Discussion
vonhosen said:
Which bit didn't you understand?
I think the bit about the public MIGHT just know a bit more about road safety than those coining it in by pretending to care about it.
Frankly, his answers are getting tiresome - all he ever says is 'obey the speed limits and there won't be a problem'
It's just my advice to avoid points on your licence. The choice is ultimately yours I or nobody else can force you to obey the limit.
But the trouble ist - lieber von .. there appear to be kind of post code lottery as well. Some areas allow higher tolerance und some offer a Speed course as alternative. Ist a double whammy here though. The prats set lower tolerance und undermine a very laudable und workable initiative by silly cut off und inviting blippers who were safe anyway instead of the blatters who may benefit more.
What we find happen from talking to people who did the Lancs course - they decide to try IAM afterwards .. it does motivate/rekindle interest despite some resentments. Ted (MM) - lot of his nursing staff have attended this course at 34/.35 mph in past as well.. how we know so much now.
in addition to three who work at the toppest pharmaceutical.medicine company which also employ me . vonhosen said:
.....without getting into any sensible debate as to the validity of speed limits,
I've already said the only one I would consider changing (where considering only from a safety view point) would be on motorways & they would be variable limits.
It does seem to work in Germany
Munich area. vonhosen said:
the motives of those setting them, or the efficacy of the current 'road safety' (sic) policy of the current government.
I would think that rightly or wrongly they think that what they do, will help with reducing fatalities & serious injuries in line with targets they set themselves. What will also be high up on their agenda in teh path they choose will be "cheap", because they don't like spending money.
Jawohl - und this "we have spend £x zillion on NHS und £Y zillion on education" und "Z zillion on police" Und all shedding jobs cos they have deficit. Something ist very wrong here.
Of course .. we all know ..ist so that the man with the chins und the Benny Hill character can stay in penthouse suite und we now know why he wants the penthouse suite ..ist a right rudey old farty! Urrghgh! I feel ill to think of what might go on.. of course I can think this .. but cannot possibly comment
und look what happen to him in the House of Cards. I rather enjoyed that series.. was rather apt
Und Ian Richardson played it most evil 
vonhosen said:
All of which clearly need a major overhaul - most people I've spoken about cameras with have hated them, those that haven't have almost universally been people with no interest in cars/driving, who usually are the people I'm scared to get in the car with if they're driving!!!
But as you say the people who haven't hated them are not enthuasiasts & the majority of people could never be called enthuasiasts. They don't drive just for the sake of driving. They'd rather money be spent elsewhere than on road policy.
But then they want road safety as well. They also want more Police. They do not want pretend labour jobs for the otherwise unemployable
vonhosen said:
But as you say the people who haven't hated them are not enthuasiasts & the majority of people could never be called enthuasiasts. They don't drive just for the sake of driving. They'd rather money be spent elsewhere than on road policy.
The basis again is what people voice their concerns over. Something they don't do with speed limits. You ask people the most important issues of today, what we should be spending effort & money on & how many say the urgent review/change of speed limits ?
Jawohl - lieber von.
We want more police. Proper POLICE who are of right calibre to don that blue serge, crisp white cotton shirt und a shiny helmet - complete with truncheon und well polished handcuffs.
We want schools which have well qualified a-political teachers or at least objective ones not hi-jacked by dumbed down pee-cee intiatives.
We want these schools to provide lockers or desks for kits und books.
We want these schools to be safe und pleasant for our kittens. We do not want leaky roofs.
(We are naughty - we send kittens to private school on basis that these teachers can help discipline our feisty sassiest rogues
) But we want all schools to offer same expertise. You should not have to move house to ensure kitten has opportunities of the educational type.
We want decent NHS health care und we want NHS to provide latest toppest treatments to all.
We want our elderly to at least reside in stimulating old folks' home if their needs must.
We want a fair justice system und this does not mean subsidising the inept by providing a job provided by a scam under the guise of "road safety"
A fair society ist judged by the social benefits it offers its people in return for their fair taxes.
A society which seek to balance books und reduce a dole queue by creating non jobs for the inept und paying these wages by ludicrous siting of a speed camera und claiming ist "saving lives" will be judged by historians of the future.
vonhosen said:
The laws on vehicle speed provide plenty of examples, and these are disobeyed by people making right-minded choices as nobody should obey an unjust law, and any law that penalises people for driving safely is an unjust law in terms of natural justice.
There you go again.
What viable alternative to speed limits are we going to have that the public as a whole will accept ?
No blanket extra-urban limits.
Simple, fair, just.
