Safe Speed Forums

g) When the law is wrong and it is foolish to obey it

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

I'd quite happily settle for a sensible law that is subject purely to logic, e.g. if you drive too fast for the conditions, then you are breaking the law.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Thanks. I'll add you to my list of those who want to scrap speed limits, then. Anyone else want to get rid of speed limits in this way?

P.S. Safespeed and me both reckon they are valuable and should not be scrapped.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Yep, that confirms it - BottyBurp wants the limits to go.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Go on then, I'll have a go...
Yes, where necessary

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Quite wrong again. Many laws relating to the operation of dangerous machinery, including cars, requires constant vigilance. Do you not believe that the overseer of a textile production line should vigilantly look after his workers safety, and stop the machinery if it breaks? Do you think that the operators of a nuclear power station would be within the law if they ceased to monitor their instruments? Do you think that a pilot would be quite within his rights to ignore his instruments, or leave the cockpit and go for a nap?

The only thing you have highlighted is how potentially dangerous cars are because they are so common. That makes limits more necessary, not less.

_________________
I stole this .sig

What is REALLY ludicrous is for drivers to now have to compromise road safety.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

When it is sensible to do so.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Good man, BottyBurp, although it is a bit of a reversal - a moment ago you seemed to be saying they should be scraped. So I welcome this change of heart, and I have taken you off my list!

You believe that maximum speed limits should exist where they are necessary. Now can you enlighten us further. Exactly where are they necessary? And where are they not necessary?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Hoorah! BW's seen the point! And our 'higher goal' should be Road Safety?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

So that's a no then. Care to try again?

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

Ummm, can you highlight the bit of text where I said "yes, let's scrap speed limits" please? Oh, I'm sorry? You can't...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Brilliant observation, Paul. I very much doubt if any of the tasks listed by Basingwerk are governed by law, insofar as a nuclear power station engineer shall look at the temperature gauge every X seconds. That's just good practice.

Both he and the airline pilot know that, if they don't pay attention, they'll blow us all to smithereens. Not quite the same as 35 in a 30 limit.

Nope – you asked for an example and I gave you plenty. Negligence is a big source of litigation, and a lot of law is built around it. Or do you believe that a surgeon who nips out for a fag while he’s operating on you isn’t negligent!?! I think your argument is as dead as the surgeon’s patient!

Now, is this your attempt to make speed limits look special, so that you can convince people to excuse speed negligence, which causes a large proposition of the road deaths? Hm… what an odd argument you are trying to make!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Well, if you can show that the law and road safety are not congruous, fine. For instance, if there was a tsunami rolling up the beach as you were pulling out of the parking lot, you might be excused for speeding. But other than those special circumstances, the general rule of law should prevail, I’m afraid, BottyBurp.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Yeah, prop him up a bit, PaulAH. Let’s try to keep it going for as long as we can!

_________________
I stole this .sig

You haven't named another law.

And anyway avoiding negligence does not require constant vigilance. I don't need to think "I must not be negligent" every 30 seconds to comply.

Care to try again?

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

By all means: I'd happily settle for a law that is subject purely to logic

A law that is subject purely to logic, as you suggest, has no physical existence, merely a logical one. A purely logical existence would mean that the law could not interact with the physical world in any way! Such a law would be entirely useless, and could not be used to (say) communicate speed limits. Thus, the only interpretation is that speed limits should be scrapped. Any useful law must have physical as well as logical artefacts.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I’ll give you a clue. Look up the word tort, then checkout:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence

If you want more (and have time), checkout the HSW act, 1974 etc.



You are incurable! The surgeon or overseer or lifeguard, or even a sailor in the crow’s nest (silly example, but remember the titanic!) must be as or more vigilant than a driver! So we are still unable to find a particularly special attribute of speeding. Hm… why are you so determined to find one, despite all these other legal responsibilities people have towards safety?

PS: or was the captain of the Titanic speeding?!?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Basingwerk, the question was Can you name one other law where compliance requires constant vigilance?

Negligence is different. Certainly it involves legal process, but relates to neglect of duty, not non-compliance with the law. As if this should need pointing out.