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

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.

I think if you have a look at your foot, you'll find there's a fresh bullet
hole in it. Ooops.

Y'see, the example you give would not be a speeding offence.

It would fall into a far more serious range of offences - namely driving
without due care and attention/reckless driving/dangerous driving.

Unfortunately, those offences are currently unpoliced.

It's like only prosecuting a burglar who's broken into your house and
nicked all your granny's heirloom jewellery for "Trespassing".

Or the owner of the Rottweiler that's just badly bitten your child being
prosecuted only for leaving a dog turd on the pavement.

On 24 Sep 2005 14:51:02 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.

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.

Safety is a relative concept, but you are using the word "safe" as if
it's black and white. This makes no sense, and so in doing so you are
setting up an easily-defeated straw man.

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.

This is nonsense. Suppose two drivers are driving along a winding
residential road with children playing by the roadside. One driver
decides that 70mph is an appropriate speed for the circumstances.
Another decides to drive at 20mph. By your logic, you can't tell the
first driver that his speed is excessively dangerous, without saying
the same thing to the second one. Their cognitive processes are
clearly NOT the same.

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.

And so the straw man falls. A more sensible interpretation might have
been that speed limits are set at the point above which too many
drivers in too many vehicles would be at too great a risk of accidents
with consequences too severe, for society to permit.

On 24 Sep 2005 14:57:03 GMT, Adrian wrote:

And why should that particular law be enforced rigidly - to the exclusion
of more serious offences?

If the other offences could be enforced as cheaply and easily, I'm
sure they would be. Unfortunately no one's come up with a camera that
detects them yet.

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

Anyone you should happen to collide with.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Chris Tolley wrote:

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.

Shhh! I'm goading a petrolhead ...

So Adrian, what did you think of my idea?

tom

--
the logical extension of a zero-infinity nightmare topology

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.

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.

Safety is a relative concept, but you are using the word "safe" as if
it's black and white. This makes no sense, and so in doing so you are
setting up an easily-defeated straw man.

Actually, I think you'll find it's the government that's doing that with
"Safety Cameras" and "Safety Partnerships" and "Speed Kills".

This is nonsense. Suppose two drivers are driving along a winding
residential road with children playing by the roadside. One driver
decides that 70mph is an appropriate speed for the circumstances.
Another decides to drive at 20mph. By your logic, you can't tell the
first driver that his speed is excessively dangerous, without saying
the same thing to the second one. Their cognitive processes are
clearly NOT the same.

Not at all - because the driving of the first driver is clearly
dangerous, and therefore he should be charged with "Dangerous Driving".

However, that's too difficult a judgement call to be automated.

Now remove the children from the equation completely. Is the same speed
still appropriate?

A more sensible interpretation might have
been that speed limits are set at the point above which too many
drivers in too many vehicles would be at too great a risk of accidents
with consequences too severe, for society to permit.

So that point is in the same place for all roads within each speed limit
band?

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

And why should that particular law be enforced rigidly - to the
exclusion of more serious offences?

If the other offences could be enforced as cheaply and easily, I'm
sure they would be. Unfortunately no one's come up with a camera that
detects them yet.

Exactly. So we are currently completely ignoring prosecuting the serious
crimes in favour of the unimportant administrative ones we can raise
revenue from most profitably.

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

Anyone you should happen to collide with.

Personally, I'd FAR rather not collide with anybody at 80mph than collide
with somebody at 60mph. Which is why proper observation is more important
than speed per se.

Tom Anderson ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Shhh! I'm goading a petrolhead ...

ITYM "Trolling".

So Adrian, what did you think of my idea?

Read my other replies.

On 25 Sep 2005 13:18:45 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Safety is a relative concept, but you are using the word "safe" as if
it's black and white. This makes no sense, and so in doing so you are
setting up an easily-defeated straw man.

Actually, I think you'll find it's the government that's doing that with
"Safety Cameras" and "Safety Partnerships" and "Speed Kills".

I think I find you're doing it too. Doesn't mean there can't be a
sound reason for having speed limits to improve safety.

This is nonsense. Suppose two drivers are driving along a winding
residential road with children playing by the roadside. One driver
decides that 70mph is an appropriate speed for the circumstances.
Another decides to drive at 20mph. By your logic, you can't tell the
first driver that his speed is excessively dangerous, without saying
the same thing to the second one. Their cognitive processes are
clearly NOT the same.