Fair play to you for that manifesto WildCat, as far as roads are concerned, those consultations that I have knowledge of show that a large majority of people do NOT want transport expenditure to go on humps and bumps or pretty coloured road paintings. This is from public meetings called to discuss the issue, it isn't "think of an opinion". Also judging by the number of burnt, bent, shotblasted and demolished GATSOs, many folk aren't too happy about automated enforcement. In surveys, roads policing comes next to last in the public's priorities, just behind a social services 'victim support' role. So roads policing isn't the public's priority, unless some glandular banshee types go out and ask questions like "would you like more GATSOs or more dead children?"
Proper roads and a decent motorway network is what the country needs, according to the CBI and IoD. With £47 billion taken anually and only £6bn or £7bn re-invested in transport, we're currently being short-changed.
Cocktail Sausage Prescott immediately called a halt to a number of much-needed bypasses when he started out on his path of destruction as an incompetent DPM ad the DETR. The technology exists to build bypasses that protect the environment. The University of Surrey did a lot of research on the Newbury Bypass, but following the antics of the great unwashed Swampy types nearby it's surprising the environment wasn't blighted for generations.
The UK also has one of the most restricted motorway networks in the EU and we need moer motorways as well as wider existing ones.
Problem is, building roads and increasing capacity in any real way by developing existing roadspace would ease congestion, and that would leave the government in a pickle over justifying congestion charging and road pricing. So the devious b@stards rob us blind then allege we're to blame for problems they have caused through a mixture of their own incompetence and bankrupt ideology.
Daft speed limits and cameras - symptoms of car haters let loose, and no help for safety. Bad value for money. Just plain bad.
Proper roads and a decent motorway network is what the country needs, according to the CBI and IoD. With £47 billion taken anually and only £6bn or £7bn re-invested in transport, we're currently being short-changed.
Cocktail Sausage Prescott immediately called a halt to a number of much-needed bypasses when he started out on his path of destruction as an incompetent DPM ad the DETR. The technology exists to build bypasses that protect the environment. The University of Surrey did a lot of research on the Newbury Bypass, but following the antics of the great unwashed Swampy types nearby it's surprising the environment wasn't blighted for generations.
The UK also has one of the most restricted motorway networks in the EU and we need moer motorways as well as wider existing ones.
Problem is, building roads and increasing capacity in any real way by developing existing roadspace would ease congestion, and that would leave the government in a pickle over justifying congestion charging and road pricing. So the devious b@stards rob us blind then allege we're to blame for problems they have caused through a mixture of their own incompetence and bankrupt ideology.
Daft speed limits and cameras - symptoms of car haters let loose, and no help for safety. Bad value for money. Just plain bad.
turbobloke said:
But any speed limit would be an unjust law by your reasoning
Because any absolute speeding offence (whatever it were set at) requires no element of danger present for the offence to be complete. The absence of danger being what you appear to be claiming makes speed enforcement based on a limit unjust.
turbobloke said:
any law that penalises people for driving safely is an unjust law
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 7th May 19:06
fluffnik said:
The laws on vehicle speed provide plenty of examples, and these are disobeyed by people making right-minded choices as nobody should obey an unjust law, and any law that penalises people for driving safely is an unjust law in terms of natural justice.
There you go again.
What viable alternative to speed limits are we going to have that the public as a whole will accept ?
No blanket extra-urban limits.
Simple, fair, just.
I don't think that the public would support such a thing.
I know I don't and I don't know anyone personally who does either.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 7th May 19:08
vonhosen said:
That's my point, where is the mass demonstration on speed limits?
In the absence of violent demostrations in the streets you assume everyone loves speed limits and speed enforcement? That's silly. If most people thought that speed limits should be obeyed, I think most people would obey them most of the time. What I see is that most people exceed the speed limit as a matter of course when traffic flow permits it. When I drive down the motorway at 70 mph I'm usually the slowest car on the motorway for mile after mile. Similarly when I drive at the speed limit in built up areas I have open road in front of me and a queue behind me. Most people treat the speed limit with the token respect it deserves. If you're going to achieve widespread strict compliance with the speed limit, you'll have to bully drivers into submission. And that means you're going to change their behaviour in ways htat make them systematically less safe. I notice you didn't answer the question I posed earlier on:
Given the current situation on the roads, is increased enforcement of the speed limits desirable, or undesirable?
I pointed out several reasons why speed limit enforcement will tend to make roads less safe. Speed limit enforcement is a mistake, and the more strictly the limit is enforced the worse a mistake it is.
GreenV8S said:
Given the current situation on the roads, is increased enforcement of the speed limits desirable, or undesirable?
I pointed out several reasons why speed limit enforcement will tend to make roads less safe. Speed limit enforcement is a mistake, and the more strictly the limit is enforced the worse a mistake it is.
The "general" level of speed enforcement was about right & dropped to too little as trafpol numbers dropped. In the wake of that cameras have plugged a gap left by reduced trafpol numbers as they concentrate on other things, but cameras by their nature will report far more offenders than a trafpol officer would.
Is that situation the most desireable ?
No, I'm not saying it is.
I would prefer to see more trafpol & I don't want to see blanket speed camera coverage.
I believe there is though a place for their targeted intelligent use.
I disagree that speed limit enforcement is a mistake I believe it is necessary. I would agree that if it were to be the focus to the exclusion of everything else, that would be a mistake.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 7th May 20:19
vonhosen said:You're making connections on my behalf that don't exist.
But any speed limit would be an unjust law by your reasoning
Because any absolute speeding offence (whatever it were set at) requires no element of danger present for the offence to be complete. The absence of danger being what you appear to be claiming makes speed enforcement based on a limit unjust.turbobloke said:
any law that penalises people for driving safely is an unjust law
My opposition to speed limits isn't as black and white as you try to make out. There are places and times where no speed limit should apply. For other times, variable limits set at reasonable safety related levels will do. Where the absence of technology makes this unreasonable or unlikely, 85%ile limits will do.
Now, to my comment about criminalising safe driving. This is about the way a speed limit is enforced more than the speed limit itself, nobody is criminalised without being reported or NIP'd, and the problem arises from oppressive blanket arbitrary automated enforcement not far above limits that are already mostly far too slow.
So, make any limits that remain reasonable (see above) and then - having got rid of ineffective and loathesome automated enforcement - require the presence of observed unacceptable increased levels of risk to accompany enforcement by police. In other words, make speed limit enforcement useful - as a tool for addressing careless and dangerous drivers. The speed observed if inappropriate should be part of the case against a careless or dangerous driver, not enforced for its own sake and then propped up by lying with statistics and making use of technology on behalf of a government's unjustified anti car ideology.
turbobloke said:
But any speed limit would be an unjust law by your reasoning
Because any absolute speeding offence (whatever it were set at) requires no element of danger present for the offence to be complete. The absence of danger being what you appear to be claiming makes speed enforcement based on a limit unjust.turbobloke said:
any law that penalises people for driving safely is an unjust law
My opposition to speed limits isn't as black and white as you try to make out. There are places and times where no speed limit should apply. For other times, variable limits set at reasonable safety related levels will do. Where the absence of technology makes this unreasonable or unlikely, 85%ile limits will do.
Now, to my comment about criminalising safe driving. This is about the way a speed limit is enforced more than the speed limit itself, nobody is criminalised without being reported or NIP'd, and the problem arises from oppressive blanket arbitrary automated enforcement not far above limits that are already mostly far too slow.
So, make any limits that remain reasonable (see above) and then - having got rid of ineffective and loathesome automated enforcement - require the presence of observed unacceptable increased levels of risk to accompany enforcement by police. In other words, make speed limit enforcement useful - as a tool for addressing careless and dangerous drivers. The speed observed if inappropriate should be part of the case against a careless or dangerous driver, not enforced for its own sake and then propped up by lying with statistics and making use of technology on behalf of a government's unjustified anti car ideology.
So you don't want speed limits that can be enforced without demonstrative proof of increased danger being caused then ?
That would mean advisory limits only then. Effectively meaning no limits, only offences of dangerous careless driving.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 7th May 21:09
vonhosen said:
So you don't want speed limits that can be enforced without demonstrative proof of increased danger being caused then ?
That would mean advisory limits only then. Effectively meaning no limits, only offences of dangerous careless driving.
That would suit me, and justice.
vonhosen said:
No blanket extra-urban limits.
Simple, fair, just.
I don't think that the public would support such a thing.
I know I don't and I don't know anyone personally who does either.
I don't think it would cut through the apathy myself.
The support for limits is near schools and in residential areas, not the open road.
vonhosen said:What exactly is wrong with having limits that are there for safety reasons and set at safety related speeds (in my view of things, which you're discussing) only being enforced when there is an increased risk above an acceptable level? That's exactly what sensible enforcement of sensible limits is all about.
So you don't want speed limits that can be enforced without demonstrative proof of increased danger being caused then ?
That would mean advisory limits only then. Effectively meaning no limits, only offences of dangerous careless driving.
It would NOT mean limits are advisory, though like fluffnik that's a concept I don't have a problem with either - but back to THIS scenario. An advisory limit could not result in a prosecution and I didn't advocated that. Discretion in enforcement of a legally enforceable limit will do nicely, as outlined above. It would actually endorse - no pun intended - 31 in a 30 situations, where the speed limit is used to reinforce a case of driving that was below acceptable levels in other ways.
In some other situations, the speed alone could be sufficient for a careless or dangerous driving, but that would relate to the situation. Saying "anything over 100 anywhere anytime is very dangerous and should give rise to a ban" is absolute nonsense. Saying "a speed of 128 in the situation X showed a level of conmpetence below the acceptable and at the level of X driving offence" is entirely reasonable.
Speed of iteself is not dangerous, I seem to remember you said that in your list of beliefs recently.
On Friday vonhosen said:
I'm not calling for reductions in our limits wholesale.
I don't say speed in itself is dangerous & as such kills.
I'm not for blanket coverage of our network with speed cameras.
I'm not for prosecuting every very minor speeding transgression.
I am for more officers policing the roads using their discretion & dealing with the worst offenders.
I am for measures to deal with all aspects that lead to death & serious injuries on our roads (not just speed).
I am for raising driving standards on our roads across the board
So?
vonhosen said:
If people aren't happy with the limits then the sensible thing is to do something about it. Just ignoring the limits isn't the sensible thing to do. It just leads to you getting points on your licence & maybe disqualified.
I am in the process of re-educating my elected representatives.
vonhosen wearing sensible shoes said:And you're the arbiter of good sense? I doubt it. Ignoring them is a VERY good thing to do, it's silent contempt for a discredited and disreputable situation and represents an ethical and noble response. No sheep get burned etc.
If people aren't happy with the limits then the sensible thing is to do something about it. Just ignoring the limits isn't the sensible thing to do.
Martin Luther King Jr said:
Just as it is the duty of all men to obey just laws, so it is the duty of all men to disobey unjust laws.
Disobedience with regard to daft laws is a perfect response.
turbobloke said:
So you don't want speed limits that can be enforced without demonstrative proof of increased danger being caused then ?
That would mean advisory limits only then. Effectively meaning no limits, only offences of dangerous careless driving.
It would NOT mean limits are advisory, though like fluffnik that's a concept I don't have a problem with either - but back to THIS scenario. An advisory limit could not result in a prosecution and I didn't advocated that. Discretion in enforcement of a legally enforceable limit will do nicely, as outlined above. It would actually endorse - no pun intended - 31 in a 30 situations, where the speed limit is used to reinforce a case of driving that was below acceptable levels in other ways.
In some other situations, the speed alone could be sufficient for a careless or dangerous driving, but that would relate to the situation. Saying "anything over 100 anywhere anytime is very dangerous and should give rise to a ban" is absolute nonsense. Saying "a speed of 128 in the situation X showed a level of conmpetence below the acceptable and at the level of X driving offence" is entirely reasonable.
Speed of iteself is not dangerous, I seem to remember you said that in your list of beliefs recently.On Friday vonhosen said:
I'm not calling for reductions in our limits wholesale.
I don't say speed in itself is dangerous & as such kills.
I'm not for blanket coverage of our network with speed cameras.
I'm not for prosecuting every very minor speeding transgression.
I am for more officers policing the roads using their discretion & dealing with the worst offenders.
I am for measures to deal with all aspects that lead to death & serious injuries on our roads (not just speed).
I am for raising driving standards on our roads across the board
So?
There is always some risk to driving but speed alone does not make it highly dangerous, the circumstances do matter.
Advisory speed limits though don't, in my opinion, offer sufficient control over the variations in speed that people can achieve. The larger the differential the greater the risk & where choice of speed is completely left to individuals then the chances of higher differentials are greatest.
Advisory limits are so ambiguous & the decision of what is a safe speed for the circumstances (where a collision doesn't actually happen at that time) is so subjective, effective control/enforcement based on that alone is imposssible.
It is something that can cut both ways.
With a speed limit, there is a clear defined line, it is not at all ambiguous, you know where you stand.
Where inappropriate speeding is prosecuted solely on opinion, are you going to be able to easily identify what others would consider appropriate ? When it comes down to two people in a court offering their opinion that speed in a set of circumstances was inappropriate, who is the court going to lend greater credence to ? How can you realisticly defend yourself ?
Depending how the law would be applied, we would have a situation where either there was little or no control over what speed people travelled at OR we would have an unfair situation where you could be convicted for crossing a boundary you had no hope of ever being able to accurately identify.
However you dress it, you are talking about no effective limits where there is a requirement to prove danger & that proof will always be subjective being based on professional opinion.
You can argue about whether speed limits in the value they are set at, are appropriate or not & that is an entirely different matter. But given the choice of no limits (which is what it'll be with evidence of danger required) & identifiable limits, I'll take identifiable limits everytime, and that's from a position of enforcer or potentially accused.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 7th May 22:24
turbobloke said:
If people aren't happy with the limits then the sensible thing is to do something about it. Just ignoring the limits isn't the sensible thing to do.Martin Luther King Jr said:
Just as it is the duty of all men to obey just laws, so it is the duty of all men to disobey unjust laws.
Disobedience with regard to daft laws is a perfect response.
You are of course free to gamble with your licence as you see fit.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff