Re: Anti-social behaviour

Just zis Guy said:

At Mon, 06 Jun 2005 01:46:44 +0100, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by Alistair J Murray
<[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the following:

Quoted message said:

All bad arbitrary laws, just like speed limits.

Really? I thought they were all bad arbitrary laws showing just how
reasonable speed limits are by comparison.

Nope, they show why speed limits are bad law despite seeming
superficially innocuous.

Quoted message said:

But then, I don't think my [censored] is going to shrivel if I am ten
seconds late at the next traffic jam.

Neither will mine, I see no point in trying to rush round town in a car.

A

--
Trade Oil in €

Alistair J Murray said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All bad arbitrary laws, just like speed limits.

Really? I thought they were all bad arbitrary laws showing just how
reasonable speed limits are by comparison.

Quoted message said:

Nope, they show why speed limits are bad law despite seeming
superficially innocuous.

Really? It seems to me that the bad laws you cite are bad because
they do not address the problem of human fallibility, whereas speed
limits recognise it and pose limits on its ability to cause harm.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But then, I don't think my [censored] is going to shrivel if I am ten
seconds late at the next traffic jam.

Quoted message said:

Neither will mine, I see no point in trying to rush round town in a car.

Exactly. I find that obeying the speed limit makes massively less
difference to my journey times than does congestion, and the M25 shows
that slowing down can actually reduce delays and accidents, so speed
limits are fine by me. They cause me no measurable inconvenience when
driving, in return for a significant benefit in reducing the risk
drivers pose to me when cycling or walking. Entirely reasonable.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 10:18:39 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Neither will mine, I see no point in trying to rush round town in a car.

Exactly. I find that obeying the speed limit makes massively less
difference to my journey times than does congestion, and the M25 shows
that slowing down can actually reduce delays and accidents, so speed
limits are fine by me. They cause me no measurable inconvenience when
driving, in return for a significant benefit in reducing the risk
drivers pose to me when cycling or walking. Entirely reasonable.

Agreed. Those who moan about 20mph speed limits causing more
congestion and increasing journey times have been shown to be false
prophets.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Just zis Guy said:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 03:31:02 +0100, Alistair J Murray
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nope, they show why speed limits are bad law despite seeming
superficially innocuous.

Really? It seems to me that the bad laws you cite are bad because
they do not address the problem of human fallibility, whereas speed
limits recognise it and pose limits on its ability to cause harm.

When technology meant that speed limits were enforced on an *ish basis
by flesh and blood plod they did work as you would have it - speed was a
convenient hook to hang bad driving offences on, few were busted for
merely being quick.

Now speed limits give vastly too much importance to numerical speed
values rather than appropriate speed - the speedometer and
numberonastick do not provide information from which an appropriate
speed can be derived.

The combination of robocopping and bad propaganda has turned the
harmless(ish) guide limit into a killer target.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But then, I don't think my [censored] is going to shrivel if I am ten
seconds late at the next traffic jam.

Quoted message said:

Neither will mine, I see no point in trying to rush round town in a
car.

Exactly. I find that obeying the speed limit makes massively less
difference to my journey times than does congestion,

Perhaps you should move somewhere less horrid. Up here cruising speed
maps fairly directly to journey time.

Quoted message said:

and the M25 shows that slowing down can actually reduce delays and
accidents, so speed limits are fine by me.

I'm all for slowing down when there is something to hit, I see no good
reason not to drive quickly when there isn't.

(I've never had a car accident where I was doing >12-15mph, I do look)

Quoted message said:

They cause me no measurable inconvenience when driving, in return for
a significant benefit in reducing the risk drivers pose to me when
cycling or walking.

Ahh, but they cause me considerable inconvenience when driving without
giving you any benefit cycling, walking or even driving...

Quoted message said:

Entirely reasonable.

Yet dangerous and unnecessary.

A

--
Trade Oil in €

Alistair J Murray said:

When technology meant that speed limits were enforced on an *ish basis
by flesh and blood plod they did work as you would have it - speed was a
convenient hook to hang bad driving offences on, few were busted for
merely being quick.

You think? When would that have been, then?

Back in the early 90s when people railed against speed traps catching
"innocent" law-breaking motorists?

During the 1970s when they started trying out VASCAR?

During the 1950s when radar speed guns first appeared on the scene?

During the 1930s when the 30mph urban limit was suspended but rapidly
reintroduced due to rising injuries?

During the 1900s when Dunhill's offered their "Bobby Finder" motoring
glasses which would "tell a policeman from a reasonable man at 500
yards" and the AA was set up to warn members about speed traps?

In the 1890s when the Emancipation Act did away with the red flag and
the first speeding tickets were issued?

When, exactly, was this golden age when drivers accepted controls on
their speed on the basis that it was done by police who only stopped
the most dangerous drivers?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound