Re: The Speed Trap - BBC1 Scotland

"David Martin" <martin-family@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1131967259.785066.151450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Matt B wrote:
>> "David Martin" <martin-family@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1131964033.255609.44430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > Matt B wrote:

>> [...]

>> > There are a limited set of speed limits that can
>> > legally be set.
>>
>> Now that _is_ a strawman. We all know the only reason is because that is
>> how our legislators have set it, not for any intrinsic "good" reason.
>
> You presuppose that there is no reasoning behind the law. That would be
> a fallacy.

Not at all. I am humbly suggesting that the reasoning has proved to be
faulty. We still have accidents.

[...]

>> > but would require speed limits being set at strage values very
>> > frequently, ie for every bend, straight, field entrance and so on.
>>
>> Why? Who needs limits? Where _exactly_ is 30 precisely correct? Do you
>> not think that motorists adust their speed other than to each posted
>> limit
>> as they encounter it - sheesh.
>
> Which is somehow not as good as motorists driving as fast as they think
> they can get away with? why precisely?

Sorry? I do not understand the question, please rephrase it.

>> > It is safer to not over tax the motorists' brain cell[3] by confusing
>> > them with lots of slightly variable limits,
>>
>> Who's asking for variable limits? Does the technology exist to set them
>> appropriately for each vehicle/driver, for every second of every journey,
>> in
>> all lighting, weather, traffic and all other environmental conditions?
>
> Wrong term. Try non-standardised limits.

The same answer still applies. How is any fixed limit appropriate for _all_
circumstances?

>> > but instead to give them a
>> > set which correspond nicely with the major markings on their speedo.
>>
>> The only reason drivers need speedos is because of speed limits.
>
> Ignoring the psychological effects of becoming used to faster speeds,
> whilst in a box that is advertised as being very good at isolating you
> from your surroundings.

What "faster speeds"? I believe the result we are aiming for is "lower
speeds".

> Replace objective assessment with subjective
> assessment. Fantastic idea .. not!

Why do we need a gauge if absolute values are meaningless?

>> > So
>> > 30mph is not the accurate (see [1]) safe ([1] also applies) limit?
>>
>> Why not, rather than a "30" put a picture of houses, or people, or
>> whatever,
>> to indicate a build-up area, then expect due diligence?
>
> Because it doesn't work.

Please cite recent evidence, because, as I understand it, motorists behave
much more sociably if they are not given demarked roadsopace, limits,
regulations and traffic lights and all the other distracting clutter of
ill-informed modern-day road safety orthodoxy.

>Motorists would overestimate their ability,
> underestimate the danger and inconvenience they pose,

Is there evidence of that from an environment designed not to require
artificial regulation?

> and prosecuting
> the not particularly dilligent would be very hard.

So the emphasis should be on ease of prosecution rather than better results?

> There would be no
> penalty for getting away with not paying due dilligence.

A "penalty", given thoughtfully designed environment, would not be
necessary.

[...]

>> > We need speed limits because motorists are unable to appropriately
>> > regulate their speed where it matters most [5].
>>
>> Look around. Does everyone drive at precisely 30 mph at all times within
>> the 30 mph limit? Your assertion requires the answer to be "yes".

> Your logic seems flawed. Why does providing a maximum also imply a
> minimum? (it doesn't).

I never intended to imply that it did - quite the opposite actually.
Perhaps I should have said "Does everyone drive at a speed as high as 30 mph
at all times within the 30 mph limit".

> It is perfectly possible for a safe and
> competent driver to choose to drive well below the posted speed limit,
> where that limit is too high for the circumstances.

Exactly, and if you'd care to check you'll see that has been my consistent
objection to the use and obsession with fixed speed limits.

> As it is, most motorists will drive at the limit (approximately), not
> becasue the limit itself is to high but their perception of what is an
> appropriate speed for the conditions is too high.

Their inappropriate speed is legitimized by seeing it on a post.

>> > The current mechanism
>> > may not be as finegrained as one might like in terms of
>> > application but it is comprehensible and workable.
>>
>> So there are no road "accidents" in built-up areas in the entire
>> country -
>> ever? If there in fact is one, even occaisionally, I would suggest that
>> speed limits don't work.
>
> In order to support that outlandish assertion, you would have to argue
> that all accidents are solely the cause of travelling at speeds above
> the posted limit.

Are you deliberately missing my point? All I've ever said is that most
"accidents" occur at speeds _below_ (BELOW) the speed limt.

[snipped a bunch of irrelevent data, given that the premise is exactly 180
degrees awry]

> Reducing speeds reduces accidents. It doesn't remove all accidents, but
> no-one claimed it did.

Good, now we are at least "singing off the same hymn sheet" :-) The
argument I've attemped (yet obviously failed completely) to put across is
that the only way to REDUCE conflicts on the road is to increase mutual
respect amongst road users. I am of the view that one of the ways to reduce
conflict is to reduce speeds, and that one way to reduce speeds (yes, REDUCE
speeds) is to abolish fixed limits and give the _responsibilty_ of speed
choice fairly and squarely where it belongs, to the driver, in tandem with
removing white lines, traffic lights and parking restrictions, and
incorporating trees, benches, and public art. Mutual sharing and respect
will succeed where over regulation and, quite frankly, spite, has failed.

> Your argument is a bit like the fallacy of generalisation.
>
> 'My cat is black'
> 'Your cat can't be black becasue not all cats are black'

You may be able to fool some of the people some of the time... ;-)

--
Matt B


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Speed Trap - BBC1 Scotland
    ... >> but would require speed limits being set at strage values very ... Which is somehow not as good as motorists driving as fast as they think ... Ignoring the psychological effects of becoming used to faster speeds, ... reduction in accidents in tests of speed limiters in Sweden. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Pompey blanket 20mph limit
    ... speeds within the limit) would still happen. ... Or if 20mph limits were imposed and enforced? ... There may well be less accidents, but surely /no/ accidents, without ... 20mph zones are a good start. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Idiots on Bikes
    ... Actual speeds are measured and the limit is set at the ... least on limited access highways, compliance with speed limits is ... ride my bike there. ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: M6 motorway speeds?
    ... Mike P wrote: ... The variable limits tend to be optimistic ... there'll be a lot of people sitting at legal speeds, ... I didn't see a single car for miles. ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: M6 motorway speeds?
    ... Mike P wrote: ... The variable limits tend to be optimistic ... there'll be a lot of people sitting at legal speeds, ... I have never been done for speeding in 46 ...
    (uk.rec.driving)