Safe Speed Forums

Yes, it would appear that way. But we should not give up. Speed limits ARE wrong - motorways should be higher, many roads should have higher limits, some should probably have lower limits. I've posted elsewhere what I think is the right approach to setting the limits (and it involves driver opinion, not just planner or politician views).

I don't agree that simply choosing to ignore the law is the way to address this though.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

If you were seen doing this and fined for it I'd fully support the prosecution of yourself for littering.




What else do you take from the office? I don't thikn they're going to be too worried if its the occasional paperclip.


[/quote]

And if you were caught I'd fully support the prosecution of yourself for speeding.

Well, fair enough complain, but it is the law, it's not optional regardless of what you think of it, or the people enforcing it.

Tell that to the marines.
Maybe drivers would have more respect for the law if the people who MADE the law obeyed it, or the people who ENFORCED the law obeyed it.
But, with an obvious lack of MORALS in both the above why should WE obey a law that even the CHIEF ANTI_SPEEDER cannot be bothered to obey ?

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

I like the Age of Consent analogy, perhaps we can apply the speed limit logic to it.

If a bunch of politically correct numb skulls got together and successfully campaigned to have the age of consent raised to 30 (for the sake of argument) and you were 25 and happily married. Would you be happy to go to jail for underage sex? The law is the law after all. No matter that 5 years ago the state was happy for you to be joined in matrimony.

Now think about speed limits. You have driven along a road for 10 years, the speed limit has always been 40. Today you drive along it, but the NIMBY's have got their way, it is now a 20 limit. Is it dangerous to drive at 40, well it wasn't for 10 years, so why is it now?

Especially as the majority speeding, in both those and limits will be those who LIVE there and CAMPAIGNED for the reduction.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

have you ever heard of "reductio ad absurdum"?

To make your analogy work, you are only allowed to drive on one road, unless you risk losing your home, family, and a lot of money. The thing is, that road is no longer just for you, it's being shared by a lot of people.

To be as absurd as the analogy above, it was safe to have relations with one person for 10 years, but now it isn't. 10 years of "low usage" means it was relatively low risk. Over the last 5 years the workload has increased significantly - YOU may just be using it twice a day as per the last 10 years, but 10,000 extra people have been having a go as well. is the risk still the same?

The reason for the analogy is not to compare age of consent to speed limit, it is to compare the rule of law to "optional guidelines". If you are getting all Daily Mail about that analogy, consider this one:

In some communities there is little or no understanding of private property. Certain "things" are the property of the community as a whole. If those utopian communards choose to leave their community, for whatever reason, and use your car because they needed to get somewhere, is that OK? They did not write the law on theft, nor do they support it, they do not consent to it being enforced.

Are they at liberty to choose which parts of the law they will ignore? Should the police just let them off because they didn't consent?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I have, and it was deliberate.

Perhaps I should have thrown in a meaningless statistic to make it more so, like "studies reveal that 90% of cancer patients are married and under 30"

Of course in this case we can see that the connection is garbage and indeed absurd. However when the statistic is rammed home ad-infinitum, it begins to be accepted.

It's okay to say it's the law Handy but our democracy is essentially a two horse race. If they are either incompetent or corrupt and make/enforce laws which are wrong or stupid, what do you have left?

Well, for one thing you have people on forums saying it's the law so just obey it and shut up - as though the law is always right.

NO! The law is not always right and if we started to list the -ups they have made we will be here all day.

Suppose you vote for me because I appeal to the masses, (Vote Tone for the childrens sake and for the poor and needy and cheaper electricity and gas and food), and I gain power but the one aspect of my personality is a hatred for cycles. Would you obey my laws Handy when I restrict or persecute you, as a cyclist?

Don't forget, so long as I have the majority vote you must do what I tell you to do and like the good boy you are, you will follow? It's the law!

So long as I appeal to the majority who are indifferent about cycling, (plus the ever-increasing no voters), - I get you and your type off the road.

(I'm not against cycles BTW. Just an example)

We vote them in for many reasons but it doesn't follow that they get the peripheral stuff right. (They don't even get the big stuff right) There always has to be a big backlash before they rethink their position.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Road capacity is directly proportionate to the speed with which vehicles can transit the area, ergo increasing useage and decreasing speed will result in higher-than-optimal traffic densities. Accidents are far more likely in a dense traffic environment than a sparse one.

but that's not what I have said, is it? I've said obey the law as it stands but DON'T shut up about it, and campaign and lobby for the law to be changed. When it comes to election time, ask your prospective MP's if they would support a change to the way speed limits were set.

Of course, the cynic in me accepts that they will lie, but if enough people ask enough times then maybe the message might start to get through.



errrm... I don't understand why you have posited this question at me, as I'm not a cyclist. I do own a bike, but it's still at my parents house and I moved out some 20 odd years ago. Actually I'm not even sure if it's still there.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

You may have misunderstook the (admittedly obtuse) statement ... that paragraph was attempting to describe (using non-specific terms) the act of congress with a partner of your choice.

Whilst on the subject of road capacity, I think you have that wrong. It has been proved on these very forums that more vehicles can pass a single point at 30mph than at 70mph in the same time span (assuming that proportionally correct safe distances are used between vehicles). So road capacity is NOT directly proportionate to the travelling speed of the traffic.

And I entirely agree with your final sentence.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

At a single point, that is true. But across the whole network, the slower the average speeds from A to B, the more vehicles will need to be on the roads at any time to achieve the same number of journeys.

_________________
"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

don't confuse overall road capacity with individual journey completion.

Across the whole network, more vehicles can be on the roads at a slower speed than a faster one. Hence the capacity of the road is higher at lower speeds.

This is a hard concept to accept, I find. It's counter-intuitive to anyone who drives a car or uses the road. I didn't believe it when I first read it, and spent a bit of time playing with some numbers to prove it to myself.

Other variables apply, notably the separation between vehicles. if we could get vehicles safely a few inches apart at a high speed we would achieve far higher utilisation of the (particularly trunk) road network. Of course that would put a strain on the non-trunk supporting network that serves the trunk route, so this could not be deployed in isolation.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Well, as I said, I meant it just as an example. I don't know what your 'thing' is. From memory, was it diving?

Ok then, Now I'm elected, so Big Tone Brown says no more diving. It's dangerous and unnecessary and if you want to do it take your K-Y jelly and re-breathing gear and go to, er, that place my vociferous work colleague goes to - somewhere over by Egypt I think. No more Stony Cove for you! (It's just an example again)

We vote a government in, they send us to a war no-one in GB voted for, they put cameras up without a shred of research as to their efficacy but now they've done it they will make damn sure the figures add up for us. (Even though Paul ripped them apart)

Actually, I think we agree but for the speeding thing. (Shame)


BTW. Get the bike back out and do some exercise, if only for your family's sake. Dr Tone has spoken

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Road capacity is not measured (to my mind) in numbers of cars on the road. Of course you can pack them more tightly, safely, at slower speeds, but what would our road capacity be if every road was a long car park? Furthermore, it is these slower, more tightly packed conditions that lend themselves to accidents.

No, capacity is a measure of the ability to accommodate journeys over time. Given that road users do not all depart simultaneously, the model of 'marbles through the gate' does not really apply, its another oversimplification, using one property to try to define a complex system. The sooner the earlier departers clear the area, the more room for the next arrivals.

When your model does become of value is when considering a situation like a 'shockwave' jam on a motorway. Here, by slowing the traffic down, thus allowing it to bunch up without stopping, and delaying it's arrival at the jam site, the 'plug' is given the opportunity to clear, since traffic is not joining the rear quicker than it is departing the front.

In a democracy you can believe in the rule of law without believing all laws are right.

If the law was spot on we wouldn't need a parliament, as we wouldn't need any new laws, quite apart from getting rid of old ones.

But as it stands, people campaign/lobby/demonstrate for all sorts of laws to be changed all the time. That doesn't mean they're currently breaking the law or encouraging others to do so.

In fact one might argue that being a member of Safespeed means I'm more concerned about the law than if I just said "f*** it, I'll just ignore speed limits."

I'd rather the law was changed so I didn't risk breaking it while driving perfectly safely.

I was talking about the law in the UK - which is what this argument is all about.



And your justification for this defamatory statement is...what, exactly?

You're really doing yourself no favours here.

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

...but the higher it has to be for the same throughput.

Going by your reasoning, the road capacity is greatest when the traffic's standing still.
The slower the traffic the denser it is. This is mainly due to the same gap timewise equating to a smaller gap distancewise at lower speeds, but this is exacerbated by the fact that drivers tend to bunch closer when speeds are below optimum.
Driving closer together, drivers' views are more restricted by the vehicles ahead - they cannot see as far ahead and so may miss seeing developing hazards until it's too late.
Also, the more time you spend on the road, the more likely you are to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

...and the faster you go the more likely somebody ELSE is going to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (re: your increased event horizon).