot classify driving as any of these. By your arguement television is also a rite.
Driving is the responsiblity of the individual and they must bear the consequences of their actions. It is for our peirs to decide if breaking of the law is justified or not.
GreenV8S said:
But at the moment speed enforcement seems to have gone all Judge Dread.
To me this is a PH myth.
Yes, the UK uses speed cameras. Yes, the number of trafpol has independently gone down.
But I see post after post after post declaring that the goverment are only concerned with speed and (like in this thread) they have done things like scrap road safety education at school - which is nonesense.
The last few ads I've seen on TV recently have all been about watching out for motorbikes and taking care of each other, no mention of speeding at all.
Its just not true - controlling speed is one part of the policy but the UK still has an overall road safety policy too.
PH doesn't agree with one part of it so then conveniently ignores the rest to try and highlight its point.
flemke said:
Doesn't it depend on one's literal interpretation of "...as fast as they like everywhere."?
That could be construed as "as fast as they choose/judge to be right/decide is appropriate everywhere".
Yes, this was just my twisted way of rewording the oft stated view that speed limits are unecessary.
I have no doubt that Green V8S would drive at appropriate speed everyhwere (or appropriate to him anyway). Its the guy in the lowered Clio I'd be worried about and they out-number BRG V8Ss round my way 100 to 1.
As I understand it, Germans have a substantially higher level of driver training, and testing is more rigorous, so they benefit from the continued existence of a de-restricted motorway .
They drive the same cars and encounter a similar range of weather as the UK (sometimes worse, though their roads are better engineered and built) yet there they are, left to their own devices on their autobahns.
They seem to have strict enforcement too, and not just of excessive (where limits do apply) or inappropriate speed, but lane discipline (among other things).
It would be nice if the UK also had a more holistic approach to driver training, road safety awareness and enforcement. How many of us have wondered aloud in this message board what the roads would be like if, say, lane discipline was emphasised and enforced wherever possible (*ahem*, blank electronic gantry signs)? Instead we get blind enforcement of static limits which almost no-one obeys. What a waste of resources.
What about that ridiculous law here banning only hand-held mobile phone use? As if having a four-way conversation with passengers, changing the radio station, or applying make-up was any safer? Is it possible to ‘legislate away’ bad habits and practices? If so, why aren’t the number of speeding fines diminishing? Why was I almost hit last Sunday by a driver holding a mobile (and why is said same such a regular occurrence)?
I don’t like the idea of having to schlep to a testing centre every five years, but if it could help weed out very poor drivers, and keep me on my toes, maybe it’s not such a bad idea. I’d rather the government take money from testing fees instead of GATSOs (where, once past, EVERYONE speeds up again, making them generally useless).
Back to ze Germans. I guess my point is that if the general standards of driving can be raised (better habits, hazard perception and risk management, possible re-testing), surely the whole argument for speeding cameras, with its blinkered emphasis on speed limits, would come crashing down alongside accident statistics.
They drive the same cars and encounter a similar range of weather as the UK (sometimes worse, though their roads are better engineered and built) yet there they are, left to their own devices on their autobahns.
They seem to have strict enforcement too, and not just of excessive (where limits do apply) or inappropriate speed, but lane discipline (among other things).
It would be nice if the UK also had a more holistic approach to driver training, road safety awareness and enforcement. How many of us have wondered aloud in this message board what the roads would be like if, say, lane discipline was emphasised and enforced wherever possible (*ahem*, blank electronic gantry signs)? Instead we get blind enforcement of static limits which almost no-one obeys. What a waste of resources.
What about that ridiculous law here banning only hand-held mobile phone use? As if having a four-way conversation with passengers, changing the radio station, or applying make-up was any safer? Is it possible to ‘legislate away’ bad habits and practices? If so, why aren’t the number of speeding fines diminishing? Why was I almost hit last Sunday by a driver holding a mobile (and why is said same such a regular occurrence)?
I don’t like the idea of having to schlep to a testing centre every five years, but if it could help weed out very poor drivers, and keep me on my toes, maybe it’s not such a bad idea. I’d rather the government take money from testing fees instead of GATSOs (where, once past, EVERYONE speeds up again, making them generally useless).
Back to ze Germans. I guess my point is that if the general standards of driving can be raised (better habits, hazard perception and risk management, possible re-testing), surely the whole argument for speeding cameras, with its blinkered emphasis on speed limits, would come crashing down alongside accident statistics.
spnracing said:
The last few ads I've seen on TV recently have all been about watching out for motorbikes and taking care of each other, no mention of speeding at all.
Its just not true - controlling speed is one part of the policy but the UK still has an overall road safety policy too.
PH doesn't agree with one part of it so then conveniently ignores the rest to try and highlight its point.
I don't ignore the other road safety campaign adverts etc.. promoted by this government it is the weighting placed upon speed being the main area to prosecute/change that I have issue with. If everyone slows down then everyone will be safe, which is nonsense.
You have to admit that speed is irrelevant if you aren't paying attention to the road conditions. What is safer, someone in full control of their vehicle and aware of the surrounding conditions or someone trying to read a map on their steering wheel whilst driving? I am certainly not talking about idiots traveling at twice the speed limit through a built up area. I am talking about people who are 5mph over the speed limit - i.e the majority of drivers.
The MAIN emphasis of the government campaign is to slow people down not raise driving standards. Which is just wrong.
I agree with a lot of what you say. I believe, though, that there should be MORE emphasis on improving the basic levels of road craft - of which speed is an element.
mk1fan said:
If there were no speed limits then no one could be held accountable for accidents. You couldn't be accused of traveling too fast for the conditions if their are no speed limits. Against what do you judge the speed.
I can't agree with this. Travelling too fast for the conditions is firstly the responsibility of the driver, whether there is a speed limit or not. Secondly, all cases of speeding should be viewed against the conditions, not just the speed limit, and should be judged and enforced by a police presence.
Someone driving at 25mph in a 30mph limit, in icey, foggy conditions, past a school at chucking out time, should be judged by a policeman or school crossing patrol. If their behaviour in the circumstances is judged to be dangerous, they should have their collar felt.
How is a speed camera set at 35mph going to judge weather conditions, visibility, road surface adhesion, time, movement of pedestrians, drivers demeanour? How is the speed camera going to stop the offence whilst in progress, and politely and firmly explain why the behaviour was an offence, making the road safer straight away and instilling a little knowledge for future reference.
The answer is that it can't. It will most likely miss any dangerous driving, and if it did actually trigger, a letter will drop through the door of the offender 2 weeks later (if he is actually legally registered), and the conditions at the time of the offence will be a distant memory. Worse still, the presence of the camera may also act as a distraction.
People with poor driving habits are likely to be either unregistered, so don't worry about being photographed, or will be looking out for cameras/using detectors, so will ensure they slow down and avoid detection. Safer drivers who are observing the road and surroundings will be less likely to spot the cameras, and more likely to get caught.
mk1fan said:
Someone on this thread or a similar one lately made the oft-repeated comment that a person does not have a "right to drive". To the contrary, a person has a right to pursue his (or her) interests at the very least until that impinges on the interests of others. It is the government, its bureaucratic extensions and the mob that have a case to answer: How do they justify imposing themselves upon the individual and his pursuit of his interests?
A person does not have the rite to drive. It is a privilage, a luxury.
A privilege granted by whom, my friend?
I am reminded of the best film ever produced: The Great Escape.
People travelling around the country, constantly being checked by the phrase "your papers please?" in a sinister German accent.
Now cut to the UK 2005. People travelling around the country, constantly being "your papers please", but this time no accent, just a camera and a stream of "0"s and "1"s.
People travelling around the country, constantly being checked by the phrase "your papers please?" in a sinister German accent.
Now cut to the UK 2005. People travelling around the country, constantly being "your papers please", but this time no accent, just a camera and a stream of "0"s and "1"s.
flemke said:
A person does not have the rite to drive. It is a privilage, a luxury.
A privilege granted by whom, my friend?
As citizens/residents, we have the right to operate a motor vehicle, provided we meet the minimum criteria (i.e. competence, knowledge) for doing so. This is something all of us are simply entitled to.
I understand the point of view that it’s a privilege, but perhaps it’s being confused with being able to drive responsibly, and the fact that, for the majority of us, being able to exercise this right is not essential to our well-being or even our livelihoods (PHers might like to debate that on an emotional level
). So long as we demonstrate we can safely and responsibly operate a motor vehicle (by holding a licence, carrying proper insurance) no-one is allowed or entitled to arbitrarily take that right from us.
>> Edited by ubergreg on Tuesday 8th November 17:21
spnracing said:I can almost see where you are coming from there, which is a first.
Doesn't it depend on one's literal interpretation of "...as fast as they like everywhere."?
That could be construed as "as fast as they choose/judge to be right/decide is appropriate everywhere".
Yes, this was just my twisted way of rewording the oft stated view that speed limits are unecessary.
I have no doubt that Green V8S would drive at appropriate speed everyhwere (or appropriate to him anyway). Its the guy in the lowered Clio I'd be worried about and they out-number BRG V8Ss round my way 100 to 1.
Turning that on its head though, you get to the crux of what irks most PHers. A speed camera couldn't tell GreenV8S from low-forehead Clio boy. PC Traffic could (though recent comments from some on here suggest that many might choose not to).
ubergreg said:
A person does not have the rite to drive. It is a privilage, a luxury.
A privilege granted by whom, my friend?
As citizens/residents, we have the right to operate a motor vehicle, provided we meet the minimum criteria (i.e. competence, knowledge) for doing so. This is something all of us are simply entitled to.
I understand the point of view that it’s a privilege, but perhaps it’s being confused with being able to drive responsibly, and the fact that, for the majority of us, being able to exercise this right is not essential to our well-being or even our livelihoods (PHers might like to debate that on an emotional level
So long as we demonstrate we can safely and responsibly operate a motor vehicle (by holding a licence, carrying proper insurance) no-one is allowed or entitled to arbitrarily take that right from us.
>> Edited by ubergreg on Tuesday 8th November 17:21
We grant ourselves this privilage by paying for the car. On the whole society does not provide you a car because you're standing there, you purchase one with your own money. You have the rite to BUY a car and any goods deemed to be legal. If you wish to drive on the public road you are entitiled to do so. Rite and entitlement are different.
I am not trying to stop people from driving. But if you choose to drive you need to conform to regulations etc... but also take on board the responsibility of driving and the duty of care to others who maybe affected by your driving and not just go 'Well that's what insurance is for'. The vast majority of drivers do not drive resposibly enough. Fact. Dare I say that the majority of PHers good do with reviewing their driving skills for the public road? This is only a presumption based on the standards of driving I see every day. I know my road driving can be improved but on the track I could keep a fair pace going.
mk1fan said:mk1fan,
A person does not have the rite to drive. It is a privilage, a luxury.
>> Edited by ubergreg on Tuesday 8th November 17:21
I am not trying to stop people from driving. But if you choose to drive you need to conform to regulations etc... but also take on board the responsibility of driving and the duty of care to others who maybe affected by your driving and not just go 'Well that's what insurance is for'. The vast majority of drivers do not drive resposibly enough. Fact. Dare I say that the majority of PHers good do with reviewing their driving skills for the public road? This is only a presumption based on the standards of driving I see every day. I know my road driving can be improved but on the track I could keep a fair pace going.
I confess that I am now completely lost in what I think you are saying, but thanks for the replies and happy motoring.
mk1fan said:
A person does not have the rite (sic...was that a slip, or are you a clever dick?)
to drive.
Time to turn this on its head. Not long ago, ramblers didn't have the right to walk....look how they made it a right.....
I feel a campaign coming on....
Right to drive....right to drive.....
Yup, that'll do nicely.....
mk1fan said:
It is a privilage (sic)......
Bollox...see above
mk1fan said:
a luxury.....
Double bollox......see above
Of course it's a right - as are the overwhelming majority of other actions that we might undertake.
Just because a mob gets together and asserts that you may not do what you want without their permission and subsequent control, that doesn't mean Bo Diddley. In the end that mob can calumniate you, steal your money, put you in a cage or take away your life - none of that justifies the injustice of abridging your rights just because they have the physical power to do so.
Just because a mob gets together and asserts that you may not do what you want without their permission and subsequent control, that doesn't mean Bo Diddley. In the end that mob can calumniate you, steal your money, put you in a cage or take away your life - none of that justifies the injustice of abridging your rights just because they have the physical power to do so.
mk1fan said:
We grant ourselves this privilage by paying for the car. On the whole society does not provide you a car because you're standing there, you purchase one with your own money. You have the rite to BUY a car and any goods deemed to be legal. If you wish to drive on the public road you are entitiled to do so. Rite and entitlement are different.
