A question of good progress
Discussion
Big Fat F'er said:
They do in Advanced driving. Safety and Legality overide convenience. You know it. You just decide not to adhere to that.
That doesn't make sense at all. You have to be 'safe enough' not 'as safe as possible'. In other words the perceived risk has to be acceptably low for the circumstances. The risk will never be zero, it is not a decision of whether you will be Safe or Unsafe, it is a question of how safe and what you are willing to trade off to achieve that. Put another way, let's suppose we can agree some way to quantify risk, and let's say that you can reduce your risk by 10% by halving your speed on the way to and from work. Will you do it?
Big Fat F'er said:
Speeding is not the only arbitrary law, and you follow the others. What's the difference.
I strike a compromise between my desire to remain legal and hence free from threat of penalty, my desire to be selfish and avoid inconvenience, and any moral motivation to comply with the law. For example, if I believed I had an opportunity to steal something I wanted with no chance of getting caught, I wouldn't because I believe that would be morally wrong.
In the case of the speed limit, I believe the intent of the speed limit is to limit the scope for dangerous driving through inappropriate speed. I feel no MORAL obligation to drive within the speed limit when I can do it safely, because doing so doesn't harm me or anybody else. Of course I still want to keep the risk of penalties to acceptable levels, and this conflicts with my desire to avoid being inconvenienced by driving unnecessarily slowly. So I strike a balance between legality and convenience.
Big Fat F'er said:
..and speeding is jolly good fun as well.
Not sure whether by 'speeding' you mean exceeding the speed limit, or driving too fast for the circumstances. The former isn't "jolly good fun" it's no different from driving at an appropriate speed for the circumstances under the speed limit. I don't think you know me well enough to accuse me of the latter.
This has become a remarkably philosophical thread! A couple of observations.
Firstly, I don't believe that, as has been alleged, truly "advanced" drivers never intentionally break the letter of the law. The last time I had a half day session with an advanced instructor and the subject of breaking the limit to complete a safe overtake came up, he commented that every time he retakes his ROSPA Gold test, he always asks the examiner in advance what his attitude to overtaking and temporarily breaking the limit is. Only once has he been told he must always keep within the limit.
Secondly, I have no doubt that EVERY driver - indeed, every road user - breaks the letter of the law in some respect at some point. As has been noted, it is incredibly difficult to drive WITHOUT breaking the law. A degree of flexibility is therefore a given, based on matching the offence to the actual risk and attitude of the offender. Otherwise we would all be banned as a matter of course. (It is the lack of flexibility that makes cameras such hated devices.)
On the other hand, driving while under the influence of drink or drugs is not just a technical offence but a moral offence as well. The safety of other road users depends on drivers being able to exercise sound judgement. Choosing to exceed the speed limit in situations where there is no signifcant risk to other road users, however, to me is only a technical offence. When overtaking, I might consider that I am actually reducing the risk to myself and others. If caught, I accept that I may be penalised and I will feel very unhappy about it. I will not, however, have any problems with my social conscience!
Firstly, I don't believe that, as has been alleged, truly "advanced" drivers never intentionally break the letter of the law. The last time I had a half day session with an advanced instructor and the subject of breaking the limit to complete a safe overtake came up, he commented that every time he retakes his ROSPA Gold test, he always asks the examiner in advance what his attitude to overtaking and temporarily breaking the limit is. Only once has he been told he must always keep within the limit.
Secondly, I have no doubt that EVERY driver - indeed, every road user - breaks the letter of the law in some respect at some point. As has been noted, it is incredibly difficult to drive WITHOUT breaking the law. A degree of flexibility is therefore a given, based on matching the offence to the actual risk and attitude of the offender. Otherwise we would all be banned as a matter of course. (It is the lack of flexibility that makes cameras such hated devices.)
On the other hand, driving while under the influence of drink or drugs is not just a technical offence but a moral offence as well. The safety of other road users depends on drivers being able to exercise sound judgement. Choosing to exceed the speed limit in situations where there is no signifcant risk to other road users, however, to me is only a technical offence. When overtaking, I might consider that I am actually reducing the risk to myself and others. If caught, I accept that I may be penalised and I will feel very unhappy about it. I will not, however, have any problems with my social conscience!
The issue here is a question of how good ones judgement is that breaking that limit by that amount is "safe" or in your terms "not immoral" at the time when one is contemplating breaking it.
I'm feeling a bit revvy today so that 30 limit might be easier to break than on a calmer more placid day. This is the exact nature of crimes of "incontinence" (inability to control ones own desires) - that they seem right at the time.
I'd suggest a modified rule that you then always stick to (such as strict 30 in a 30, but perhaps a more flexible approach to NSLs), rather than necessarily making it up in every situation.
I'm feeling a bit revvy today so that 30 limit might be easier to break than on a calmer more placid day. This is the exact nature of crimes of "incontinence" (inability to control ones own desires) - that they seem right at the time.
I'd suggest a modified rule that you then always stick to (such as strict 30 in a 30, but perhaps a more flexible approach to NSLs), rather than necessarily making it up in every situation.
I have a simple philosophy. If in doubt, don't do it.
The way roads are now, unless you know that you are capable of making a good overtake, safely, then there is no reason to risk losing your life/passenger/car/no-claims bonus.
The real problem that one has is evaluating whether it is safe to do so without drawing the situation out longer than you would need to, something which would likely take the initial opportunity away from you anyway.
C
The way roads are now, unless you know that you are capable of making a good overtake, safely, then there is no reason to risk losing your life/passenger/car/no-claims bonus.
The real problem that one has is evaluating whether it is safe to do so without drawing the situation out longer than you would need to, something which would likely take the initial opportunity away from you anyway.
C
7db said:
The issue here is a question of how good ones judgement is that breaking that limit by that amount is "safe" or in your terms "not immoral" at the time when one is contemplating breaking it.
I'm feeling a bit revvy today so that 30 limit might be easier to break than on a calmer more placid day. This is the exact nature of crimes of "incontinence" (inability to control ones own desires) - that they seem right at the time.
I'd suggest a modified rule that you then always stick to (such as strict 30 in a 30, but perhaps a more flexible approach to NSLs), rather than necessarily making it up in every situation.
I'm feeling a bit revvy today so that 30 limit might be easier to break than on a calmer more placid day. This is the exact nature of crimes of "incontinence" (inability to control ones own desires) - that they seem right at the time.
I'd suggest a modified rule that you then always stick to (such as strict 30 in a 30, but perhaps a more flexible approach to NSLs), rather than necessarily making it up in every situation.
The need for good judgement applies at all times and at all speeds, whether one is driving well within the marked limit, or not. For example, good judgement requires that you slow down to maybe walking speed when passing a school entrance at 8.45am, even though the marked limit is 30mph. The limit itself is, to a large extent, an arbitrary figure that is designed to be approximnately correct across a range of weather, traffic and daylight/twilight/nightime conditions. As we all know, one of the things that better drivers will always do is adjust their speed to the conditions, whatever the marked limit might be.
I do agree, however, that I very seldom exceed urban area limits and the older I get, the more cautious I seem to be about what constitutes a safe overtaking opportunity.
flemke said:
Safety overrides convenience, legality does not (although risk of punishment may do, in practice).
Wrong. Both in the Law, and in Advanced Driving. Legality overides convenience.
Can you legally break the law, in order to do something that is more convenient for you. No you can't. You might not like that. But it doesn't change the facts. Legality overides convenience. With your training you should know that.
What you mean is that if your are inconvenienced, then you have decided you can break the law to get around that. Fine. Your decision. But it's still wrong.
Big Fat F'er said:
What you mean is that if your are inconvenienced, then you have decided you can break the law to get around that. Fine. Your decision. But it's still wrong.
That's exactly what I mean. I am not claiming that the law entitles me to break it if it happens to suit me. What I'm saying is that my desire to comply with the law is one of several factors that determine what I do. I will break the law without any compunction whatsoever if I decide it is appropriate. Similarly I will do things that increase risk, if I decide *that* is appropriate. Now we can debate the relative importance of convenience, legality, safety and the extent to which we as individuals are willing to compromise one to improve the others, but to say that safety or legality fundamentally overrides all other issues is just plain daft.
GreenV8S said:
Big Fat F'er said:
They do in Advanced driving. Safety and Legality overide convenience. You know it. You just decide not to adhere to that.
That doesn't make sense at all. You have to be 'safe enough' not 'as safe as possible'. In other words the perceived risk has to be acceptably low for the circumstances. The risk will never be zero, it is not a decision of whether you will be Safe or Unsafe, it is a question of how safe and what you are willing to trade off to achieve that. Put another way, let's suppose we can agree some way to quantify risk, and let's say that you can reduce your risk by 10% by halving your speed on the way to and from work. Will you do it? .
As you know, any example depends on the circumstances. So perhaps yes, perhaps no. That has nothing to do with my original point and your response. the fact is, Safety and Legality overide Convenience in all Advanced driving. Thats PC1 on a shout, thats the Forces, thats the IAM, etc, etc. You do not compromise Safety for Convenience. Whats the first level in the hierarchy? Is is Safe (as in Systemematic, Smooth, etc, etc) or is it Conveneience? Neither do you compromise the Law for convenience. You may wish to do so. So do those that think they have some 'right' to get off the motorway using the hard shoulder when late for the Airport. They are overiding legality for convenience. But if caught they get done for it.
GreenV8S said:
Big Fat F'er said:
Speeding is not the only arbitrary law, and you follow the others. What's the difference.
I strike a compromise between my desire to remain legal and hence free from threat of penalty, my desire to be selfish and avoid inconvenience, and any moral motivation to comply with the law. For example, if I believed I had an opportunity to steal something I wanted with no chance of getting caught, I wouldn't because I believe that would be morally wrong.
In the case of the speed limit, I believe the intent of the speed limit is to limit the scope for dangerous driving through inappropriate speed. I feel no MORAL obligation to drive within the speed limit when I can do it safely, because doing so doesn't harm me or anybody else. Of course I still want to keep the risk of penalties to acceptable levels, and this conflicts with my desire to avoid being inconvenienced by driving unnecessarily slowly. So I strike a balance between legality and convenience.
That is what it comes down to really isn't it. What you are suggesting is that where you agree with the law, then you will abide by it. If you don't agree with it, then tough. You know best.
GreenV8S said:
Big Fat F'er said:
..and speeding is jolly good fun as well.
Not sure whether by 'speeding' you mean exceeding the speed limit, or driving too fast for the circumstances. The former isn't "jolly good fun" it's no different from driving at an appropriate speed for the circumstances under the speed limit. I don't think you know me well enough to accuse me of the latter.
By speeding I mean above the limit. You obviously support driving above the speed limit, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. I've assumed you admit to speeding, albeit for your own reasons. So I would suggest you that you enjoy driving at that speed. Don't try and claim that no one knows you well enough to suggest that you like driving at that speed. If you don't, I've got some good advice for you. Don't do it.
gdaybruce said:
This has become a remarkably philosophical thread!
They are sometimes the best, and can be quite educational.
gdaybruce said:
Firstly, I don't believe that, as has been alleged, truly "advanced" drivers never intentionally break the letter of the law. The last time I had a half day session with an advanced instructor and the subject of breaking the limit to complete a safe overtake came up, he commented that every time he retakes his ROSPA Gold test, he always asks the examiner in advance what his attitude to overtaking and temporarily breaking the limit is. Only once has he been told he must always keep within the limit.
There are many examiners, in various classes, that WILL fail for speeding. So are bothered about it, some are not. So unfortunately we can't use them to help decide, it's a persnal decision.
gdaybruce said:
Secondly, I have no doubt that EVERY driver - indeed, every road user - breaks the letter of the law in some respect at some point. As has been noted, it is incredibly difficult to drive WITHOUT breaking the law. A degree of flexibility is therefore a given, based on matching the offence to the actual risk and attitude of the offender. Otherwise we would all be banned as a matter of course. (It is the lack of flexibility that makes cameras such hated devices.)
Re the fixed cameras I happen to think it's the drivers sudden realisation that he is not observing the road ahead correctly that makes them so hated. The locations are published. They are coloured. There are signs on the side of the road, and paint on the road as well. When someone gets caught, they realise they weren't practicising what they preach..it's annoying ain't it!!!
gdaybruce said:
On the other hand, driving while under the influence of drink or drugs is not just a technical offence but a moral offence as well. The safety of other road users depends on drivers being able to exercise sound judgement. Choosing to exceed the speed limit in situations where there is no signifcant risk to other road users, however, to me is only a technical offence. When overtaking, I might consider that I am actually reducing the risk to myself and others. If caught, I accept that I may be penalised and I will feel very unhappy about it. I will not, however, have any problems with my social conscience!
The trouble is, everyone can always seems to justify their bit. There are many drink drivers that justify it by saying that where they drive there is not significant risk to other road users. Yet you would probably (I think) believe that they shouldn't drink and drive. Not being risky is not a defence against breaking the law.
Big Fat F'er said:
flemke said:
Safety overrides convenience, legality does not (although risk of punishment may do, in practice).
Wrong. Both in the Law, and in Advanced Driving. Legality overides convenience.
Can you legally break the law, in order to do something that is more convenient for you. No you can't. You might not like that. But it doesn't change the facts. Legality overides convenience. With your training you should know that.
What you mean is that if your are inconvenienced, then you have decided you can break the law to get around that. Fine. Your decision. But it's still wrong.
Override: (1)have or claim precedence or superiority over; (2a)intervene and make ineffective; (2b)interrupt the action of; (3a)trample down or underfoot; (3b)supersede arrogantly; et al
In what sense do you mean "override"? The only one that seems to fit is (3b).
That is, the prejudices, self-interest, fecklessness and indifference of unaccountable bureaucrats or scarcely-accountable politicians "arrogantly supersede" citizens' rights and common sense. We see this in most areas of modern life; it would be surprising if it did not occur in roads policies as well.
I don't think that this is what you had in mind, BFF. Rather, you perhaps were thinking of some intellectual heirarchy in which legality must take priority over convenience.
The problems with this include:
- if the law must be right, why do laws change?
- why do laws that apply to the same circumstances differ from one place to another?
- should the law prevail regardless of how and why it came about?
- can the majority be wrong?
- can there be more than one "right" thing?
The only laws that are inviolable are things like gravity. We're not talking about that.
The "laws" whereunder Barbara Castle and Gwyneth Dunwoody and Ken Livingstone and Gordon Brown (non-drivers all) have tried to control drivers' behaviour have neither transcendent meaning nor constancy. Those laws have less intellectual substance than the matter of whether it's okay to smoke in public.
Sure, they can tell us what they expect us to do. Sure, if we don't do it their way they can fine us or imprison us. These are simply manifestations of mob rule. We had similar but extreme examples during the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Soviet Show Trials and myriad other horrific demonstrations of human depravity.
The Chief Constable of North Wales and his successors can pronounce, they can enforce and they can punish, but often it's not because it's right, it's just because they can.
GreenV8S said:
Big Fat F'er said:
What you mean is that if your are inconvenienced, then you have decided you can break the law to get around that. Fine. Your decision. But it's still wrong.
That's exactly what I mean. I am not claiming that the law entitles me to break it if it happens to suit me. What I'm saying is that my desire to comply with the law is one of several factors that determine what I do. I will break the law without any compunction whatsoever if I decide it is appropriate. Similarly I will do things that increase risk, if I decide *that* is appropriate. Now we can debate the relative importance of convenience, legality, safety and the extent to which we as individuals are willing to compromise one to improve the others, but to say that safety or legality fundamentally overrides all other issues is just plain daft.
Safety and Legality overide Convenience in Advanced Driving. You may decide to do something for convenience sake that means you break the law. That is your choice. So stand up, admit that what you are doing is 'wrong' at that moment in timne, agree that for that period you were not driving to an Advanced Level, and move on. Just stop trying to re-write the Advanced rules just to suit how you drive.
Big Fat F'er said:
As you know, any example depends on the circumstances. So perhaps yes, perhaps no. That has nothing to do with my original point and your response. the fact is, Safety and Legality overide Convenience in all Advanced driving. Thats PC1 on a shout, thats the Forces, thats the IAM, etc, etc. You do not compromise Safety for Convenience. Whats the first level in the hierarchy? Is is Safe (as in Systemematic, Smooth, etc, etc) or is it Conveneience? Neither do you compromise the Law for convenience. You may wish to do so. So do those that think they have some 'right' to get off the motorway using the hard shoulder when late for the Airport. They are overiding legality for convenience. But if caught they get done for it.
You continue to talk as if safety is black and white. Perhaps you mean 'acceptable safety' i.e. safety being above a threshold that is acceptable to you under the circumstances. If so, I agree with you but I think you are using the wrong terminology. I may choose to drive in a way that increases risk, while still resulting in a risk level which is acceptable to me under the circumstances. In that case I would say that I have reduced (i.e. compromised) safety, and that I have done so knowingly and deliberately.
Big Fat F'er said:
That is what it comes down to really isn't it. What you are suggesting is that where you agree with the law, then you will abide by it. If you don't agree with it, then tough. You know best.
As I've said several times, from time to time my desire to remain legal conflicts with other desires. Since I have to resolve the conflict, it is up to me to decide the best compromise. How far am I willing to inconvenience myself to remain legal? Quite a long way, but not infinitely. So sometimes I will knowingly and deliberately break the law. And perhaps one day when somebody in a position to do something about it sees me, maybe they'll throw the book at me and maybe they'll just think to themselves that actually it was reasonable under the circumstances. If you honestly say that you will never knowingly break the law even to the smallest extent then with all due respect I think that is foolish.
GreenV8S said:
Big Fat F'er said:
..and speeding is jolly good fun as well.
Not sure whether by 'speeding' you mean exceeding the speed limit, or driving too fast for the circumstances. The former isn't "jolly good fun" it's no different from driving at an appropriate speed for the circumstances under the speed limit. I don't think you know me well enough to accuse me of the latter.
Big Fat F'er said:
By speeding I mean above the limit. You obviously support driving above the speed limit, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. I've assumed you admit to speeding, albeit for your own reasons. So I would suggest you that you enjoy driving at that speed. Don't try and claim that no one knows you well enough to suggest that you like driving at that speed. If you don't, I've got some good advice for you. Don't do it.
You implied that I exceed the speed limit because I enjoy doing it. You're wrong. There's no difference in the driver experience between driving safely at an appropriate speed within the limit, and driving safely at an appropriate speed in excess of the limit. When I exceed the speed limit I do it because I am not willing to compromise safety or convenience to the extent necessary to stay within the speed limit. No doubt I do sometimes exceed the speed limit without noticing, just as I'm sure I make all sorts of minor mistakes, but I do also knowingly and deliberately break the speed limit when I feel it is appropriate. If you claim otherwise then I think you are probably in a very small minority, or you're fibbing.
Big Fat F'er said:
Re the fixed cameras I happen to think it's the drivers sudden realisation that he is not observing the road ahead correctly that makes them so hated. The locations are published. They are coloured. There are signs on the side of the road, and paint on the road as well. When someone gets caught, they realise they weren't practicising what they preach..it's annoying ain't it!!!
Last year for the first time there were more speeding tickets generated by (unspecified location, frequently intentionally obscured, often barely marked, no paint on the road) mobile cameras than by fixed ones.
flemke said:
The only laws that are inviolable are things like gravity.
That's an interesting example. Actually these aren't 'laws' as such, they're just a description of observed behaviour. If you manage to 'break' the laws of physics you aren't thrown in jail, it is just that you have shown that the 'laws' are wrong.
In a very abstract sense, there are similarties with our legal system. Laws are established by agreement, and if the agreement is removed the laws can be invalidated and changed. The law doesn't define acceptable behaviour, it just records it.
GreenV8S said:
flemke said:
The only laws that are inviolable are things like gravity.
That's an interesting example. Actually these aren't 'laws' as such, they're just a description of observed behaviour. If you manage to 'break' the laws of physics you aren't thrown in jail, it is just that you have shown that the 'laws' are wrong.
In a very abstract sense, there are similarties with our legal system. Laws are established by agreement, and if the agreement is removed the laws can be invalidated and changed. The law doesn't define acceptable behaviour, it just records it.
flemke said:
Isn't the point of calling a certain observed natural phenomenon a "law" that one believes that it is physically impossible to undo it, regardless of man's best efforts?
I think they're referred to as laws on the basis that there is assumed to be a corresponding underlying limitation causing the observed behaviour, but when people talk about 'laws of nature', 'laws of physics' etc this only means that we observe behaviour that complies with these 'laws'. That may just mean that we haven't observed contrary behaviour yet - it may even be that we *have* observed conflicting behaviour but choose to hang on to the old 'laws' as a useful description of some aspects of the behaviour. Newtonian physics are a good example.
vonhosen said:
The thing that always puzzles me is the penchant on here for people to want a talking to (education) from a Police officer, instead of prosecution for speeding.
I know why they want it (they don't want to be prosecuted) but they say it like the officer is doing a good thing with this "advice".
The people who the Police officer gives this "advice" to have no intention of changing their view on speeding because of this "advice". Their attitude towards speeding is already pretty fixed & behaviour will not be changed at all in relation to future limit observance by it. It's a waste of air.
I know why they want it (they don't want to be prosecuted) but they say it like the officer is doing a good thing with this "advice".
The people who the Police officer gives this "advice" to have no intention of changing their view on speeding because of this "advice". Their attitude towards speeding is already pretty fixed & behaviour will not be changed at all in relation to future limit observance by it. It's a waste of air.
I appreciate your general feeling there Von, but I don't think a bit of a chat is necessarily a waste of time. In many cases our attitudes to speeding are pretty well fixed, but perhaps the right sort of chat might bring about some adjustment, perhaps sufficient to take out some of the excessive exuberance and risk.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
vonhosen said:
GreenV8S said:
vonhosen said:
What is strict enforcement ?
Enforcement that penalises drivers who exceed the speed limit by a small amount.
What's a small amount ?
Oh, was that a serious question? It's an amount that is small. But it doesn't seem sensible to try to discuss *how* strictly the law should be enforced (how small is 'small') unless you accept the fundamental point that it it is not desirable to enforce it absolutely strictly even if it was practical to. And I know how you dislike having your acceptance taken for granted.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff