Alternative to speed limits and cameras?

[Esceptico]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I have already answered you twice. Why do you find it hard to accept that people do things they know are wrong? I don't think I consciously break any other laws. I had a few joints at uni but don't think that is abnormal (even presidents have done it...although apparently didn't inhale) but technically that was illegal.

We are still waiting for a proper argument from you as to why your speeding is defendable. Without going back to your earlier threads you mentioned that it was defendable because you judge your speeding to be safe and the speeding laws are to keep people safe. I addressed that earlier by saying it was not coherent to accept the need for speed limits yet also claim that anyone can ignore them if they drive safely (in their own opinion). That is like arguing for no limits, which contradicts your acceptance of them as "a necessary evil". But no doubt you won't address that point nor anything I write (except bits you think you can attack).

[Kawasicki]

No limits would be fine, it would probably be a bit more dangerous, but that's ok by me.

I'd allow 30 limits, for truly densely populated areas.

[Ken Figenus]

Esceptico said:

There is nothing incoherent with my views. Most people share them.

OK mate, if you say so. Over and out; job done

[Ken Figenus]

Esceptico said:

... it was (is) not coherent to accept the need for speed limits yet also claim that anyone can ignore them if they drive safely (in their own opinion). That is like arguing for no limits...

.
Honestly if things are so black and white to you as that then there is no debate to be had here whatsoever. Its fine if you see things that way but I think real life has a few more shades of grey than that and absolutely fewer absolutes.

[vonhosen]

Ken Figenus said:

Esceptico said:

... it was (is) not coherent to accept the need for speed limits yet also claim that anyone can ignore them if they drive safely (in their own opinion). That is like arguing for no limits...

.
Honestly if things are so black and white to you as that then there is no debate to be had here whatsoever. Its fine if you see things that way but I think real life has a few more shades of grey than that and absolutely fewer absolutes.

Speed limits & enforcement of them on no other basis than the limit was being exceeded is real life & has been for 100 years.

[vonhosen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So what?
What you've been saying is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

[hora]

I'm no saint but I do believe part of driving skill (the ability to see/gear/feel) all at the same time is the skill/ability to drive. Any monkey can speed down a motorway at three figures (etc) but when you miss signs, big fking signs and obvious ques of cameras ahead then I question your overall ability or driving skill.

In the UK there are very few stealth cams. If you can't use your eyes and process info you should slow down.

Leave driving to those that can process ALL information at driving speeds. That goes especially to those with multiple penalty points. Idiots.

Edited by hora on Monday 2nd May 22:46

[rich888]

Willy Nilly said:

singlecoil said:

Willy Nilly said:

singlecoil said:

Willy Nilly said:

RobinOakapple said:

Speed limits exist not to stop PHers having fun and not to prevent accidents (although they do of course contribute to that) or make roads safe, or to provide fodder for Digby's villains to profit from. They are there to make accidents less serious if and when they occur and to provide more avoidance time than would be available if people drove at the speed they chose

Most accidents aren't serious, but even minor accidents are an utter pain in the arse, lower speed limits don't stop people bumping into each other and when they do bump into each other they won't stop the agro of explaining to various insurance companys for the next 5 years or getting your car fixed or being without your car or the expense...

I do think you've somewhat missed his point there. In any case, it's not about the accidents that aren't serious, it's about the ones that are.

The serious ones are very rare indeed, so rare as to not be worth spending much time worrying about them...

I do hope you are joking.

Go and have a look at the ONS figures on causes of death, RTA's are a long way down. As I have said, suicide is a far bigger killer in the country that RTA's, about 3 times as many, but look at the disproportionate amount of spending, media attention and effort trying to reduce a small number of deaths on the roads, most of which would be avoided if people paid more attention.

If you have £X amount of money to spend on reducing premature deaths, would you spend it on reducing road crashes, or would you do something about all of the fat children you now see waddling about? These kids will have a shortened life expectancy and will cost the public purse a fortune to maintain. If we break the speed limit, it is very unlikely we will crash and even less unlikely we will die doing so.

+1

You have pretty much hit the nail on the head with your observations.

Could I also ask why nowadays the police close a motorway for hours on end following a serious RTA, why not just send in a drone with a 4K camera to survey and record the accident site, which can then be reviewed at a later date, then cross reference the footage to the multiple video cameras on the overhead gantries to see what actually happened, together with the black box information from the cars involved.

Surely it would be cheaper in the long term to install masts with video cameras every few hundred yards along the network to record video footage on that section of road, rather than shutting the entire motorway network down for hours on end in order to piece together what happened. Most other countries just sweep the debris out of the other lanes and let the traffic flow at a reduced rate rather than shutting it down en-mass like we do. Common sense seems to have been abandoned by our modern day police force!

You only have to look at West Germany and their unrestricted motorway network in many parts of the country to appreciate that we have been somewhat brainwashed into thinking that speed kills and that is simply not the case. It's dangerous driving that kills people, and to reduce that we need properly trained traffic police on the roads not this very cosy parasitic safety camera partnership.

In the meantime, as you say, three times the number people die needlessly from suicide compared to road traffic accidents, and as for the fat kids scared of venturing out in case they are run over, well that is the health time-bomb in the making as their arteries clog up from lack of use!

Being rather cynical now, living longer isn't what the bean counters in government want us to do, they don't want us to remain healthy and live to a ripe old age, they want us to drink to excess and drive too fast and smoke too many cigarettes, because that is where they derive their tax revenue from - then die before we can claim our pension!

[Digby]

4rephill said:

Digby said:

4rephill said:

As I understand the US system in some cities, the traffic lights in are timed so that when they turn green, if you travel at the speed limit then you can hit all of the lights on green.

Now go and Google the traffic light timings scandal in the US. Alterations to amber times to fine more drivers without making the knowledge of the changes available.

Cameras and cash, yet again.

And before anyone jumps in with suggestions of not jumping lights, the majority of fines were dished out for those stopped and waiting to turn and not those who choose to fly through and 'take a chance' with their lives.

No!

If you want to make an argument and use that as you're supporting evidence, you go look it up and then post it on here!

I'm not your fking lacky!

Oh dear.

So, let's say we were in a pub, having a pint and this conversation cropped up. If I were to suggest evidence of light tampering and that you should look it up online if you were interested, you would use abusive language and throw your pint in the air? If you would, you are a tt. If you wouldn't, why bother on here? Forums across the world are far worse off due to people like you.

It makes no difference to me if you look or not by the way and you are far from alone. There are regular debates on here where people never bother to look at any evidence or do any research of their own. They just sit their screaming for links and proof. Maybe they are just computer illiterate.

[singlecoil]

Digby said:

4rephill said:

Digby said:

4rephill said:

As I understand the US system in some cities, the traffic lights in are timed so that when they turn green, if you travel at the speed limit then you can hit all of the lights on green.

Now go and Google the traffic light timings scandal in the US. Alterations to amber times to fine more drivers without making the knowledge of the changes available.

Cameras and cash, yet again.

And before anyone jumps in with suggestions of not jumping lights, the majority of fines were dished out for those stopped and waiting to turn and not those who choose to fly through and 'take a chance' with their lives.

No!

If you want to make an argument and use that as you're supporting evidence, you go look it up and then post it on here!

I'm not your fking lacky!

Oh dear.

So, let's say we were in a pub, having a pint and this conversation cropped up. If I were to suggest evidence of light tampering and that you should look it up online if you were interested, you would use abusive language and throw your pint in the air? If you would, you are a tt. If you wouldn't, why bother on here? Forums across the world are far worse off due to people like you.

It makes no difference to me if you look or not by the way and you are far from alone. There are regular debates on here where people never bother to look at any evidence or do any research of their own. They just sit their screaming for links and proof. Maybe they are just computer illiterate.

He's right though. If you want to rely on research or other material to bolster your case then it's up to you to present it. It does make you look rather lazy otherwise.

[vonhosen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

But it wasn't (a clue, it's not all about you).
The poster I was replying to stated real life was shades of grey not so black & white, I was pointing out to him a real world example that rebutted that position on the topic of this debate & that exceeding the speed limit is black/white & for pretty much as long as cars have existed there have been people prosecuted on that basis. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that's going to change anytime soon.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

But it wasn't (a clue, it's not all about you).
The poster I was replying to stated real life was shades of grey not so black & white, I was pointing out to him a real world example that rebutted that position on the topic of this debate & that exceeding the speed limit is black/white & for pretty much as long as cars have existed there have been people prosecuted on that basis. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that's going to change anytime soon.

The big difference is, it's only recently that they've started setting some speed limits to lower than the speed which most drivers would choose if left to their own devices

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

But it wasn't (a clue, it's not all about you).
The poster I was replying to stated real life was shades of grey not so black & white, I was pointing out to him a real world example that rebutted that position on the topic of this debate & that exceeding the speed limit is black/white & for pretty much as long as cars have existed there have been people prosecuted on that basis. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that's going to change anytime soon.

The big difference is, it's only recently that they've started setting some speed limits to lower than the speed which most drivers would choose if left to their own devices

How do you know what speed most drivers would drive at left to their own devices?

[Ken Figenus]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Your example didn't enlighten, curiously! The 'shades of gray' thing is about the fact that people exceed the speed limit daily on a hugely massive scale...and it isn't actually carnage out there. Stating the b obvious again that the speed limit is the speed limit is the law adds nothing in the face of that fact and is the std un-pragmatic black and white thing. If more than 30% of motorway drivers are flouting the law then maybe its the law that should have a think and maybe adapt - or you could just tell me the limit is 70 and be done. End of!

[RobinOakapple]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

But it wasn't (a clue, it's not all about you).
The poster I was replying to stated real life was shades of grey not so black & white, I was pointing out to him a real world example that rebutted that position on the topic of this debate & that exceeding the speed limit is black/white & for pretty much as long as cars have existed there have been people prosecuted on that basis. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that's going to change anytime soon.

The big difference is, it's only recently that they've started setting some speed limits to lower than the speed which most drivers would choose if left to their own devices

How do you know what speed most drivers would drive at left to their own devices?

The answer is that he doesn't, because there have been speed limits since the 60s and they always influence the driver's choice of speed even if he exceeds them.

[RobinOakapple]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

His example won't enlighten people who don't want to be enlightened.

He's simply pointing out that there are speed limits and we all have to bear them in mind even if we are exceeding them, and that there are always going to be speed limits and that they are not going to be set at the speeds which enthusiast drivers would prefer. If they raised the motorway limit tomorrow then pretty soon people would start a) driving at whatever margin over the new limit they thought they could get away with and b) claiming the new limits are still too low.

[vonhosen]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

100% of drivers do various careless & inconsiderate things when driving on the roads (including you & me), it doesn't mean the law is what's wrong simply based on the number of people breaking it.

Driving is a regulated activity, it is also a large complicated system with many competing values/concerns. It's not about addressing every individual's desires, it's about addressing the system's (societal not just drivers) needs/objectives/concerns. The laws are introduced to make it easy to deal with those who place their personal desires/needs above the system's or societal needs.

[Ken Figenus]

We are actually not that far off then, and what Robin said above.

I guess what we are exploring is why some are less pliable and averse to pragmatism based on what actually really happens and are perfectly happy that millions of drivers are needlessly turned over through the machine. I guess some of us are right of centre here (plus) and others left (minus)? The machine is absolutely necessary but is it always right, is it always doing the best by us, is it honest and is it always on the most appropriate setting? Telling us (again) that the law is the law never adds to the discussion and almost always sidesteps the larger point being made.

[otolith]

vonhosen said:

otolith said:

vonhosen said:

They don't satisfy the requirements of dangerous driving, it's part of the reason individual offences exist.

I think you are taking Setright too literally, I don't think he meant that the only legislation should be the then existing section of the RTA relating to the offence of dangerous driving exactly as written at the time.

Then his is a worthless statement without defining what driving amounts to dangerous driving in his view.
Without him offering up any alternative to that which the legislation describes that's all we can go on.

He didn't attempt to set out a legislative framework (though no doubt could have done), he suggested a principle.

[RobinOakapple]

Ken Figenus said:

We are actually not that far off then, and what Robin said above.

I guess what we are exploring is why some are less pliable and averse to pragmatism based on what actually really happens and are perfectly happy that millions of drivers are needlessly turned over through the machine. I guess some of us are right of centre here (plus) and others left (minus)? The machine is absolutely necessary but is it always right, is it always doing the best by us, is it honest and is it always on the most appropriate setting? Telling us (again) that the law is the law never adds to the discussion and almost always sidesteps the larger point being made.

I'm fairly sure that that isn't what VH is saying, although with a quick read through I agree it seems that way.

I think some of what he is saying that complaining about speed limits and their enforcement is like complaining about the weather, it's good fun for like-minded individuals to do but is certainly not going to change anything.

Perhaps the people on the right of centre should be discussing strategies for bringing about the changes they would like, and not just moaning about the status quo?