Discussion
dcb said:
Novice mistake, surely ?
Posting something on t'Internet doesn't make it true.
I'll take your claims with a pinch of salt then on the basis of that advice.
dcb said:
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.
Not the best though eh ?
As I say about 60% higher fatalities per billion km on their autobahns compared to our motorways.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 29th April 23:44
turbobloke said:
Society has decided that...
I don't see people lining up for the big protest associated with unpopular laws.
Hunting & firearms legislation was unpopular with a sizeable minority of the population & they made their feelings known (even if the law was still changed & they held a minority view).
Don't see much call coming for an abolition of speed limits, except from a very very very small minority who can mostly be found here. That's the evidence of how much society wants to see speed limits abolished.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 29th April 23:22
vonhosen said:You didn't see the countryside alliance outside the palace of westminster? Are you visually impaired? That would make your jobskills all the more remarkable.
I don't see people lining up for the big protest associated with unpopular laws.
vonhosen said:OK so you contradicted yourself and we can hold the front pages.
Hunting & firearms legislation was unpopular with a sizeable minority of the population & they made their feelings known (even if the law was still changed & they held a minority view).
vonhosen said:No I don't see widespread support for abolishing speed limits but I do see widespread support for ridding the roads of revenue cameras. The reason the AA printed their atlas of speedcam locations, having never done so before, is because in their annual member survey the proportion supporting speedcams fell through the floor. They're unwilling to provide precise details but I'm still asking. Meanwhile...
Don't see much call coming for an abolition of speed limits, except from a very very very small minority who can mostly be found here. That's the evidence of how much society wants to see speed limits abolished.
Online survey from this Is Bristol in August 2004 said:And
Are speed cameras just a way of making money?
Survey said:
82% Yes 18% No
turbobloke said:
I don't see people lining up for the big protest associated with unpopular laws.
Countryside alliance were protesting about speed limits were they ? (which is what I was talking about) Where's the big protest about speed limits ?
turbobloke said:
Hunting & firearms legislation was unpopular with a sizeable minority of the population & they made their feelings known (even if the law was still changed & they held a minority view).
No contradiction , now showing the difference between protest over hunting (which was by a minority group)& the lack of such protest over speed limits (because it's probably an even smaller group who want speed limits abolished).
turbobloke said:
Don't see much call coming for an abolition of speed limits, except from a very very very small minority who can mostly be found here. That's the evidence of how much society wants to see speed limits abolished.
Online survey from this Is Bristol in August 2004 said:And
Are speed cameras just a way of making money? Survey said:
82% Yes 18% No
Again nothing about getting rid of speed limits in that or against enforcement per se. Doesn't even say that they disagree with camera use, just that they think they are about making money.
All that shows is that the SCPs haven't been addressing that misinformation well.
How many of the nearly 40million drivers in the UK were in that survey ?
Any details about the background of those surveyed etc ?
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 30th April 00:24
vonhosen said:
it's probably an even smaller group who want speed limits abolished).
I suspect that most people don't want speed limits abolished, but are fed up with the way that speed limits are being enforced more and more strictly in recent years. We've gradually gone from a policy of turning a blind eye to small breaches of the speed limit and having an 'attitude adjustment'
for moderate breaches to one where we have growing automated enforcement with people responsible for setting enforcement policies publicly saying that even 1 mph over the limit represents a crime which must be punished. This degree of enforcement is absurd, I don't believe that it is justified or desirable on safety grounds and far from improving risks on our roads, it is making things worse.
vh, your line of reasoning is a messy curve. You re-interpret your own statements after the fact. Issue is taken with what others have not said, as often as what they have. Your reasoning by assertion rate is phenomenal. Claims are made to represent 'society' or know what it wants. You believe your own mythology, and one or two accolytes are prepared to carry a candle.
Yet it remains the case that objective evidence is available, and has been adduced here on this forum, to refute just about everything you've ever said.
Yet it remains the case that objective evidence is available, and has been adduced here on this forum, to refute just about everything you've ever said.
turbobloke said:
vh, your line of reasoning is a messy curve. You re-interpret your own statements after the fact. Issue is taken with what others have not said, as often as what they have. Your reasoning by assertion rate is phenomenal. Claims are made to represent 'society' or know what it wants. You believe your own mythology, and one or two accolytes are prepared to carry a candle.
Yet it remains the case that objective evidence is available, and has been adduced here on this forum, to refute just about everything you've ever said.
So why do we still have restricted limits if that is the case then?
7db said:
ie presumption ought to be that society's actual laws reflect
society's will.
This has never been the case, in my view.
