Doing yourselves no favours
Discussion
The vast majority of people who complain about speed limits seem to be the ones who break them.
How would you feel if a bunch of burglars got together and called themselves the Association of British Burglars and tried to tell you to reduce the security on your houses, because it's inconvenient for them to spend a lot of time breaking in?
I'm sure that the ABD has the best of intentions and a good number of decent driver members aswell. But it is going to carry no weight with anyone, least of all Govt, if the kind of people that swell it's membership are only intent on changing the law to reduce the number of NIPs they get.
But would it reduce anything for you? If the NSL moves to 100, will you stick to it? Nah, would you b0ll0x!!
Hide all the cameras, I say, and then, when the crims among us get to 9 points, they might think about joining the rest of society!!!
Andy
How would you feel if a bunch of burglars got together and called themselves the Association of British Burglars and tried to tell you to reduce the security on your houses, because it's inconvenient for them to spend a lot of time breaking in?
I'm sure that the ABD has the best of intentions and a good number of decent driver members aswell. But it is going to carry no weight with anyone, least of all Govt, if the kind of people that swell it's membership are only intent on changing the law to reduce the number of NIPs they get.
But would it reduce anything for you? If the NSL moves to 100, will you stick to it? Nah, would you b0ll0x!!
Hide all the cameras, I say, and then, when the crims among us get to 9 points, they might think about joining the rest of society!!!
Andy
The point is that the vast majority of the population break the speed limit on a daily basis (drive on any motorway on any day and I'll bet less than 15% of cars drive at uder 70mph), but only a small minority of the population are burglars. If a law is broken routinely by almost everyone then it obviously a law that is pointless and unjust in society.
The burglar thing was just to point to the fact that laws don't get changed by the law breakers, people won't live with it. There's more chance of changing things if we try working within the law.
I understand what you're saying about the motorways, but they are the safest roads in the country, by design. What is a sensible speed limit that you think people will stick to, or are you in favour of scrapping them altogether?
And yes I am a twat, a law abiding twat. Before that I was a speeding twat, until I lost a few friends who thought that speed limits were something best left to their discretion.
I understand what you're saying about the motorways, but they are the safest roads in the country, by design. What is a sensible speed limit that you think people will stick to, or are you in favour of scrapping them altogether?
And yes I am a twat, a law abiding twat. Before that I was a speeding twat, until I lost a few friends who thought that speed limits were something best left to their discretion.
filmidget said: I usually try to be tolerant, and look at all sides of an arguement... consider and weigh up evidence and opinion... hopefully formulate a coherent response.
But I'm sorry I just can't help myself this time...
Don't be such a twat.
:wipingcoffeeoffmonitor:
Top class!
Matt.
So if the speed limit was reduced from 60mph to 40mph on a road that you had been driving perfectly safely at 60mph for years, then you would blindly accept that the nice clever people who set the speed limits and have your safety and best interests at heart have set a nice safe speed, and you would then bleat like a good little sheep and henceforth do a sanctimonious 40mph on that same stretch of road?
I think you are missing the point. The ABD aren't campaigning for irresponsible speed limits as you seem to think, rather for appropriate and intelligent limits based on accident statistics and common sense rather than the desire to swell the coffers of the Treasury.
(I ackowledge that I'm probably biting on a troll here, but never mind)
I think you are missing the point. The ABD aren't campaigning for irresponsible speed limits as you seem to think, rather for appropriate and intelligent limits based on accident statistics and common sense rather than the desire to swell the coffers of the Treasury.
(I ackowledge that I'm probably biting on a troll here, but never mind)
How did your friends die through breaking the speed liit?
Hit 90 and their head fell off?
Crass, yes, but breaking the speed limit alone does not kill people. Oversimplifying, and then using the demise of friends as a backup to a poor argument doesn't really work.
If you truly believe what you have posted, then please tell us what happened.
If their deaths were not caused by careless or reckless driving, or INAPPROPRIATE speed, I'll eat my hat.
Hit 90 and their head fell off?
Crass, yes, but breaking the speed limit alone does not kill people. Oversimplifying, and then using the demise of friends as a backup to a poor argument doesn't really work.
If you truly believe what you have posted, then please tell us what happened.
If their deaths were not caused by careless or reckless driving, or INAPPROPRIATE speed, I'll eat my hat.
Rich...Andy, you've completely missed the point.
Making burglary illegal is entirely sensible. Burglary is always wrong.
Setting and enforcing speed limits is much more complicated. The moral objective is to enforce sensible driving, but you can't run a justice system on the basis of one rule that says "Drive sensibly, or else!" because it doesn't provide any objective tests. How could you adequately define what is "sensible driving"?. You have to create an artificial framework of simpler tests which taken together are a proxy for measuring "sensible driving". And you also have to admit that these frameworks are artificial and therefore allow the judicial system some flexibility in enforcement.
Every road is different, and driving conditions are changing all the time. Clearly then the range of speed that is safe on a particular piece of road is also varying all the time.
But in the UK we have chosen to set fixed speed limits, irrespective of whether it is dark or raining, and the speed limits are divided into 10mph bands from 20 to 70mph, but of course mainly into 30, 60 and 70 zones.
In France motorway speed limits drop when it is raining. In Germany there are still roads with no speed limit.
There is no great moral superiority between these different frameworks. They are all sensible enough.
Funnily enough, both of these countries also make burglary illegal.
What we are complaining about is that people like you have lost sight of the inherent arbitrary nature of a set of speed limits. They are being enforced as if they were morally equivalent to burglary, and that is wrong.
Driving at 100mph on an empty, straight motorway is not immoral. Driving at 30mph past a school might well be immoral.
No one is claiming there should be no limits on speed, but surely it is far better to allow the police to use their discretion and pull people who are driving dangerously, rather than shove up a camera that just dishes out fines to all comers?
Making burglary illegal is entirely sensible. Burglary is always wrong.
Setting and enforcing speed limits is much more complicated. The moral objective is to enforce sensible driving, but you can't run a justice system on the basis of one rule that says "Drive sensibly, or else!" because it doesn't provide any objective tests. How could you adequately define what is "sensible driving"?. You have to create an artificial framework of simpler tests which taken together are a proxy for measuring "sensible driving". And you also have to admit that these frameworks are artificial and therefore allow the judicial system some flexibility in enforcement.
Every road is different, and driving conditions are changing all the time. Clearly then the range of speed that is safe on a particular piece of road is also varying all the time.
But in the UK we have chosen to set fixed speed limits, irrespective of whether it is dark or raining, and the speed limits are divided into 10mph bands from 20 to 70mph, but of course mainly into 30, 60 and 70 zones.
In France motorway speed limits drop when it is raining. In Germany there are still roads with no speed limit.
There is no great moral superiority between these different frameworks. They are all sensible enough.
Funnily enough, both of these countries also make burglary illegal.
What we are complaining about is that people like you have lost sight of the inherent arbitrary nature of a set of speed limits. They are being enforced as if they were morally equivalent to burglary, and that is wrong.
Driving at 100mph on an empty, straight motorway is not immoral. Driving at 30mph past a school might well be immoral.
No one is claiming there should be no limits on speed, but surely it is far better to allow the police to use their discretion and pull people who are driving dangerously, rather than shove up a camera that just dishes out fines to all comers?
On the contrary, many laws have got changed by lawbreakers. Historically there is more chance of a major change in the law if there is a large civil disobedience.
andyf007 said: The burglar thing was just to point to the fact that laws don't get changed by the law breakers, people won't live with it. There's more chance of changing things if we try working within the law.
Remember the Suffragettes?
Government's current stance on Dope, due to many people ignoring the law (yes madcop, I know the law hasn't changed yet, & it may still be illegal, but the emphasis is changing)
It's Dope stance *wasn't* changed by a government sponsored white paper which suggested the legalisation of Marijuana.
The laws on foxhunting weren't changed after considered debate, but after lots of people started sabotaging hunts.
As a way of changing laws, it works.....
(It also makes sense, since it is nominally *our* country, *our* government & *our* legal system)
This is probably a wind-up by Chassis or Nonegreen, but here goes anyway
Does the PM and his ministers get done for speeding or driving in bus lanes? NO! (no parking tickets either I see, from my days working around Kensington and Knightsbridge).
Do I get done for driving at the 30mph limit on a 10m wide road at 3:30 when all the parents are lined up in their SUV's on each side? NO!
Do I get done for doing 100mph on a clear stretch of motorway, with no pedestrians? YES (well not yet, but when the country is littered with scameras I will!)
I know . . . let's all do exactly 70mph on the motorway . . . right into the back of that traffic jam that is doing 10mph and kill 27 people . . . can't be my fault BECAUSE I'M NOT SPEEDING.
Do you drive? If yes, I bet your car can break the speed limit! I wouldn't have that mate.
BTW I'd sue the manufacturer for killing your pals. It's obviously their fault as they made the car go that fast in the first place.
"My name is Tony and I am a appropriate-speed-aholic. Shoot me now before I kill someone"
CONFESSION: I have 6 points (2 x SP30) . . . 1 for doing 70 in a 60, and one for doing 62mph on a NSL dual carriageway that had just been reduced to a 40 limit for no apparent reason (BIB at the scene told me it was because of 'boy racers' losing control and crashing/killing/injuring themselves).
Now, if they lost control they were driving dangerously and not necessarily speeding - but the response is to reduce the speed limit - will that stop the boy racers and joy riders from speeding, crashing, killing? NO, and neither with that sanctimonious claptrap that most of the Transport 2000 and Mums against Speeders, et al crowd spew at every press conference and accident site.
Reducing speed limits will only reduce accidents in the 7% (yes only 7%) of instances where speed the major factor - the other 93% does not get addressed. Yet I bet a lot of the Police resources spent of traffic duties relate to speeding alone and, not dangerous driving, drunk driving, drug driving, dangerous vehicles, dangerous loads, bad highway maintenance, bad pedestrian education, bad cyclists education, wild animals.
