Safe Speed Forums

Unfortunate choice of example. In many legal systems (Scotland, for example) there is no law of trespass, nor is there an equivalent idea under a different name. Instead it is up to the landowner to secure their property, and an offence is only committed if damage to property occurs. You might find that difficult to believe, but it is true, and the laws to protect land function in a very different yet very effective way.

Some people, like yourself BW, turn laws into a matter of blind faith to the extent that they become truths in themselves, with no room to even perceive alternatives.

A solution to the problem with the discrediting of the 'speeding' law is to introduce a requirement to prove danger. There is no reason why the power to make that consideration cannot be placed with police officers, except that it is more fiscally expedient in the short term to make the offence absolute and therefor be able to 'police' it using a primitive automated system.....

You would have my support if you could successfully argue against the fact that speed in itself is not dangerous. Like r11co said, you only seem to argue because it is against the law. Correct me if that is not your stance...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

I say, BW... You seem to be getting yourself into a bit of a tangle, and displaying, despite your obvious grasp of logic, a rather tenuous and somewhat "Unwinesque" acquaintance with the common law.


He may be very foolhardy, but in common law you would be unable to take action for damages in tort unless harm came from his behaviour.

You referenced "Wikipedia" on negligence, however, you can't have read it very carefully as it's quite explicit in its statement... "In order to prove negligence, it is not necessary to prove harm, but in order for a cause of action to rest in tort, harm must be proven. Hence, it would be meaningless to sue someone for negligence if no harm resulted."


Unfortunately, the "speed negligence" is nearly always at a perfectly legal speed - being "inappropriate" rather than "illegal", not a very strong argument for keeping to limits.


You seem to make no distinction between the vigilance necessary to prevent immediate damage or injury and that necessary to prevent a purely technical offence being committed.


No. Trespass is a tort and to receive any restitution for same it is necessary to prove damage has occurred, or alternatively to injucnt the trespasser to forbid them from further trespass. There is no more nonsensical notice than that saying "Trespassers will be prosecuted".


You'll have to try a lot harder and find some correct examples...

Payment / Theft... The Theft Act refers to "the dishonest misappropriation of goods belonging to another with intent permanently to deprive". Firstly, the action of paying comes nowhere near this unless you intentionally set out to underpay and hide the underpayment. Innocent underpayment (ie mistake) has no intention ("mens rea" - literally "guilty mind") and thus is not theft. It may be "taking a pecuniary advantage" but that's not what you were talking about....

Speeding being an offence of Strict Liability has no need for mens rea, the act is deemed to imply the intention... It's a totally different class of offence.

You're painting yourself into a corner...

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

interesting to note that you regard your anger as irrational rather than being rational.


and there's plenty of ours that do threaten....




So you'll support the repealing of the legislation that brought in SCPs, GATSOs etc??



Still valid though.

Not sure how well your analogy about power station operators not keeping their minds on the job stands up in real life.
I used to work in the generating game and I can tell you that the presence of a person in the control room is really only needed for answering the phone and putting a dint in the coffee jar - the computer runs everything.
I could have been asleep for a whole shift and it would have had a 0% impact on the safety of the plant. Homer Simpson's nodding bird that pressed the Y key repeatedly would work perfectly - all we ever did was press the override button when the computer decided to trip the plant for the nth time ('steam pressure high' was always a fave - well Dur!)

I agree.

I am sure you would agree with me that we should raise the motorway speed limit to a level that does better reflect social norms, and that enforcement is then used to deal with those you break the law, and thus, social norms.

I'm not at all sure about that. I think we have a minority of under-experienced and underskilled drivers who actually do drive to the speed limit. Because they are underskilled they need 'low' speed limits, and 70mph is quite fast enough for them.

The rest of us drive to the conditions and when conditions are suitable we go faster.

This is a system that works. Our motorways are the safest in the world. Why mess with it?

It'd be better to legitimise current safe practice by telling drivers that they would be left alone if they were driving safely and appropriately (which is after all what most of the cops do.)

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

But the problem with that is that the current culture is that speed limits are, in effect, set at what is, in clear conditions, a gentle cruising speed along a road. They are almost a recommended speed, not an absolute psychological maximum. If we were to change them so that they represented a speed which, under pretty much all circumstances, it was dangerous to exceed even by a small amount (i.e. to be more like the drink-drive limit) they would need to be considerably higher, say 40s in proper 30s, 60s in proper 40s, 80s on SC NSLs, 100 or more on motorways. And, without a major cultural shift, they would still tend to be regarded as targets, not absolute maxima.

Surely it is far better (and gives a more useful signal to low-skilled or novice drivers) to set the limits a bit below the realistic maximum safe speed, but adopt a flexible approach in enforcing them.

_________________
"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

Do you think they drive at or under 70 because that is the limit?



So the law should only apply to some people some of the time?



Because it makes a mockery of speed limits. This may not cause problems on motorways, but I suspect it has a significant impact elsewhere when people expect the same leeway.
It'd be better to legitimise current safe practice by telling drivers that they would be left alone if they were driving safely and appropriately (which is after all what most of the cops do.)[/quote]

Agreed, however I think this is a problem regardless of enforcement or what the limits are.



Nothing is "safe" or "dangerous", it is merely shades of risk. A speed limit is simply a line in the sand which determines what is and what isn't acceptable risk, and that has to take into account the possibility that the conditions may not be optimal.

However, if limits are to mean anything, they have to be enforced (as we discussed earlier)



This shift needs to happen regardless.



Which essentially in practise leads to the speed limit not being enforced, and a "reasonable and prudent" speed law existing in practise. This runs contrary to the apparant agreement that legally-binding speed limits should exist in practise.

Well, absolutely, it's an arbitrary line in the sand, which is precisely why it is counter-productive to enforce limits, wherever they are set, to very low tolerances and without any kind of discretion.


They need to be enforced to the extent that drivers believe there is a reasonable risk of them being caught. They don't need to be enforced everywhere, all the time, to very low fixed tolerances. 3 million prosecutions a year is far more than is needed to achieve that end. A tenth of that amount, as we used to have, would be quite sufficient.

_________________
"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

Do this actually happen with speed cameras?



Yes



No - but then that isn't happening.



Given the disregard that a lot of motorists have for speed limits I disagree.

Of course it does. There isn't a little gnome sitting in there deciding whether to click the shutter.


Only if the objective is absolute compliance with the letter of the law.

_________________
"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 only it were!

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

There is with mobile enforcement :p

I wouldn't say 10%+2 is a very low tolerance.

And why would discretion be needed? Its a line in the sand, you don't cross it. End of story.


Only if the objective is absolute compliance with the letter of the law.[/quote]

There has to be compliance, or people will simply exceed limits where the limit is especially important as the safe speed cannot (or isn't being) appropriately determined from the driver's viewpoint.

I don't know why people attach so much importance to speed limits when, in the final analysis, speed limits - especially motorway limits - their enforcement and compliance (or lack of) with, are of little or no consequence to accident risk or road safety.

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

Then why don't people campaign against the limits, rather than the enforcement?

No there doesn't, if the set limit is foolish.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Then the issue is with the law, not the enforcement.

Not that the driver necessarily has all the facts to determine if a limit is "foolish" or not.

I beg to differ. Where I live, the speed limits are ridiculously low! And too high in some cases!

Drivers quite often know better than some faceless bureaucrat what a safe speed is for a given road at a given time...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus