Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'

Marc Brett said:

"Neither greed nor need can explain why respectable citizens cheat on
insurance claims or in second-hand sales, and do not hesitate to discuss
their exploits with friends in pubs."

Actually, I think greed explains it rather well...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Marc Brett said:

Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6235988.stm

More than six out of 10 people regularly commit crimes against the
government, their employers or businesses, research suggests.

[...]

The study's author, Professor Suzanna Karstedt, said: "Contempt for the
law is as widespread in the centre of society as it is assumed to be
rampant at the margins and among specific marginal groups.

"Anti-social behaviour by the few is mirrored by anti-civil behaviour by
the many.

"Neither greed nor need can explain why respectable citizens cheat on
insurance claims or in second-hand sales, and do not hesitate to discuss
their exploits with friends in pubs."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's a pity they didn't survey traffic offences. I can't imagine the
numbers are any lower.

The risks of getting caught are low
The punishment if caught is not a deterrent
So looks like it worth doing things to your advantage if you do cheat/
abuse/misuses/break the law to do/get what you want.

I would have though the freer the society, the harsher the punishments
for infringing those freedoms. If the freedoms get abused with no
suitable deterrent, then the state will adapt laws to remove that
freedom, look at the present government.

Marc Brett said:

Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'

It's a pity they didn't survey traffic offences. I can't imagine the
numbers are any lower.

They survey some - look at the DfT 'Transport Statistics for Great
Britain' report.

For 2006, on motorways only 44% of cars below the speed limit, average
speed is above the limit, motorbikes even worse. 30mph roads, 50% of
cars and motorbikes below speed limit.

So, assuming (reasonably) that on some occasions it was not possible
to exceed the limit (congestion etc), it is fairly clear that the
majority of motorists really do break the speed limit. Add the fact
that at least some of them are breaking other laws and it's clear that
there's no such thing as a law-abiding majority on the roads, and I
don't think there ever has been.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

... and it's clear that
there's no such thing as a law-abiding majority on the roads, and I
don't think there ever has been.

Indeed, and yet our roads are generally safe, and getting safer.
Small wonder there's little respect for the law.

Cheers,
W.

Quoted message said:

Indeed, and yet our roads are generally safe, and getting safer.
Small wonder there's little respect for the law.

So safe, in fact, we only kill 3,000 people on them every year. So
that's all right, then!

3k people on a recurring annual basis /should/ be a cause for
considerable concern, and something that still allows a lot of room for
improvement.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 06:12:11 -0700 someone who may be
[email hidden] wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... and it's clear that
there's no such thing as a law-abiding majority on the roads, and I
don't think there ever has been.

Indeed, and yet our roads are generally safe,

You think that at least ten deaths a day is safe?

Are there any more examples of your foolishness you wish to share
with the newsgroup?

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 25/06/2007 14:23, Peter Clinch said,

Quoted message said:

3k people on a recurring annual basis /should/ be a cause for
considerable concern, and something that still allows a lot of room for
improvement.

Ah, but by the time the government have put their spin on it, 3000
(isn't it actually 3500?) people every year is an improvement because
the number of cars on the roads has increased, therefore the number of
deaths as a percentage of the number of cars is reducing. </SPIN>

And yes, it should be a cause for concern. If 10 people were killed
every day on the railways, for instance, there would be a massive
uproar, quite rightly. 10 people killed on the roads every day just
seems to be accepted.

At the time of the last fatal train crash where the media were up in
arms about how dangerous the railways were, the BBC listed all fatal
train crashes over the previous 10 (I think) years. I did suggest to
the BBC that they list every fatal road accident over the same period,
but they declined. Probably not enough room on their servers.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd said:

And yes, it should be a cause for concern. If 10 people were killed
every day on the railways, for instance, there would be a massive
uproar, quite rightly. 10 people killed on the roads every day just
seems to be accepted.

Lots of wee stings are easier to shrug off than a single, big pain
though, or at least that's how it seems.

There was a particularly bad weekend earlier this year when 15 people
were killed in Scotland over a weekend on the roads and it did rate
front page news on most of the papers. Of course, aside from expressing
outrage for a day nothing was actually /done/, compare and contrast to
the outcome of past train crashes which have had serious knock-ons to
services.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In article said:

Marc Brett said:

"Neither greed nor need can explain why respectable citizens cheat on
insurance claims or in second-hand sales, and do not hesitate to discuss
their exploits with friends in pubs."

Actually, I think greed explains it rather well...

It explains the cheating, but not the willingness to discuss it.

On Jun 25, 2:47 pm, David Hansen <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 06:12:11 -0700 someone who may be
[email hidden] wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... and it's clear that
there's no such thing as a law-abiding majority on the roads, and I
don't think there ever has been.

Quoted message said:

Indeed, and yet our roads are generally safe,

You think that at least ten deaths a day is safe?

When taken in context, it's quite a good figure.

MBQ

Paul Boyd said:

On 25/06/2007 14:23, Peter Clinch said,

Quoted message said:

3k people on a recurring annual basis /should/ be a cause for
considerable concern, and something that still allows a lot of room for
improvement.

Ah, but by the time the government have put their spin on it, 3000
(isn't it actually 3500?) people every year is an improvement because
the number of cars on the roads has increased, therefore the number of
deaths as a percentage of the number of cars is reducing. </SPIN>

And yes, it should be a cause for concern. If 10 people were killed
every day on the railways, for instance, there would be a massive
uproar,

If 10 people are killed on the railways on only one day a year there
is a massive uproar and a kneejerk reaction to close the whole network
or spend billions on safety systems that could save far more lives if
applied to road safety.

MBQ

in message <[email hidden]>,

(' ') said:

Ian Smith said:

... and it's clear that
there's no such thing as a law-abiding majority on the roads, and I
don't think there ever has been.

Indeed, and yet our roads are generally safe, and getting safer.

Motorists on Britain's roads kill more people every year than most wars.
They kill twice as many people every year as died in Hurricane Katrina.
They kill fifteen times as many people every year as all industrial
accidents put together. They kill more people, injure more people, damage
more property every year than all other crime put together.

If that's 'safe', what would you call dangerous?

Although, of course, the roads /are/ safe. Roads don't kill people.
Motorists kill people.

Quoted message said:

Small wonder there's little respect for the law.

Small wonder indeed, when there are fools like you about.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Diplomacy, American: see Intelligence, Military

Alan Braggins said:

In article said:

Marc Brett said:

"Neither greed nor need can explain why respectable citizens cheat on
insurance claims or in second-hand sales, and do not hesitate to discuss
their exploits with friends in pubs."

Actually, I think greed explains it rather well...

It explains the cheating, but not the willingness to discuss it.

"Greed is good!" to quote a character in a notable 1980s movie. If it's
good, why wouldn't you go on about it?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

When taken in context, it's quite a good figure.

What context is that, then?

To me it's a figure that cannot be expected to get to 0, but has a very
long way to go down from where it currently is?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On 25 Jun, 14:47, David Hansen <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 06:12:11 -0700 someone who may be
[email hidden] wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

... and it's clear that
there's no such thing as a law-abiding majority on the roads, and I
don't think there ever has been.

Quoted message said:

Indeed, and yet our roads are generally safe,

You think that at least ten deaths a day is safe?

Are there any more examples of your foolishness you wish to share
with the newsgroup?

So, I'm a fool, am I?

I'm not going to rise to that, David. Sorry. Think me a fool if you
like.

Cheers,
W.

Quoted message said:

So, I'm a fool, am I?

Whatever the answer to that, the roads are considerably less safe than
they could be and 3k+ deaths a year is not something to be happy about.

The roads are safe /enough/ for one to venture out onto them without
special measures like crash helmets, but that's really not the end of
the story. [censored] happens, and still far too much of it happens on the
roads to be complacent about.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:16:24 -0700 someone who may be
"[email hidden]" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You think that at least ten deaths a day is safe?

When taken in context, it's quite a good figure.

I note that you didn't explain what you think the context is.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:39:39 -0700 someone who may be
[email hidden] wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

So, I'm a fool, am I?

No. If I had intended to say that you are a fool then I would have
done so.

What I did say is that your assertion that the roads are generally
safe, is foolish. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I stand
by my statement.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

When taken in context, it's quite a good figure.

What context is that, then?

To me it's a figure that cannot be expected to get to 0, but has a very
long way to go down from where it currently is?

oops. Hope this isn't going to get unpleasant.

Context is that it's worse in lots of (most?) other parts of the
world, that there are significant benefits to having personal
transport and that any individuals chance of getting killed is low.

I'd certainly agree that we should be trying much harder to make the
roads safer and personally I think the current approaches are flawed
(though I don't really want to get into a long debate about why).
However, as Paul Boyd said, killing 10 people a day on the roads is
accepted, therefore we may conclude that society as a whole (whatever
that is) currently regards it as acceptable.

It seems to me that we could do with a real debate on the costs and
benefits of transport (public and private). It would expose a lot of
hypocrisy and allow more rational decisions to be made about public
and private transport.
I don't think it's going to happen, though, and realistically I don't
think we're ready for it- we just don't have a deep enough
understanding of risk and the media that would lead the debate have
too much interest in fanning the flames.

Cheers,
W.