vonhosen and the rules

[flemke]

vonhosen is crystal clear in expressing his view that that our driving rules are the rules, and that one is expected to follow them. That view continues: if one fails to follow them, one should expect, and perhaps deserves, to be penalised.

We can think of that however we may, but it raises the question of whether these unexceptionable rules could be improved.


vonhosen, you obviously have considerable knowledge of British driving rules and of the environment to which they apply.
Which rules would you change?

[HarryW]

I'm reminded of that old adage, 'Rules are for the adherence of fools and the guidance of wise men'.
You could draw a parallel and liken the automation by CC's of traffic type infringements as foolish, machines have no lattitude, it is right or wrong. The human application of the rules by 'real' police officers is to use them for their guidance.

There in, to me, lays the whole problem.




Yes I realise my names not vanhosen but if you didn't want other comments then you could have just emailed him

[vonhosen]

flemke said:

vonhosen is crystal clear in expressing his view that that our driving rules are the rules, and that one is expected to follow them. That view continues: if one fails to follow them, one should expect, and perhaps deserves, to be penalised.

We can think of that however we may, but it raises the question of whether these unexceptionable rules could be improved.


vonhosen, you obviously have considerable knowledge of British driving rules and of the environment to which they apply.
Which rules would you change?

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th July 17:21

[vonhosen]

HarryW said:

I'm reminded of that old adage, 'Rules are for the adherence of fools and the guidance of wise men'.
You could draw a parallel and liken the automation by CC's of traffic type infringements as foolish, machines have no lattitude, it is right or wrong. The human application of the rules by 'real' police officers is to use them for their guidance.

There in, to me, lays the whole problem.




Yes I realise my names not vanhosen but if you didn't want other comments then you could have just emailed him

More & more traffic enforcement is being taken away from the Police......it's a sign of the times.
I'd imagine that is the increase we will see further of in the coming years, not the numbers of trafpol.

Many a "wise" man has no doubt paid for the privilege of only considering rules as guidance, while the fool kept their money in their pocket & their licence clean.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th July 17:54

[micky g]

A wise man can learn more from a foolish question, than a fool can learn from a wise mans answer.

[deeps]

vonhosen said:

Many a "wise" man has no doubt paid for the privilege of only considering rules as guidance, while the fool kept their money in their pocket & their licence clean.

very good.

But the point is the wise man shouldn't have to pay for the privilege, as the enforcement of rules in a slim tolerance fashion is often counter productive and foolish in itself.

I haven't got a problem with the clever fool keeping his money and his licence clean, that's his choice, but I don't think it's right that he should expect everybody else to follow his example or be penalised then if they don't.

I wonder how many more new rules have to be introduced before the clever fool realises that his strict adherence and actions are becoming more robotical rather than reasoned, and he's been positively encouraging the rule makers that are going to bog him down with extra rules and regulations affecting his life.

[vonhosen]

deeps said:

vonhosen said:

Many a "wise" man has no doubt paid for the privilege of only considering rules as guidance, while the fool kept their money in their pocket & their licence clean.

very good.

But the point is the wise man shouldn't have to pay for the privilege, as the enforcement of rules in a slim tolerance fashion is often counter productive and foolish in itself.

I haven't got a problem with the clever fool keeping his money and his licence clean, that's his choice, but I don't think it's right that he should expect everybody else to follow his example or be penalised then if they don't.

I wonder how many more new rules have to be introduced before the clever fool realises that his strict adherence and actions are becoming more robotical rather than reasoned, and he's been positively encouraging the rule makers that are going to bog him down with extra rules and regulations affecting his life.

I don't support prosecution of speed limits in a slim tolerance fashion (but that's my definition of slim tolerance, which may or may not be the same as yours )

I will support the rules that I think worthy & speak out against ones that I don't.
At times those rules may be more restricting on my life personally than I'd like, but I'll still support them where I believe that they are for a greater good.

[Major Bloodnok]

I rather like this:

Arizona highways dept said:

The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal.

Given that the normally careful and competent actions of reasonable people are increasingly being criminalised, should the manner of enforcement be modified? Should speed limits be "demoted" from strict liability offences to something more reasonable? I ask this specifically because there seems to be a large body of evidence to suggest that speed limits (of any sort) have little correlation with accident rates. Certainly there are other factors that are more strongly correlated.

I've just finished reading the article about J. J. Leeming on the ABD site. An utterly fascinating read, and it's a pity that his book is out of print.

[flemke]

vonhosen said:

More & more traffic enforcement is being taken away from the Police......it's a sign of the times.
I'd imagine that is the increase we will see further of in the coming years, not the numbers of trafpol.

Many a "wise" man has no doubt paid for the privilege of only considering rules as guidance, while the fool kept their money in their pocket & their licence clean.

That's all very interesting, but no weaseling out of this one, my friend!

Surely you have some opinions on this. You've already alluded on PH to your sympathy for a tiered licence structure.
How about left-turn on red? Differential speed limits depending on weather? Increasing 40 limit for lorries in NSL 60? Clearer guidance for who (as between pedestrians and motor vehicles) has ROW at un-signalled junctions? Freedom to cross solid line to overtake any vehicle travelling at less than 10mph? Safe harbour for private vehicles to cross red light when making way for emergency vehicle on B&2s?
Whatever...you must believe that something could be improved. Share it with us.

[tvrgit]

micky g said:

A wise man can learn more from a foolish question, than a fool can learn from a wise mans answer.

Very true. The problem here is that everybody thinks they are the "wise man" and that any other view is "the fool". Thus nobody learns anything from anybody.

[flemke]

Major Bloodnok said:

I rather like this:

Arizona highways dept said:

The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal.

How ironic that in Arizona the automatic penalty for driving at over 100 mph is two weeks in gaol.

[Major Bloodnok]

flemke said:

Major Bloodnok said:

I rather like this:

Arizona highways dept said:

The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal.

How ironic that in Arizona the automatic penalty for driving at over 100 mph is two weeks in gaol.

So, they're hypocrites. I still like the quote, though.

[vonhosen]

flemke said:

vonhosen said:

More & more traffic enforcement is being taken away from the Police......it's a sign of the times.
I'd imagine that is the increase we will see further of in the coming years, not the numbers of trafpol.

Many a "wise" man has no doubt paid for the privilege of only considering rules as guidance, while the fool kept their money in their pocket & their licence clean.

That's all very interesting, but no weaseling out of this one, my friend!

Surely you have some opinions on this. You've already alluded on PH to your sympathy for a tiered licence structure.
How about left-turn on red? Differential speed limits depending on weather? Increasing 40 limit for lorries in NSL 60? Clearer guidance for who (as between pedestrians and motor vehicles) has ROW at un-signalled junctions? Freedom to cross solid line to overtake any vehicle travelling at less than 10mph? Safe harbour for private vehicles to cross red light when making way for emergency vehicle on B&2s?
Whatever...you must believe that something could be improved. Share it with us.

I've expressed my own personal opinion on many things on these forums.
I have said that I would personally favour greater use of variable limits with more flexibility on our motorways, but I wouldn't change limits on other NSL roads etc.

I don't think our roads are designed for left turn on red mostly. Most of the roads in the USA that I have seen this have an extra dedicated lane for it (right turn obviously in their case). To do that on our current road structure would be cost prohibitive, or if we did it without the extra lane it would result in people frustrated that the one infront isn't going to turn left or even more cars trying to get into fewer lanes to go straight ahead.

I think the tiered licence could be one way to encourage a big rise in standards. The take up in further training is not very big, particularly in those who actually need it most. It may be the carrot that is needed to change that. Any implementation of such a system though would present it's own problems I'm sure.

[7db]

Major Bloodnok said:

I rather like this:

Arizona highways dept said:

The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal.

Given that the normally careful and competent actions of reasonable people are increasingly being criminalised...

This, like the "wise man" does rather depend on what you mean by "careful and competent". As, sadly, with many things, people's own judgement of their own skill levels is usually sadly lacking in accuracy.

[Major Bloodnok]

7db said:

Major Bloodnok said:

I rather like this:

Arizona highways dept said:

The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal.

Given that the normally careful and competent actions of reasonable people are increasingly being criminalised...

This, like the "wise man" does rather depend on what you mean by "careful and competent". As, sadly, with many things, people's own judgement of their own skill levels is usually sadly lacking in accuracy.

Also, sadly, in many cases, the lawmaker's judgement of the public's skills is sadly lacking in accuracy; just in the other direction.

[tvrgit]

As I said last night:

tvrgit said:

The problem here is that everybody thinks they are the "wise man" and that any other view is "the fool". Thus nobody learns anything from anybody.

[WildCat]

vonhosen said:

More & more traffic enforcement is being taken away from the Police......it's a sign of the times.

Und given to complete numpties who do not even drive a car. und who have no judgement of speed or even what makes a safe manouevre in car - as they do not notice a tailgater so long as "dead on limit"

Likewise - hospital management..

Und a one size fits all national curriculum - which ist rigid in what it says teachers can und cannot teach - which teachers say does not work - und we still have semi-numerate und semi-literate children und degrees in "Beckhamology Studies" und "MillsundBooniology" und "Personal Blog History of the Footballers' WAGs"

You take away from the experts und you get lack lustre und substandard across the board.. und ist creating even more dangers.

vonhosen said:

I'd imagine that is the increase we will see further of in the coming years, not the numbers of trafpol.

Und in about 20 years' time - we will realise that we actually need people to do the job in the tested und true fashions - which actually worked ..a bit like singing times tables out aloud und reading with phonics.. (not that that worked with my eldest children - sat on my knee whilst I read aloud to them und "taught" them to read. For longest time - they spoke English in normal conversation with a Cumbrian twang .. und read English out aloud with a very strong Swiss accent!

vonhosen said:

Many a "wise" man has no doubt paid for the privilege of only considering rules as guidance, while the fool kept their money in their pocket & their licence clean.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 15th July 17:54

Perhaps the "wise" man lives to tell the tale und the fool had accident by not noticing the hazards around him

[vonhosen]

Major Bloodnok said:

7db said:

Major Bloodnok said:

I rather like this:

Arizona highways dept said:

The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal.

Given that the normally careful and competent actions of reasonable people are increasingly being criminalised...

This, like the "wise man" does rather depend on what you mean by "careful and competent". As, sadly, with many things, people's own judgement of their own skill levels is usually sadly lacking in accuracy.

Also, sadly, in many cases, the lawmaker's judgement of the public's skills is sadly lacking in accuracy; just in the other direction.

You can only acurately assess someone's skill level from careful observation of their processes. I have said many times that I am not an exponent of the speed itself is unacceptably dangerous philosophy.

What I do say however, is that if we are to have much higher limits we must have much higher skill levels than are currently required & displayed by the vast majority of drivers. No matter how much someone may say that they haven't had a collision means they are doing it right, that is IMHO not an indication of sound processes in itself. If you make large changes to the parameters they can operate within, then that will emphasise deficiencies that are more easily masked at lower speeds.

I don't object fundamentally to tiered licencing itself, but I do to large changes in our limits without it at present.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 16th July 10:29

[safespeed]

vonhosen said:

What I do say however, is that if we are to have much higher limits we must have much higher skill levels than are currently required & displayed by the vast majority of drivers. No matter how much someone may say that they haven't had a collision means they are doing it right, that is IMHO not an indication of sound processes in itself. If you make large changes to the parameters they can operate within, then that will emphasise deficiencies that are more easily masked at lower speeds.

I don't object fundamentally to tiered licencing itself, but I do to large changes in our limits without it at present.

There you go again. 'Much higher limits'. Why?

Very few people are calling for a substantial increase in speed limits. Many people are calling for a system that does not penalize current safe practice. I recommend intelligent and discretionary enforcement.

[apache]

God, here we go again, Paul, VH will never provide the response you want, he is looking at the issue from the polar opposite, he will not see your POV because your every argument is based on the fact that a camera is fundamentally wrong. He is basing every argument on the adherance to the law. There is no way you will ever come close to agreeing with the basic premis, we'll have peace in Gaza before that happens