M4 go slow protest, mmmmm!
Discussion
Plotloss said:
The core of the issue here Funkyrobot is that you are trying to apply logic where none exists...
Speed cameras are not at our roadside for any justifiable reason, they are there as tax collectors.
No logical argument, even not speeding, will change this.
I don't intend to argue about this, because as I mentioned before they only catch speeders. How can you argue with that?
Therefore they are a tax (if you could call it that) on people who speed. The word 'tax' isn't really appropriate for this, the word 'fine' is much better.
It could in theory be labelled a stupidity tax, don't speed, don't get taxed. Simple. You speed, you know you are speeding, you get caught, you get fined.
The logic I apply is oh so easy, don't speed and don't get caught. Some people just fail to embrace this because they want to be right, even though it is very easy to understand.
Speeding is still a crime, even though people think it is a silly law. Would you be happy if burglary was thought of in this way and wasn't investigated or tackled because it is a silly law??
Why is there a need to speed in the first place?
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 25th April 10:55
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 25th April 10:56
funkyrobot said:
It could in theory be labelled a stupidity tax, don't speed, don't get taxed. Simple. You speed, you know you are speeding, you get caught, you get fined.
The logic I apply is oh so easy, don't speed and don't get caught. Some people just fail to embrace this because they want to be right, even though it is very easy to understand.
Speeding is still a crime, even though people think it is a silly law. Would you be happy if burglary was thought of in this way and wasn't investigated or tackled because it is a silly law??
Why is there a need to speed in the first place?
You're on the wrong website funkyrobot - I would suggest that you're not a petrolhead at all. Go back to www.knityourownyoghurt.com where people may be more receptive to your points of view.
nel said:
funkyrobot said:
It could in theory be labelled a stupidity tax, don't speed, don't get taxed. Simple. You speed, you know you are speeding, you get caught, you get fined.
The logic I apply is oh so easy, don't speed and don't get caught. Some people just fail to embrace this because they want to be right, even though it is very easy to understand.
Speeding is still a crime, even though people think it is a silly law. Would you be happy if burglary was thought of in this way and wasn't investigated or tackled because it is a silly law??
Why is there a need to speed in the first place?
You're on the wrong website funkyrobot - I would suggest that you're not a petrolhead at all. Go back to <a href="http://www.knityourownyoghurt.com">www.knityourownyoghurt.com</a> where people may be more receptive to your points of view.
eerrmmm, right, I would do if that exists.
Come to think of it, how did you know that a website like that could exist eh?
I am NOT on the wrong website, I am on the right one.
SOME contributors to this forum clearly enjoy speeding down roads dangerously, that is one thing that really f**ks you off when you are a cyclist. I am not saying that everyone on here drives fast like a fool but I bet there are some people on here who do.
>> Edited by funkyrobot on Monday 25th April 11:12
funkyrobot said:
Why is there a need to speed in the first place?
Being a model of perfection I am sure you are familiar with Rule 57
If the UK populace could be relied upon the highway code would need to consist of this one rule and this alone.
Travelling at any velocity only becomes speeding if an arbitary limit is being exceeded.
If the premise of Rule 57 is correct and the public were trained to such a level to be accurately able to make their own judgement on speed there would be no speed limits at all and hence there would be no 'speeding'
This therefore proves that it is the ability to control a car at any given speed rather than the speed itself which is the problem. To frame it in any other way, aside from being delusional, is outright bloody dangerous.
POTD Plotloss said:
Why is there a need to speed in the first place?
Being a model of perfection I am sure you are familiar with Rule 57
If the UK populace could be relied upon the highway code would need to consist of this one rule and this alone.
Travelling at any velocity only becomes speeding if an arbitary limit is being exceeded.
If the premise of Rule 57 is correct and the public were trained to such a level to be accurately able to make their own judgement on speed there would be no speed limits at all and hence there would be no 'speeding'
This therefore proves that it is the ability to control a car at any given speed rather than the speed itself which is the problem. To frame it in any other way, aside from being delusional, is outright bloody dangerous.
This would be fine, but have you seen the level of training the public get at the moment to pass their driving tests??
I would love to see lots more training and education of young drivers, and repeat and continued training and maybe even tests for everyone who drives. I would dearly love this to happen.
You are right when you say that this would abolish speed limits. But tell me one thing. Judging by the standards of some drivers on the road could you really abolish speed limits and no expect carnage??
Only yesterday I was in the town where my girlfriend lives. The road through the centre runs right through a heavy pedestrian area. Yet some di**heads in their stupid sooped up cars were still burning on through at stupid speeds. I hate to think what would have happened if a child stepped out onto the road section! Add to this 3 separate indcidents of idiot driving witnessed by myself on a 30min journey on Saturday, and you can see there are too many buffoons on the road.
This is what really really annoys me, and until we can all demonstrate better driving skills then nothing should change.
Plotloss said:
Being a model of perfection I am sure you are familiar with Rule 57
The Highway Code said:
Road junctions
57: On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
Plotloss said:
If the UK populace could be relied upon the highway code would need to consist of this one rule and this alone.
Travelling at any velocity only becomes speeding if an arbitary limit is being exceeded.
If the premise of Rule 57 is correct and the public were trained to such a level to be accurately able to make their own judgement on speed there would be no speed limits at all and hence there would be no 'speeding'
This therefore proves that it is the ability to control a car at any given speed rather than the speed itself which is the problem. To frame it in any other way, aside from being delusional, is outright bloody dangerous.
Er..., am I missing something?
einion yrth said:
Being a model of perfection I am sure you are familiar with Rule 57
The Highway Code said:
Road junctions
57: On the left. When approaching a junction on the left, watch out for vehicles turning in front of you, out of or into the side road. Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.
Plotloss said:
If the UK populace could be relied upon the highway code would need to consist of this one rule and this alone.
Travelling at any velocity only becomes speeding if an arbitary limit is being exceeded.
If the premise of Rule 57 is correct and the public were trained to such a level to be accurately able to make their own judgement on speed there would be no speed limits at all and hence there would be no 'speeding'
This therefore proves that it is the ability to control a car at any given speed rather than the speed itself which is the problem. To frame it in any other way, aside from being delusional, is outright bloody dangerous.
Er..., am I missing something?
My reply was based on plotloss' last paragraph.
Plotloss said:
Why is there a need to speed in the first place?
Being a model of perfection I am sure you are familiar with Rule 57
If the UK populace could be relied upon the highway code would need to consist of this one rule and this alone.
Travelling at any velocity only becomes speeding if an arbitary limit is being exceeded.
If the premise of Rule 57 is correct and the public were trained to such a level to be accurately able to make their own judgement on speed there would be no speed limits at all and hence there would be no 'speeding'
This therefore proves that it is the ability to control a car at any given speed rather than the speed itself which is the problem. To frame it in any other way, aside from being delusional, is outright bloody dangerous.
Beautiful post... but wasted when we're dealing with the sort of people who make the following quotes:
Quote by "Not responding"
Speed cameras are ace.
Raise loads of cash from the incompetant and the criminal. I wish that more tax could be raised this way. They also have the added benefit of slowing traffic and saving lives ; and all self funding courtesy of the fools who can't or won't control their cars. end of quote.
Probably responsible for 90% of the greenhouse gasses from the amount of lentils he eats.
funkyrobot said:
Only yesterday I was in the town where my girlfriend lives. The road through the centre runs right through a heavy pedestrian area. Yet some di**heads in their stupid sooped up cars were still burning on through at stupid speeds. I hate to think what would have happened if a child stepped out onto the road section! Add to this 3 separate indcidents of idiot driving witnessed by myself on a 30min journey on Saturday, and you can see there are too many buffoons on the road.
So you admit that awareness, car control, anticipation and defensiveness are the requirements of a safe road system not the absolute velocity of the vehicle?
In that case you must also be aware that if we know speed isnt the problem then the government also have a pretty good idea of this, yes?
So, going back to your earlier point, why do you think that not speeding will change anything? They will lower the limits to make it even 'safer' in order to continue collecting the tax without a single thought to the erosion of Rule 105 (nee 57) which is a far more sensible basis of road safety.
funkyrobot said:funkyrobot makes a valid point ... no, set aside any prejudices you may have against scameras and speed limits ... a lot of the past debate in this Forum has been around the description of them as 'safety cameras'. If they were properly described, some of our arguments might be easier to carry.
I don't agree with speed cameras, unless they are used properly.
I wish they would just come out and say, 'well we know they only catch speeders so that is only making about 10% of the causes of accidents safer'. 'We don't really care about dangerous drivers' who are the main cause of accidents.
However, like it or not, speed limits are set and in a growing number of situations cameras are used to enforce them. If speed limits were changed (up or down), the cameras would still be used to enforce those new limits. That any limit is somewhat arbitrary is a fact of life, we have to accept that not everyone drives within their capabilities or with appropriate consideration to the prevailing conditions or other road users. We have laws (a surfeit of them, to be sure) that are intended to circumscribe interactions within our society. Whether something is a crime or not is dependent upon the views of that society - albeit sometimes reflecting the views of a vocal minority rather than the majority. To this extent, the law changes as society changes ... although relaxation is generally in terms of punishment, or greater diversity of description and deliniation rather than any removal of a crime from the statute books.
Arguing that enforcement of the law is wrong is wasted effort ... we might as well argue that theft is acceptable (admittedly, the attitude of some police services, the judiciary and government suggests that such is the case today) and where would we draw the line? Arson, rape, murder?
Yes, it's an extreme question, but we have to ask it, at least privately of ourselves.
On the other hand, if we accept that scameras are a form of taxation, we might rail against their targeting of one specific section of the populace, but this tax can be avoided for the present, by obeying the law.
The French economist, judge, politician and philosopher, Frédéric Bastiat remarked: "It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder." Sadly he was wrong; one of the few statements and predictions he made 150 or so years ago that have been so.
Now, many of you reading this will be staggered to see me voice such views. You will wonder whether streaky has joined the opposition or suffered some terrible cerebral mishap. I have not (in both cases). I guess I'm having a "Help, help, I'm being oppressed" moment, combined with an overarching and continually settling depression occasioned by the poll reports. I haven't mellowed; today, I'm just a little (too much) resigned.
I am grieved to be reminded of the words of Bertrand de Jouvenel (another French homme-de-lettres): "A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." Forgive me, but, today all I can say is: 'Baa, baa'.
So, returning to my opening remarks, don't beat up funkyrobot for saying that speed cameras can be "used properly". Some of the justification for their positioning might be described as perverse examples of the old adage that: "hard cases make bad law" ... but that doesn't make them any less of a 'law enforcer' - and that's what funkyrobot is saying.
Streaky
Plotloss said:
Bollocks, they've changed the numbers. 
The one about driving at a speed so you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear.
Used to be 57 I'm sure...
{i] Liebchen
Ist Rule 105...
Drive at speed that will allow you o stop well within the distance you can see to be clear ....und it telss us that we should:
leave enough space ( S in COAST
bewteen you und vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slow down allow two second gap at least T in COAST
und gap should be extended to 4 second on the wet road und more so on the icy ones... und it tells us to remember that towman in his biggest
needs more time to stop .... Ist simplest of rules.... und precedence was given to this in particular when I learned to drive in Germany... along mit mirror use...
Ist why am purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr-fection
of course Had toughest of teachers in my driving instructor, my practice drives mit Papa und Uncles und bigger cousins ... including 
the one who ist the Swiss gendarme....Plotloss said:
Only yesterday I was in the town where my girlfriend lives. The road through the centre runs right through a heavy pedestrian area. Yet some di**heads in their stupid sooped up cars were still burning on through at stupid speeds. I hate to think what would have happened if a child stepped out onto the road section! Add to this 3 separate indcidents of idiot driving witnessed by myself on a 30min journey on Saturday, and you can see there are too many buffoons on the road.
So you admit that awareness, car control, anticipation and defensiveness are the requirements of a safe road system not the absolute velocity of the vehicle?
In that case you must also be aware that if we know speed isnt the problem then the government also have a pretty good idea of this, yes?
So, going back to your earlier point, why do you think that not speeding will change anything? They will lower the limits to make it even 'safer' in order to continue collecting the tax without a single thought to the erosion of Rule 105 (nee 57) which is a far more sensible basis of road safety.
Yes, the government do know this, they just don't want to accept it, due to the income.
I have never said that speed is the only contributing to accidents, I am well aware that dangerous driving is THE killer.
However, what do you think constantly speed will do? All it does is fuel their fire and allow them to keep stating that speed is such an issue. It also allows them to keep justifying the miserable actions of the 'safety' cameras in improving road safety.
I know all of this, I am not stupid. I just think there should be other ways. What is currently happening on the M4 is good. I don't mean its good for people to have accidents because that is very sad news, but considering the fact that they are still occuring in or near camera zones should help highlight the fact that speed isn't THE major contributing factor to accidents. Idiots at the wheel are the killers!
My own logic just fails to see what constant speeding does to help the cause, thats all!
streaky said:
I don't agree with speed cameras, unless they are used properly.
How can a speed camera ever be used "properly"?
Speed cameras are used properly all the time, to catch speeders, simple. The confusion appears when they are labelled 'safety' cameras, because we all know this isn't true. Speed cameras are very good at catching speeders, therfore they are being used properly in that sense. I just don't like the label of safety camera and the fact that police forces swear that they improve road safety.
I wish they would just come out and say, 'well we know they only catch speeders so that is only making about 10% of the causes of accidents safer'. 'We don't really care about dangerous drivers' who are the main cause of accidents.
funkyrobot makes a valid point ... no, set aside any prejudices you may have against scameras and speed limits ... a lot of the past debate in this Forum has been around the description of them as 'safety cameras'. If they were properly described, some of our arguments might be easier to carry.
However, like it or not, speed limits are set and in a growing number of situations cameras are used to enforce them. If speed limits were changed (up or down), the cameras would still be used to enforce those new limits. That any limit is somewhat arbitrary is a fact of life, we have to accept that not everyone drives within their capabilities or with appropriate consideration to the prevailing conditions or other road users. We have laws (a surfeit of them, to be sure) that are intended to circumscribe interactions within our society. Whether something is a crime or not is dependent upon the views of that society - albeit sometimes reflecting the views of a vocal minority rather than the majority. To this extent, the law changes as society changes ... although relaxation is generally in terms of punishment, or greater diversity of description and deliniation rather than any removal of a crime from the statute books.
Arguing that enforcement of the law is wrong is wasted effort ... we might as well argue that theft is acceptable (admittedly, the attitude of some police services, the judiciary and government suggests that such is the case today) and where would we draw the line? Arson, rape, murder?
Yes, it's an extreme question, but we have to ask it, at least privately of ourselves.
On the other hand, if we accept that scameras are a form of taxation, we might rail against their targeting of one specific section of the populace, but this tax can be avoided for the present, by obeying the law.
The French economist, judge, politician and philosopher, Frédéric Bastiat remarked: "It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder." Sadly he was wrong; one of the few statements and predictions he made 150 or so years ago that have been so.
Now, many of you reading this will be staggered to see me voice such views. You will wonder whether streaky has joined the opposition or suffered some terrible cerebral mishap. I have not (in both cases). I guess I'm having a "Help, help, I'm being oppressed" moment, combined with an overarching and continually settling depression occasioned by the poll reports. I haven't mellowed; today, I'm just a little (too much) resigned.
I am grieved to be reminded of the words of Bertrand de Jouvenel (another French homme-de-lettres): "A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." Forgive me, but, today all I can say is: 'Baa, baa'.
So, returning to my opening remarks, don't beat up funkyrobot for saying that speed cameras can be "used properly". Some of the justification for their positioning might be described as perverse examples of the old adage that: "hard cases make bad law" ... but that doesn't make them any less of a 'law enforcer' - and that's what funkyrobot is saying.
Streaky
Thankyou streaky, your ability to get a point across without inciting a riot is much better than mine!
blueyes said:
funkyrobot said:
Why is there a need to speed in the first place?
Being a model of perfection I am sure you are familiar with Rule 57
If the UK populace could be relied upon the highway code would need to consist of this one rule and this alone.
Travelling at any velocity only becomes speeding if an arbitary limit is being exceeded.
If the premise of Rule 57 is correct and the public were trained to such a level to be accurately able to make their own judgement on speed there would be no speed limits at all and hence there would be no 'speeding'
This therefore proves that it is the ability to control a car at any given speed rather than the speed itself which is the problem. To frame it in any other way, aside from being delusional, is outright bloody dangerous.
Beautiful post... but wasted when we're dealing with the sort of people who make the following quotes:
Quote by "Not responding"
Speed cameras are ace.
Raise loads of cash from the incompetant and the criminal. I wish that more tax could be raised this way. They also have the added benefit of slowing traffic and saving lives ; and all self funding courtesy of the fools who can't or won't control their cars. end of quote.
Probably responsible for 90% of the greenhouse gasses from the amount of lentils he eats.
I post on that site but my thoughts are very different from the above.
You'd be surprised at how much of a battering I have taken on that forum with my comments about speed cameras doing nothing for safety.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff