Safe Speed Forums

Go on then - define how you think it works. No waffle. No emotion. Just logic and facts.

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

(re:basingwerk)
But your only solution is a slower speed limit or a camera? yet they are part of the problem.
What my village needs the m27/m271 junction fixing.
The M271 is the only motorway with a roundabout in the middle. It needs a total rethink but the highways agency can't be bothered. Another part of the problem is that over half of motorway roadworks are not to repair or improve the motorway but to put in more gantrys and cameras, plod parking spots and clutter like solar pannels.

My colleages rat run as a way to save 10 min on thier trip home.They drive through council estates to avoid queues and camera sites. These are not mad young loonys, but Mr and Mrs Respectable who have been in the same job for 20 years.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

I'll do so, bringing attention to your selectivity. Let's examine the ethics of
the situation.

First, there are wide concerns here relating to society as a whole. Let's
start with the legal ethics. If a thing is not legal, it’s not ethical, end of
story. So you start off on the wrong foot by basing your case on an
unethical foundation. But even if we give you some ground, and decide
that it IS possible to act ethically and illegally, which could be possible in
some rare cases, your effort to dispel dissent by referring to the "Queen's
Highway" is ridiculous, because it makes no effort at all to analyse the
positive and negative factors applying to ALL the stakeholders. Your
approach doesn't even identify the stakeholders, let alone address their
complaints! Nor does it identify various options that exist for addressing
the complaints. You just say "it's the Queen's Highway so get lost". Such
an approach could never work in any ethical process.

To work, you have to identify the stakeholders, analyse their
requirements, even if they conflict, assess various courses of action,
including activity that could have positive, neutral or negative effects for
different stakeholders or groups. Then you have to weigh those options
and outcomes, and make a selection from the options that
causes the most amount of good to society as a whole, and the least
amount of harm. Quoting "the Queen's Highway" simplistically fails on all
these counts, and shows how little you really care about ethical
behaviour. And not only that, you fail to see the irony of depending
on "the Queen's Highway" law for your goals, yet denying the right
of others to use the speeding laws to limit illegal activity near their
homes.

It's time to start making a difference, instead of trotting out the same
lame excuses for 'plain-old-speeding'. You know your duty – obey the law
and get with the programme!

_________________
I stole this .sig

It is important for good drivers to treat all the limits with respect.
When that is done, there will be less speeding overall. Extended limits,
cameras, bumps, humps, bollards and what have you could be gladly
removed as they would serve no purpose once drivers get with the
programme and drive ethically.


One idea is to make all new drivers swear a solemn oath when they
receive their licenses to try to obey the law and be a good driver for the
sake of their community.

_________________
I stole this .sig

You have to be joking.

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

From your previous post, you obviously have severe problems with the dichotomy of "legality" vis-a-vis "ethical". One does not, and cannot, imply the other.

I would venture to suggest that the vast majority of motorists endeavour to drive "ethically" - in that they don't wish harm to fall upon themselves or their fellow road-users (in all senses of the meaning). This may, or may not, imply that they also drive "legally"... 35mph in an unreasonably-limited 30mph zone is "illegal", but hardly "unethical". Whereas 69mph on a motorway in dense fog is "legal", but it sure-as-hell isn't "ethical".

Now, back to "extended limits" and the respect thereof... To be respected, a law needs to engender respect... The vast majority of motorists are essentially law-abiding, grown-up, responsible people. A completely inappropriate limit will be evaluated by them for the nonsense it is - and thus not respected. Set reasonable limits in a reasonable way and they will be respected - other than by that tiny minority who are "immune" because they don't give a sh*t anyway.

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

You must be aware of the common procedure that people, in ethical
dilemmas, are obliged to employ in practice and by law.
Therefore, I expect you want to divert this discussion into fruitless,
abstract areas for your own reasons?



I’m reassured to hear that, but you realise that simply not wishing harm is
insufficient. Driving ethically should involve taking all measures to actively
avoid harm to fellow road-users. Isn’t the opposite mode of
behaviour ‘negligence’? And negligent drivers don’t want to cause
crashes, but they are still unethical, aren’t they?

Your distractions about “dense fog” and what have you have been much
trammelled before. The issue is whether violating the speed limit can be
ethical. Some ethical procedures suggest it can not, unless there are
extenuating circumstances. Just “having a bit of a thrill” or “I was late for
work” don’t count. On the other hand, it isn’t cut and dried, as my post
made clear.

But, as a basis for ethical behaviour, obeying the laws is a start,
combined with all other good driving traits. And it may be unethical in
many cases to disobey them. So it seems safer to stick on the right side
of the law, doesn’t it?



That sounds very nice, but it’s not what dpratt has seen where he
lives. In fact, many of us here have seen “essentially law-abiding, grown-
up, responsible people” acting like chumps behind the wheel. If you want
to definitely be ethical, start by obey the driving laws and use other good
driving traits. Else it’s just a “maybe”. And being ethical helps other
drivers (who are not as thoughtful or philosophical as us) to do the right
thing as well. Come on, it’s a no-brainer, pogo – get with the programme
yourself, and encourage others to get with the programme as well!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Well done, BW - this is possibly the best posting I've ever read of yours - my congratulations.

Unfortunately, virtually from the start, you base your argument on a false premise, i.e. Which is possibly quite true, but only if the law being obeyed/broken is a sensible one.
- where the law is sensible and proper. Personally, I will not obey the law when to do so means endangering life (mine or others).

Whilst I disagree with your opinions, I respect them. If anyone can prove to me that all posted speed limits are correct and sensible, then I will obey them. Until that day, I shall continue to drive safely & courteously at all times.

Here endeth the lesson.
Amen.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

There are ethical sides to that, as well. Even if speed limits cannot be
shown to be correct, it is still best to obey them for two reasons.


First, they might be correct. The default assumption therefore must be
that they are correct, because that is the safer approach, and the safer
approach is more ethical.


The second reason is that good drivers like you and pogo, influence
poorer drivers. You may very well be right that a given limit is not correct
and sensible, for you, but the general message you give out is “WE DON’T
BOTHER WITH LIMITS”. That is the message that is received from you by
younger and immature road users.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Let me put it to you this way. Is it desirable for ethics and the law to be in
conflict? And if it is not desirable for ethics and the law to be in conflict,
what must be done when an ethical action violates the law? Yes – the law
must be changed. We can’t have people being had up for doing good
things. That is definitely not the point of the law. And last – has the law
been changed to make it legal to break the speed limit? I’m afraid not –
speeding was illegal, last time I looked.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Indeed I am... But that does not in any way prove your point, which I refuted, that "legal" = "ethical".


I wouldn't dare trespass into the realms of your specialist subject.


They may be, equally they may not be. "Negligence" comes in many shades - from the slightest mistake, which is the mere byproduct of being human and imputes nothing to the ethicality of the individual concerned - to "Gross Negligence", which is not normally something comitted by a person who has much in the way of regard for his/her fellows.


No. The issue posed by you originally is whether not exceeding the speed limit is ethical... My crude examples were simply to posit that there is no link between legality and ethics, and action may or may not be legal and may or may not be ethical; it is not possible to claim that one implies the other in any of the possible combinations of conditions.


It may be, it may not be. Sticking "on the right side of the law" in no way implies safety or ethicality - it merely implies "legality". "Good driving traits" are of far greater importance to road safety than merely observing the law to the minutest degree.


Perhaps because, as I originally suggested, the specification of the speed limit in question is not "reasonable" and thus engenders disrespect that unfortunately carries over into an area where the limit is reasonable.


I'd venture to suggest that "good driving" trumps "obeying the law" with regard to road safety, however, they are not mutually exclusive conditions.

To get back to my original point, what I'd suggest doing would be to move the speed limit signs closer to the village. Look at it this way... "Joe Motorist" trundling along what was described by the OP as the "main through road" at 50 - 60 mph, gets to 30 sign, slows down; after a couple of hundred yards of no apparent hazard, thinks "this is stupid" and speeds back up to original speed... Goes round a corner and arrives at the village at a speed well in excess of what is appropriate. I suggest that putting the limit closer to the hazard would mean that drivers go into that area at a reduced speed.

I have a couple of very good examples of this working in practice (except negatively!) on roads near to my office... They used to be about a mile of rural NSL feeding into 30 limits just short of the built-up area. From 30-odd years experience of these roads I can say that most traffic used to travel at 50-ish in the NSL section slowing to 35 or less at the limit signs. The roads are now completely 30-limited, despite no change in conditions. Net result is that most cars ignore the 30 limit, travel along the section that used to be NSL at about 40 - 45 and don't slow appreciably for the built-up area! Net result of this wonderful bit of traffic "planning" is to make roads that run through residential areas, and in one case past a school, more dangerous. My contention is that the OP's village is suffering from this type of "thinking".

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

No, but it is unavoidable. Sometimes it is preferable to any viable alternative.

Laws are simple and wide in scope. Ethics must take consequences into account, while the written law cannot in many individual cases.

Speed limit laws are an excellent example of a clash between legal and ethical. It's a good law that requires ethical enforcement. When the law cannot meet the challenges of variability, enforcement methods must. It's only ethical.

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

I hope you are agreeing that, in practical terms, it is best to solve ethical
dilemmas legally where possible – that is the point, or to make the law
reflect the ethics. I’m considering SafeSpeed’s idea that sometimes no
rapprochement is the right thing.




One-off mistakes (and argumentativeness!) aside, I hope you are
agreeing that not wishing harm is insufficient. More active avoidance is
the goal we want for road safety, not SMIDSY.




The issue I want to pose originally was that SafeSpeed’s "Queen's
Highway Defence " is ridiculously unethical, as I’m sure you’ll agree if you
read it again. You should feel no urge to defend his stance. It is basically
the SCREW-YOU argument, which just brings on more backlash against
drivers.



I could live with minute infringements on the odd occasion. I can’t be
doing with constant, flagrant abuses. However, "Good driving traits" must
include setting a good example to young or immature drivers, by leaving
plenty of margin, and improving the overall road culture. Being safe is not
good enough; you have to be seen being safe.




Well, you get a point for at least considering ‘going legal’. How hard can it
be to obey the speed limit, though?

_________________
I stole this .sig

You may believe it to be crap but you can't tell people what to think can you? The villagers may not own the highway, but nor do the drivers who travel along it.

Telling people that their concerns are less important than you (our) driving licence hardly promotes tolerance does it?

I'm inclined to rile at anyone who claims ownership of something that isn't theirs - even when it's on behalf of another party.

Turns out that my words upset camera operator. I've apologised to him by PM. I accept I should have been gentler.

But I do strongly stand by the main point which I have emboldened. I believe that current policies are promoting intolerance.



Where on earth did you get that from?

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

camera operator wrote:
could it be just a case of enough is enough, this village wants / demands action after all they live there


Now hopefully , next time a spate of burglaries happen there - they'll get action too --- or will that not happen because of the profit margin ( and suppossed lack of manpower)??

_________________
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

Here... http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 0816#80816

Unless I've completely misread the words and sentiment I believe the same principle applies here as it did back at the cited post.

Well, there's: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 0821#80821

And then obviously I forgot.

It is a misunderstanding. It probably hinges around the defintion of the word 'discomfort'. I was thinking about mild cases where the main effect is 'lack of comfort'; whereas the compass of the word discomfort is potentially a lot wider.

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

when you return to fraggle rock you might realise that burglaries are investigated by CID, not by a SCP not by a traf pol (unless they are being chased), and no doubt you realise that a video tape from a SCP van can be used as evidence to put a person or a vehicle at a place at the time of the offence



but advocating any individual to drive at whatever speed they like wherever they like as long as they think it is safe, with a total disregard to other road users who might be in their way, is ok is it

_________________
now retired

Cam Op - seems reasonable to believe that if a village is being bothered by speeders then steps will be taken to "enforce the law in regarfd to speeding"

Now if these same villagers find that they are suffering from an outbreak of shed bulgaries/house burglaries etc then steps will be taken to "Enforce the law to protect the rights of householders"


UNLESS WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE SPEEDING IS PUT ON A HIGHER PLANE THAN THE BASIC RIGHTS OF SOCIETY -

SOMETHING YOUR POST SUGGESTS.

_________________
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