Not at all - because the driving of the first driver is clearly
dangerous, and therefore he should be charged with "Dangerous Driving".

Indeed. In general, however, it's a lot harder to prove dangerous
driving than it is to prove speeding (regardless of whether it's a
camera or a human doing the enforcement), so having speed limits
effectively lowers the standard of proof for (relatively!) dangerous
drivers and means that more can be caught.

Now remove the children from the equation completely. Is the same speed
still appropriate?

Wouldn't it be great if speed limits changed dynamically depending on
whether there were children in the area? Unfortunately that's
unrealistic. And a driver can never know for sure that a (previously
unseen) child won't suddenly step out from behind a parked car. 95%
chance they'll live at 30mph, 5% chance at 40mph and all that.

A more sensible interpretation might have
been that speed limits are set at the point above which too many
drivers in too many vehicles would be at too great a risk of accidents
with consequences too severe, for society to permit.

So that point is in the same place for all roads within each speed limit
band?

It can only be an approximate point anyway (unless we collect huge
amounts of data on each road and set limits like 32.1482067mph).

On 25 Sep 2005 13:20:25 GMT, Adrian wrote:

If the other offences could be enforced as cheaply and easily, I'm
sure they would be. Unfortunately no one's come up with a camera that
detects them yet.

Exactly. So we are currently completely ignoring prosecuting the serious
crimes in favour of the unimportant administrative ones we can raise
revenue from most profitably.

IMO the bodies responsible for putting up speed cameras should never
get to see any of the fines money. This would ensure they cannot be
put up simply for profit. Perhaps the money could be diverted to a
fund for more traffic police to tackle other driving offences.

Personally, I'd FAR rather not collide with anybody at 80mph than collide
with somebody at 60mph. Which is why proper observation is more important
than speed per se.

But in the unfortunate event that you were involved in an accident,
I'm sure the others involved (and possibly even you) would much rather
you had been doing 60 than 80.

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

Safety is a relative concept, but you are using the word "safe" as
if it's black and white. This makes no sense, and so in doing so you
are setting up an easily-defeated straw man.

Actually, I think you'll find it's the government that's doing that
with "Safety Cameras" and "Safety Partnerships" and "Speed Kills".

I think I find you're doing it too.

Deliberately.

Doesn't mean there can't be a sound reason for having speed limits to
improve safety.

If speed limits are to be enforced as black-and-white, on the grounds of
safety, then safety must therefore be a black-and-white concept. If it
isn't, then that argument for black-and-white enforcement is spurious.

Indeed. In general, however, it's a lot harder to prove dangerous
driving than it is to prove speeding (regardless of whether it's a
camera or a human doing the enforcement),

It's not "regardless" at all. Human enforcement allows the standard of
driving to be taken into account, and the points at which warnings and
prosecutions are issued to be dynamically adjusted. It allows for more
serious offences to be identified and prosecuted. It allows for
drivers/vehicles who pose an immediate danger to be removed from the
road.

What's the point in posting a photograph taken two minutes before a
fatal accident has occurred, to the grieving widow two weeks later?

What's the point in posting a photograph to a spurious address?

so having speed limits effectively lowers the standard of proof for
(relatively!) dangerous drivers and means that more can be caught.

No, it doesn't.

Wouldn't it be great if speed limits changed dynamically depending on
whether there were children in the area? Unfortunately that's
unrealistic. And a driver can never know for sure that a (previously
unseen) child won't suddenly step out from behind a parked car. 95%
chance they'll live at 30mph, 5% chance at 40mph and all that.

And that's all EXACTLY why speed limits are irrelevant in terms of
safety, Because they can not and will not ever cover the situations
fully. To argue that they do, and to place the focus on them, is to
remove the focus from where it should be - on observation, hazard
perception and reaction - and is completely counter-productive in terms
of road safety. As the accident figures prove conclusively.

A more sensible interpretation might have
been that speed limits are set at the point above which too many
drivers in too many vehicles would be at too great a risk of
accidents with consequences too severe, for society to permit.

So that point is in the same place for all roads within each speed
limit band?

It can only be an approximate point anyway

Correct.

(unless we collect huge amounts of data on each road and set limits
like 32.1482067mph).

Which would need to constantly change in reaction to the conditions.

You do realise that you're actually agreeing with me on virtually every
point?

BTW - A friend sent me this out of today's Sunday Torygraph.
http://motoring.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
xml=/news/2005/09/25/nbook25.xml