Dave J wrote in news
[email protected]:
> In MsgID<[email protected]> within uk.rec.driving, 'Tony
> Raven' wrote:
>
>>Dave J wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course, this will never happen because the 'powers that be'
>>> prefer a mechanistic homogenous control mechanism that imposes the
>>> same rigid limits constantly, with no need for the understandings
>>> they are incapable of. We're all supposed to be unthinking sheeple.
>>
>>Also because a significant number of people have speed related
>>accidents each year that demonstrate that they are incapable of
>>understanding the term "appropriate speed".
>
> So?? Connection?? I was proposing a system that deals directly with
> 'appropriate speed' and punishes those who are incapable of estimating
> it.
>
> The same as now, but with the emphasis on judgement of the dangers
> rather than black and white rules that are tailored for the most
> dangerous time of day and the most inept section of the population.
>
> Explain?
Easy. They already fail to drive at an appropriate speed /within/ the
mandatory speed limit. Take this away and they will drive at an even
greater innapropriate speed.
This whole idea of doing away with speed limits and prosecuting only if
the speed is deemed 'innapropriate' is problematic.
1. 'Innapropriate speed is too ambiguous a term. If there were no
accident (or near accident) then any speed can be deemed appropriate!
2. In the abscence of an accident, it would have to be proven that the
conditions and also the position or presence of other road users was such
that the speed was innapropriate. Because of 1. it is likely that
another road user would have to take avoiding action for a drivers speed
to be innapropriate.
3. The police would not only have to record the speed at which the person
was driving, but also see and record the presence and position of other
road users, their reactions to the 'speeding' car and the visibility that
the driver had. This is before they even pull him over.
4. It would be impossible to enforce in a uniform manner. In the space
of a few minutes the 'appropriate speed' on a road could change from,
say, 20mph to 50mph and the individual judgement of a police officer
would be relied upon. Later the individual judgement of the magistrate
would be needed too.
5. Difference in speeds between traffic on the same road woould be
greater. Drivers unfamiliar with the road would be going much, much
slower than the drivers with knowledge of the road.
6. Currently on a 30 limit we can assume drivers will be travelling at
about 40mph. With the advisory limit they will be travelling in excess
of this.
7. The biggest problem will be selling it to the public. The advantages
will be entire minutes shaved off journeys. The disadvantages will be,
in the absence of draconian and harsh penalties for causing death and
injury, absolute slaughter on the roads.
I have zero faith in the ability of a large proportion of the driving
population to limit their driving to an appropriate speed. This is in
spite of mandatory speed limits. The ridiculous number of fines from
speed cameras indicates that a stupidly huge number are unable to drive
at a suitable speed - they were driving to fast for them to see the 10
foot high bright yellow camera and the forty feet of road markings in the
middle of the road. I cannot imagine them to be able to spot the five
foot high pedestrian with the black coat[1]
[1]Admittedly pedestrians shouldn't cross roads wearing dark clothing,
and must be held at least partly responsible should they be struck whilst
failing to take proper measures to be visible to motorists.[2]