I am not trying to stop people from driving. But if you choose to drive you need to conform to regulations etc... but also take on board the responsibility of driving and the duty of care to others who maybe affected by your driving and not just go 'Well that's what insurance is for'. The vast majority of drivers do not drive resposibly enough. Fact. Dare I say that the majority of PHers good do with reviewing their driving skills for the public road? This is only a presumption based on the standards of driving I see every day. I know my road driving can be improved but on the track I could keep a fair pace going.
mk1fan said:
[quote=ubergreg][quote=flemke][quote=mk1fan]
We grant ourselves this privilage by paying for the car. On the whole society does not provide you a car because you're standing there, you purchase one with your own money. You have the rite to BUY a car and any goods deemed to be legal. If you wish to drive on the public road you are entitiled to do so. Rite and entitlement are different.
I am not trying to stop people from driving. But if you choose to drive you need to conform to regulations etc... but also take on board the responsibility of driving and the duty of care to others who maybe affected by your driving and not just go 'Well that's what insurance is for'. The vast majority of drivers do not drive resposibly enough. Fact. Dare I say that the majority of PHers good do with reviewing their driving skills for the public road? This is only a presumption based on the standards of driving I see every day. I know my road driving can be improved but on the track I could keep a fair pace going.
Is owning property a privilege, or, once we meet the minimum criteria (i.e. have enough money/credit) do we have the right to own it?
Is it a privilege for all men and women to be given equal opportunities, or, once one has the necessary qualifications, have the right to gainful employment?
Is voting a privilege, or, once we reach the legal age, do we have the right to vote?
Because we live in a vast collective, our rights must be tempered with responsibility, and criteria must be established to ensure we can demonstrate at least a minimum level of responsibility. We have a right to drive, and drive what we want, when we want, as long as we and our vehicles adhere to the highway code.
If it is a privilege, then the government could suddenly say - without any explanation - "people who live in subsidised housing can't drive anymore, because they're in effect wasting our tax money on the privilege."
I live in Central London. Does that mean Mayor Ken can suddenly order me not to drive, because I should be able to take a bus to work? He can tax me, and he certainly would like to stop me from driving, but he can't do it, because it's my right to drive. That cannot arbitrarily be taken from me. Privilege is for some, rights are for all.
Your performance on a racecourse doesn't necessarily make you a safe driver on a public road; only a driver capable of operating his car near or at its limits. Safe drivers are more valuable on a public road than drivers who only boast above-average car control. And a public road is a vastly different and far more unpredictable/varied environment than a racecourse. I hope you understand why I mention your racecourse credentials in this context, and I am not suggesting you are an unsafe driver. No rational person could say their skills are beyond reproach, but the fact remains that, once a person has met the requirements set out by the DoT (whether they're high enough or not is also up for debate), they have the right to operate a motor vehicle in a responsible and law-abiding fashion from that point on.
ubergreg said:
Your performance on a racecourse doesn't necessarily make you a safe driver on a public road; only a driver capable of operating his car near or at its limits. Safe drivers are more valuable on a public road than drivers who only boast above-average car control. And a public road is a vastly different and far more unpredictable/varied environment than a racecourse. I hope you understand why I mention your racecourse credentials in this context, and I am not suggesting you are an unsafe driver.
My point exactly. Being able to take a car up to and maintain its limits is wholely different to driving on the public road. I certainly wasn't boasting but raising the issue the differences between driving conditions.
If driving was a rite then there would be no restrictions applied to ownership - be they finacial, legal etc.. If the Government wished to outlaw driving they could. Finacially it would cripple the country, but they could.
mk1fan said:Yes, but think about what you're saying: 'If the Government wished to outlaw driving they could.'
If driving was a rite then there would be no restrictions applied to ownership - be they finacial, legal etc.. If the Government wished to outlaw driving they could. Finacially it would cripple the country, but they could.
They could outlaw anything. The whole point is to distinguish between what they could do and what they ought to be able to do. The sorry history of abuses of rights and, separately, of democracy tells us that if we are to rely on government or on the fairness of the powerful then we shall need to be very lucky indeed.
Gassing Station | Track Days | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff