Are speed limits unique?
Discussion
I'd like to learn what the collective wisdom of PH has to say to the question of:
Are speed limits in particular, and traffic laws more generally, unique in law?
Where I'm coming from is that most laws are designed to protect members of the public from harm. This protection is normally achieved by the threat of punishment to anyone who is shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have actually harmed another person, or to have intended to do so.
It is extraordinarily rare that a driver will intend to use his car to harm another person. When that does happen, there are non-driving-specific laws that apply (assault, GBH, etc.).
In the unfortunate cases when a driver harms another person, almost always the harm was unintended. Here again, there are non-driving-specific laws that apply (criminal negligence causing harm, gross negligence manslaughter, etc.).
In the case of speeding (and most other motoring offences), the 'offence' is not just once, but actually twice, removed from actually causing harm.
The speeding offence is different and apart from other offences
- first, because there is no speed that in and of itself causes harm. The inference that proponents of speed limits make is that some people driving at some speeds in some circumstances would be driving dangerously, and that action in some circumstances could put people at risk. One is guilty until proven innocent, and the law doesn't even permit one to prove one's innocence.
- and, second, because even driving dangerously carries a potentiality of harming someone else, but not necessarily actual harm, and almost certainly no intention to harm.
The fact that there are millions of speeding (and other traffic) violations for every instance of harm suggests that the link between speeding and harm is extremely tenuous.
Can PHers think of other examples in UK law where it is an offence to do something when there is absolutely no intent to cause harm to anyone or anything and, regardless of intent, in actual fact no harm has been done or is likely to be done?
Are speed limits in particular, and traffic laws more generally, unique in law?
Where I'm coming from is that most laws are designed to protect members of the public from harm. This protection is normally achieved by the threat of punishment to anyone who is shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have actually harmed another person, or to have intended to do so.
It is extraordinarily rare that a driver will intend to use his car to harm another person. When that does happen, there are non-driving-specific laws that apply (assault, GBH, etc.).
In the unfortunate cases when a driver harms another person, almost always the harm was unintended. Here again, there are non-driving-specific laws that apply (criminal negligence causing harm, gross negligence manslaughter, etc.).
In the case of speeding (and most other motoring offences), the 'offence' is not just once, but actually twice, removed from actually causing harm.
The speeding offence is different and apart from other offences
- first, because there is no speed that in and of itself causes harm. The inference that proponents of speed limits make is that some people driving at some speeds in some circumstances would be driving dangerously, and that action in some circumstances could put people at risk. One is guilty until proven innocent, and the law doesn't even permit one to prove one's innocence.
- and, second, because even driving dangerously carries a potentiality of harming someone else, but not necessarily actual harm, and almost certainly no intention to harm.
The fact that there are millions of speeding (and other traffic) violations for every instance of harm suggests that the link between speeding and harm is extremely tenuous.
Can PHers think of other examples in UK law where it is an offence to do something when there is absolutely no intent to cause harm to anyone or anything and, regardless of intent, in actual fact no harm has been done or is likely to be done?
It's illegal for a 17 year old to purchase alcohol.
The act of purchasing alcohol in itself does not harm anyone or have the intention to cause harm. The law is only broken by disregarding an arbitary number. It's quite possible to be under 18, purchase and drink alcohol without posing any threat to another person.
The act of purchasing alcohol in itself does not harm anyone or have the intention to cause harm. The law is only broken by disregarding an arbitary number. It's quite possible to be under 18, purchase and drink alcohol without posing any threat to another person.
sultanbrown said:
But alcohol IS a poison (apparantly. I've never had a problem with alcohol. Had a problem with vomit in my teens, but that was surely a coincidence.).
>> Edited by sultanbrown on Thursday 9th March 23:25
Fluoride is a far more deadly Poison than Alcohol yet it's use in our water supply is actively encouraged!
Fluoride is only slightly less Poisonous than Mercury and Lead in the poison league table, yet why does no one moan about it?
And just like speed limits, people under-age drink, and do it harmlessley in most cases, and those that do react badly to it, do not out-number or react worse than those who can legally drink/use alcohol.
Same with illegal drugs, but most people take them for themselves, not for anyone else. The very fact they are called "illegal" drugs kind of says that they are only illegal because someone chose them to be, not for any other reason. By their very nature cigs and booze could be "illegal" drugs, but they are not. Selective law, and used to the benefit of duty on said items...
Plenty of people use illegal drugs all the time as no detriment to anyone else, and where they do effect other people, existing laws are in place to protect them. So this law does nothing really again, except limit the actions of those who do not intend to harm others!
Same with sex under a given age being illegal. Morality dictates what is acceptable, not any absolute terms. Many people engage in underage sex perfectly happily, and in other countries, and even in our own in the recent past, it was common for our monarchs to partake in sex with what today would be underage people.
Where harm is intended then laws already exist to cover said offence to another human being, so these additional laws do nothing except limit or make people criminals where they want to engage in perfectly harmless consenting etc etc intercourse.
I see a striking recurrence here of government control in response to a minority of people who use said activities to cause harm directly or indirectly to others.
Speeding is exactly the same. It's only purpose is to control people, and aim to prevent the minority being excessive, but ultimately it just makes criminals out of alot more people who are really doing nothing wrong...
Imagine if "drunk and disorderly" was enforced as rigourously as speeding...
"2 pints, your nicked son!" probably 90% of the population are chain criminals in some respect or another, when they have intended no harm, or even commited any harm to anyone else whatsoever!
Too many laws covering bases that existing basic laws already cover. New laws such as the big fine for attacking a nurse in hospital etc just reek of the same idiology. Existing laws can be used perfectly to prevent said activity, but the government have to bring out a specific law like it will prevent it happening any more!
Where will it end?
Dave
>> Edited by Mr Whippy on Friday 10th March 00:15
Same with illegal drugs, but most people take them for themselves, not for anyone else. The very fact they are called "illegal" drugs kind of says that they are only illegal because someone chose them to be, not for any other reason. By their very nature cigs and booze could be "illegal" drugs, but they are not. Selective law, and used to the benefit of duty on said items...
Plenty of people use illegal drugs all the time as no detriment to anyone else, and where they do effect other people, existing laws are in place to protect them. So this law does nothing really again, except limit the actions of those who do not intend to harm others!
Same with sex under a given age being illegal. Morality dictates what is acceptable, not any absolute terms. Many people engage in underage sex perfectly happily, and in other countries, and even in our own in the recent past, it was common for our monarchs to partake in sex with what today would be underage people.
Where harm is intended then laws already exist to cover said offence to another human being, so these additional laws do nothing except limit or make people criminals where they want to engage in perfectly harmless consenting etc etc intercourse.
I see a striking recurrence here of government control in response to a minority of people who use said activities to cause harm directly or indirectly to others.
Speeding is exactly the same. It's only purpose is to control people, and aim to prevent the minority being excessive, but ultimately it just makes criminals out of alot more people who are really doing nothing wrong...
Imagine if "drunk and disorderly" was enforced as rigourously as speeding...
"2 pints, your nicked son!" probably 90% of the population are chain criminals in some respect or another, when they have intended no harm, or even commited any harm to anyone else whatsoever!
Too many laws covering bases that existing basic laws already cover. New laws such as the big fine for attacking a nurse in hospital etc just reek of the same idiology. Existing laws can be used perfectly to prevent said activity, but the government have to bring out a specific law like it will prevent it happening any more!
Where will it end?
Dave
>> Edited by Mr Whippy on Friday 10th March 00:15
AL666 said:
Owning a firearm,
carrying a dangerous weapon in public,
looking at kiddi-porn,
drug abuse,
walking around naked,
cycling on the path...
can't think of anymore.
Respectively:
- I think you're referring to handguns. Intent of handgun possession commonly for purpose of harming or threatening to harm a person. (Target shooting would be exception, but pretty darn marginal.)
- Similarly, intention of carrying a 'dangerous weapon' can only be to harm or threaten to harm person. Otherwise you would carry a cardboard knife, if you wanted to pretend that you were a pirate.
- Simply making the filth presumably must entail assault and abuse. If no one watched it, none would be made.
- Drug abuse is an interesting one - how to balance concerns for individual liberty and the medical fact of personality disorders and mental illness.
- walking around naked would frequently cause harm, in the form of causing offence to others.
- ban against cycling on the path is another form of traffic law.
Cheers.
flemke said:
- walking around naked would frequently cause harm, in the form of causing offence to others.
Offence is relative. If we pamper to anyone who is offended by anything we will all end up being lawfully entitled to do nothing.
I find people who are offended by the nakedness of the natural human form offensive, so should we make being offended illegal?
Dave
egomeister said:Interesting. We need to discuss this one.
It's illegal for a 17 year old to purchase alcohol.
The act of purchasing alcohol in itself does not harm anyone or have the intention to cause harm. The law is only broken by disregarding an arbitary number. It's quite possible to be under 18, purchase and drink alcohol without posing any threat to another person.
If you drink too much alcohol, especially if your body is unaccustomed to it, it can be fatal - either directly (as noted by sultanbrown) because of its toxicity or indirectly because it can induce risky behaviour.
The presumption is that there must be some age below which virtually no person is capable of judging for themselves how much alcohol is too much.
Although that age will vary from person to person, it is certainly true that for each person there is such an age. Eighteen might be too high, but the general idea that society protects people who as a class cannot make wise and sustainable judgments seems right. As I say, it is surely true that every single person, when he or she was younger, was incapable of making certain judgments.
Isn't the age limit on drinking analogous to the age limit on getting a driving licence, rather than being analogous to rules that are imposed after one has proved that he or she is able to drive competently?
Mr Whippy said:Dave,
- walking around naked would frequently cause harm, in the form of causing offence to others.
Offence is relative. If we pamper to anyone who is offended by anything we will all end up being lawfully entitled to do nothing.
I find people who are offended by the nakedness of the natural human form offensive, so should we make being offended illegal?
Dave
To be sure, taking offence is subjective. My point is that classing something as 'offensive' and banning it because there actually are millions of people who find it offensive at least has a logic to it: "We've polled the populace and 63% would be offended if they were unexpectedly and directly confronted by X behaviour", or whatever. That seems to me to be a different thing from penalising someone if he went through a red light at an otherwise-deserted junction - the only people who might claim to have been offended by that would have been offended simply by an idea.
Speaking as a guy with a fairly libertarian outlook, if I had children, if they were confronted by some self-indulgent fat turd waddling down the high street naked, I think I'd be pretty pissed off. The question may not be black-and-white, but I should think that children's right to be protected from 'adult' stuff until they're ready to deal with it trumps an attention seeker's irresistable urge to display his inadequacies.
flemke said:
It's illegal for a 17 year old to purchase alcohol.
The act of purchasing alcohol in itself does not harm anyone or have the intention to cause harm. The law is only broken by disregarding an arbitary number. It's quite possible to be under 18, purchase and drink alcohol without posing any threat to another person.
If you drink too much alcohol, especially if your body is unaccustomed to it, it can be fatal - either directly (as noted by sultanbrown) because of its toxicity or indirectly because it can induce risky behaviour.
The presumption is that there must be some age below which virtually no person is capable of judging for themselves how much alcohol is too much.
Although that age will vary from person to person, it is certainly true that for each person there is such an age. Eighteen might be too high, but the general idea that society protects people who as a class cannot make wise and sustainable judgments seems right. As I say, it is surely true that every single person, when he or she was younger, was incapable of making certain judgments.
Isn't the age limit on drinking analogous to the age limit on getting a driving licence, rather than being analogous to rules that are imposed after one has proved that he or she is able to drive competently?
??
Anyone of any age can drink excessive amounts, regardless of age.
How many people who should know better do it every weekend, perhaps even every day!
Again, does the law actually prevent anything because it is not enforced absolutely? I drank at the age of 16, never had too much until I was much older, ie, legally allowed to drink, and even then I didn't go OTT. I've never had a moment I can't remember what I was doing (I don't think)...
So what is the law aiming to achieve? Age is about as effective as deeming if the choice made at that point going to be any more reasonable than at any other age?
Ie, can we trust a 30 year old to not binge drink, even though they do twice a week?
Can we trust me when 16 years old to not binge drink? Yes, because I didn't.
Did age as a method work there at all? No. Do people under age still drink? Yes. Do some of these drink excessively much like those of legal drinking age? Yes. Do some of these drink safely and considerately even though under age? Yes.
So clearly age didn't do a thing, because a variable other than age controls how much we believe we can drink, and our ability to make that decision.
Surely we should allow anyone to drink, and if they drink excessively then ban that individual for a year, at which time they are allowed to drink again, until a time where they drink excessively where they are banned for a year again!
Would require just as much policing to be absolutely effective as the current system, and would allow those who CAN be considerate to enjoy alcohol from a younger age, and those who can't be considerate at any age not to!
Win win situation
Dave
Two ways in which I think the speed limit laws are unique are:
1) No other law expects us to operate constantly at the 'edge of legality'. Every time we try to drive at the speed limit (one assumes) that we will be constantly drifting up and down across the line.
2) No other law requires constant vigilence for mere compliance.
1) No other law expects us to operate constantly at the 'edge of legality'. Every time we try to drive at the speed limit (one assumes) that we will be constantly drifting up and down across the line.
2) No other law requires constant vigilence for mere compliance.
flemke said:
Speaking as a guy with a fairly libertarian outlook, if I had children, if they were confronted by some self-indulgent fat turd waddling down the high street naked, I think I'd be pretty pissed off. The question may not be black-and-white, but I should think that children's right to be protected from 'adult' stuff until they're ready to deal with it trumps an attention seeker's irresistable urge to display his inadequacies.
True, but there are many cultures where nakedness is totally acceptable, and children become comfortable with a penis or breasts as much as they do with a beard or feet or hands. It's just another bodily organ, and nothing to be ashamed of.
Morality and culture tend to dictate acceptability and tolerance. Morality changes with time, and so what we see as tolerable does too.
Women were seen as unequal for no other reason than being women in the past, and it was morally acceptable in society for that to be the case until quite recently.
Some current cultures see women as needing to be totally submissive to men, and in their culture that is seen as totally acceptable.
I'm sure there are others that work the other way around too.
I think perception of harm is relative to your culture and moral standing. If people were naked most of the time your children would see it is normal, and not be effected at all by it. Well, they may be effected, but we'd all be effected the same way, and so it wouldn't stand out as being abnormal or unusual.
If we all decided to have skin heads, for 10 years we may see people as more thuggish, but in another 10 years we'd probably not associate a skin head with anything at all, just what is normal. Bad example but it kind of works.
Getting a bit deep I know, but imho society, culture, morality and tolerance need to be totally flexible, otherwise no one will live freely.
If the citizens of Orwell's 1984 think where they live is normal and acceptable, and the things that happen are acceptable, and society, tolerance, culture and laws are reasonable, does it make it a nice place to be? Just because that is what they are used to doesn't make it right. To us it is a living hell, but to them they have no frame of reference.
The longer we show intolerance and find things "offensive" and need to be banned, the closer we will move to what we are fighting never to reach.
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
that there should not be a minimum drinking age
Dave,
I'm not arguing for or against the minimum age for drinking. I'm asking whether the minimum age for that (or anything) is analogous to traffic laws that presume guilt without harm.
Understood that the fact that you drank when you were underage did you no harm. The fact that you were not harmed does not prove that no one who has ever drunk wile underage has ever been consequently harmed. We know that the contrary is true.
What you can't argue (well, you can, but I cannot imagine that you would) is that every human from the age of one day old is capable of judging whether or to what extent he or she can handle drink, or nearly anything else.
As a class, infants lack the ability to look after themselves, so adults try to do that for them. The same applies to toddlers, and so on.
The dilemma may be that different people are capable at different ages of looking after themselves, and that there is no test (such as a driving test, or a pilot's test) that will reliably prove whether an individual is capable. Thus we default to the blunt instrument of an age limit.
safespeed said:
1) No other law expects us to operate constantly at the 'edge of legality'. Every time we try to drive at the speed limit (one assumes) that we will be constantly drifting up and down across the line.
Was it Brunstrum who said that exceeding the limit is essentially the same as slipping a knife into someone?
I must say that when I walk down the street I am constantly on the edge of sliding a knife into people...
It is a sad state of affairs that now (new bill to prosecute from 30+ (no guideline of 10% +2)) we basically are on a razors edge. Only way to be truly safe (with respect to your lisence and money), is to drive 10% +2 under the speed limit, even when conditions would dictate otherwise!
I'd be interested to see the amount of people on driving tests being told to make progress on a dry sunny day with perfect conditions to drive at the speed limit, being fined and loosing their lisence before they even have it for 31mph or 41mph etc!
Dave
safespeed said:Paul,
Two ways in which I think the speed limit laws are unique are:
1) No other law expects us to operate constantly at the 'edge of legality'. Every time we try to drive at the speed limit (one assumes) that we will be constantly drifting up and down across the line.
2) No other law requires constant vigilence for mere compliance.
You are, I presume, familiar with the writings of JJ Leeming? Fascinating, insightful and rigorous analysis of the (il-)logic of traffic laws.
flemke said:
that there should not be a minimum drinking age
Dave,
I'm not arguing for or against the minimum age for drinking. I'm asking whether the minimum age for that (or anything) is analogous to traffic laws that presume guilt without harm.
Understood that the fact that you drank when you were underage did you no harm. The fact that you were not harmed does not prove that no one who has ever drunk wile underage has ever been consequently harmed. We know that the contrary is true.
What you can't argue (well, you can, but I cannot imagine that you would) is that every human from the age of one day old is capable of judging whether or to what extent he or she can handle drink, or nearly anything else.
As a class, infants lack the ability to look after themselves, so adults try to do that for them. The same applies to toddlers, and so on.
The dilemma may be that different people are capable at different ages of looking after themselves, and that there is no test (such as a driving test, or a pilot's test) that will reliably prove whether an individual is capable. Thus we default to the blunt instrument of an age limit.
I agree, but a degree of leniancy has to be used.
Also, is the law to intend to stop people drinking excessively, because it clearly doesn't give any support for stopping people older than 18 the protection of not knowing when to stop drinking!
Either way, leniancy I believe is used, and it is effective today.
Those who want access at any age can get it, and if they choose to abuse it, they will, even if alcohol is banned and no longer imported/produced, it'd still be used in a way illegal drugs are, often by people under age for even cigarettes or alcohol!
With respect to speeding and laws regarding that, the same would apply. You'll never stop everyone, no matter how many laws or camera's you put up. Even if we had GPS people would choose to speed and loose their lisence in the process. People will do things no matter what laws are there to stop them, even with excessive deterrents.
The best thing you can do is exercise discretion, and ultimately that should be excessive speed for the conditions. If you speed and are seen, and it is safe upon the opinion of a trained police officer, then fine. If it's dangerous, then laws exist to punish said driver!
Surely anything else is purely enforcing a law with respect to the situations above.
Is there any point in imprisoning two 15 year olds who have safe consentual sex? No, it's harmless.
like safe speeding as it were, independant of the limit... deemed harmless by a police officer
Is there any point in imprisoning a 30 year old who has forced sex with a person of any age? Yes!
like speeding enforcement today, neither is underage(not exceeding speed limit) so it's seen as safe by the current enforcement, even though it is harmfull (perhaps excessive speed for the conditions under the speed limit)
Dave
Mr Whippy said:He appears to have been a well-meaning but weak man whose political aspirations mixed with his intellectual failings and created an unguided missile.
Was it Brunstrum who said that exceeding the limit is essentially the same as slipping a knife into someone?
As unpleasant as Brunstrom has been, his OTT-ness made him a sometimes-risible figure.
Far more dangerous to rationality, common sense, safer roads and a free society have been such aspiring tyrants as BRAKE and Roadpeace. It is a pity for all concerned - and I do mean all - that Mary Williams has confusedly taken her profoundly sad personal tragedy, for which every decent person must feel deep sympathy, and used it to build a misconceived, illogical crusade that has done more harm than good.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff