Discussion
turbobloke said:
Well vh you just spent nearly a whole post discussing advisory limits apparently in response to one from me that barely mentioned them. Freedom of choice I suppose.
And however I talk about it (whatever it is) I'm not saying what you say I'm saying.
Jeez this is tedious.
A limit that requires evidence of danger where exceeded & can't be enforced without danger, is only an advisory limit. Where being prosecuted there, you are being prosecuted for danger not the fact the limit was broken. That is totally different to what we have now.
If you want absolute limits with discretionary enforcement that's what we have now.
Which of the above two is it that you want ?
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 7th May 22:33
vonhosen said:Which is once again a total avoidance of the issues and the usual 'law is the law so like it or lump it' manner we've come to expect. There should be no risk to anyone's licence for behaving safely on the roads. You are right to say anyone can gamble with their licence, but wrong to imply that it's acceptable for anyone's licence to be at risk from assinine speed limits and wrong-minded enforcement that criminalise safe behaviour. This is totally at odds with the principles of natural justice in the context of driver behaviour and ethical treatments.
You are of course free to gamble with your licence as you see fit.
turbobloke said:
You are of course free to gamble with your licence as you see fit.
But safe driving is relative & based on opinion.
What you may consider safe I may not, where does that leave us ?
vonhosen said:
If you want absolute limits with discretionary enforcement that's what we have now.
So they've developed a speed camera that can assess risk? Nope. Speed of itself is not always measure of risk. One trick pony, advocating driving by numbers, claiming that thirtyn mph is safe but thirtyn+1 is worthy of criminalisation, making important what can be measured rather than measuring what's important, etc. Totally bogus approach.
When arbitrary oppressive blanket automated enforcement goes - which doesn't operate discretion both sides of the limit just leeway on one side - then we will have a system better related to safety. Go read the posts again it's all been said before.
turbobloke said:
If you want absolute limits with discretionary enforcement that's what we have now.
So they've developed a speed camera that can assess risk? Nope. Speed of itself is not always measure of risk. One trick pony, advocating driving by numbers, claiming that thirtyn mph is safe but thirtyn+1 is worthy of criminalisation, making important what can be measured rather than measuring what's important, etc. Totally bogus approach.
When arbitrary oppressive blanket automated enforcement goes - which doesn't operate discretion both sides of the limit just leeway on one side - then we will have a system better related to safety. Go read the posts again it's all been said before.
Enforcement by Police officers is done with their discretion. They report that which is required in their opinion. Often that will be done solely on the speed, without any actual danger being present.
With cameras its isn't discretion in each individual case. Whoever sets the limit, makes a decision on a threshold which in their opinion is the absolute maximum anyone should be doing on that road in excellent conditions. You are still falling foul of the opinion expressed by another.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 7th May 22:43
vonhosen said:Better off than we are now. Presumably an officer charged with that decision making will be trained. That'll do. I know some find it better to have boxes with flash guns in well known locations, talivans even, than face trafpol, and I won't guess or judge why - but for my part I'm after a better road safety policy that has a chance of making the roads safer for all.
You are of course free to gamble with your licence as you see fit.
But safe driving is relative & based on opinion.
What you may consider safe I may not, where does that leave us ?
At a personal level my only problem is frustration with the cretinism of officialdom and its risible belief that the principles of political correctness and car hatred can deliver safer roads, anger at its dismissal of valid research along the way and all the sound messages that could be drawn from it, and fury on behalf of all those driving safely who have been criminalised by policies that are based on lies and backed up by the spin of complicit fools.
turbobloke said:
You are of course free to gamble with your licence as you see fit.
But safe driving is relative & based on opinion.
What you may consider safe I may not, where does that leave us ?
Any officer can make that decision, they don't even have to be a driver.
Just as a pedestrian non licence holder can express a valid opinion on speed limits, a non driving Police officer can be the one using their discretion to decide on whether you should be prosecuted for exceeding a limit or not.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 7th May 22:47
turbobloke said:
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.
If and only if the discretion was only used to prosecute dangerous speeding, and lack of danger was a defence, fine.
Arbitrary speed are fundamentally obnoxious as they offend against natural justice by criminalising reasonable behaviour; any small utility pales into insignificance.
turbobloke said:
If you want absolute limits with discretionary enforcement that's what we have now.
Is it? How do speed cameras exercise discretion?
I covered that above. It's not the same thing with a GATSO but it's still opinion based.
Camera vans of course the operator can use their discretion.
fluffnik said:
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.
If and only if the discretion was only used to prosecute dangerous speeding, and lack of danger was a defence, fine.
Arbitrary speed are fundamentally obnoxious as they offend against natural justice by criminalising reasonable behaviour; any small utility pales into insignificance.
That's not what we have now. There is discretion available, but no requirement to prove danger & no defence in showing there was none.
vonhosen said:Yes not desirable is it. Not a lot about current road safety policy is desirable. That's why some of us come on here - to discuss better alternatives. Things could hardly be worse.
Any officer can make that decision, they don't even have to be a driver.
However, I / we haven't been discussing this in isolation have we. System effects are real. There are issues such as more realistic limits, some deristrictions, more variable limits at higher realistic speeds, and most of all removal of ineffective automated enforcement and all the bad things that flow from it, so as a step in the right direction, then OK, but don't forget all the rest.
turbobloke said:
That's not what we have now. There is discretion available, but no requirement to prove danger & no defence in showing there was none.
But that's what we have been saying.
The choices are absolute limits OR advisory only limits.
vonhosen said:Rubbish. You've looked at dozens of posts and failed to read them. That isn't the narrow extent or scope of the review here. The choice is also about what is used to set limits (and if there should be any in some places at some times), and how they are enforced. Focusing on a narrow aspect of the debate like that is pointless and regressive.
That's not what we have now. There is discretion available, but no requirement to prove danger & no defence in showing there was none.
But that's what we have been saying.
The choices are absolute limits OR advisory only limits.
It's beginning to look like you're over-achieving on some posts and are really hard of thinking.
vonhosen said:
I covered that above. It's not the same thing with a GATSO but it's still opinion based.
Camera vans of course the operator can use their discretion.
Yes, I missed your reply while I was writing mine. That isn't really discretion though is it? It's more a policy that sets the prosecution thresholds for cameras in a given operational area. There's no discretion in the sense that drivers who are dangerous are targetted in preference to drivers who are safe.
vonhosen said:No, it's the monumental folly of the current speed-fixated policy which you at times seem to support unthinkingly and at other (less frequent) times seem to see through and beyond.
with a GATSO ...it's still opinion based 
A wrong fixed opinion about the wrong thing. Wonderful! Not.
That's the vagaries of opinion.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 7th May 23:03
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff