Monbiot on speed cameras and the real war
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brimstone on 30 Jul 2010 08:09 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:18vmnmumsd9r4$.167hc753p7x93$.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:49:25 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > >>> The fact perceptions of safe vary widely is one reason we have speed >>> limits. >>> >> But not minimum speed limits to create a band and thus even out the >> disparity between different perceptions of safe speeds. > > I don't think I follow that. > The idea of having both maximum and minimum speeds would be to reduce the speed differential which is a cause of problems on the roads.
From: Brimstone on 30 Jul 2010 10:17 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:1k07k1757x5wc.waedwidr80bn.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:09:03 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > >>>> But not minimum speed limits to create a band and thus even out the >>>> disparity between different perceptions of safe speeds. >>> >>> I don't think I follow that. >>> >> The idea of having both maximum and minimum speeds would be to reduce the >> speed differential which is a cause of problems on the roads. > > OK. Minimum speed limits. What happens when you approach a hazard, say a > horse? > As always, there are exceptions and immediate circumstances would take precedence. I would have though that obvious to a thinking person.
From: Brimstone on 30 Jul 2010 10:19 "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:185j4oc9bllap$.1orixf7m6oa3s.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:00:37 +0100, Brimstone wrote: > >>>>> the idea is to drive at the limit if safe to do so, >>>> >>>> What leads you to believe that? >>> >>> why would you do otherwise? >>> >> Because what is, or is not, safe varies from person to person. Hence we >> get >> people pootling along at 35 mph in a 60 limit when the road is good for >> 70+ >> and other people doing vastly greater speeds on the same section of road. > > OK, this is post 1. Did you think by "limit" I meant limit of ability? I > meant speed limit. > I took it to mean speed limit. But you included the qualifier, "if safe to do so" hence my comment about different people's perceptions of what is safe.
From: Ret. on 30 Jul 2010 11:20 Adrian wrote: > Chelsea Tractor Man <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> gurgled happily, > sounding much like they were saying: > >> On 29 Jul 2010 08:43:21 GMT, Adrian wrote: >> >>>>> Would "speeding" be the most appropriate charge if somebody did do >>>>> that? >>> >>>> that isn't the point. >>> >>> Umm, yes, it is. >>> >>> The only cases in which the presence or absence of speed limits >>> become an issue are those in which "exceeding the speed limit" is >>> the only possible charge. Not "careless driving". Not "dangerous >>> driving". >> >> then you misunderstand the purposes and workings of speed limits. > > Do I? > >> They partly are to ensure any accident that happens has lesser >> consequences. > > But we've already agreed that the speed limit does not bear any > inherent and guaranteed relationship to a safe speed for a given > stretch of road in given conditions. 30 mph in urban areas is a good compromise between allowing reasonable progress and minimising the danger to other road users. It is the speed (and its equivalent in kmh) that the overwhelming majority of countrys across the world have chosen. If you are right, and motorists can be set free to choose their own speeds without any risk of increased accidents - why has nobody tried it? Why were speed limits introduced in the first place? Speed limits are a blunt instrument- I've always accepted that. But, personally, I have always accepted that there is little alternative. -- Kev
From: Tony Raven on 30 Jul 2010 11:21
Ret. wrote: > > Why is there not a single country (apart from the IoM, whose roads > militate against speeding anyway) who has abandoned speed limits in > favour of allowing motorists to choose their own safe speed? > It must be the work of the Illuminati ;-) -- Tony " I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong." Bertrand Russell |