Re: Dozy motorists ignorant of speed limit laws.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 14 May 2004 11:20:52 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>The small fact that the morons who prosecute for breaking the limit
>'should have known' that at 4:00 in the morning the road was empty and
>perfectly suited to 50mph is beside the point of course.

As is the small fact that the morons who were speeding "should have
known" that it was illegal and they were open to prosecution.

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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 15 May 2004 15:03:12 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>Well, of course, the speeders (who are not all morons IME) will know
>that their action requires vigilance for spy cameras and sellouts.

And speed limits. You can avoid 100% of speed prosecutions by driving
legally. There is no evidence that your penis shrivels if you fail to
speed (although, amazingly, the higher crash involvement of male
drivers has been attributed to their greater propesnity to
risk-taking).

>And that is relevant to the fact that there are moronically black and
>white limits how exactly?

The black and white limits are NSLs. 30 limits are black on white
with a red border. HTH.

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

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Sat, 15 May 2004 15:03:12 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
(more or less):
....
>And that is relevant to the fact that there are moronically black and
>white limits how exactly?

In case you haven't noticed, a limit is always going to be black &
white. Unless you're going to start saying well, it's a thirty-ish
'limit'.

But we already have shades of grey through enforcement.

White <= the Limit. no prosecutions

Light grey <= the limit+10%+3mph almost no prosecutions

Dark grey <= limit+30mph token fine and 3 points

Black > limit+30mph slightly larger fine, plus
sometimes a short ban

So there's a lot of grey in the system already.


The limits aren't moronic, btw.

30mph limits are in built-up areas, i.e. where there's a lot of
non-motorised traffic.

30mph is more or less the point where a vehicle on pedestrian or
vehicle on cyclist accident goes from non-fatal to fatal (if you pay
attention to th odds). So that's not a moronic limit.

40mph tends to get used where there is a degree of separation between
motorised and non-motorised traffic, so these accidents should be less
frequent, and better 'telegraphed' when they do happen.


60mph tends to get used where there is still some non-motorised
traffic, but the non-motorised traffic density /tends to be/ much
lower. Mind you, often the lines of site are much shorter, too.

So this one's perhaps moronically high.

70mph gets used, in some cases where there is strict segregation of
motorised and non-motorised traffic.

So this one's probably moronically high for cases where there is no
such strict segregation.


Of course, maybe you didn't mean 'moronically high' when you said
'moronic'.


Remember, vehicle energy and braking distance increase with the
/square/ of speed, not merely on a pro rata basis.

Likelihood of fatality-in-accident rises with the square /of the
square/ of the speed.

So raising speed by 50%, (e.g. from 30mph to 45mph) raises vehicle
energy and braking distance by 125%, and raises likelihood of
fatality-in-accident by over 400%.

Not to mention the fact that the chance of a collision in any given
circumstance is increased by the shortened reaction time available and
the longer braking times required.


--
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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 15 May 2004 18:15:54 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
in message <[email protected]>:

>Many variables, one concrete limit that has to be set at the lowest
>common denominator, a safe speed for when road is full of traffic and
>the kids have just come out of school. Nah, not convinced.

And that has, of course, nothing to do with the fact that all the
benefit from speeding accrues to the driver, while the risk is mostly
placed on others. 'Course not. Oh no. Completely unrelated.

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

 

[Nick Finnigan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And speed limits. You can avoid 100% of speed prosecutions by driving
> legally.

Nope. Some people have had their convictions overturned.

 

[Tony Raven]

Dave J wrote:
>
> Ho hum, time of day, weather, presence of other traffic, presence of
> pedestrians, etc etc etc.
>
> Many variables, one concrete limit that has to be set at the lowest
> common denominator, a safe speed for when road is full of traffic and
> the kids have just come out of school. Nah, not convinced.

So how do you propose that the police and courts (and drivers for that matter)
decide with all those factors what the limit should have been? Do we all have
Star Trek computers measuring the weather, road conditions, time of day,
number of people and other traffic, upcoming parked cars, side roads,
driveways, bends and saying "I compute a 98% probability you just went too
fast" or is it a policeman standing up in court and saying I think he was
going a bit too fast your honour. Pray do tell. I am anxious to know how
between what you think is obvious (100mph) and what you think is questionable
(30mph) the line gets drawn and how as a driver you know you've crossed that
line.

