Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you
Comments
-
Quite. Also we already have a thread for all the boring stuff related to cars for people who don't like them or see them as simply a way of getting from A to B.First.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.0 -
I’d amend the pedals to pedals and/or shoes.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
Do people still buy CDs? This intrigues me.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
Perhaps. But why? Because it doesn't suit you now that clipless pedals have been invented?pblakeney said:
I’d amend the pedals to pedals and/or shoes.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
Do people still buy CDs? This intrigues me.
What about speed limits do you think is fundamentally different? They were put in place for cars built in the 1960s or earlier, with no air bags, seat belts, crumple zone, or abs, and with radial tyres. Is a speed limit designed for an MGB still applicable to my 440i? In towns perhaps, but I'm manifestly safer to myself and others at 100mph mph now than I would be at 60 mph then.
I see no reason why I should be able to safely drive to Leeds in 3 hours not 4, because I can do so safely.
Or so the argument would go.
Has anyone on the forum ever paid a tradesman in cash?
Has anyone on the forum ever given someone a parking ticket with a few hours left on it, to be nice?
There *might* be a bit of double standards going on vis. enforcement of speed limits in some circumstances. Just possibly.0 -
Sure but those laws are common sense.kingstongraham said:
I'd say the laws changed driving habits regarding wearing seatbelts and not drink driving.pinno said:
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.0 -
OK, given that police standard practice is to issue speeding penalties only when people get to a speed exceeding the limit by a margin of 10% +2mph, that means they need to raise the limits everywhere.rick_chasey said:
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?rick_chasey said:
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.
Compare to:
Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.
Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.
Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.
Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.
Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.
--------------------------------
If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.
Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.0 -
The idea is that there should be a reflective part revolving round. Does it matter if it is the pedals or the shoes. A simple wording change and everyone complies, assuming heel reflectors.First.Aspect said:
Perhaps. But why? Because it doesn't suit you now that clipless pedals have been invented?pblakeney said:
I’d amend the pedals to pedals and/or shoes.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
Do people still buy CDs? This intrigues me.
...
For all the other stuff? You are asking the wrong guy.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Well put.First.Aspect said:
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?rick_chasey said:
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.
Compare to:
Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.
Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.
Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.
Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.
Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.
--------------------------------
If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.
Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That’s why you just make the car regs such that they can’t go over the max speed limit.First.Aspect said:
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?rick_chasey said:
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.
Compare to:
Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.
Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.
Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.
Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.
Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.
--------------------------------
If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.
Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
Rozzers would then spend a lot less time having to enforce it.0 -
As FA says, there are more important things to deal with.rick_chasey said:
That’s why you just make the car regs such that they can’t go over the max speed limit.First.Aspect said:
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?rick_chasey said:
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.
Compare to:
Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.
Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.
Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.
Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.
Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.
--------------------------------
If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.
Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
Rozzers would then spend a lot less time having to enforce it.
Next..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
The only problem is that if you set the limit to 80, then you have to enforce the limit or it will develop into another 80 +10% speed limit.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Meh, Rick is proposing what he thinks is a cheap method of ensuring that the limit is obeyed which would actually free up police to enforce more important things.Stevo_666 said:
As FA says, there are more important things to deal with.rick_chasey said:
That’s why you just make the car regs such that they can’t go over the max speed limit.First.Aspect said:
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?rick_chasey said:
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.
Compare to:
Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.
Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.
Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.
Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.
Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.
--------------------------------
If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.
Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
Rozzers would then spend a lot less time having to enforce it.
Next...
All those coppers that speeders tell to go catch proper criminals could finally, well, go catch proper criminals.0 -
Wouldn't it be like speed limiters on electric bikes? People find out how to turn them off, so the police would still have a job to do.Jezyboy said:
Meh, Rick is proposing what he thinks is a cheap method of ensuring that the limit is obeyed which would actually free up police to enforce more important things.Stevo_666 said:
As FA says, there are more important things to deal with.rick_chasey said:
That’s why you just make the car regs such that they can’t go over the max speed limit.First.Aspect said:
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?rick_chasey said:
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.
Compare to:
Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.
Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.
Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.
Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.
Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.
--------------------------------
If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.
Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
Rozzers would then spend a lot less time having to enforce it.
Next...
All those coppers that speeders tell to go catch proper criminals could finally, well, go catch proper criminals.0 -
To some extent. I can see a few ways of applying it, all of which would be open to abuse.TheBigBean said:
Wouldn't it be like speed limiters on electric bikes? People find out how to turn them off, so the police would still have a job to do.Jezyboy said:
Meh, Rick is proposing what he thinks is a cheap method of ensuring that the limit is obeyed which would actually free up police to enforce more important things.Stevo_666 said:
As FA says, there are more important things to deal with.rick_chasey said:
That’s why you just make the car regs such that they can’t go over the max speed limit.First.Aspect said:
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?rick_chasey said:
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.
Compare to:
Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.
Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.
Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.
Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.
Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.
--------------------------------
If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.
Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
Rozzers would then spend a lot less time having to enforce it.
Next...
All those coppers that speeders tell to go catch proper criminals could finally, well, go catch proper criminals.
But that's a debate around the effectiveness and practicalities of it. I think on the face of it, just removing the possibility of speeding is quite a neat solution to the problem, if you could do it in a very cost effective manner.0 -
Turn off? Use a hammer.TheBigBean said:
Wouldn't it be like speed limiters on electric bikes? People find out how to turn them off, so the police would still have a job to do.Jezyboy said:
Meh, Rick is proposing what he thinks is a cheap method of ensuring that the limit is obeyed which would actually free up police to enforce more important things.Stevo_666 said:
As FA says, there are more important things to deal with.rick_chasey said:
That’s why you just make the car regs such that they can’t go over the max speed limit.First.Aspect said:
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?rick_chasey said:
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.
Compare to:
Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.
Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.
Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.
Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.
Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.
--------------------------------
If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.
Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
Rozzers would then spend a lot less time having to enforce it.
Next...
All those coppers that speeders tell to go catch proper criminals could finally, well, go catch proper criminals.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
No, they'd start enforcing tailgating, illegally not exiting a yellow box, poor lane changes, tax and insurance violations, broken headlights etc.Jezyboy said:
Meh, Rick is proposing what he thinks is a cheap method of ensuring that the limit is obeyed which would actually free up police to enforce more important things.Stevo_666 said:
As FA says, there are more important things to deal with.rick_chasey said:
That’s why you just make the car regs such that they can’t go over the max speed limit.First.Aspect said:
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?rick_chasey said:
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.
Compare to:
Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.
Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.
Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.
Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.
Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.
--------------------------------
If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.
Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
Rozzers would then spend a lot less time having to enforce it.
Next...
All those coppers that speeders tell to go catch proper criminals could finally, well, go catch proper criminals.
There seems to be a perception that it would be cheap.
What makes you think that?0 -
-
Well perhaps, further ahead.rick_chasey said:In the future it will be easy to put in software to regulate that stuff inside the car
Right now a lot of car manufacturers still charge extra for sat nav, and still more allow you to use the phone navigation. Even if you get sat nav, there is a revenue stream associated with keeping it up to date, getting traffic information and having info like speed limits.
Are you proposing to turn off those revenue streams for the manufacturers, or just make them compulsory for everyone? I'll give you a clue - the first of those options is not realistic.0 -
I just use my phone, a cost effective solution. Set it up before departure, it connects to the car for turn by turn directions. That said I forecast mandatory black boxes a while ago.First.Aspect said:
Are you proposing to turn off those revenue streams for the manufacturers, or just make them compulsory for everyone? I'll give you a clue - the first of those options is not realistic.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
This is such nonsense. Spending on speed enforcement is roughly one thousandth of that on cancer treatment. It's not even a rounding error in the scale of government spending.First.Aspect said:
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?rick_chasey said:
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.
