Safe Speed Forums

You can easily have a hard limit that is softly enforced. There is a huge number of laws (from parking without lights to possession of cannabis) where the authorities, probably wisely, take the view that in many circumstances it is desirable to turn a blind eye.

It is not the limits themselves that cause the problem but their being enforced in a robotic and grossly over-zealous manner.

_________________
"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

We already have those. There are plenty of signs which gives speed guidance, SLOW in big white letters in the roads, black and whiter chevrons etc. A whole part of the driving culture is devoted to level of danger. But the speed limits are not that, I'm afraid. They are hard limits in law, and breaking them gets the law on your back. The sooner the better that sinks in. This has less to do with cameras – it’s the limits themselves that under threat!

Would anyone like to have a go at npd’s question now? Should maximum speed limits exist in practise or not? OK, I bolded it. It’s an awkward one, isn’t it.

_________________
I stole this .sig

No

orvare?

no



no

I don't read many of his posts, but I think we have different viewpoints, style, delivery and intentions.

Is botach and [insert name of any member of this site] in fact the same person?

No, that's a really silly thing to suggest.

_________________
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.

Correct. You should know the answers to these questions, PeterE.

What is the intent of laws that are not enforced? What do they do? And what happens ultimately to laws that are not enforced?

Hint: think what has happened to the law on parking without lights (or dope, for that matter).

_________________
I stole this .sig

As you well know, enforcement is not simply a question of all or nothing. There are a huge number of shades of grey in between.

Do you accept that it may be possible to enforce a basically reasonable law in an over-zealous manner?

Or do you believe that, assuming no resource constraints, it would be desirable to enforce all laws to the letter regardless of the circumstances?

_________________
"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

In some areas, quality factors are hard to judge, I’ll grant you that. Fortunately, the absolute maximum allowed speed is not in that category. Other offences are. To expect coppers to ignore violations of the absolute maximum allowed speed in undefined circumstances on their personal whims is a rubbish idea, basically.



Perhaps where quality factors are hard to judge. Not with the speed laws, nor the drink/violence laws either. They are absolute, although less would be better.



That’s the idea - British people have to pull their socks up. When I see more maturity, I might think different. But there are far too many antisocial nitwits around and they need to be told straight, I’m afraid!

PS: Just noticed you evaded my question (in a rather twisty,turney way, you devil). What is the intent of laws that are not enforced? What do they do? And what happens ultimately to laws that are not enforced?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Ah! So you are advocating that the full weight of the Theft Act be applied to people taking the odd paperclip home from work. It is theft, after all...

Good for you - nice to see a man of conviction... How many do you think that you're likely to receive?

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Basingwerk, what do you do personally when you find a defective bulb on your own car? As you must have driven with the defect that is against the law, presumably you go and report yourself to the police. Or if you fail an MOT for ANY reason, you must have driven a defective vehicle on the road........and ignorance is no excuse, again as an honest upright citizen do you report yourself? If someone buys you a drink in a pub presumably this is declared on your income tax form.
And don't forget Alan Turing, convicted of homosexuality - forced to take hormones to 'cure' him of criminality, started to grow breasts and committed suicide possibly putting back computer development by ten years. It is ludicrous to think the law is always right and should be rigidly enforced.

As I said, there is a continuum of enforcement between none whatsoever and totally draconian and over-the-top. A law that is not enforced at all, ever, will ultimately wither on the vine, obviously. Like archery practice.

But to say a law should be enforced less (although quite as much as it used to be) is not the same at all. I am not saying that speed limits should not be enforced ever, but that they are being enforced too much, and in the wrong places, at present.

Btw, while we're on the subject of not answering questions, you never did explain how supposed offences of careless driving can be identified and prosecuted in the absence of an accident resulting. Care to enlighten us?

_________________
"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

It's all to do with the GOAL.
If road safety is the goal, as opposed to accumulating convictions, then surely we need to ask ourselves if strict enforcement is the most effective way of using resources.

And when considering your answer, Basingwerk, don't forget to consider driver psychology, camera-regime side-effects and the quality of life of many drivers who are not "antisocial nitwits" but who do not naturally put speedo compliance above concentration on the road environment that they are driving in.

You might see this forum as a playground, but I and most others do not. You can provide balance and insight, but I'm well and truly fed up with your witty distractions. I also think that it's a genuine tragedy that you're not putting your intelligence to better use.

We're now in a real position to influence road safety policy. Future lives are at stake. Please respect that.

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

Jeez, what does one have to do to get an answer around here?

Ask someone other than Basingwerk?

_________________
"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

If you're talking about this, ask a question that can reasonably be answered in less than 1,000 words.

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

What would be wrong with either "yes" or "no"?

Obviously there is alot of detail (and the devil is in the detail, I don't think its appropriate for a "road safety group" to dodge this) - however I feel "yes" or "no" would at least indicate the gist of it.

'Yes' or 'no' would both be true and false answers depending on the definitions applied to the terms in the question. But perhaps you know that?

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

FWIW I'm quite happy to answer "yes" - but subject to various caveats about the reasonableness of limits, tolerances, enforcement strategy and practice etc.

(the question being "should maximum speed limits exist in practise or not?")

Without any qualifications it is the equivalent of being asked "should we have a police force?" and by answering "yes" implicitly condoning fitting-up and in-cell beatings.

I would tend to define a speed limit as a figure above which you may be prosecuted on a strict liability basis. Not will.

_________________
"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

Peter - finding these days that a simple answer ie - yes/no - is giving some "clever" people an avenue to lok for a way to exploit "clever " answers.So now , to avoid this , we have to cover every avenue of attack. Instead of answering honestly - people are looking to see if perhaps smarty pants can have a laugh - leading to agro -- like someone at a junction being polite and 15 drivers deciding that this bloke is a "mug" --we'll take the p.When in fact this is a decent bloke giving his opinion .
Humour is fine - times i do it -we all do it , but going overboard is taking it past the limit.As is deciding black is white and labouring the point till a ban/suspension ensures .( no pointy - no gety dropped on)

I know - i do at times rabbit on - but no offence is intended , most times i'll just let a person wth an axe carry on bashing and walk away - other times i get stuck in if i feel that someone is getting a raw deal - or a new driver is being done over when i think at heart he is right - just needs a little help to get on the right track - as i do at times - we are not all perfect drivers - i'm the first to say that i can learn from others - that's why i'm here.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Well I'm not sure which terms are so poorly defined, I thought the question was clear enough. What needs to be better defined, do you think?



See? Not so hard, is it?



Indeed, but OTH you do need to answer the basic questions, even if they are sometimes a bit broad.



That of course is the case for any law, and I don't think anyone is advocating absolute surveillance and enforcement.

I also don't think speed cameras (as we know them today) offer this possibility.

Requiring definition:

"maximum speed limits"
"exist"
"in practise"

I'll give you some statements that I do believe:

"Speed limits are a good idea and are useful to road safety."

"Speed limits are a vauable minor contributor to road safety."

"Current enforcement practice has promoted speed limits way beyond their level of competence, to the point that they are frequently a dangerous distraction."

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