68 in a 60

[Pete317]

singlecoil said:

cmaguire said:

tapereel said:

Perhaps the way you meant it was that limits should be 'unenforced' or driver's should 'self-regulate'.

I think the attitude and approach to speed enforcement and limits was about right in the eighties, bar the 70 limit being at least 10mph too slow.
Cameras have brought with them a whole lot of baggage that has only tenuous if any links to their claimed purpose in many instances.

The claimed purpose is to catch people who are speeding. Hardly tenuous.

That would make the law self-serving

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

cmaguire said:

tapereel said:

Perhaps the way you meant it was that limits should be 'unenforced' or driver's should 'self-regulate'.

I think the attitude and approach to speed enforcement and limits was about right in the eighties, bar the 70 limit being at least 10mph too slow.
Cameras have brought with them a whole lot of baggage that has only tenuous if any links to their claimed purpose in many instances.

The claimed purpose is to catch people who are speeding. Hardly tenuous.

That would make the law self-serving

No, because the purpose of speed limits are safety, environment, social acceptability etc.
The cameras purpose is catching people who don't obey the speed limits (& through that attempt to influence/change future behaviour in respect of chosen speed).

[singlecoil]

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

cmaguire said:

tapereel said:

Perhaps the way you meant it was that limits should be 'unenforced' or driver's should 'self-regulate'.

I think the attitude and approach to speed enforcement and limits was about right in the eighties, bar the 70 limit being at least 10mph too slow.
Cameras have brought with them a whole lot of baggage that has only tenuous if any links to their claimed purpose in many instances.

The claimed purpose is to catch people who are speeding. Hardly tenuous.

That would make the law self-serving

That post makes no sense.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

cmaguire said:

tapereel said:

Perhaps the way you meant it was that limits should be 'unenforced' or driver's should 'self-regulate'.

I think the attitude and approach to speed enforcement and limits was about right in the eighties, bar the 70 limit being at least 10mph too slow.
Cameras have brought with them a whole lot of baggage that has only tenuous if any links to their claimed purpose in many instances.

The claimed purpose is to catch people who are speeding. Hardly tenuous.

That would make the law self-serving

No, because the purpose of speed limits are safety, environment, social acceptability etc.
The cameras purpose is catching people who don't obey the speed limits (& through that attempt to influence/change future behaviour in respect of chosen speed).

Enforcement which is seen as being done for the sake of enforcement is not in the public interest, besides going against the ACPO guidelines.

[singlecoil]

Pete317 said:

Enforcement which is seen as being done for the sake of enforcement is not in the public interest, besides going against the ACPO guidelines.

It's only seen that way by yourself and some others of like mind. The rest of us can see a bit further.

[GetCarter]

Can I just point out that the only relevant point to this thread is that the O/P can contest and will win.

Simple. All the other arguments are moot.

http://www.nopenaltypoints.co.uk/does-nip-have-be-...

[vonhosen]

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

cmaguire said:

tapereel said:

Perhaps the way you meant it was that limits should be 'unenforced' or driver's should 'self-regulate'.

I think the attitude and approach to speed enforcement and limits was about right in the eighties, bar the 70 limit being at least 10mph too slow.
Cameras have brought with them a whole lot of baggage that has only tenuous if any links to their claimed purpose in many instances.

The claimed purpose is to catch people who are speeding. Hardly tenuous.

That would make the law self-serving

No, because the purpose of speed limits are safety, environment, social acceptability etc.
The cameras purpose is catching people who don't obey the speed limits (& through that attempt to influence/change future behaviour in respect of chosen speed).

Enforcement which is seen as being done for the sake of enforcement is not in the public interest, besides going against the ACPO guidelines.

It's for the sake of the benefits that speed limits offer.
If speed limits don't offer a benefit then we simply shouldn't have them, then there'd be no enforcement of them.
Speed limits = enforcement as a consequence of their existence & the need for that existence.
No speed limits = no enforcement as there is no need for them to exist.

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

It's for the sake of the benefits that speed limits offer.
If speed limits don't offer a benefit then we simply shouldn't have them, then there'd be no enforcement of them.
Speed limits = enforcement as a consequence of their existence & the need for that existence.
No speed limits = no enforcement as there is no need for them to exist.

There is a halfway-house to this you know.
Pragmatic rather than dogmatic.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

vonhosen said:

It's for the sake of the benefits that speed limits offer.
If speed limits don't offer a benefit then we simply shouldn't have them, then there'd be no enforcement of them.
Speed limits = enforcement as a consequence of their existence & the need for that existence.
No speed limits = no enforcement as there is no need for them to exist.

There is a halfway-house to this you know.
Pragmatic rather than dogmatic.

We're in a halfway house, it would require a massive ramp up of interventions for it not to be.

[Pete317]

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

vonhosen said:

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

cmaguire said:

tapereel said:

Perhaps the way you meant it was that limits should be 'unenforced' or driver's should 'self-regulate'.

I think the attitude and approach to speed enforcement and limits was about right in the eighties, bar the 70 limit being at least 10mph too slow.
Cameras have brought with them a whole lot of baggage that has only tenuous if any links to their claimed purpose in many instances.

The claimed purpose is to catch people who are speeding. Hardly tenuous.

That would make the law self-serving

No, because the purpose of speed limits are safety, environment, social acceptability etc.
The cameras purpose is catching people who don't obey the speed limits (& through that attempt to influence/change future behaviour in respect of chosen speed).

Enforcement which is seen as being done for the sake of enforcement is not in the public interest, besides going against the ACPO guidelines.

It's for the sake of the benefits that speed limits offer.
If speed limits don't offer a benefit then we simply shouldn't have them, then there'd be no enforcement of them.
Speed limits = enforcement as a consequence of their existence & the need for that existence.
No speed limits = no enforcement as there is no need for them to exist.

Said benefits are largely poorly-defined and often tenuous - besides being poorly supported by the data.

But that's another matter - we're talking about their enforcement here, and many of the ACPO guidelines often appear to be either ignored or 'interpreted' by the enforcers.

[singlecoil]

Pete317 said:

Said benefits are largely poorly-defined and often tenuous - besides being poorly supported by the data.

Yes, well it's difficult to demonstrate the benefits of speed limits without having a control group.

Pete317 said:

But that's another matter - we're talking about their enforcement here, and many of the ACPO guidelines often appear to be either ignored or 'interpreted' by the enforcers.

Guidelines being used as guidelines shocker!

[cmaguire]

vonhosen said:

We're in a halfway house, it would require a massive ramp up of interventions for it not to be.

We're on Everest's North face at the moment. Are the camera companies trading on the stock exchange, at least if I had some shares I could get some solace from all of this.

[Pete317]

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

Said benefits are largely poorly-defined and often tenuous - besides being poorly supported by the data.

Yes, well it's difficult to demonstrate the benefits of speed limits without having a control group.

So it's currently based on little more than belief then.

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

But that's another matter - we're talking about their enforcement here, and many of the ACPO guidelines often appear to be either ignored or 'interpreted' by the enforcers.

Guidelines being used as guidelines shocker!

Guidelines being ignored aren't being used as guidelines

Have you actually read them, btw?

[anonymous-user]

Pete317 said:

Guidelines being ignored aren't being used as guidelines

Have you actually read them, btw?

You're right, although guidelines don't usurp statute, which is what really counts.

Also, don't know about you, but when I chose to get a licence ans learn to drive, I knew there were such things as speed limits. When I took and passed my test I knew they were there. Every time I get in my car I know they apply and I know what they are.

If I agree to use the road, knowing the rules and that I'm expected to abide by them, how can I claim foul when they're monitored and enforced?

[SS2.]

GetCarter said:

Can I just point out that the only relevant point to this thread is that the O/P can contest and will win.

Has the OP confirmed whose name is on the V5C yet ?

[Pete317]

janesmith1950 said:

Pete317 said:

Guidelines being ignored aren't being used as guidelines

Have you actually read them, btw?

You're right, although guidelines don't usurp statute, which is what really counts.

Also, don't know about you, but when I chose to get a licence ans learn to drive, I knew there were such things as speed limits. When I took and passed my test I knew they were there. Every time I get in my car I know they apply and I know what they are.

If I agree to use the road, knowing the rules and that I'm expected to abide by them, how can I claim foul when they're monitored and enforced?

I'm talking mainly about the guidelines in section 1.1 of the document - unfortunately the pdf disallows copy and paste.

I may be giving my age away, but when I passed my test speed limits were largely sensible, and sensibly enforced.

[cmaguire]

janesmith1950 said:

You're right, although guidelines don't usurp statute, which is what really counts.

Also, don't know about you, but when I chose to get a licence ans learn to drive, I knew there were such things as speed limits. When I took and passed my test I knew they were there. Every time I get in my car I know they apply and I know what they are.

If I agree to use the road, knowing the rules and that I'm expected to abide by them, how can I claim foul when they're monitored and enforced?

Trouble is, salaried idiots keep playing around with the limits, near enough always in the same direction. Is there a point at which your acceptance wanes and you just think "Boll@cks to it"?

[anonymous-user]

cmaguire said:

Trouble is, salaried idiots keep playing around with the limits, near enough always in the same direction. Is there a point at which your acceptance wanes and you just think "Boll@cks to it"?

Yes, often, however I don't cry foul if I get caught!

[cmaguire]

Pete317 said:

I'm talking mainly about the guidelines in section 1.1 of the document - unfortunately the pdf disallows copy and paste.

I may be giving my age away, but when I passed my test speed limits were largely sensible, and sensibly enforced.

Think 'Motorway' and read paragraphs 1.1.2, 1.1.4 and 1.1.5 and there are as many contradictions as valid points.

[cmaguire]

janesmith1950 said:

Yes, often, however I don't cry foul if I get caught!

So you acknowledge that you think many limits unjustified, yet take the high ground because you don't whinge about it if caught.
Seems a bit incongruous to me.