My point is- I can't understand why people who rant on about law and order, then seem to think that when they want to break the law - by speeding- that's different .
Why should the police have to observe special rules so they can use an extremely effective means of detecting offences ? For some reason on the roads we weem to think there should be an extra set of conditions to do with enforcing the law.
And I'm not holier-than-thou , I've got 3 points and was stupid to let it happen to me
|
People don't, or rather shouldn't think that they can speed and no-one will catch them If they're genuinely speeding. I'll come back to my use of the word genuinely in a minute.
I'm sure most people would agree with me that there are some crimes more serious than others. If I were to murder someone now, that's more serious than stealing their wallet out of their pocket.
People genuinely speeding (and by that I mean considerably over a minor transgression such as 33) are of course breaking the law (as are people doing 31mph I suppose) but surely drink driving is more dangerous?
It's not that they should be let off - it's the fact that there are far more serious offences which don't seem to be monitored because there aren't any cops. The age old argument - a camera can't tell if you're drunk.
That's what I think anyway.
This will be the last post of mine on this thread because I feel so sorry for the authors when I get on my soapbox and ultimately destroy their thread by ranting on about speeding.
Cheers,
--
Adam
|
Sorry but I don't entirely buy the argument that speeding isn't dangerous whereas drunk driving necessarily is. Over the years I've come across many people who've driven whilst drunk and don't know any who had accidents whilst OTL. That's of course not to defend DD but simply to point out that being OTL doesn't mean you're going to have an accident - it just makes it more likely. I'd argue that serious speeding makes accidents a) more likely and b) more likely to be serious, even fatal as what would be minor problems at low speed become magnified as speed increases. Likewise the problems associated with alchol are magnified with consumption. You can be OTL but not necessarily drunk.
The truth is that accidents can always happen but surely we should try as far as we reasonably can to reduce the likliehood - IMO that means driving sensibly and within the limits and not driving whilst OTL. I'm sorry but I don't see much difference between a serial speeder and a drink driver - both are inviting trouble and equally irresponsible and it's no more comfort to the bereaved to find out that their loved one has been killed by one as opposed to the other.
|
That's of course not to defend DD....
It's alright, you won't be the first.
Oh! drink driving.
I'll get me coat.
|
|
|
|
Both are breaking the law.
There is a moral difference. Every burglary causes distress to the victim. Burglary is commited voluntarily, with the intention of causing someone to be deprived of their possesions. When the burglar sets out, he does so with the intention of breaking the law and leaving victims in his wake. The proceeds of his crime are very often disposed of, illegally, to enable him to commit further crimes, usually drug related. The law against burglary is to protect every member of society.
Breaking the speed limit is, in the vast majority of cases, a "victimless" crime. The speed limit which has been set in some cases is inappropriate. This does not make it acceptable to ignore it, but it does make it "easier" to exceed it if the general conditions where it is applied do not make it obvious that a lower speed is required.
I would suggest, also, that the vast majority of people, including yourself, do not leave home with sole intention of breaking the law.
On a more cynical note, speeding usually results in a fine, paid to the government. Burglary usually results in the government paying full board and lodgings to the burglar. Speeding is easy to detect and punish, burglary isn't. Which would you put more resources into?
|
|
Don't stop posting, Adski, say what you think. I expect RF and others will be along, soon.
|
"I expect RF and others will be along, soon"
Nope - I have a policy about not posting in the same thread as Adam because i witter on about the appendage on his Focus.
Damn! blown it.
|
Admitting it is the first step RF.
mjm, much as I would love to storm in with some more arguments, for the sake of sanity (mine more than anyone elses!) I'm going to keep shtum. I would only be repeating my withered (or should that be weathered - or both!) arguments.
You're sick of them - I'm sick of them and it's no fun without NW joining in.
Thanks anyway,
--
Adam
|
|
|
|
How can we have a system where people decide for themselves what the spped limit should be ?
Many people wouldn't have the judgement , especially on unfamiliar roads
|
|
How can we have a system where people decide for themsleves when to accelerate, brake and steer their car?. Many people wouldn't have the judgement, especially on unfamiliar roads.
|
|
|
I've been driving on two or four wheels for 49 years; one of the key the points that was made to me early on was to adopt the maxim of: "Speed - in the right place at the right time."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
my personal theory is that speed does not kill - inappropriate use of speed does.
|
|
You're all taking it too serious, even though greenhey is a day late posting the thread! Come on, werobyou.com, burglaroscope???
|
|
|
Yep - but it's a very fine line at times isn't it. What seemed like a safe place to put your foot down suddenly isn't so safe when you suddenly have a blow out, hit black ice or, say, a wild animal jumps out in front of you and because you're doing 100 instead of 60 you can't stop safely. Yes, things like that can happen at any speed (within the existing limits) but the faster you're going the greater the danger associated with being unable to stop safely in an emergency.
Wasn't so long ago that we had a thread in Technical about Espace's (???) suddenly cutting out for no apparent reason. IIRC someone commented in effect that this wasn't great doing 80mph in the outside lane of the motorway. All the more reason not to do it then.
|
It's obvious (isn't it) that speed doesn't kill .
Not of itself .
Neither does electricity .But in the wrong hands, when abused, it does.
Now if the only consequences of people misjudging the situation or their ability , were for themselves , I might believe it's Ok for them to just get on with it .
But at the very least , idiots who smash up themselves rely on me and millions of others to fund the help they get , from emergency services to hospital care, to insurance premiums which are higher than they need to be .Not to mention the time and money consequences of the congestion casued when they create accidents .
Where speed comes in, is that the consequences of negligence , poor technique or aggression are much greater at high speed, and the time to take corrective action by the driver or others , is massively reduced.
So regulating speed is the price we pay for living in a society where we have obligations to others .We may find the limits in places frustrating , but the way to solve that is to do it through the democratic process, not to decide to ignore the law because it doesn't suit us.
After all, the people who built or manage the road may know more about it than we do ( imagine that!) I often think as I see people ignore limits in motorway roadworks, that they CAN'T know better than the people doing the work, what is safe in there.
Once you accept that we need the laws, how can you argue against their being policed? It so happens they have found a reliable, cost-effective means of doing it, and as a tax-payer I have to say that I expect that of a police force, and hope they can find equally effective ways of enforcing other laws ( and by the way, believe me, that's NOT by having bobbies on the beat !)
|
For all the arguments put forward for rigid enforcement of speed limits, all I can say is that of the (quite a few) accidents that I have been involved in or a witness to in forty years of motoring on two and four wheels, none have been the result of a vehicle exceeding the speed limit and a minoority due to excessive speed within the limit.
So, in my experience, the concentration on convictions for exceeding the speed limit and road safety propaganda which concentrates on speed is misdirected.
My view would be that poor observation is the major cause of accidents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
