Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.



On Sun, 16 May 2004 12:35:34 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>the solution is to attempt to turn us all into brainlessly slow
>sheeple.


According to the latest figures if all men reduced our risk-taking to
the level accepted by women, there would be an immediate and
substantial drop in road crashes.

But why should we care? When we kill a vulnerable road user with our
car we are most unlikely to die ourselves, and by expressing remorse
in court can probably escape a driving ban.

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
 
On Sun, 16 May 2004 12:43:25 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
(more or less):

>At least in a speeding culture it is most likely my mistakes that will
>kill me rather than the system automatically chopping my effective
>life in half.


No. In a speeding culture most of the risk is transferred to /other/
road users.

If the risk was only to speeding drivers, I'd be encouraging much more
speeding.

That'd br evolution in action. After a while, the speeders would have
wiped themselves out, and wouldn't be breeding any futher generations
of little speeders.

As it is, speeding tends to kill off the folk they speed into. Thiis
is bad.





--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
 
On Sun, 16 May 2004 12:47:03 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>>I dimly recall some work from TRL which showed that people's average
>>speed was lower within 1/2 mile of home than on similar roads further
>>away.


*whoosh* went right over your head, didn't it? What is it about the
area within 1/2 mile of home which causes drivers to judge that the
"appropriate" speed is lower? Could it be that they might have to
face the parents of the child they kill? Could it be that they
realise that it could even be their own child?

>They will be. It has already been noted that most infractions of speed
>limits go unpunished, it has also been noted that a significant
>proportion of licence holders have been punished.


Correct. It was the same when evidential breath testing was
introduced.

>Therefore a *much* higher fraction of licence holders habitually break
>the rules.


And are now beginning to be caught doing it. Some get the hint and
slow down, others continue to drive dangerously and rail against the
infringement of their divine right to cause danger.

>Therefore the rules are democratically seen as wrong,


Which is why the democratically elected government of the country has
repealed the law. Oh, wait, that diodn't happen, did it?

Actually a substantial majority in a MORI poll recently were in favour
of speed cameras.

>and the only
>reason surveys say otherwise is that the propoganda about 'everyone
>knowing' that speed kills may not have prevented the speed but it
>*has* prevented people owning up to the fact that they can see that
>many speed 'limits' are stupid.


For years it was not possible to get a 30 limit in a country village.
Now it is. So the village where my wife grew up is no longer subject
to high-speed traffic past the school. Of course, if you persist in
driving through all these newly reduced limits at high speed you will
likely not see the thing which has caused the limit to be put in
place...

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
 
Dave J wrote:
>
> Therefore a sizeable majority in this country probably regularly break
> the speed limit.
>
> I haven't seen such a clear notice that a law is wrong since the days
> of rabid anti cannabis campaigns.
>


A sizeable minority don't respect property laws either. Is that a case for
making theft and robbery legal?

>>
>> So what chance them seeing a child or person on a bike if concentrating on
>> driving means they cannot see something far more obvious?

>
> Plenty.


Curious the selectivity of vision. What other things as blindingly obvious as
a bright orange camera with signs and distinctive white lines in the road do
they not see then?

>
> You obviously know little of the way the mind filters rapidly changing
> images and automatically selects only those that are liable to be
> dangerous.
>


Probably more than you think. Children and cyclists are not dangerous to
cars, its the other way round.

Tony
 
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> For years it was not possible to get a 30 limit in a country village.


Absolute bollocks. Many "country villages" have had 30 limits for decades.

> Now it is. So the village where my wife grew up is no longer subject
> to high-speed traffic past the school. Of course, if you persist in
> driving through all these newly reduced limits at high speed you will
> likely not see the thing which has caused the limit to be put in
> place...


Yes, now the car-hating councillors of Oxon CC can define a "village" as
something with a handful of houses spread out over a mile of road, and
impose ludicrous 30 limits on long lengths of rural main roads.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> PeterE wrote:
> >
> > Given that we have 32 million plus licensed drivers, the low accident rate
> > suggests that most drivers understand the concept of "appropriate speed"
> > fairly well.

>
> Road traffic is the biggest single cause of death for 12-16 year olds. Recent
> DoT figures are that 40% of young teenagers have had a near miss road
> accident. c300,000 people were injured in road accidents last year which is
> one per hundred of your licensed drivers. Two thirds were on roads with speed
> limits below 40mph. 1.4 million people were caught speeding on speed cameras
> in 2002. I see no evidence of many drivers understanding the concept of
> "appropriate speed".
>

You must be bloody blind. Most teenagers I see near roads weave in and
out on bicycles and run out in front of traffic without looking. A 12-
16 year old seems to have no sense of self preservation as a
pedestrian. Its no wonder that they have so many near misses. Just
drive down a road near a secondary school at kicking out time if you
want an example.



--
Conor

If you're not on somebody's **** list, you're not doing anything
worthwhile.
 
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave J wrote:
>>
>> Therefore a sizeable majority in this country probably regularly
>> break the speed limit.

>
> A sizeable minority don't respect property laws either. Is that a
> case for making theft and robbery legal?


Er, do you know the difference between a majority and a minority?

I would suggest if a *majority* of adults routinely break a particular law
it needs to be either scrapped or substantially revised.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> Dave J wrote:


>> Therefore a sizeable majority in this country probably regularly
>> break the speed limit.


>> I haven't seen such a clear notice that a law is wrong since the days
>> of rabid anti cannabis campaigns.


> A sizeable minority don't respect property laws either. Is that a
> case for making theft and robbery legal?


I guess not.

Mind you, there used to be another sizeable minority who didn't respect the
laws against homosexual acts.

Given what you say above, I suppose you were against the amendment of that
law on the grounds that it amounted to pandering to criminals?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.682 / Virus Database: 444 - Release Date: 11/05/04
 
> I was perhaps visualising a different 'test' scenario, I was picturing
> a small village near me where the 100mph vehicle would be within two
> foot of houses, though the road is straight. At that speed at night
> you would stand a good chance of not spotting a rock in the road of
> sufficient size to de-wheel your car or at least knock you *well* off
> track.


Ah, true. It all really depends on how anal we like our judges to be. When it comes to
cars I think they take a rather lenient view. Lets face it, when it comes to burglars
and muggers they still take a rather lenient view. Come to think of it even murderers
get treated leniently - life is hardly 15 years or whatever.

Methinks I'm being argumentative, but IMHO you are rather naive in your expectations of
both citizens and the legal system. :-(

>>then I'm not having
>>you risk smacking into other cars with a closing speed above 30-40mph
>>(or whatever is deemed safe/survivable) due to some equally freak
>>mechanical failure.

>
> Like I said, injury to the speeder and physical damage to property are
> not important considerations.


I was kind of thinking about the poor bod in the oncoming car.
 
> It's a trade off, reduce the annual number of road deaths by a certain
> number, but delete an equivalent certain number of man years from the
> lives of the entire country's population.
>
> At least in a speeding culture it is most likely my mistakes that will
> kill me rather than the system automatically chopping my effective
> life in half.


You must have the life of a gnat, or sit in some truly awesome traffic jams
then! Swap man years for man hours and you'll be somewhere there.
 
JNugent wrote:
>
> Mind you, there used to be another sizeable minority who didn't respect the
> laws against homosexual acts.
>
> Given what you say above, I suppose you were against the amendment of that
> law on the grounds that it amounted to pandering to criminals?
>


Not at all - what people do consensually in private is up to them within
reason providing it does not impact on others. Its when the wish to exercise
a freedom impacts on others that the laws are needed. So homosexuality has no
impact on my life, speeding has a very direct impact on my life.

Tony
 
PeterE peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk opined the following...
> Yes, now the car-hating councillors of Oxon CC can define a "village" as
> something with a handful of houses spread out over a mile of road, and
> impose ludicrous 30 limits on long lengths of rural main roads.



I presume that prior to the introduction of the limits, you, as a
careful driver, already slowed to a "safe speed" (TM) given that you
were entering an area with (presumably) driveways that opened onto the
road, the increased likelihood of children playing on the roadside etc.

It could be that this type of area should always have been a 30mph
limit, but since it was faster, you assume that it is safe at that
speed.

Jon
 
On Sun, 16 May 2004 14:33:45 +0100,
Dave J <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>You obviously know little of the way the mind filters rapidly changing
>>>images and automatically selects only those that are liable to be
>>>dangerous.

>>

<snip>
>
> I notice you say nothing of my citing of a known human phsychological
> trait.
>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/05/05/ecfgorilla05.xml

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/
 
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> PeterE peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk opined the following...
>> Yes, now the car-hating councillors of Oxon CC can define a
>> "village" as something with a handful of houses spread out over a
>> mile of road, and impose ludicrous 30 limits on long lengths of
>> rural main roads.

>
> I presume that prior to the introduction of the limits, you, as a
> careful driver, already slowed to a "safe speed" (TM) given that you
> were entering an area with (presumably) driveways that opened onto the
> road, the increased likelihood of children playing on the roadside
> etc.
>
> It could be that this type of area should always have been a 30mph
> limit, but since it was faster, you assume that it is safe at that
> speed.


I don't take the view that a single house on a rural road requires drivers
to slow to 30 mph.

Do you?

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> JNugent wrote:


>> Mind you, there used to be another sizeable minority who didn't
>> respect the laws against homosexual acts.


>> Given what you say above, I suppose you were against the amendment
>> of that law on the grounds that it amounted to pandering to
>> criminals?


> Not at all - what people do consensually in private is up to them
> within reason providing it does not impact on others. Its when the
> wish to exercise a freedom impacts on others that the laws are
> needed. So homosexuality has no impact on my life, speeding has a
> very direct impact on my life.


Post-hoc wriggles are so undignified.

Mind you, that was actually a pretty good wriggle.

Still a wriggle of course.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.686 / Virus Database: 447 - Release Date: 14/05/04
 
PeterE peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk opined the following...
> I don't take the view that a single house on a rural road requires drivers
> to slow to 30 mph.
>
> Do you?


I take the view that when passing a single house on a rural road, a
driver should be aware that there is an increased risk of an incident.
Since the only action that I can then take to reduce that risk back to a
"safe" level is to slow down, yes, I slow down. The amount by which I
slow varies depending on the circumstances.

Jon
 
Jon Senior wrote:

> PeterE peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk wrote:


>> I don't take the view that a single house on a rural road requires
>> drivers to slow to 30 mph.
>> Do you?


> I take the view that when passing a single house on a rural road, a
> driver should be aware that there is an increased risk of an incident.
> Since the only action that I can then take to reduce that risk back
> to a "safe" level is to slow down, yes, I slow down. The amount by
> which I slow varies depending on the circumstances.


So clearly, you don't need to be ordered to slow down.

What makes you think anyone else does?

Are you just a better driver than everyone else?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.686 / Virus Database: 447 - Release Date: 14/05/04
 
"Richard Bates" <[email protected]> wrote in message >
> Well done! Legend states I shall only go blind. I shall not kill or
> cause injury to others in the process.


BMW 3 series driver?
 
JNugent [email protected] opined the following...
> So clearly, you don't need to be ordered to slow down.


In some circustances I do, a speed limit sign can act as a warning to
drivers of an impending hazard.

> What makes you think anyone else does?


Experience. If no-one needed telling, then there'd be almost no
accidents. Check the stats to see if this is the case.

> Are you just a better driver than everyone else?


Not better than everyone else. I make mistakes like everyone else. I try
to learn from them, and therein lies the difference.

Jon
 
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> PeterE peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk opined the following...
>> I don't take the view that a single house on a rural road requires
>> drivers to slow to 30 mph.
>>
>> Do you?

>
> I take the view that when passing a single house on a rural road, a
> driver should be aware that there is an increased risk of an incident.
> Since the only action that I can then take to reduce that risk back
> to a "safe" level is to slow down, yes, I slow down. The amount by
> which I slow varies depending on the circumstances.


But you don't always slow to 30 mph?

In which case why do you claim that such a hazard requires a 30 mph limit?

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)
 

Similar threads

J
Replies
0
Views
474
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
D
Replies
0
Views
535
UK and Europe
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers
D