Re: Anti-social behaviour

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

At Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:46:44 +0100, message
<[email protected]> was posted by Alistair J Murray
<[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:

>All bad arbitrary laws, just like speed limits.

Really? I thought they were all bad arbitrary laws showing just how
reasonable speed limits are by comparison. But then, I don't think my
***** is going to shrivel if I am ten seconds late at the next traffic
jam.


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[Alistair J Murray]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> At Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:46:44 +0100, message
> <[email protected]> was posted by Alistair J Murray
> <[email protected]>, including some, all or none of the following:
>
>> All bad arbitrary laws, just like speed limits.
>
> Really? I thought they were all bad arbitrary laws showing just how
> reasonable speed limits are by comparison.

Nope, they show why speed limits are bad law despite seeming
superficially innocuous.

> But then, I don't think my ***** is going to shrivel if I am ten
> seconds late at the next traffic jam.

Neither will mine, I see no point in trying to rush round town in a car.



A

--
Trade Oil in €

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:31:02 +0100, Alistair J Murray
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>> All bad arbitrary laws, just like speed limits.
>> Really? I thought they were all bad arbitrary laws showing just how
>> reasonable speed limits are by comparison.

>Nope, they show why speed limits are bad law despite seeming
>superficially innocuous.

Really? It seems to me that the bad laws you cite are bad because
they do not address the problem of human fallibility, whereas speed
limits recognise it and pose limits on its ability to cause harm.

>> But then, I don't think my ***** is going to shrivel if I am ten
>> seconds late at the next traffic jam.

>Neither will mine, I see no point in trying to rush round town in a car.

Exactly. I find that obeying the speed limit makes massively less
difference to my journey times than does congestion, and the M25 shows
that slowing down can actually reduce delays and accidents, so speed
limits are fine by me. They cause me no measurable inconvenience when
driving, in return for a significant benefit in reducing the risk
drivers pose to me when cycling or walking. Entirely reasonable.

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 CHS, Puget Sound

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:18:39 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>>Neither will mine, I see no point in trying to rush round town in a car.
>
>Exactly. I find that obeying the speed limit makes massively less
>difference to my journey times than does congestion, and the M25 shows
>that slowing down can actually reduce delays and accidents, so speed
>limits are fine by me. They cause me no measurable inconvenience when
>driving, in return for a significant benefit in reducing the risk
>drivers pose to me when cycling or walking. Entirely reasonable.

Agreed. Those who moan about 20mph speed limits causing more
congestion and increasing journey times have been shown to be false
prophets.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[Alistair J Murray]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:31:02 +0100, Alistair J Murray
> <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

>> Nope, they show why speed limits are bad law despite seeming
>> superficially innocuous.
>
> Really? It seems to me that the bad laws you cite are bad because
> they do not address the problem of human fallibility, whereas speed
> limits recognise it and pose limits on its ability to cause harm.

When technology meant that speed limits were enforced on an *ish basis
by flesh and blood plod they did work as you would have it - speed was a
convenient hook to hang bad driving offences on, few were busted for
merely being quick.

Now speed limits give vastly too much importance to numerical speed
values rather than appropriate speed - the speedometer and
numberonastick do not provide information from which an appropriate
speed can be derived.

The combination of robocopping and bad propaganda has turned the
harmless(ish) guide limit into a killer target.

>>> But then, I don't think my ***** is going to shrivel if I am ten
>>> seconds late at the next traffic jam.
>
>> Neither will mine, I see no point in trying to rush round town in a
>> car.
>
> Exactly. I find that obeying the speed limit makes massively less
> difference to my journey times than does congestion,

Perhaps you should move somewhere less horrid. Up here cruising speed
maps fairly directly to journey time.

> and the M25 shows that slowing down can actually reduce delays and
> accidents, so speed limits are fine by me.

I'm all for slowing down when there is something to hit, I see no good
reason not to drive quickly when there isn't.

(I've never had a car accident where I was doing >12-15mph, I do look)

> They cause me no measurable inconvenience when driving, in return for
> a significant benefit in reducing the risk drivers pose to me when
> cycling or walking.

Ahh, but they cause me considerable inconvenience when driving without
giving you any benefit cycling, walking or even driving...

> Entirely reasonable.

Yet dangerous and unnecessary.




A

--
Trade Oil in €

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 16:47:02 +0100, Alistair J Murray
<[email protected]> wrote:

>When technology meant that speed limits were enforced on an *ish basis
>by flesh and blood plod they did work as you would have it - speed was a
>convenient hook to hang bad driving offences on, few were busted for
>merely being quick.

You think? When would that have been, then?

Back in the early 90s when people railed against speed traps catching
"innocent" law-breaking motorists?

During the 1970s when they started trying out VASCAR?

During the 1950s when radar speed guns first appeared on the scene?

During the 1930s when the 30mph urban limit was suspended but rapidly
reintroduced due to rising injuries?

During the 1900s when Dunhill's offered their "Bobby Finder" motoring
glasses which would "tell a policeman from a reasonable man at 500
yards" and the AA was set up to warn members about speed traps?

In the 1890s when the Emancipation Act did away with the red flag and
the first speeding tickets were issued?

When, exactly, was this golden age when drivers accepted controls on
their speed on the basis that it was done by police who only stopped
the most dangerous drivers?

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 CHS, Puget Sound