>> Edited by M-Five on Wednesday 13th November 20:12
Does the PM and his ministers get done for speeding or driving in bus lanes? NO! (no parking tickets either I see, from my days working around Kensington and Knightsbridge).
Do I get done for driving at the 30mph limit on a 10m wide road at 3:30 when all the parents are lined up in their SUV's on each side? NO!
Do I get done for doing 100mph on a clear stretch of motorway, with no pedestrians? YES (well not yet, but when the country is littered with scameras I will!)
I know . . . let's all do exactly 70mph on the motorway . . . right into the back of that traffic jam that is doing 10mph and kill 27 people . . . can't be my fault BECAUSE I'M NOT SPEEDING.
Do you drive? If yes, I bet your car can break the speed limit! I wouldn't have that mate.
BTW I'd sue the manufacturer for killing your pals. It's obviously their fault as they made the car go that fast in the first place.
"My name is Tony and I am a appropriate-speed-aholic. Shoot me now before I kill someone"
CONFESSION: I have 6 points (2 x SP30) . . . 1 for doing 70 in a 60, and one for doing 62mph on a NSL dual carriageway that had just been reduced to a 40 limit for no apparent reason (BIB at the scene told me it was because of 'boy racers' losing control and crashing/killing/injuring themselves).
Now, if they lost control they were driving dangerously and not necessarily speeding - but the response is to reduce the speed limit - will that stop the boy racers and joy riders from speeding, crashing, killing? NO, and neither with that sanctimonious claptrap that most of the Transport 2000 and Mums against Speeders, et al crowd spew at every press conference and accident site.
Reducing speed limits will only reduce accidents in the 7% (yes only 7%) of instances where speed the major factor - the other 93% does not get addressed. Yet I bet a lot of the Police resources spent of traffic duties relate to speeding alone and, not dangerous driving, drunk driving, drug driving, dangerous vehicles, dangerous loads, bad highway maintenance, bad pedestrian education, bad cyclists education, wild animals.
>> Edited by M-Five on Wednesday 13th November 20:12
Well, I break speed limits all the time (they are stupidly low in places, and to me too high in other places) however I have a clean licence, and I have never had points.
We are a in democracy (well, actually a democratic dictatorship right now), if we all speed, and are all caught, then do we now live in such an anarchistic/criminal society? No.
Those in power (not for long I hope) have decided that a nice stealth tax can be levied in the guise of safety, that is all. If they wanted to really reduce road deaths they would educate drivers, there would be police out on the roads day and night pulling people over those with unroadworthy vehicles, and who drive dangerously (esp outside of schools during school hours, i.e. the school run mum).
We are a in democracy (well, actually a democratic dictatorship right now), if we all speed, and are all caught, then do we now live in such an anarchistic/criminal society? No.
Those in power (not for long I hope) have decided that a nice stealth tax can be levied in the guise of safety, that is all. If they wanted to really reduce road deaths they would educate drivers, there would be police out on the roads day and night pulling people over those with unroadworthy vehicles, and who drive dangerously (esp outside of schools during school hours, i.e. the school run mum).
Why assume that ABD members are more likely to break the speed limit than anyone else? I'm a member and in my 20 odd years of driving have never had anything other than parking tickets. In my experience, most of us find unnecessary limits onerous precisely because we stick to them more than most, particularly in urban areas. Those who say all limits are perfectly sensible are often happy to do 45 in a 30 limit, assuming that because they don't regard themselves as reckless they cannot possibly be wicked speeding drivers. If these clowns stuck to the limits in 30 areas they would soon discover what the problem is.
This is actually a common argument of the anti car lobby:
"Arguments for raising speed limits must be ignored" they say, "because they come from hooligans determined to run over pedestrians."
"Apart from the fact that that is an argument ad hominem" we reply, "what is your evidence that we are all hooligans."
"You must be, because you ask for speed limits to be raised".
There's no answer to such circular illogic.
Incidentally, transport supremo John Prescott was booked for 100 plus a few years ago. So presumably his views on speed limits should be equally discredited. Or is that different?
This is actually a common argument of the anti car lobby:
"Arguments for raising speed limits must be ignored" they say, "because they come from hooligans determined to run over pedestrians."
"Apart from the fact that that is an argument ad hominem" we reply, "what is your evidence that we are all hooligans."
"You must be, because you ask for speed limits to be raised".
There's no answer to such circular illogic.
Incidentally, transport supremo John Prescott was booked for 100 plus a few years ago. So presumably his views on speed limits should be equally discredited. Or is that different?
plotloss said:
filmidget said: I usually try to be tolerant, and look at all sides of an arguement... consider and weigh up evidence and opinion... hopefully formulate a coherent response.
But I'm sorry I just can't help myself this time...
Don't be such a twat.
:wipingcoffeeoffmonitor:
Top class!
Matt.
Flawless!
Im definitely going to second that one, no need to have deleted this IMHO - Its spot on.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff