Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Apr 30, 2026 18:18

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 09:22 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
Rigpig wrote:
So if I run enough red lights, break enough speed limits, ignore enough give-way lines, fail to pay enouigh taxes and encourage others to do the same, the rule makers and society builders will observe our 'normal behaviour' and change the rules to suit.

Gotcha


So if there was a new law introduced that said you must drive as recklessly as possible, without regard to other road users, would you adhere to that?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:46 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
Quote:
So if I run enough red lights, break enough speed limits, ignore enough give-way lines, fail to pay enouigh taxes and encourage others to do the same, the rule makers and society builders will observe our 'normal behaviour' and change the rules to suit.

Gotcha


There's plenty of old laws on the books that EVERYONE ignores. Are you saying we should obey them just because they're laws, even though they contradict everything we believe to be right?

Dumb Laws

(Can't vouch for all these!)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:13 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
:) But you won't and I won't and that's how we know the rule-makers are on the right track.


I don't have the same unswerving faith that you do I'm afraid. I've seen enough people nibbling away at the edges of what previous generations once considered good, sound and sensible laws to believe that we're crumbling into the mess that now extinct civilizations once found themselves.
Mercifully for us, such processes are measured in centuries not mere decades so neither of us is likely to be around to say "told you so" :wink:


I agree. But who do you blame?


OK, lets take a simple everyday example - the minutae is not important, its who we blame that we're considering here.

You're driving along the motorway and some rep in 2 ltr jacket hanger comes tooling past you at 120mph, tailgates a car that gets in its way and then shoots off again. Undeniably illegal behaviour with an element of anti-socialness thrown in. Who do we blame?

The rep himself - he should behave more responsibly
His parents - shouldn't have indulged him when he was a kid
His boss - for putting profits before the wellbeing of his employee
His fellow workers - for putting up with his bad behaviour without saying anything
The car manufacturer - for giving him the tool to do the deed
The tailgatee - for being in the way
The police - for not being there often enough to stop such nonsense from happening
The government - for not providing enough police
Safespeed - for offering succour that such behvaiour is acceptable and that the offender is in fact a victim (not exactly true but take it in the vein intended)
The media - for glorifying self indulgence

So we can blame everyone.

Or we blame nobody and just decide that this is the way societies develop, theres no point moaning about it even though history has told us that one day we'll propbably implode into an arrogant, self-pitying mess.

Better that than to go the way of other civilizations, to the enforced will of some invader with bigger fire-sticks who nick your land and divide it up between themselves with a ruler and pencil.

Bottyburp wrote:
So if there was a new law introduced that said you must drive as recklessly as possible, without regard to other road users, would you adhere to that?


As this routinely appears to be the best type of argument you can muster, I won't bother dignifying it with an answer :roll:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:23 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
Rigpig wrote:
Bottyburp wrote:
So if there was a new law introduced that said you must drive as recklessly as possible, without regard to other road users, would you adhere to that?


As this routinely appears to be the best type of argument you can muster, I won't bother dignifying it with an answer :roll:

I was actually trying to ascertain whether you obey laws regardless, purely because 'it's the law' or whether you put other things like safety above the 'law'.

I'm sorry that you feel that it's not worthy of answering. Maybe my take on life is too simplistic?

If we all 'roll-over' like you appear to do (unless I've misunderstood your stance) and accept whatever the government dish out to us, then we only have ourselves to blame.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:31 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 01:48
Posts: 526
Location: Netherlands
I think that this comes down to our old friend "letter of the law versus spirit of the law".

We all know that the original purpose of traffic lights was to assist society at that location (junction/crossing/whatever).

If visibility is good, and it is safe to do so (no one put at risk or inconvenienced), society is benefitted by reducing the delay to the journey of any "red light-runner".

Cameras are unintelligent, and only enforce the letter of the law, society loses here.

As far as I know, no other country has deemed it necessary to implement bicycle number plates, what sort of control-freakery-untrusting-nannyist society is developing back in "me ol' Blighty"? :?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:47 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
BottyBurp wrote:
I was actually trying to ascertain whether you obey laws regardless, purely because 'it's the law' or whether you put other things like safety above the 'law'.


But you were trying to prove the point using a completely unfeasible scenario. Anyone can invent an extreme example, I'm trying to explore things within the bounds of credibility which leaves me at a disadvantage I suppose.

BottyBurp wrote:
If we all 'roll-over' like you appear to do (unless I've misunderstood your stance) and accept whatever the government dish out to us, then we only have ourselves to blame.


It depends upon what you mean by 'roll-over' - see what I mean, lets be extreme AND emotive. I don't see obeyance of the law as 'rolling-over', I see it as a sign of good citizenship. The opposite of this is the arrogant assertion that we as individuals always know best; if we carry on assuming this, bit by bit, piece by piece, where do we end up?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:20 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
[I'll ignore the 'might have been safe planned behaviour' argument and assume that you have described aggressive driving, verging on the dangerous.]

Rigpig wrote:
You're driving along the motorway and some rep in 2 ltr jacket hanger comes tooling past you at 120mph, tailgates a car that gets in its way and then shoots off again. Undeniably illegal behaviour with an element of anti-socialness thrown in. Who do we blame?


Seems to me there are two 'root cause' possibilities for blame in this case...

1) The driver himself. He knew it was 'anti social' but he did it anyway without regard for others.

2) Policy makers. The driver didn't appreciate that he was operating outside of acceptable norms.

I believe there are a lot of number twos around. Official road safety messages don't strike a chord of reasonableness with many and are THEREFORE ignored or mistrusted. It's a 'respect must be earned' issue.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:52 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
[I'll ignore the 'might have been safe planned behaviour' argument and assume that you have described aggressive driving, verging on the dangerous.]

Rigpig wrote:
You're driving along the motorway and some rep in 2 ltr jacket hanger comes tooling past you at 120mph, tailgates a car that gets in its way and then shoots off again. Undeniably illegal behaviour with an element of anti-socialness thrown in. Who do we blame?


Seems to me there are two 'root cause' possibilities for blame in this case...

1) The driver himself. He knew it was 'anti social' but he did it anyway without regard for others.

2) Policy makers. The driver didn't appreciate that he was operating outside of acceptable norms.

I believe there are a lot of number twos around. Official road safety messages don't strike a chord of reasonableness with many and are THEREFORE ignored or mistrusted. It's a 'respect must be earned' issue.


No Paul, you are looking at it too simplistically. I did suggest we should ignore the minutae of the scenario - I hate scenario building because it creates unecessary distractions.

Elsewhere you suggested that asking drivers to comply with the law and drive safely was like adding straws to camels backs; eventually something breaks.
I see it slightly differently. Each law is carrying a few straws around on its back, every time someone breaks or ignores that law another teensy straw is added. More straws are added through all of the external influences that determine individual behaviour and therefore further undermine the authority of that law. Eventually it will break.

Unlike the daft extremes proposed earlier, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with our current road traffic laws, they have stood us in good stead for many a year. What is happening is that peoples attitudes towards the laws that affect them directly is changing. This is probably due to the current enforcement, but it is also my belief that people today are a lot less predisposed towards respect by default (which is what we really should have).
"I'd respect the law (or whatever) if it earns my respect" seems to be the attitude, to which I answer "How BIG of you" :roll:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 13:03 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
No Paul, you are looking at it too simplistically.


I think I agree with what you wrote, but I couldn't see that it justified the 'too simplistically' claim.

If you have a third (commonplace) fundamental cause, then I'm all ears.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 13:41 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
If you have a third (commonplace) fundamental cause, then I'm all ears.


Er, I have and tried to explain it.
But, in sum, its a wider ill that transcends the narrower focus of road safety.
Society is to blame (guvnor).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 14:05 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
If you have a third (commonplace) fundamental cause, then I'm all ears.


Er, I have and tried to explain it.
But, in sum, its a wider ill that transcends the narrower focus of road safety.
Society is to blame (guvnor).


I agree there are wider ills. But I am personally certain that we can address road safety ills effectively irrespective of wider ills. I accept that the wider ill may make the job harder or less effective.

But going back to your example, you said I was being too simplistic, and I still want you to explain the fundamentals or the shades of grey that make the view too simplistic. Actually I don't believe they exist and I think we are establishing important stuff, so I feel no guilt in pressing you on the point! :)

If there's a further fundamental you should be able to specify it in ten clear words. :yesyes:

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 14:19 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
If there's a further fundamental you should be able to specify it in ten clear words. :yesyes:


I'll allow myself a few more, you did :wink:

3) Society - it is now less unacceptable to be seen ignoring the law


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 15:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
If there's a further fundamental you should be able to specify it in ten clear words. :yesyes:


I'll allow myself a few more, you did :wink:

3) Society - it is now less unacceptable to be seen ignoring the law


Yeah, but that's because people 'do it anyway' (my number one) OR because society has failed to communicate its needs (my number two).

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 16:54 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
Rigpig wrote:
BottyBurp wrote:
]If we all 'roll-over' like you appear to do (unless I've misunderstood your stance) and accept whatever the government dish out to us, then we only have ourselves to blame.


It depends upon what you mean by 'roll-over' - see what I mean, lets be extreme AND emotive. I don't see obeyance of the law as 'rolling-over', I see it as a sign of good citizenship. The opposite of this is the arrogant assertion that we as individuals always know best; if we carry on assuming this, bit by bit, piece by piece, where do we end up?

Perhaps I should have added "sensible" laws. Then I agree with you about it being good citizenship, but I believe adherence to pathetic laws, because 'it's the law' is a sign of stupidity - and that in itself will lead to the introduction of more and more laws.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 17:03 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
Rigpig wrote:
No Paul, you are looking at it too simplistically.


I think I agree with what you wrote, but I couldn't see that it justified the 'too simplistically' claim.

If you have a third (commonplace) fundamental cause, then I'm all ears.


OK, lets backtrack a little to this point - we don't need to get into 'invent the catchphrase' here, that just a red herring :yesyes:

Safespeed wrote:
But I am personally certain that we can address road safety ills effectively irrespective of wider ills. I accept that the wider ill may make the job harder or less effective.


This is where you are going wrong. Road safety ills ARE a sympton of wider social ills, the two go hand in glove. We are witnessing a slow decay in social values; attitudes towards road traffic law is symptomatic of that ill. Change the laws to mirror behaviour and we'd be having another iteration of this discussion in 20 or so years I convinced of that.

That we don't agree on this fundemantal point means this discussion could either become infinitely recursive or veer towards adhominem. Because ultimately, we have to ask ourselves why, for example, I think the speed limit law is fundamentally sound, whilst others believe it to be stupid.
But we've had that discusion before too.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 17:15 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
BottyBurp wrote:
Perhaps I should have added "sensible" laws.


Road traffic law is quite sensible.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 17:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
But I am personally certain that we can address road safety ills effectively irrespective of wider ills. I accept that the wider ill may make the job harder or less effective.


This is where you are going wrong. Road safety ills ARE a sympton of wider social ills, the two go hand in glove. We are witnessing a slow decay in social values; attitudes towards road traffic law is symptomatic of that ill. Change the laws to mirror behaviour and we'd be having another iteration of this discussion in 20 or so years I convinced of that.


Linked? Yep.
Influence one another? Yep.
Inseparable? Nope.
Incapable of independent influence? Nope.

Suppose you were right... There would be NO POINT AT ALL to road safety policy because standards would just follow social norms (/social decline).

So if I believed for ONE SECOND that you were right, I'd be completely wasting my time. I am 100% certain that we could (with appropriate effort) have improving road safety values even when wider society has declining values.

I'm equally certain that present policy is causing an accelerated decline in road safety values.

Rigpig wrote:
That we don't agree on this fundemantal point means this discussion could either become infinitely recursive or veer towards adhominem. Because ultimately, we have to ask ourselves why, for example, I think the speed limit law is fundamentally sound, whilst others believe it to be stupid.
But we've had that discusion before too.


I expect we have. I think the speed limit law is sound too - given appropriate enforcement.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 17:55 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
Rigpig wrote:
BottyBurp wrote:
Perhaps I should have added "sensible" laws.


Road traffic law is quite sensible.

What? All of it?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 18:06 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
BottyBurp wrote:
Rigpig wrote:
BottyBurp wrote:
Perhaps I should have added "sensible" laws.


Road traffic law is quite sensible.

What? All of it?


Which bits of the law are not sensible then?

(As opposed to its enforcement, which is where I believe you may be heading)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 21:31 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Rigpig wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
:) But you won't and I won't and that's how we know the rule-makers are on the right track.


I don't have the same unswerving faith that you do I'm afraid. I've seen enough people nibbling away at the edges of what previous generations once considered good, sound and sensible laws to believe that we're crumbling into the mess that now extinct civilizations once found themselves.
Mercifully for us, such processes are measured in centuries not mere decades so neither of us is likely to be around to say "told you so" :wink:


I agree. But who do you blame?


OK, lets take a simple everyday example - the minutae is not important, its who we blame that we're considering here.

You're driving along the motorway and some rep in 2 ltr jacket hanger comes tooling past you at 120mph, tailgates a car that gets in its way and then shoots off again. Undeniably illegal behaviour with an element of anti-socialness thrown in. Who do we blame?

The rep himself - he should behave more responsibly
His parents - shouldn't have indulged him when he was a kid
His boss - for putting profits before the wellbeing of his employee
His fellow workers - for putting up with his bad behaviour without saying anything
The car manufacturer - for giving him the tool to do the deed
The tailgatee - for being in the way
The police - for not being there often enough to stop such nonsense from happening
The government - for not providing enough police
Safespeed - for offering succour that such behvaiour is acceptable and that the offender is in fact a victim (not exactly true but take it in the vein intended)
The media - for glorifying self indulgence

So we can blame everyone.

Or we blame nobody and just decide that this is the way societies develop, theres no point moaning about it even though history has told us that one day we'll propbably implode into an arrogant, self-pitying mess.

Better that than to go the way of other civilizations, to the enforced will of some invader with bigger fire-sticks who nick your land and divide it up between themselves with a ruler and pencil.

Bottyburp wrote:
So if there was a new law introduced that said you must drive as recklessly as possible, without regard to other road users, would you adhere to that?


As this routinely appears to be the best type of argument you can muster, I won't bother dignifying it with an answer :roll:


Society begets the government it votes in through apathy and zero interest in politics and world events.

It also begets the society it created through pee-cee nonsense and a culture which holds everyone else responsible for its woes. :roll:

Automation does not help matters either. We are a social creature. We respond to other human beings. Perhaps the over-reliance on gadgets is "dehumanising" us to the extent we think fellow humans are an "extension of these gadgets".

Let's face facts... I bet in the heat of debate face to face.. or on phone when you hear a human voice.. I bet some woould never dare to be as rude or as vulgarly abusive or as spiteful as they can be on-line. Cyber bullying .. the latest form. Glad that it can now incure fines now. Step in right direction. Now .. for the libel campaign. Swiss family joined in battle on the bullying one with result .. they now switching to defamation. :wink:

I try to instil decent values into my kids and into those I foster as well. I admit that I have no idea if I have been successful as my eldest turns 19 next week. My twins are only just 17 years and those older fosters still in this age group. So I guess .. way to early to complacently think I have raised a decent brood. They are still young enough to make some mistakes... and I guess I am as well too. We all can err to compromise or hurt another. You can only hope you do what you believe to be right and safe all the time. Drive-wise - think preaching COAST and POWER could help the road safety side.

As for getting back to genteel values of manners, politeness, calm attitude, refined behaviour.. (as in not lude, bestial, drunk, drugged...) ...I think we have our work cut out on this one. :roll: As said - had one hell of a wake up call with the latest foster. I think we are slowly getting a corrected attitude on drink matters and just about cutting it as regards basic manners and language. He does :censored: as norm rather a lot :roll: :wink: :lol:

Let's just say - Wildy is using the continental approach in that nothing wrong with a drink at the dining table. It's normal. You do not have to drink a whole bottle to enjoy. Similarly - we sit down to a fully laid table each evening. Not TV dinners and nothing other than a low volume level CD of Mozart, Chopin in background. We use this time to chat and be a family :wink: I can really recommend this :wink:

But back to the topic... part of me sees no issue with registration and plates. Part of me thinks this not a bad idea.

But.. the rebel streak nips in - like the ABD view.. more regulation.. rules... and since we know that these ideas, like the speed cam, seemed to make sense.. - these laws get abused by those keen to raise cash.. fine for nit-picking "offences" which do not cause harm to anyone. I do fear that cyclists will get a taste of this.

Perhaps it will help our cause.. removing automation and getting back to human contact.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.020s | 10 Queries | GZIP : Off ]