A couple of counter examples for you.
For example, on any typical UK motorway, most of the traffic
is travelling at more than 70 mph, with a minority travelling
at over 80 mph.
The law remains at 70 mph, yet most folk are travelling faster.
On non-motoring matters, the death penalty was stopped about
thirty years ago, yet every poll taken since has shown overwhelming
support for it's return.
dcb said:
ie presumption ought to be that society's actual laws reflect
society's will.
This has never been the case, in my view.
A couple of counter examples for you.
For example, on any typical UK motorway, most of the traffic
is travelling at more than 70 mph, with a minority travelling
at over 80 mph.
The law remains at 70 mph, yet most folk are travelling faster.
On non-motoring matters, the death penalty was stopped about
thirty years ago, yet every poll taken since has shown overwhelming
support for it's return.
It's always been my view & some examples for you.
The fact that someone breaks a law doesn't mean that they don't think that the law is infact right.
Does someone who disacards a sweet wrapper without thtought, actually think that littering is infact a good thing OR were they just being lazy & thoughtless but infact think that people shouldn't litter ?
Does everybody who gets in a fight think that is a good thing & there shouldn't be a laws against it ?
How many people speed through inattention, think they shouldn't, accept that it is wrong & will accept their punishment if caught ?
vonhosen said:
ie presumption ought to be that society's actual laws reflect
society's will.
This has never been the case, in my view.
A couple of counter examples for you.
For example, on any typical UK motorway, most of the traffic
is travelling at more than 70 mph, with a minority travelling
at over 80 mph.
The law remains at 70 mph, yet most folk are travelling faster.
On non-motoring matters, the death penalty was stopped about
thirty years ago, yet every poll taken since has shown overwhelming
support for it's return.
It's always been my view & some examples for you.
The fact that someone breaks a law doesn't mean that they don't think that the law is infact right.
Does someone who disacards a sweet wrapper without thtought, actually think that littering is infact a good thing OR were they just being lazy & thoughtless but infact think that people shouldn't litter ?
Does everybody who gets in a fight think that is a good thing & there shouldn't be a laws against it ?
How many people speed through inattention, think they shouldn't, accept that it is wrong & will accept their punishment if caught ?
The thing is, people often go out and rarely, (if at all), get involved in fights. Very few people I know drop litter intentionally.
Yet all of them exceed 70 mph when driving on motorways, traffic conditions allowing, on every occasion. It is largely an ignored law, unless you are unfortunate enough to get pulled by a bored, or over zealous bib.
>> Edited by micky g on Sunday 30th April 14:12
micky g said:Vonhosen is in a parallel universe micky g, what he says makes sense there, most other people like us I guess make sense in this one.
all of them exceed 70 mph when driving on motorways, traffic conditions allowing, on every occasion. It is largely an ignored law, unless you are unfortunate enough to get pulled by a bored, or over zealous bib.
As mentioned before: "The problem generally is that of all laws in this country, speeding is the only law which requires constant vigilance for mere compliance. And to exacerbate that, it is the only law which expects us to operate constantly at the edge of legality."
To which can be added, it is an absolute offence, yet almost always to a very high degree totally safe.
To compare speeding - which is pretty well always safe, as opposed to inappropriate use of speed which is a totally separate matter - with other forms of criminality which are genuine mens rea matters, is bonkers.
Interesting to see Brunstrom's hypocrisy on speeding recently. Having said previously that drifting over the speed limit is like drifting a knife into someone, we now discover from his own mouth that he has been drifting.
This led to the typical 'way out' excuse that it is, in fact, the multiple speeder who is the real menace. Well of course Brunstrom, can't have people thinking you'd drift a knife into someone can we? What a t*sser.
To which can be added, it is an absolute offence, yet almost always to a very high degree totally safe.
To compare speeding - which is pretty well always safe, as opposed to inappropriate use of speed which is a totally separate matter - with other forms of criminality which are genuine mens rea matters, is bonkers.
Interesting to see Brunstrom's hypocrisy on speeding recently. Having said previously that drifting over the speed limit is like drifting a knife into someone, we now discover from his own mouth that he has been drifting.
This led to the typical 'way out' excuse that it is, in fact, the multiple speeder who is the real menace. Well of course Brunstrom, can't have people thinking you'd drift a knife into someone can we? What a t*sser.
mg6b 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.
What then is the position of a serving Police Officer (who I believe used to be on TrafPol duties prior to his promotion) when he is out giving advanced driving tuition to driving enthusiasts, during which the NSL is being exceeded by significant margins? I may of course be wrong, but that looks like double standards to me. Perhaps it is simply a case of money again.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
turbobloke said:
As mentioned before: "The problem generally is that of all laws in this country, speeding is the only law which requires constant vigilance for mere compliance.
Really! What about other things such as making sure your tax has not run out, your tyres are not bald or ytou are still insured to use your car on the road?
What about making sure that you do not misbehave to an extent you are breaching public order rules when out with your mates on drinking session?
Turbobloke said:
And to exacerbate that, it is the only law which expects us to operate constantly at the edge of legality."
No it doesn't! If you think you cannot manage to drive at or very near the posted limits, then knock 10mph off and you will not be near the edge of legality
Turbobloke said:
To which can be added, it is an absolute offence, yet almost always to a very high degree totally safe.
You are talking about offences of 'Strict Liability'. Most motoring offences fall within the definition of strict Liability. Either you are committing the offence or you are not. Strict liability mean there is no element of Mens Rea attached to complete the offence! You said almost to a high degree, very safe! Which means you accept that occasionally it is not
. It is not very safe if something goes wrong for either the people in/on the vehicle or who are affected by its passage when it is out of control or the point it contacts something heavy and immovable. The faster the vehicle travels the higher the risks of serious damage when that happens. You can not deny that when people are badly hurt in RTC incidents, it is normally because of the velocity that the vehicles involved are travelling unless of course it is an incident where a slowly moving vehicle drives over a human body because they people involved have not seen each other!
Turbobloke said:
To compare speeding - which is pretty well always safe, as opposed to inappropriate use of speed which is a totally separate matter
Until the speeding occurs at a moment that becomes inappropriate to the driver, passengers and anyone in the vehicles path chances of surviving the inappropriate moment!
Turbobloke said:
- with other forms of criminality which are genuine mens rea matters, is bonkers.
There are motoring offences that do require mens rea! Much easier to employ a lawyer to get you off if the prosecution have to prove a state of mind!
Turbobloke said:
Interesting to see Brunstrom's hypocrisy on speeding recently. Having said previously that drifting over the speed limit is like drifting a knife into someone, we now discover from his own mouth that he has been drifting.
He is human and is therefore falible! I don't expect you will see him drifting out of control and out of his mind at 100mph on any road as I unfortunately see many drivers who do not share his views! I expect if he was captured by one of his detection devices, he would pay the penalty without whingeing out of it
Torbobloke said:
This led to the typical 'way out' excuse that it is, in fact, the multiple speeder who is the real menace.
Multiple speeder
How can you break more than one limit at a time? 
unless of course you are suggesting a 'multiple speeder' does not comply with any limit on his/her journey? Turbobloke said:
Well of course Brunstrom, can't have people thinking you'd drift a knife into someone can we? What a t*sser.
Everyone is entitled to their views and opinions
>> Edited by mg6b on Sunday 30th April 15:15
>> Edited by mg6b on Sunday 30th April 15:16
TripleS said:
What then is the position of a serving Police Officer (who I believe used to be on TrafPol duties prior to his promotion) when he is out giving advanced driving tuition to driving enthusiasts, during which the NSL is being exceeded by significant margins? I may of course be wrong, but that looks like double standards to me. Perhaps it is simply a case of money again.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Anyone who takes a driving session signs a disclaimer! They are told about speed adherence within that disclaimer and accept that as part of taking the session.
I do not condone breaking of speed limits and tell them that!
I understand why people do so and also understand both the legal and moral points around such.
Enthusiastic driving is only condoned on the airfields we use as part of the course!
The course is about developing skills around planning and observation. Not around the use of speed inapproipriate to the condition or limit!
It has little to do with money!
Would you jump into a high powered machine with someone you have never met before or had the opporunity to assess their abilities and attitudes for a few quid per hour?
I do it because I enjoy the teaching and mostly meet really nice people regardless of their ability who usuually gain a great deal from the time we spend together! Satisfaction has a big part of why I do it!
>> Edited by mg6b on Sunday 30th April 15:23
mg6b said:You're only at risk of non-compliance for say 1 week each year, and need to be vigilant for maybe a day or so more. Nowhere near close enough. Next.
As mentioned before: "The problem generally is that of all laws in this country, speeding is the only law which requires constant vigilance for mere compliance. And to exacerbate this it is the oly law which expects us to operate constantly at the edge of legality.
mg6b said:You're only on the edge of legality for the few tens of miles out of maybe well over ten thousand miles when the wear bars are nearly level with the tread. For many months or years after purchase you are operating nowhere near the edge of legality. Vigilance is necessary but it's nowhere near constant, my post referred to a comment about contant vigilance.
...your tyres are not bald...
mg6b said:Again you are on the edge of legality for a few days a year, and you don't maintain constant vigilance over insurance, just a note in the diary a month before renewal to get other quotes, or (more likely) when you get the reminder - so no real vigilance required.
...or you are still insured to use your car on the road?
mg6b said:I can think of only a few seasoned sozzler topers who would need to be constantly vigilant about drinking and related behaviour, that isn't a good analogy at all - the others aren't any better mind.
What about making sure that you do not misbehave to an extent you are breaching public order rules when out with your mates on drinking session?
mg6b said:No. Under appropriate conditions it is both safe and reasonable to travel PRECISELY AT THE SPEED LIMIT and many if not nearly everyone does so, often aided by constant vigilance, cruise control, or a goods vehicle limiter. How you can make such a post that goes against the very essence of everyone's experience and the grain of common sense, defies logic.
If you think you cannot manage to drive at or very near the posted limits, then knock 10mph off and you will not be near the edge of legality
mg6b said:Not so. A speedometer can become inaccurate for many reasons, wear and tear / e-m interference / mechanical changes and so on, and there is parallax error in reading some needle and dial speedos that a lot of drivers will not be aware of. Together these can easily take a driver into a talivan ping zone without even being aware of it. There is no mens rea in those cases.
To which can be added, it is an absolute offence, yet almost always to a very high degree totally safe.
You are talking about offences of 'Strict Liability'. Most motoring offences fall within the definition of strict Liability. Either you are committing the offence or you are not. Strict liability mean there is no element of Mens Rea attached to complete the offence!
mg6b said:Well, then, we agree...that's inappropriate use of speed which may be over or under a limit that can change from one year to the next or (on some motorways) from one minute to the next...your point is?
To compare speeding - which is pretty well always safe, as opposed to inappropriate use of speed which is a totally separate matter
mg6b said:Yes, and I wasn't referring to any of them, they weren't being discussed, not sure why this tangent is relevant to the discussion but hey ho.
- with other forms of criminality which are genuine mens rea matters, is bonkers.
mg6b said:Debatable
Interesting to see Brunstrom's hypocrisy on speeding recently. Having said previously that drifting over the speed limit is like drifting a knife into someone, we now discover from his own mouth that he has been drifting.
mg6b said:Why didn't he proceed to th nearest nick, write a statement of admission and let his local plod do him? it's as dangerous as drifting a knife into someone, remember
...and is therefore falible!...I expect if he was captured by one of his detection devices, he would pay the penalty without whingeing out of it
mg6b said:Not sure but I think those words were Brunstrom's, however I'll hold on that as I don't want to get into another discussion about editing
This led to the typical 'way out' excuse that it is, in fact, the multiple speeder who is the real menace.
Multiple speeder
Of course, as we know, ho hum, he was referring to the person who habitually breaks speed limits. In other words, pretty well every driver in the country except vonhosen 
mg6b said:With the proviso that, in the case of a Chief Constable, you would expect those views and opinions to be sane.
Well of course Brunstrom, can't have people thinking you'd drift a knife into someone can we? What a t*sser.
Everyone is entitled to their views and opinions
turbobloke said:
As mentioned before: "The problem generally is that of all laws in this country, speeding is the only law which requires constant vigilance for mere compliance. And to exacerbate this it is the oly law which expects us to operate constantly at the edge of legality.
How many people check their lights before every journey ?
How many people check their tyre pressures regularly ?
etc etc.
All of these things can leave you on the edge of legality everytime you drive, but most people don't do it because they are lazy. Driving within the speed limits requires effort & people fail to do that because again they are lazy. They don't apply themselves to the task of driving. They are too busy singing along to the radio, shaving at the wheel, doing their make up, etc etc.
It's been said before it's basic skills being able to keep to limits. You had to do it on your driving test to pass (if you kept going over them you'd fail) so you should still be able to do it unless your skills have deteoriated that much.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 30th April 19:14
vonhosen said:Who knows? So what? Again, these are nowhere near 'constant vigilance' issues, as in, you don't check your tyre pressures regularly while rolling along the M6, or your lights in daylight every few seconds. Neither do these examples meet the 'edge of legality' criterion.
As mentioned before: "The problem generally is that of all laws in this country, speeding is the only law which requires constant vigilance for mere compliance. And to exacerbate this it is the oly law which expects us to operate constantly at the edge of legality.
How many people check their lights before every journey ?
How many people check their tyre pressures regularly ?
etc etc.
To quote the DfT: THINK!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff