Breathtaking arrogance aside: Did you think I wouldn't spot your attempt of
distraction. I'll address each of your other points before reminding you of the underlying issue.
GreenShed wrote:
The issue of reasonableness doesn't arise;
Absolute tosh. 'Reasonableness' is first and foremost. If (whatever) is not reasonable then people won't abide by it - yes they
should, but they
won't thus making an ass of the law. This is basic psychology; do you really not understand this?
GreenShed wrote:
The driver who is assessing whether a speed limit is "reasonable" is surely being distracted by something that is irrelevant at that time.
Like what ... needless fatigue because the needlessly reduced level of driver arousal coupled with the needlessly longer journey? No that's completely unreasonable isn't it, just ask the 24% of motorway drivers who were killed as a result from that fatigue!
[table 1.1, dft_rdsafety_032139]
GreenShed wrote:
Why assess "reasonable" when there is no need to
'
Just take your medicine and don't ask questions'
GreenShed wrote:
Assessing "reasonableness" makes no sense.
That's one to remember!
Can you see the irony there?
GreenShed wrote:
Steve wrote:
I've always maintained there is nothing wrong with the concept of speed limits; the issue is how they are set, and we've already discussed how conflicts of interests, especially from SCP staff or ex SCP staff or those who support them in some way, can skew perceptions.
No! The issue is whether the attitude of the driver is to be guided by them or defy them when they believe it to be unreasonable.
Can you see the irony of that response too?
GreenShed wrote:
Further, if you believe a speed limit is unreasonable then complain about it to the Highway Authority responsible for it; in that way you are exercising your right to complaint to that authority. I am sure the Authority will be only too delighted to either explain why the limit is there or indeed question and correct something that has been brought to their attention that needs alteration.
That is the ideal way forward. However, the authorities will do as they always have done: toe the line to save face or risk being
sacked, relying upon misleading data from the SCPs
et al about the effects of speed and dismiss everything else.
So what can the majority really do about it without having to throw away their electoral vote on this single issue? We all already know the online petition system doesn’t work.
GreenShed wrote:
Steve wrote:
They can also be distracting in some circumstances. I ask you again: Would you say it is impossible/unreasonable that drivers will look at speedos more when driving on camera enforced roads where the speed limit is set needlessly low, in order for them to regulate their speed needlessly and significantly slower than they would have otherwise driven? You have no right to claim otherwise unless you can demonstrate that to be illogical or unreasonable.
It is illogical; if the limit is there it is no business of the driver at the time whether it be reasonable or not; to make that assessment is unreasonable, illogical and quite frankly stupid.
Did you think it reasonable to completely defy (evade) my relevant question?
That question has nothing to do with defying or assessing the limit, so you cannot respond in those terms.
For all your responses about distraction, you've utterly missed the only question (also about distraction) I asked of you - which to remind you was:
Would you say it is impossible/unreasonable that drivers will look at speedos more when driving on camera enforced roads where the speed limit is set needlessly low (below what is considered to be reasonable by the sensible majority), in order for them to regulate their speed needlessly and significantly slower than they would have otherwise driven?Just answer that question; no more diversions please!