Compare to:
Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.
Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.
Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.
Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.
Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.
--------------------------------
If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.
Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You have just completely made my point for me, thank you.rjsterry said:
This is such nonsense. Spending on speed enforcement is roughly one thousandth of that on cancer treatment. It's not even a rounding error in the scale of government spending.First.Aspect said:
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?rick_chasey said:
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.
Compare to:
Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.
Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.
Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.
Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.
Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.
--------------------------------
If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.
Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
It is a tiny spend in comparision because speeding is comparatively small problem. Its only a factor in a fraction of the 1800 road deaths, even.
A grown up must at some point figured this out and decided that outrage about people doing 80mph is nothing more than hand wringing.1 -
Worth pointing out that many of our esteemed European partners allow people to do 80mph or more on the motorway. What a bunch of maniacs...First.Aspect said:
You have just completely made my point for me, thank you.rjsterry said:
This is such nonsense. Spending on speed enforcement is roughly one thousandth of that on cancer treatment. It's not even a rounding error in the scale of government spending.First.Aspect said:
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?rick_chasey said:
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.
Compare to:
Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.
Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.
Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.
Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.
Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.
--------------------------------
If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.
Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
It is a tiny spend in comparision because speeding is comparatively small problem. Its only a factor in a fraction of the 1800 road deaths, even.
A grown up must at some point figured this out and decided that outrage about people doing 80mph is nothing more than hand wringing."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Meanwhile in France, the reduction in speed limits on main roads from 90kmh to 80kmh is credited with reducing fatalities by 12%, with no impact on traffic flows.
https://www.onisr.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2020-08/Cerema-EvaluationV80-Juillet2020-V2_ENG.pdfThe impact of the measure corresponds to a 12% decrease in the number of deaths on the considered network, the network excluding urban areas and motorways, compared to the rest of the French road network (with an estimated error of 3.6%). For the 18 months after the implementation of the measure, where the data are final, a decrease of 331 deaths on the considered network is to be observed, compared to the reference period 2013-2017. Taking into account the months of January and February 2020, where data are estimated, the decrease in the number of deaths amounts to 349 over 20 months.
In terms of traffic, the Cerema observatory did not note any impact on traffic flow caused by the measure. Indeed, no additional platoons were created, nor was there a reduction in the time between vehicles following each other. On the other hand, an average increase in travel time of 1 second per kilometre was calculated, using a
comparative analysis of a history of floating vehicle data over a period of three months in 2017 and 2019.
The measure has not yet fully achieved its intended effects. In December 2019, 58% of light vehicle drivers were still driving at speeds above 80 km/h, and 35% of these were between 80 and 90 km/h. The literature indicates that speeding below 10 km/h is mainly perceived by road users as not very dangerous and reprehensible, even though it plays a significant role in French road deaths.0 -
70 is probably measurably safer. But then 60 would be safer still and 50, etc.Stevo_666 said:
Worth pointing out that many of our esteemed European partners allow people to do 80mph or more on the motorway. What a bunch of maniacs...First.Aspect said:
You have just completely made my point for me, thank you.rjsterry said:
This is such nonsense. Spending on speed enforcement is roughly one thousandth of that on cancer treatment. It's not even a rounding error in the scale of government spending.First.Aspect said:
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?rick_chasey said:
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.
Compare to:
Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.
Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.
Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.
Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.
Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.
--------------------------------
If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.
Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
It is a tiny spend in comparision because speeding is comparatively small problem. Its only a factor in a fraction of the 1800 road deaths, even.
A grown up must at some point figured this out and decided that outrage about people doing 80mph is nothing more than hand wringing.
It is a somewhat arbitrary and anachronistic number, which is why as much as I don't like people who drive too fast, I don't have a great moral objection to speeding per se.
The Venn diagram of safety and speed limits includes the option of being unsafe at the speed limit (e.g. 60 on a blind bend of a single track road) as well as safe over the speed limit (e.g. 90 on an empty motorway), and unsafe at any speed limit (e.g. dog tired like I was the other night).
It's just all so terribly awful.0 -
If speed was the only factor they'd just slap a 5mph limit everywhere. But it clearly isn't. Driving sensibly for the conditions, not driving when you're not feeling up to it, staying alert, paying attention, anticipation etc are all relevant and help stop you from having an accident in the first place.First.Aspect said:
70 is probably measurably safer. But then 60 would be safer still and 50, etc.Stevo_666 said:
Worth pointing out that many of our esteemed European partners allow people to do 80mph or more on the motorway. What a bunch of maniacs...First.Aspect said:
You have just completely made my point for me, thank you.rjsterry said:
This is such nonsense. Spending on speed enforcement is roughly one thousandth of that on cancer treatment. It's not even a rounding error in the scale of government spending.First.Aspect said:
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?rick_chasey said:
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.
Compare to:
Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.
Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.
Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.
Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.
Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.
--------------------------------
If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.
Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
It is a tiny spend in comparision because speeding is comparatively small problem. Its only a factor in a fraction of the 1800 road deaths, even.
A grown up must at some point figured this out and decided that outrage about people doing 80mph is nothing more than hand wringing.
It is a somewhat arbitrary and anachronistic number, which is why as much as I don't like people who drive too fast, I don't have a great moral objection to speeding per se.
The Venn diagram of safety and speed limits includes the option of being unsafe at the speed limit (e.g. 60 on a blind bend of a single track road) as well as safe over the speed limit (e.g. 90 on an empty motorway), and unsafe at any speed limit (e.g. dog tired like I was the other night).
It's just all so terribly awful."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
🤣 Outstanding argument.First.Aspect said:
You have just completely made my point for me, thank you.rjsterry said:
This is such nonsense. Spending on speed enforcement is roughly one thousandth of that on cancer treatment. It's not even a rounding error in the scale of government spending.First.Aspect said:
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?rick_chasey said:
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.
Compare to:
Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.
Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.
Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.
Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.
Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.
--------------------------------
If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.
Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
It is a tiny spend in comparision because speeding is comparatively small problem. Its only a factor in a fraction of the 1800 road deaths, even.
A grown up must at some point figured this out and decided that outrage about people doing 80mph is nothing more than hand wringing.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think you've won a different argument to the one I've made RJS, but I had a look at some figures anyway.rjsterry said:
🤣 Outstanding argument.First.Aspect said:
You have just completely made my point for me, thank you.rjsterry said:
This is such nonsense. Spending on speed enforcement is roughly one thousandth of that on cancer treatment. It's not even a rounding error in the scale of government spending.First.Aspect said:
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?rick_chasey said:
BB is right.TheBigBean said:
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDsFirst.Aspect said:
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.rick_chasey said:
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?First.Aspect said:
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.rick_chasey said:
UK has safer roads than all those listed here.pinno said:The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.
Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.
What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.
Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.
Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?
Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?
Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.
Etc etc.
Tedious.
If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.
Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.
Compare to:
Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.
Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.
Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.
Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.
Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.
--------------------------------
If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.
Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
It is a tiny spend in comparision because speeding is comparatively small problem. Its only a factor in a fraction of the 1800 road deaths, even.
A grown up must at some point figured this out and decided that outrage about people doing 80mph is nothing more than hand wringing.
Let's start with the economic cost of cancer. Google tells me it's about £18Bn a year.
Cost to the economy of road traffic accidents, about £3.5Bn, of which about 12% are speed related, so about £400M.
I'm not sure, but I think the current road policing budget is about £400M, and the cost of NHS cancer treatment is about £5Bn.
So the question is, how much of the road policing budget is spent on speeding enforcement? I would guess a lot more than 12%, in which case, on the face of it you may find that we are over prioritising this sort of spending in comparison to cancer treatment.0
