Safe Speed Forums

Probably not actually. My previous post really doesn't read as I intended it to. Sorry. I'm popping out now, but I'll clarify things later.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I still don't see why you're focussing on the narrow issue of road works limits and the even narrower issue of lower limits in road works not purely for safety reasons. Consideration for other road users, whether cyclists, pedestrians or road workers, should be expected and required of drivers at all times.

I agree that, in specialised circumstances, there can be good reasons for limits other than safety and reducing the intimidatory effect of fast moving traffic may well be a valid one. However, if a lower (than needed for safety) limit is necessary for that reason when workers are present, it must follow that the lower limit should be lifted when workers are not present.

For obvious reasons of practicality.


The sentiments being expressed in this thread since I elected to highlight speeding in roadworks are much more revealing than the minutae of the arguments they are contained within.
I hope Paul, as he intimates above, can convince me otherwise.

On the "Nurse jailed" thread, you wrote, as a response to my post here



Your question was asked in the context of "The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable individual should be considered legal". Actually, that is a misquote, it should be "The careful and competent actions of a majority of reasonable people should be considered legal", which is somewhat different. It was also asked in the context of speeding law and I am not trying to answer it in any other context.

The implicit question in your question is how can we reconcile, on literal interpretation of speeding law (a strict liability offence), the general observation that a majority of reasonable people are law-abiding with the fact that a majority of reasonable people are (apparently) breaking the law from time to time by exceeding speed limits.

My response (the 'essay' I reposted) provides that reconciliation. It contains the proposition that the boundary between law observance and law breaking is not the the literal meaning of the law but 'something else', that something else being defined by the scope and scale of speed enforcement activity.

I understand this proposition may be hard to accept. I thought about it for a long time and very deeply, but eventually came to the conclusion that it is the only way to reconcile what is otherwise irreconcilable. The only alternative I could see is that all people who exceed speed limits, by whatever degree, are criminals (and, according to Caroline Flint and Richard Brunstrom, serious criminals). That proposition is impossible to accept, so I have to accept the alternative proposition, namely that the literal interpretation of law does not define the boundary.

That's it. I think it answers your question directly.

OK - well back in my dim and distant past when I was on the thin blue line so to speak (Not really changed - we still have this judgement call )


So - I patrol a motorway and decide to enforce the 70 mph limit fairly draconianly. I pull a number of drivers and whilst dealing with them - the p s taker blats by at 96 mph. I lose pulling up a potentially dangerous driver by nit picking over 4 -5 mph.

So - we have to judge fairly objectively how much lee-way we can afford to give - and generally if the majority behaviour is orderly safe - but perhaps a wee bit on the nippy side - we tend to let it be. That goes for all other activities too.

If the person is really pushing the boundaries and his actions create a danger to him/herself and others - then we have to intervene and arrest/caution/etc.

But basically - any law - we have to interpret the wrong it is intending to make right and usually the courts try to interpret top common sense majority opinion. If they get it wrong - then another court may set an over-ruling precedent.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Exactly, IG. That's the nub of it. Your observation sits comfortably with my proposition that it is the nature of enforcement that defines the boundary between law-observance and law-breaking (and therefore that the radical shift in the scope and scale of enforcement represented by camera detection and associated enforcement practice has re-defined the boundary).

Rigpig, acting the Elephant, reminded me of this older post.



It's just a misunderstanding about the defintion of the word discomfort. From the dictionary definition which includes: 'distress, grief and sorrow', my statement was grossly unreasonable.

But that's not at all what I intended. I was thinking purely of the absence of comfort.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety