Matt B <
[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Matt B wrote:
>>> "davek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> > Matt B wrote:
>>> >> What others would you include in a broader discussion... noise? air
>>> >> displacement?
>>> >
>>> > the law?
>>>
>>> What, you think that a good reason for choosing a speed below the limit,
>>> other than for safety, possibly noise reduction, and "bow wave" impact
>>> should be "the law"? I'm baffled.
>>
>> I had in mind noise and the social impact of speeds which make crossing
>> a road difficult for pedestrians or make the road and adjoining
>> pavements unpleasant spaces to be in for users not in an enclosed
>> vehicle. There could well be other reasons, particularly for other
>> people
>
> Yes. All things which are worthy of consideration. In my "ideal world",
> which I've attempted to describe here, and in uk.t since at least early
> 2002, I imagine an urban road scene where mutual respect is prevalent, and
> the things you mention would be "automatically" accommodated. That type of
> environment is, I think, perfectly possible. One of the obstacles seems to
> be an obsession with regulation and punishment, particularly WRT motorists,
> and a fixation with cameras. IMHO the clue is to tackle the _cause_ rather
> than the symptom, of speed and selfishness.
That's all very well and noble, but it ignores one fundamental problem with
people that will always serve to scupper your Utopian ideal, an that is that
people are not perfect. They are flawed, and they always have been and
always will be. There will always be people out there who will be selfish,
who will not respect others, and will do what they want.
The only reason we live in the society we do is because we have a system
of regulation and punishment in place. No other reason. It's a system
of regulation and punishment that most of us want in place most of the
time, and that's what makes society work as it does.
But you're not actually wanting to remove the regulation and punishment
aspect of road use - you've said so yourself. You want individuals to
take responsibility for their own actions. All well and good, but it is
still a system of regulation and punishment. All you will end up doing
is to remove one set of regulation and replace it with another. People
are unlikely to self-flagellate if they run into another vehicle, or
grate their own scrotums with a cheese grater if they run over a cyclist,
it takes the rest of us to do that for them. It is inevitable, therefore,
that we need in place a robust and comprehensive system of regulation
and punishment.
Many people here have told you why they believe that your system of
regulation and punishment is in many ways inferior as a replacement to
the existing one. Many have also told you that the two combined might
indeed be a better system. Indeed, many of us here would be perfectly
happy to see the punishment for not using the roads responsably to be
increased - not only for speeding but for many other offences, too.
However, none of that is an argument *in any way* for removing speed
limits, or for not enforcing the existing ones.
How on earth you plan to takle the _cause_ of selfishness on the road
eludes me entirely. After all, philosophers have wrestled with that
one for aeons. If you do figure it out, you'll be a very very smart
person. Sadly, though, I suspect you never will. Later on, you too
will realise that we are all flawed, and need a strong system of
regulation and punishment to stop us doing a lot of things, driving
like complete tosspots on the road being only one of them. Regulation
and enforcement of the maximum speed at which we are permitted to drive
is, in many very knowlegable and widely-read people's opinion, a very
neccessary and useful part of that regulation.
--
Nobby
