Safe Speed Forums

Do you put rules and the law in the same category? If so where do you draw the line? Theft - it's OK to steal small amounts but not big ones. Child Abuse - it's OK to abuse small children but not bigger ones? I could go on but I think you get where I'm coming from. And I think you're taking Bader out of context but who made him an expert anyway?



The 'speed limit rules' as you call them are the law. But in your opinion blind obedience to the law is for fools of course - but only traffic law?. So you can't drive safely and responsibly below the posted speed limit? 'Responsible' in your book doesn't mean obeying the law then?

I despair.



I'm sure you'd like to think that, but honesty gets the better of you.

The law on speed limits is a different type of law to the ones you mention. As you say, there is no category of person it is legal to sexually abuse, or any item which it is legal to steal.

With driving, it is legal to drive at some speeds and it is usually illegal to have a speed of zero mph. The law allows some speed to be used, and also requires the driver to exercise judgment at all times. This is an entirely different situation from theft: there is no continuum in theft between property owned by you and owned by others, it is a sharp dividing line.

With speeding there is a continuum. Speeds at the extremes like 60 in a narrow residential road are condemnded by all of us. But to suggest that a speed varying between 25-35 in a 30 zone is the same is fallacious, because it ignores the continuum and it ignores the fact that the limit is arbitrary when you get near the margins of legality, and it ignores the fact that the driver cannot choose a speed of zero as with most things where legality is a concern.

Numeric limits are a bad idea. For example, define "child"? 15 years and 11 months + 17 year old = bad, go to prison. But a 16 year old + 42 year old = legal, carry on.

_________________
Andrew.

It's a limit, something some people find it hard to comprehend. You too?

It is a random number thought up by people. People get things wrong. Why are they any better than me?

_________________
Andrew.

Oh dear, another one (or the same?). Don't get ensnared!

Nah, spelling better, quoting properly. I don't let them get me angry. But "benefit of doubt" doesn't last too long.

_________________
Andrew.

I'm sure everyone in here finds that easy to comprehend; we do find hard to comprehend is why many limits are set unreasonably low and then overzealously enforced - apart from the obvious £ea$on.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

OK, so if someone disagrees with a law, any law, are they allowed to criticise it? When I started driving, the limits seemed a lot more fairly set than they are now, because by and large they were set by traffic engineers, not minor politicians.

Do I have the right to complain about these limits, or complain? Does this apply to all laws? Because it's a law, does that mean it's also above criticism?

I think we all comprehend the notion of "limit" pretty well - What I don't comprehend is why you feel that people won't have accidents if they drive at or below the limit. Is that what you believe?

Unfortunately, we've just been plagued with a poster who specialised in lobbing in the odd dogmatic statement but never hung round a thread long enough to back his views up with reasoned argument. Before I waste a load of time, could you just elabroate for us why you believe that 100% limit compliance will deliver any appreciable safety benefits? I mean, lets look at the acident statistics since about the mid '90s when the current frenzy of speed limit enforcement started. Not too good is it?

Perhaps we also ought to take into account the widespread REDUCTIONS in speed limits that have been happening (especially on rural roads) all over the country? Again, little or no benefit. Or maybe we should look at speed limiters on cars? They have them on heavy trucks and have had for some years now. After an initial drop in serious and fatal accidents involving HGVs just after the introduction of speed limiters, they soon got back up to the pre-limiter levels!

Of course, nobody on here would, for one moment, deny that SOME deaths and serious injuries WERE down to excessive speed above the posted limit. Unfortunately, the most dangrous drivers don't seem to get caught. All that seems to happen is that we're rapidly running out of vicars and district nurses with driving licences because they've all been scammed for a few MPH over the (arbitrary) limit!

If you go back and look at the orginal post you will find your fellow traveller "safety man" described speed limits as "rules"

But I don't disagree with this. FYI the quote was from an ancient greek proverb and was appropriately quoted by Bader and many others.

Perhaps you could enlighten us about how this quote of Bader's is out of context instead of making snide innuendo. It was directed at miltarily authorities who are generally inflexible and who have no culture of independent thought.

If you back off from your " the law is the law" standpoint you will have to see that there are arbitrary limits to all sorts of things. Which are chosen as some sort of compromise between acceptability and unacceptability for a wide range of circumstances. The law is too rigid to accept a complex model which sets realistic limits in life. and the limit would be a band of uncertainty anyway. Nothing in life is so black and white that fractionally one side of a limit is acceptable while fractionally the other side is not.

Whether it is speed limits, or many other things arbitrary limits are of limited guidance. And should be treated and enforced as such.

Your comments about theft and child abuse are not really relevant, Theft is not subject to a limit, neither is abuse. If you are talking about age of consent perhaps this is something where again arbitrary limits have limited use as there is a big spread of maturity and no single age can be said to fit all.

Despair all you like, I despair of rigid attitudes such as yours

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)

All unfair/unjust laws that are not worthy of respect should not be respected.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

So 30mph downhill in the pouring rain with pedestrians around is no different to travelling 30mph going UP the same road in the dry when no-one is around?


Sorry lads, I caved. You should have seen the one I nearly posted

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Caving's fine BT!

Especially when someone ("squat" let's say) leaves a debating hole big enough to drive the Titanic through

_________________
Simon

It is patently obvious that"safetyman" doesn,t read "The Daily Mail" as yesterday they published a statement from "The Government" that


What is the logic in installing more speed cameras as they admitted that speed cameras APPEAR to cause more accidents than they

In excess of 20% of accidents are caused by "inattention or other reasons" their figures not mine!!!!!!!

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

Ah... but the lawyers do claim the Highway Code is "just a Code" as do the cyclists when it suits their argument

As for the rest of your comment - might I ask what medication you appear to have been prescribed there asyour apparently confused analogy is completely irerelevant to what constitutes "obeying a speed lolly" given speedos are not calibrated to absolute correct and even if the car was controlled by computer - there would be instances where it would fluctuate above lolly based on cambers/road polish and even choice of tyres :rolleyes: Normal fluctuations occur whether on pushbike or using a motorised vehicle..

Sometimes it is not safe to drive at the lolly limit - usually below this limit due to traffic and road conditions. Sometimes it might just be safer to accelerate out of a danger. My wife once had to do this to get past a convoy of caravans. She was legal.. drew level with the first one in the L1 convoy. He decided to accelerate to prevent her return to L1 . Completely illegal in every sense of the word by the way as he was limited to 60 mph by virtue of his tow load. :rolleyes: She had a choice .. "indulge in a weird sort of elephant race" or just make a light press with her right foot and clear with a safety margin ready to exit the motorway in good time a mile or so ahead. She chose the latter. She says she hit 77-79 mph. (modest - considering her Jag's log shows she averaged 90 mph on a return to Switzerland last week via the German A/bahn where she was perfectly legal to hit 120 mph


. Fortunately no speed cams around over the usual bridge at Shap anyway.

So it can easily become a matter of judgement as to what might be the safer option at the time.


I prefer to drive the safety led way with full attention to COAST principles. It usually means we are complying to lolly with minor ups/downs most of the time. If we ever blat above - then this would be a fully calculated out "risk" made from a proper risk assessment of the condition at the time.




As said - there can be occasions when the end justifies the means and if accelerating out of a danger means staying alive - then this has to be be so. I had one little "potential" last week on way back from airport after my own little jaunt to the USA. Was overtaking a lorry. Was in a similar situation to Wildy as my front half of the car was passing his cab. He might have been tired as he swerved over the white line and if I'd stayed at the speed limit -I'd have been pushed perhaps through the central reserve. Again a slight press lifted me out of danger.

So you cannot say that simply obeying a speed lolly sign means "you'll never come into conflict or danger ever". It's a matter of being aware all the time and planning quickly and accordingly when you meet up with any sort of hazard. That sudden swerve out was something even COAST could not protect from though I think the driver might have been getting tired and I can only hope he stopped at the next services.

_________________
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.