d ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Seriously. By their screwed logic, undercover cops would be illegal.
They'd have to wear their uniforms while trying to infiltrate a drugs
ring or terrorist organisation.

Not *quite*. By the same logic that's replacing traffic policing with
cameras, the drugs squad would be disbanded in favour of cameras which
would take a photo if they smelt a bit of weed, and post it to the person
that they thought might be smoking it.

They'd completely ignore all the importers, couriers, crack houses and the
like, of course, because the "HerbCams" can't pick them up automagically.

Hey motorists! Don't like speed cameras? Don't speed!

Hey, short-sighted person... Don't like us whinging about speed cameras?
Give us back traffic police, then!

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Adrian wrote:

d ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Hey motorists! Don't like speed cameras? Don't speed!

Hey, short-sighted person... Don't like us whinging about speed cameras?
Give us back traffic police, then!

Ah, so you want more traffic cops, not fewer cameras? I'd certainly agree
with that.

So, if we had cameras, and set the positioning and level of fines quite
aggressively, so as to maximise revenue, and used the money raised to pay
for more traffic cops, you'd be happy?

tom

--
Got a revolution behind my eyes - We got to get up and organise

Tom Anderson wrote:

So, if we had cameras, and set the positioning and level of fines quite
aggressively, so as to maximise revenue...

It will only generate *any* revenue if motorists are breaking the law.
Like the lottery, this is an entirely voluntary form of taxation.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683719.html
(Bubble car 55003 framed by foliage at Stratford-upon-Avon in 1982)

Chris Tolley ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

So, if we had cameras, and set the positioning and level of fines quite
aggressively, so as to maximise revenue...

It will only generate *any* revenue if motorists are breaking the law.
Like the lottery, this is an entirely voluntary form of taxation.

But - like the lottery - what is the point?

The "safety" argument only bears up to logical scrutiny if you follow
through to "All speeds below the limit are therefore safe" which is
patently absurd.

So a rigidly enforced hard limit is also, therefore, absurd. As a
guideline, yes, it is useful, but that's not how it's currently being
enforced. It's being enforced rigidly purely as a revenue exercise backed
up with a laughably cynical and false spin program which is counter-
productive in terms of safety.

And that's even before you start to include the decimation of the traffic
police.

So a rigidly enforced hard limit is also, therefore, absurd. As a
guideline, yes, it is useful, but that's not how it's currently being
enforced. It's being enforced rigidly purely as a revenue exercise backed
up with a laughably cynical and false spin program which is counter-
productive in terms of safety.

And a few motorists respond with ingenious spin fabricating situations
when higher speeds might actually reduce danger. Good game, ennit?
:-)

It's hard to argue logically against the proposition that a blanket
60mph limit would slightly reduce deaths and considerably reduce fuel
consumption. And we'd get there only a few minutes later. And that
a rigorously enforced 20mph limit in residential areas would reduce
deaths and injuries to idiotic children.

But feel free to try :-)

On 24 Sep 2005 07:15:35 GMT, Adrian wrote:

The "safety" argument only bears up to logical scrutiny if you follow
through to "All speeds below the limit are therefore safe" which is
patently absurd.

It suggests that "all speeds above the limit are unsafe". This is not
the same as "all speeds below the limit are safe". For that to be
implied, you'd have to automatically become immune to prosecution for
dangerous/careless driving (etc) if you were below the speed limit.

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...
Chris Tolley ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

So, if we had cameras, and set the positioning and level of fines quite
aggressively, so as to maximise revenue...

It will only generate *any* revenue if motorists are breaking the law.
Like the lottery, this is an entirely voluntary form of taxation.

But - like the lottery - what is the point?

The "safety" argument only bears up to logical scrutiny if you follow
through to "All speeds below the limit are therefore safe" which is
patently absurd.

So a rigidly enforced hard limit is also, therefore, absurd. As a
guideline, yes, it is useful, but that's not how it's currently being
enforced. It's being enforced rigidly purely as a revenue exercise backed
up with a laughably cynical and false spin program which is counter-
productive in terms of safety.

And that's even before you start to include the decimation of the traffic
police.

It's the law. The speed limit is not a "Society would like you to travel at
no more than ....", it's a "Society will not accept you travelling faster
than ....". You speed, you break the law, you pay. I don't care if it's
enforced by traffic cops, speed cameras, or specially-trained lemurs.

Just like you can't go and stab your neighbour, then say "oh but I wasn't
sure if murder was OK in this building" or "what's the law around here,
anyway?" - motorists know they're not allowed to speed, so there's no
excuse. Don't like traffic fines? Don't speed. There's your opt-out of
all this bull**** - don't speed.

Adrian wrote:
Chris Tolley ) gurgled happily:
It will only generate *any* revenue if motorists are breaking the law.
Like the lottery, this is an entirely voluntary form of taxation.
The "safety" argument only bears up to logical scrutiny if you follow
through to "All speeds below the limit are therefore safe" which is
patently absurd.

I didn't offer a safety argument. I said it's the law. The law is not
only a codification of that which is safe. There are plenty of arbitrary
things enshrined in law. You could, for example choose to argue that you
would be happier driving on the RHS of the road than the LHS, but the
law says otherwise. But anyway, your argument falls down with the
observation that if everyone else on the road is driving at 60mph but
one person is determined to go at 95, then that one potentially
compromises the safety of all the others.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p12405683.html
(221 107 passing Slindon at speed on 4 Mar 2005)

asdf ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

The "safety" argument only bears up to logical scrutiny if you follow
through to "All speeds below the limit are therefore safe" which is
patently absurd.

It suggests that "all speeds above the limit are unsafe".

Which is obviously completely absurd.

This is not the same as "all speeds below the limit are safe".

The logic certainly follows.

rehashes from uk.rec.driving earlier this week

If speed limits need to be set and rigorously enforced for safety, then
that presupposes that no driver is competent to identify and set a speed
which may be above the prevailing speed limit, yet which is safe for the
circumstances they face. If that is the case, then, since there is no
difference in the driver's cognitive processes and their ability to define
a set speed between travelling at a speed above and one below the speed
limit, then drivers must be presupposed to be incapable of identifying and
setting a speed which is safe for the conditions whilst below the speed
limit. Because of that, speed limits must therefore be set at a point at
which all drivers in all vehicles are safe at all times below the speed
limit. Which is quite obviously absurd.

Therefore, speed limits can not be set and rigidly enforced primarily for
safety.

For that to be implied, you'd have to automatically become immune to
prosecution for dangerous/careless driving (etc) if you were below the
speed limit.

Yes, that's *exactly* what saying "Speed Kills" and placing all the focus
on rigid enforcement of limits does. Stupid, isn't it?

d ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

It's the law.

Yes, it is.

But why?

What is the point in having a law for the sake of having it, if it plays no
purpose?

And why should that particular law be enforced rigidly - to the exclusion
of more serious offences? In particular, why should that enforcement be
done in such a way as to automatically waive prosecution of people who are
committing it in conjunction with other more serious offences - so
encouraging the commission of those offences?

Just like you can't go and stab your neighbour, then say "oh but I
wasn't sure if murder was OK in this building" or "what's the law
around here, anyway?" - motorists know they're not allowed to speed,
so there's no excuse.

No, it's nothing at all like stabbing your neighbour. If I go out and stab
my neighbour (Have you met my neighbour? It's quite a tempting proposition
at times, I have to say), then there is fairly obviously a victim. My
neighbour is now lying in a pool of blood. (I do like this idea, y'know)

Speeding is an utterly victimless crime. Who suffers if I choose to drive
at 80mph on a motorway in clear dry light traffic condition?

Don't confuse speeding with dangerous driving or driving without due care
and attention - because they're a different - and more serious - offence,
which currently goes unpoliced. Speeding alone is a completely victimless
crime.

Don't bring environmental considerations into it, because they're
completely separate, too - else we would have different speed limits
graduated by emissions standards.