On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 15:02:35 -0000, "Jon Senior"
<jon@restless_REMOVE_lemon.co.uk> wrote in message
<
[email protected]>:
>> Given that there are a reported five million crashes in
>> the UK every year, leading to tens of thousands of
>> serious injuries and thousands of fatalities, the idea
>> that crashing is somehow unforeseeable is an
>> interesting one.
>If it is truely foreseeable then we must presume that
>everyone involved in a crash knew that they would crash and
>took no action.
Nope. It is just an example of mass self-delusion. No
driver, if they actually think about it, can be unaware of
the connection between taking risks and crashing;
inaccurate perception of the level of risk is of course a
major problem.
>> >As in one in which there are no consequences? Yes.
>> So that's speedin out, then. The consequences are well
>> documented.
>If every time I went over the speed limit something bad
>happened you'd be right.
Clearly you are determined not to get the point. ALl
driving brings risk, speeding increases the risk. The
inability to accept that risk exists below the level of
virtual certainty of crashing is common in speedophiles and
their apologists, but most of us here have little
difficulty understanding the concept.
>And the danger posed by any vehicle is greater than
>the danger posed by the same vehicle travelling at a
>lesser speed.
Correct.
>All vehicles should therefore be stationary. The speed
>limit is not a magic number (As I'm sure you've mentioned).
The speed limit expresses numerically the level of risk
which society is prepared to allow motor traffic to impose
on a given section of road. This is a balance between
utility and convenience for the traffic, and the utility and
safety of other users of the road, and communities wthrough
which it passes.
>If a crime is not victimless, then for every instance of
>that crime, you must be able to find a victim.
Cobblers. You have said that in the case of fly-tipping the
victim is the abstract concept "environment". In the case of
speeding the victim is the abstract concept "society".
Individual cases have more easily identifiable victims, but
in the round what happens is that the overall level of risk
to society as a whole is increased.
>Who was the victim the last time I travelled at 80mph in
>70mph area? An increased risk does not constitute a victim.
An increased risk imposed on others does indeed constitute a
victim. The average level of harm is low, but the aggregate
is substantial.
>> It is seductive to try to pretend that bad drivers and
>> speeding drivers are separate classes, but there is
>> too much evidence supporting overlap to be able to
>> endorse that.
>Overlap meaning that they are the same? Or that some people
>are both while others are one, or the other (Or neither!)?
A meaningless distinction. People who speed enough to get
convictions are more likely to crahs, therefore speed
enforcement activity is inherently desirable.
>The fact that he was travelling at a speed at which he
>couldn't take appropriate action shows him to be a bad
>driver. This is a driver issue not a speeding issue.
Evasion. Had the bad driver not been speeding then the
likelihood and the consequences of the crash would both have
been reduced. In any case it is perfectly possible that the
pedestrian died solely because of the excess speed above the
limit, given the curve of fatality vs. speed in car v
pedestrian crashes.
>> >> The problem most speedophiles seem to have is in
>> >> accepting that anything with a probability of crashing
>> >> less than 100% in every instance, is dangerous.
>I wasn't being sarcastic Guy (Well, not much ;-) ), I
>genuinely don't understand what you mean, could you please
>elaborate?
I don't know how to make it any clearer. I can't see what
you don't understand.
>> Just because you won't crash every time you speed does
>> not mean that speeding is not dangerous.
>Just because I don't crash every time I drive does not mean
>that driving is not dangerous. Just because I don't get run
>over every time I cross a road, doesn't mean that crossing
>roads is not dangerous. There is an increased risk
>associated with travelling at higher speeds. If that risk
>is acknowledged and accounted for, then there is no
>difference from driving at a lower speed where the risks
>have been evaluated and compensated for.
That ignores the ever-present fact that the probability
of fatality in a crash rises with the fourth power of
speed. It is always possible to conceive of a crash
which is unavoidable, certainly on a road with numerous
other drivers.
This sounds to me like the traditional speedophile
hypothetical case based on the deserted motorway at 3am,
which ignores facts like: the number of speeding convictions
handed out on deserted motorways at 3am is negligible; the
distance you can see on main beam headlights is insufficient
to drive safely at much over 70mph; few motorways are ever
truly deserted even at 3am. And so on. Frankly I don't give
a toss if people drive like idiots on a road with no other
road users and kill themselves, but all too often they
assume that there are no other road users and are often
wrong. So give them a racetrack with a wall across it and
let them kill themselves that way, if they want.
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
