Discussion
TOPTON said:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=260991&f=23&h=
And all these people, 12 pages of them caused complete and utter havoc on the roads while doing these dangerous speeds. Little old grannies and children littered our streets, carnage on every corner!
Or maybe it was, in their opinion, safe to go faster at that time.
The law says 70mph is the limit. Is it the super fast speed of 70 that people on here defend, or is it becuase "it's the law" as Judge Dread says. If it was changed to 85mph, then I am sure the same arguements would happen with the same people defending 85mph is fast enough.
But society doesn't want people doing it on public roads because of the risk it represents. And risk doesn't always lead to adverse outcome, but when it does guess what comes next "But I didn't mean it, it was an accident, I just didn't see them". Well of course they didn't because their focus was elsewhere. If you want to race, go to an area that is designed for it & safe to do it, the race track. But even on the race track there are rules that you must obey, to minimise & reduce risk. Public roads are not for thrill seeking or competition, but threads like that clearly demonstrate that unfortunately there is a prevalent attitude in relation to speed on our roads amongst people, that I believe will be unacceptable to the majority.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 29th April 10:27
vonhosen said:Your statement falls apart at this very early point. You don't represent society, you don't know what society wants, nobody asks in a meaningful way particularly often and when they do and society replies, the politically correct and incompetent busybodies in officialdom ignore contrary views almost always, including those of the police. This apparent authority with which you post is a sham, and it's getting tiresome to say the least when it crops up so often.
But society doesn't want...
If you wish to post views they're as relevant as anybody's, fine that's partly what a forum such as SPL is for. If you would like to present some objective evidence or data to support your view, even better. But reasoning by assertion, repeating barnum statements, and most of all claiming to have awareness of the single view or the backing of society for your ideas gives the appearance of retreat into a refuge with a sign outside saying 'nothing new to say and no real basis for most of it anyway'.
turbobloke said:
But society doesn't want...
If you wish to post views they're as relevant as anybody's, fine that's partly what a forum such as SPL is for. If you would like to present some objective evidence or data to support your view, even better. But reasoning by assertion, repeating barnum statements, and most of all claiming to have awareness of the single view or the backing of society for your ideas gives the appearance of retreat into a refuge with a sign outside saying 'nothing new to say and no real basis for most of it anyway'.
You can see the rider at the end
vonhosen said:
....that I believe will be unacceptable to the majority
Of course if you have some evidence that the majority of the British public are quite happy for road racing & "friendly rivalry" between different vehicle drivers away from the lights, then post away with it.
Given the laws that society has put in place, I'd have said you were on safe ground claiming that society's wishes were reflected in those laws. Unless there were evidence to the contrary. ie presumption ought to be that society's actual laws reflect society's will.
I can't decide if TB is part of society or not. I have to go and watch football now.
I can't decide if TB is part of society or not. I have to go and watch football now.
7db said:
Given the laws that society has put in place, I'd have said you were on safe ground claiming that society's wishes were reflected in those laws. Unless there were evidence to the contrary. ie presumption ought to be that society's actual laws reflect society's will.
I agree.
Where the law is fundamentally diametrically opposed to society's will, then I would expect those that make up society to voice that in big numbers.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 29th April 11:44
vonhosen said:
But it depends on ability whether they are likley to become a greater risk with extra speed attainable by having no limit & it's not something that is ever tested. Quite right IMHO that something like that, if it isn't tested, shouldn't be allowed. If it's 1 in a 1000 pushing to limits as you say, out of getting towards 40 million drivers on our roads, that's a lot pushing to the limits.
I can see the argument for speed limits. Personally I'm not convinced that they are actually beneficial, but they are a pragmatic solution to a perceived problem (being that some people will recklessly or mistakenly choose a grossly inappropriate speed in some cases, putting themselves and others at unacceptable risk).
The argument that people in general are not trained to and cannot be trusted to choose an appropriate speed is hogwash. People have done it for years and continue to do it, and luckily for all of us they do it pretty well most of the time.
The argument that 'society' wants a speed limit in place and wants people to comply with it is pure speculation. The fact that the majority of drivers routinely exceed the speed limit suggest that most people don't think that speed limits should be strictly complied with, and the fact that accidents caused by normal law-abiding drivers choosing an inappropriate speed in excess of the speed limit are extremely rare, suggests that the extra risk from exceeding the speed limit is extremely small.
Does the issue of speed deserve to be put at the top of driver's priorities? Absolutely not. Speed limit enforcement does more harm than good, it is a mistake, and the more strictly the limit is enforced the worse a mistake it is.
vonhosen said:
But society doesn't want people doing it on public roads because of the risk it represents.
Society has never given any proper consideration to the National Speed Limit; it was introduced as a kneejerk response to pile-ups in fog, retained when it got credit due to crash barriers and tweaked on a somethingmustbedoneitis basis since.
Society has never stopped to think that speed limits do not do any of the things they're meant to.
>> Edited by fluffnik on Saturday 29th April 12:49
turbobloke said:
But society doesn't want...
So VH and people like myself are not part of society and have no grounds to represent it!
tubobloke said:
you don't know what society wants, nobody asks in a meaningful way particularly often...
Read the letters page in your local rag! Society is campaiging for speed humps and restriction outside their houses and in their veillages and between their rat runs where unless something is done, someone will be killed! Is that not society?
Oh I forgot. That is society until that part of society actually sits in a drivers seat and then happily and conveniently forgets what society actually wants
. turbobloke said:
....and when they do and society replies, the politically correct and incompetent busybodies in officialdom ignore contrary views almost always, including those of the police.
And the campaigning for the width restrictions, speed humps and safety cameras in the village moves up a gear to the point they do eventually get their traffic calming at huge expense and much to the annoyance of those who use the rat runs and do not live in the village!!!!
turbobloke said:
This apparent authority with which you post is a sham, and it's getting tiresome to say the least when it crops up so often.
Are you talking about the organisation as an authority or as an individual with expertise as an authority? Neither in my opinion is a sham
As tiresome as the number of fatal collisions I read about everyday on the force daily major incident report
Turbobloke said:
If you wish to post views they're as relevant as anybody's, fine that's partly what a forum such as SPL is for. If you would like to present some objective evidence or data to support your view, even better. But reasoning by assertion, repeating barnum statements, and most of all claiming to have awareness of the single view or the backing of society for your ideas gives the appearance of retreat into a refuge with a sign outside saying 'nothing new to say and no real basis for most of it anyway'.
From what I read of VH, he/she is very well educated in matters related to driving, to the law and to opinion about how the two should be put together. VH also has a sensible approach and gives a reasonable official view that is balanced and well thought out! At least if you read what he/she writes it will give you the flip side about stuff which you probably would never have even thought about which in itself is good because it educates you whether you like it or not!
Contrary to what you believe and read within a forum that is basically designed for people who have an interest in fast cars and using them as such giving you a somewhat biased view, the majority of people I speak to and deal with in relation to these matters think exactly the opposite. That is until it happens to affect them personally and they have to think about what to write on their Section 172 form
. >> Edited by mg6b on Saturday 29th April 15:28
fluffnik said:
But society doesn't want people doing it on public roads because of the risk it represents.
Society has never given any proper consideration to the National Speed Limit; it was introduced as a kneejerk response to pile-ups in fog, retained when it got credit due to crash barriers and tweaked on a somethingmustbedoneitis basis since.
What about car development tests?
What about road/safety design?
What about type approval after such tests?
Society says that vehicles must be designed to withstand certain amount of damage to protect their occupants and those within the environment of that vehicle when something goes wrong!
Society has decided that altogether, the risks involved in propelling a lump of steel are acceptable at a speed that has been examined to provide the best protection and the most acceptable level for progress. That is still 70mph and will be until society decides that the overall risks are such that that limit can be increased to a level that is acceptable to incorporate that increae without an increase in potential fatal and serious injury collisions.
Fluffnik said:
Society has never stopped to think that speed limits do not do any of the things they're meant to.
I think you will find that society is continually assessing and managing the risks over such limits. Thats why until vehicle design and human design are developed to a stage where that risk can be increased to an acceptable level, it will remain where it is!
That is why in some areas, the risks that were previously thought to be acceptable have been re-examined and reduced to take new information about risks into account
Human bodies take thousands of years to undergo evolution
Cars take a matter of months. The development of vehicle performance to protect human life will never meet the period of time that evolution will take to reach catch up!
mg6b said:
Contrary to what you believe and read within a forum that is basically designed for people who have an interest in fast cars and using them as such giving you a somewhat biased view, the majority of people I speak to and deal with in relation to these matters think exactly the opposite. That is until it happens to affect them personally and they have to think about what to write on their Section 172 form
...and we should make sure we recruit everyone who's human rights are trampled upon by S172 to the True Path.
When everyone done for speeding stops thinking "fair cop" and starts thinking "state oppression" we have won.
mg6b said:That means much less than you claim, because you're promoting quantity over quality. The 'average' person you speak to doesn't have the interest in motoring and road safety that we do, they won't look into any of the issues in depth or at all, and will be prepared to accept plausible untruths as there is no basis for them to dispute the spin. What you are seeing and measuring in those conversations is the effectiveness of the propaganda from the source which has greatest access to the media and more opportunities to propagandise - and that's the government and the scamerati empires. There will also be a tendency to agree with you - yes, officer.
Contrary to what you believe and read within a forum that is basically designed for people who have an interest in fast cars and using them as such giving you a somewhat biased view, the majority of people I speak to and deal with in relation to these matters think exactly the opposite.
On here, people take an active interest in these issues, there are several who research the subject very thoroughly, and virtually all the views are well thought through and carefully expressed. This is not a forum frequented by the type of person you allude to. If you missed this in all the threads you've been reading and contributing to, pity on your judgement.
If you ask Joe Public, a significant majority think that cavemen and dinosaurs coexisted. That's total b0ll0x just like the official line on speed and the current, failing, road safety policy.
turbobloke said:
If you ask Joe Public, a significant majority think that cavemen and dinosaurs coexisted.
Really! Point me in the direction of the evidence that would support this statement
. turbobloke said:
That's total b0ll0x just like the official line on speed and the current, failing, road safety policy.
No. Its only total b0ll0x to someone who wants to tear around public roads and places in a manner that is inappropriate for the publicly acceptable risks that have been assessed and set in law.
>> Edited by mg6b on Saturday 29th April 17:51
mg6b said:Do your own surveys you lazy plod!
Really! Point me in the direction of the evidence that would support this statement
mg6b said:I'm not in that category and I think it's total b0ll0x. Your case has been dismissed.
No. Its only total b0ll0x to someone who wants to tear around public roads and places in a manner that is inappropriate for the publicly acceptable risks that have been assessed set in law.
turbobloke said:
Really! Point me in the direction of the evidence that would support this statement
mg6b said:I'm not in that category and I think it's total b0ll0x. Your case has been dismissed.
No. Its only total b0ll0x to someone who wants to tear around public roads and places in a manner that is inappropriate for the publicly acceptable risks that have been assessed set in law.
Maybe see you in court then one day? We will then see who has best evidence to secure a dismissal or not
mg6b said.......
"Society has decided that altogether, the risks involved in propelling a lump of steel are acceptable at a speed that has been examined to provide the best protection and the most acceptable level for progress. That is still 70mph and will be until society decides that the overall risks are such that that limit can be increased to a level that is acceptable to incorporate that increae without an increase in potential fatal and serious injury collisions."
Most people use one motorway or another now and again, so if I dare suppose that general motorway driving speeds are an indication of how fast 'society' wishes to drive, then it certainly isn't 70 mph!
How many motorway accidents can be attributed to failed concentration and / or tiredness as opposed to speed being the culprit? Both conditions IMHO tend to improve with an increase in speed.
How many Officers of the Law observe this 'law' - not the ones that I know!!
>> Edited by micky g on Saturday 29th April 18:04
"Society has decided that altogether, the risks involved in propelling a lump of steel are acceptable at a speed that has been examined to provide the best protection and the most acceptable level for progress. That is still 70mph and will be until society decides that the overall risks are such that that limit can be increased to a level that is acceptable to incorporate that increae without an increase in potential fatal and serious injury collisions."
Most people use one motorway or another now and again, so if I dare suppose that general motorway driving speeds are an indication of how fast 'society' wishes to drive, then it certainly isn't 70 mph!
How many motorway accidents can be attributed to failed concentration and / or tiredness as opposed to speed being the culprit? Both conditions IMHO tend to improve with an increase in speed.
How many Officers of the Law observe this 'law' - not the ones that I know!!
>> Edited by micky g on Saturday 29th April 18:04
mg6b said:Unlikely Mr BiB, but when our road safety policy does the inevitable about-face - using whatever weasel words the politicians care to spin - we will then see what a farcical and culpable lack of competency in officialdom has done to get us into this dead end policy in the first place.
Maybe see you in court then one day? We will then see who has best evidence to secure a dismissal or not
Political correctness is no basis for road safety policymaking.
vonhosen said:
Take your pick of sources on the net
Novice mistake, surely ?
Posting something on t'Internet doesn't make it true.
For instance, we've all seen camera sites that claim all sorts
of wild things.
If your claim had been added to by a reference to an
official Government webiste, or EuroStat, I might have
taken your claim more seriously.
Given that I've identified by personal experience most if not all
of the autobahns in Landeren Bavaria, Baden Wurtemmburg, Hesse,
Pfalz, Westfalen as speed limit free, then your point is very
debatable.
That's a substantial fraction of the country.
I have not been to Bremen, Niedersachen, Hamburg,
Schlesgwig-Holstein, Mecklenburg, Nieder Pomerania,
Berlin-Brandenburg, Sachen-Anhalt or Thuringia so I can't
comment on those. I will leave those to other posters.
I think my original point remains:
Germany has thousands if not tens of thousands of km of
speed limit free roads and has one of the best safety records
in Europe on those roads.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff