Safe Speed Forums

Yes (and stop shouting please), but believe it or not I have other things to consider other than just speed cameras.
But if my vote goes the wrong way, I reserve my democratic right not to shut up thank you very much.

This is replaying words I've written before (but may have gone un-noticed). With regard to speeding, the real boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour is not the speed limit itself but whether the speed limit is exceeded so frequently or flagrantly that the excess speed is detected and the limit (more or less) strictly enforced.

The advent of remote detection and fast-track enforcement has shifted the boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour so substantially as to make the pre-existing 'illegality threshold' unrecognisable.

If you really need someone else to tell you what is a safe and appropriate speed for the road conditions in front of you, and you can't even work it out for yourself, get yourself a chaffeur or get the bus. I don't want to share public road space with a driver as dangerous as you.

_________________
'The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal, regardless of the letter of statute'

Rioman, Herts

Ah yes - then you'll respect my democratic right not to shut up or try to influence people .I'll not shout or nag, or say i told you so

Too often these days it is no more than a legal maximum, and breaking it is really only wrong because there's a law against it.
That's how it does work, not how it should work.



I think we all know that only too well.

Cheers
Peter

It's interesting to see how the perspective of our "Lords and Masters" changes depending upon circumstance. They are fond of trumpeting the "Good sense and judgement of the Great British Public" when they're being voted into something with a 38% "majority", but when 57% of the motoring public "vote with their (right) feet" on the subject of speed limits on motorways, they're suddenly "criminal lunatics"!

But Pete, this is precisely the point; but as I see it attempts are being made to dissolve the 'safety' argument into the 'legal' argument as if the two are optionally interchangeable under the current enforcement regime. Clearly they are not.
Paul, according to his earlier thread, sees this as making a choice between the authorities' 'wrong' way and the SS right way. But such a choice doesn't properly exist however wrong or right each respective way may be; the law can and will intervene whenever it conflicts with the SS way.
The only correct choice is:
a. For motorists to set a safe and appropriate speed wihin the limits mandated by the law; anything outwith this is advocating law breaking.
b. And campaigning vigorously for the current system to be overhauled.

I'm not advocating the breaking of any laws, and I agree that we should be campaigning for the law to be changed (that's what we're doing, aren't we?)
Unfortunately, the cynical part of me tells me that this approach will not get very far, and we may find ourselves in the same position that the sufragettes were in all those years ago.

But let me make one thing clear - if it comes down to a decision between obeying the law to the letter and keeping myself, my family and others safe, the law is going to come a very poor second.

Cheers
Peter

Why shouldn't the police just enforce the law in the public interest? That's the ONLY thing that's required to sort this all out.

They haven't banged on my front door recently to see if I've got any pirate software.

They have to allocate their scare resources to enforce the law fairly and effectively. The way I see it all those hours spent enforcing arbitrary speed limits are hours wasted.

There are many many laws that aren't much enforced because they aren't needed or because no harm is done. And that's the way it should be with routine speeding.

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

Now now Steve Oscar is a nice chap who should be taking things easy!

Weather turned out inclement Oscar - you did'nt miss much walking!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

The thrust of this message is exactly right Paul but the bit I've emphasised is where the problem lies. Automatic detection and fast-track enforcement and netting off mean that the resources for enforcement activity can be scaled up at no marginal cost. It can be done; the partnerships want it to happen for ideological reasons and because any bureaucratic orgaisation will tend to seek growth; there is no tension in the system (apart from public opinion, which can be and is manipulated) to constrain the expansion; so it has expanded - and will continue to expand.

Fair point, fair question, but you're edging around my key point by asking it.
Until this mess gets sorted out and we return to proper policing of the roads, what message should we be sending out to motorists with regards their speed and the law, e.g. Follow the SafeSpeed rule and:

a. If it conflicts with the law then obey the law, or
b. If it conflicts with the law then ignore the law as the SS rule is a safer choice, or
c. If it conflicts with the law then ignore the law if you wish but be aware that a variety of enforcement methods are in use which could land you with a fine and points on your licence, or
d. Something else (not the written equivalent of a mumbled response with hand over mouth please )

We agree on the core issues, I'm just keen to know what message we send out in the interim.

Rigpig

I don't believe it's right to advocate the breaking of any laws, so I won't do it.
But, neither will I advocate obeying the law to the letter if and when the letter of the law is in conflict with the spirit of the law.
An example of this is if obeying a law to the letter would compromise safety - which would be in conflict with the spirit of the law if that law was designed to increase safety.

The ultimate decision is up to individual conscience.

Cheers
Peter

Fine Peter, that's what you think, albeit nice and cagey .
Is the the SS position as well I wonder?

Safe Speed cannot (must not and should not) advise people to break the law.

So Safe Speed's advice is:

Always drive at a safe and appropriate speed for the conditions. (breaking the law is a matter of individual conscience and responsibility)

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

This is an interesting moral question. I have put a disclaimer on my own website saying "Nothing on this site is intended as an encouragement to break any road traffic law or to behave in a dangerous or irresponsible manner on the roads."

Certainly it would be wrong to actively encourage people to break the law. However it must be recognised that the law on speeding is generally disregarded to some extent, generally without any adverse consequences.

Unless you can honestly, hand-on-heart, say "Driving within the speed limit is one of the most important contributions you can make to road safety. We strongly urge you to do so at all times" then it would appear disingenuous to make such a recommendation, especially if it isn't actually your personal practice.

But, inevitably, anything less than that may be interpreted by some as weasel words.

It is, of course, morally defensible to deliberately choose to break a particular law because you disagree with it. But that, I would suggest, is virtually never the motivation of those who exceed speed limits.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

That depends on how you define 'the law'. I'll say this again -

"the real boundary between criminal and non-criminal behaviour is not the speed limit itself but whether the speed limit is exceeded so frequently or flagrantly that the excess speed is detected and the limit (more or less) strictly enforced"

You might point out that this assertion is equivalent to saying "A crime is not a crime unless you're caught". In the case of speeding and (some other technical offences), it is true - up to the point where the 'legal' violation also becomes a safety violation.

You may find this hard to accept so let me cite another example. Running red light signals is an offence. But say you come across a set of temporary traffic lights on a quiet country road at 6 a.m. The signal is red against you. You can see the other end of the restriction and there is no other traffic approaching. Is it: (a) morally and/or (b) legally wrong to proceed against the signal?

As far as advice on this website is concerned, why is there any need to mention the speed limit in advice on setting a safe and appropriate speed?

One important reason is to avoid accusations that you are encouraging lawbreaking.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

You can tart it up in whatever colour dress you like, engage in whatever chicanery you like and say it as many times as you like mate. The law regarding the speed limit is specifically laid down, it's meaning is perfectly well defined and its enforcement is well understood. The fact that the application of the law is currently pants is another matter. You are blending the way you want things to be with the way things currently are.
Willfully advocating behaviour that might result in someone breaking the law, whether its application is pants or not, is a campaign and credibility killer.
Taking your example, supposing the campaign SafeLight, began telling drivers that it was ridiculous to sit a red lights in the middle of the night and to just ignore them. A Driver follows this advice and is nicked by an over-zealous cop. Morally reprehensible on the part of the cop agreed, but that doesn't help A Driver as he lands a fine and penalty points does it?
Fortunately it seems that both Paul and PeterE can see this and leave it to the individual to decide whether to break teh law.

This country has a LONG history of getting laws changed that are unjust (or not) by civil disobedience.
Everybody knows of the Mass Trespasses of the 1930's which eventually saw access to land given to ramblers, but did you know the trespasses continue right up to today?
The Poll Tax was defeated by widespread unrest. Truck Acts, etc. came about by civil unrest.

In the past, the Government of the day was able to exert a great deal of pressure to quash such measures to little avail - look up the Peterloo Massacre!
Now they try and use laws THEY introduced for their own ends to force issues, but once the public realise that if they get off their backsides they can VOTE these clowns out of office, then the politicians will be forced to listen. Until then, a small number of people prepared to break the law (or burn the GATSO's) risking their freedoms can be viewed as doing so for the long term good of the public.

I'm not looking to pick and choose which laws I obey, I want to pick which laws are good and fair, and which ones are politically useful to suppress the population, or raise taxes by any means other than calling them a tax, and see them squashed.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!