Tony

 

[Tony Raven]

Nick Finnigan wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> And speed limits. You can avoid 100% of speed prosecutions by driving
>> legally.
>
> Nope. Some people have had their convictions overturned.

Bwaarp Bwaarp ....Logical non-sequitur alert! .....Bwaarp Bwaarp

Tony

 

[Brimstone]

"Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > And speed limits. You can avoid 100% of speed prosecutions by driving
> > legally.
>
> Nope. Some people have had their convictions overturned.
>
>

He said "prosecutions" not "convictions".

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:12:08 +0100, "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> And speed limits. You can avoid 100% of speed prosecutions by driving
>> legally.

> Nope. Some people have had their convictions overturned.

I rwad about that on th ABD website. They were knowingly exceeding
the posted limit because it was obvious to them from the layout of the
road that the wrong section of the relevant Act had been cited in the
Traffic Regulation Order.

Oh, wait, it wasn't quite like that was it?

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

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Sat, 15 May 2004 18:15:54 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
(more or less):

>In MsgID<[email protected]> within
>uk.rec.driving, 'Gawnsoft' wrote:
>
>>>And that is relevant to the fact that there are moronically black and
>>>white limits how exactly?
>>
>>In case you haven't noticed, a limit is always going to be black &
>>white. Unless you're going to start saying well, it's a thirty-ish
>>'limit'.
>
>Ho hum, time of day, weather, presence of other traffic, presence of
>pedestrians, etc etc etc.

All of which /lower/ the speed from ideal conditions. None of them
raise it.

>Many variables, one concrete limit that has to be set at the lowest
>common denominator, a safe speed for when road is full of traffic and
>the kids have just come out of school.

No. At those times a speed /below/ the limit is indicated.





--
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

 

[dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers]

>No. At those times a speed /below/ the limit is indicated.

Quite. I am always amazed by how many of those promoting what is effectively no
speed limit, seem to have difficulty in understand that speed limits are not a
target to be exceeded at any opportunity. The thought of driving at a speed
*below* the speed limit seems to go straight over the amoebas that pass for
their brains...

Cheers, helen s




--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

 

[Nick Finnigan]

"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > And speed limits. You can avoid 100% of speed prosecutions by driving
> > > legally.
> >
> > Nope. Some people have had their convictions overturned.
>
> He said "prosecutions" not "convictions".

I though a conviction generally required a prosecution first.

 

[Nick Finnigan]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 15 May 2004 19:12:08 +0100, "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
> >> And speed limits. You can avoid 100% of speed prosecutions by driving
> >> legally.
>
> > Nope. Some people have had their convictions overturned.
>
> I read about that on the ABD website.

Which ones are mentioned on there?

> They were knowingly exceeding
> the posted limit because it was obvious to them from the layout of the
> road that the wrong section of the relevant Act had been cited in the
> Traffic Regulation Order.
>
> Oh, wait, it wasn't quite like that was it?

I don't know what it was like.

 

[Brimstone]

Nick Finnigan wrote:
> "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> message news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> And speed limits. You can avoid 100% of speed prosecutions by
>>>> driving legally.
>>>
>>> Nope. Some people have had their convictions overturned.
>>
>> He said "prosecutions" not "convictions".
>
> I though a conviction generally required a prosecution first.

It does, but a prosecution does not necessarily result in a conviction. Not
in the UK anyway.

 

[Tony Raven]

Dave J wrote:
>
> Policeman's judgement, policeman's reputation, a set of pictures of
> the road, if speed is dangerous then person is convicted. Precedents
> will rapidly be set up and will take care of 90 percent of cases.
>

I'd rather have the certainty of a signed limit than some copper deciding
arbitrarily after a row with his wife that I was speeding. At least I can
comply with certainty with the former whereas the latter is anyones guess
whether you are speeding or not.


>
>> I am anxious to know how
>> between what you think is obvious (100mph) and what you think is
>> questionable (30mph) the line gets drawn and how as a driver you know
>> you've crossed that line.
>
> Multiple expert judgements leading to precedent.

But each road is so different you could only set a precedent for that location
under those conditions. Do they set different precedents if its Michael
Schumacher behind the wheel or a little old lady? Its so ludicrous as to defy
belief that you seriously think its a goer.

Tony

 

[Jon Senior]

Dave J [email protected] opined the following...
> Policeman's judgement,

I wouldn't trust the average bobby on the street to make any judgement
other than that of the closing of the doughnut shop!

> policeman's reputation,

Manchester Met training school anyone.

> a set of pictures of the road,

Presumably taken at the time of the incident (Or soon after since a
court approved photographer would first have to be taken to the scene).

> if speed is dangerous then person is convicted.

Define dangerous in law. Given the complexity of the Bill of Human
Rights which is based on the simple premise that you shouldn't do bad
things to people, how easy do you really think it'll be to define
"dangerous"?

> Precedents
> will rapidly be set up and will take care of 90 percent of cases.

After a single precedent, the courts will have a prior case to rely on
for future convictions. Thus the first case in court will set the stage
for all that follow. If the second is similar to the first, but gets a
different result, that will become the precedent and the first will
become irrelevant.


<snip>
> Multiple expert judgements leading to precedent.

Where do you propose to find these expert judgements? See previous
paragraph for the problems with precedent.

While your proposed system is a nice idea, in practice it is currently
unworkable and will remain so for many years to come. In an idealised
world where this could actually be a possibility, it would not be
necessary as all drivers would drive safely without requirement for any
limits / laws at all.

Jon

 

[Nick Finnigan]

"Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
> > "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>> message news:[email protected]...
> >>>>
> >>>> And speed limits. You can avoid 100% of speed prosecutions by
> >>>> driving legally.
> >>>
> >>> Nope. Some people have had their convictions overturned.
> >>
> >> He said "prosecutions" not "convictions".
> >
> > I though a conviction generally required a prosecution first.
>
> It does, but a prosecution does not necessarily result in a conviction.

Yes, I expect there have also been people prosecuted for
speeding and found not guilty, but an overturned conviction
is likely to get more publicity, and proves the point as well.

 

[[Not Responding]]

On Sun, 16 May 2004 12:55:05 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote:

snip

>
>I have often sat behind the 'little old lady' and figured that if the
>speed she was driving was the fastest I thought I could manage then I
>would rapidly sign up for an electric wheelchair and/or take to the
>busses. There are too many people on the road who are not fit to be
>and that is a seprate discussion.

No; it's the fastest she can manage safely and comfortably. She's
doing exactly as a skilled driver should and matching her speed to her
ability, the conditions and the law.

You, on the other hand, with apparent disregard for all these factors
perhaps should either improve your driving skills or, as you suggest,
get a bus.

 

[Richard Bates]

On Sun, 16 May 2004 13:02:20 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote:

>the capability of our drivers. IMO too many drive at a slow speed
>because they (quite rightly) think they are not capable of handling a
>faster one. These people (again IMHO) should *not* be driving, that is
>what public transport is for (another worthwhile sub thread).

Which translated into English means: "Anybody who is not prepared to
drive above their capabilities like a total ******** should get the
bus so that the arseholes who *do* wish to drive above their
capability can be less restricted in their desire to be arseholes
driving above their capability."

Let me know if your proposed law becomes accepted. I feel I would make
a very good undertaker.


--
Young Musician of the Year 2004 was a fiddle

 

[Gawnsoft]

On Sun, 16 May 2004 13:02:20 +0100, Dave J <[email protected]> wrote
(more or less):

>In MsgID<[email protected]> within
>uk.rec.driving, 'Jon Senior' wrote:
>
>>Dave J [email protected] opined the following...
>>> Policeman's judgement,
>>
>>I wouldn't trust the average bobby on the street to make any judgement
>>other than that of the closing of the doughnut shop!
>
>[..]
>
>>While your proposed system is a nice idea, in practice it is currently
>>unworkable and will remain so for many years to come. In an idealised
>>world where this could actually be a possibility, it would not be
>>necessary as all drivers would drive safely without requirement for any
>>limits / laws at all.
>
>There are numerous unsolved points in my proposal, it was almost meant
>to highlight those points as the real reasons it couldn't come about.
>
>A primary one is trust,

Yes - the fact that I certainly don't trust the people that you
describe as 'brainless sheeple' to be able to suddenly develop the
ability to judge conditions and drive at a speed which is
appropriately low.

They've never displayed it in the past, and I can't see how they'd
suddenly display it if you raised the speed limits.


--
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