A Good Day for Proper Road Safety: Swindon Ditches Fixed SpeedCameras

On 2009-08-01, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 12:38:18 -0500, Ben C wrote:

combine a speeding law with automated enforcement and you do have a
recipe for a certain amount of injustice.

Not really, no. There is a speed limit, enforcing it is just.

Legal != just.

Abiding by the law is always an option, after all.

Doesn't make it just. You can make an unjust law.

Resentment, perhaps, but not injustics, not by any meaningful
definition of the word. Quite the opposite, really, as the
application of the law is mechanistic and therefore applied without
favour.

The arguments against speed enforcement are largely those which were
used against intoximeters and strict enforcement of drink-drive laws.
Such arguments have largely died out now.

There are also quite reasonable and similar arguments against
drink-drive laws.

To make the case for them you have to argue that driving while drunk or
speeding are wrong _in themselves_, i.e. that they constitute a reckless
amount of risk-taking.

But really you have to look at the total level of risk someone is taking
before you can call them reckless. A little bit over the speed or
alcohol limit, but more careful than usual in other ways, and it's not
really justified to say they're doing anything seriously wrong.

You need a dose of pragmatism to make these things work. Truth is, _so_
many people drink it's worth having a drink-driving law. Ditto mobile
phone while driving laws. Why shouldn't I use a phone if I'm careful? Is
it really any worse than tuning the radio? Not necessarily, it's more
that more people are likely to do it and for longer at a time.

Ben C wrote:
On 2009-08-01, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 12:38:18 -0500, Ben C wrote:

combine a speeding law with automated enforcement and you do have a
recipe for a certain amount of injustice.
Not really, no. There is a speed limit, enforcing it is just.

Legal != just.

Abiding by the law is always an option, after all.

Doesn't make it just. You can make an unjust law.

But the enforcement of the law is equal for all. An unjust law would
apply to some and not to others. You can call it unreasonable but not
unjust.


Resentment, perhaps, but not injustics, not by any meaningful
definition of the word. Quite the opposite, really, as the
application of the law is mechanistic and therefore applied without
favour.

The arguments against speed enforcement are largely those which were
used against intoximeters and strict enforcement of drink-drive laws.
Such arguments have largely died out now.

There are also quite reasonable and similar arguments against
drink-drive laws.

To make the case for them you have to argue that driving while drunk or
speeding are wrong _in themselves_, i.e. that they constitute a reckless
amount of risk-taking.

But really you have to look at the total level of risk someone is taking
before you can call them reckless. A little bit over the speed or
alcohol limit, but more careful than usual in other ways, and it's not
really justified to say they're doing anything seriously wrong.

err quite a few people are killed/seriously injured on the roads even
when drivers are not drugged or speeding. Increasing the risk to others
look reckless to me.


You need a dose of pragmatism to make these things work. Truth is, _so_
many people drink it's worth having a drink-driving law. Ditto mobile
phone while driving laws. Why shouldn't I use a phone if I'm careful? Is
it really any worse than tuning the radio? Not necessarily, it's more
that more people are likely to do it and for longer at a time.

Proper studies have been done on this. I hope you would choose to tune
you radio when you can tell that nothing is going to happen for a while.
You cannot guarantee that someone on the other end of the phone will not
spring something on you when you need full attention.


--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames

On 2009-08-01, Paul Luton wrote:
Ben C wrote:
On 2009-08-01, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 12:38:18 -0500, Ben C wrote:

combine a speeding law with automated enforcement and you do have a
recipe for a certain amount of injustice.
Not really, no. There is a speed limit, enforcing it is just.

Legal != just.

Abiding by the law is always an option, after all.

Doesn't make it just. You can make an unjust law.

But the enforcement of the law is equal for all. An unjust law would
apply to some and not to others. You can call it unreasonable but not
unjust.

OK, unreasonable then.

[...]
You need a dose of pragmatism to make these things work. Truth is, _so_
many people drink it's worth having a drink-driving law. Ditto mobile
phone while driving laws. Why shouldn't I use a phone if I'm careful? Is
it really any worse than tuning the radio? Not necessarily, it's more
that more people are likely to do it and for longer at a time.

Proper studies have been done on this. I hope you would choose to tune
you radio when you can tell that nothing is going to happen for a while.

I would hope so.

You cannot guarantee that someone on the other end of the phone will not
spring something on you when you need full attention.

Yes, and quite a few people are saying that's the problem with phones
and that hands-free is a herring. The problem is not so much that you
can't steer with one hand (of course you can) but that you aren't paying
attention.

Talking to a real-life passenger is less dangerous because either he
shuts up when he can see you are concentrating on trying to not hit
something, or you expect him to notice that you have probably stopped
listening because you're obviously occupied with something else.

Perhaps we should only allow hands-free kits that also provide 3D video
conferencing facilities.

I suspect talking to even a real passenger _is_ often a bit more
dangerous than not, but what are you going to do.

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:30:28 -0500, Ben C wrote:

But the enforcement of the law is equal for all. An unjust law would
apply to some and not to others. You can call it unreasonable but not
unjust.

OK, unreasonable then.

Depends who you ask. The people living along residential streets that
are used as rat-runs seem to think it's quite reasonable.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
- attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 21:36:22 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:30:28 -0500, Ben C wrote:

But the enforcement of the law is equal for all. An unjust law would
apply to some and not to others. You can call it unreasonable but not
unjust.

OK, unreasonable then.

Depends who you ask. The people living along residential streets that
are used as rat-runs seem to think it's quite reasonable.

But be fair, residential streets are not the target areas for speed
enforcement. Most 'safety' cameras are sited in areas where a normal
motorist might think it safe to slightly exceed the posted limit. If
the main focus were to try and enforce 30mph limits in genuinely risky
areas I don't think anyone (reasonable) would have a problem.

Arbitrary limits, and automated enforcement thereof, actually serve to
encourage speeding, as many reasonable drivers can see they're a
complete waste of time, and therefore treat all limits in the same
way.

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 23:15:03 +0200, Ace wrote:

Depends who you ask. The people living along residential streets that
are used as rat-runs seem to think it's quite reasonable.

But be fair, residential streets are not the target areas for speed
enforcement. Most 'safety' cameras are sited in areas where a normal
motorist might think it safe to slightly exceed the posted limit.

There are three within half a mile of my house. Every one on
residential roads. And all those roads are the kinds of roads where
"normal motorists" think it quite safe to exceed the posted limit. Of
course it is a known fact that normal motorists habitually
overestimate their own skill, and also underestimate the extent to
which risks apply to them. Maybe that's why enforcement is considered
necessary.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
- attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

On 2009-08-01, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:30:28 -0500, Ben C wrote:

But the enforcement of the law is equal for all. An unjust law would
apply to some and not to others. You can call it unreasonable but not
unjust.

OK, unreasonable then.

Depends who you ask. The people living along residential streets that
are used as rat-runs seem to think it's quite reasonable.

Everyone wants low speed limits in their own street and high ones
everywhere else.

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 23:15:03 +0200
Ace wrote:

Arbitrary limits, and automated enforcement thereof, actually serve to
encourage speeding, as many reasonable drivers can see they're a
complete waste of time, and therefore treat all limits in the same
way.


That's an interesting notion of reasonableness you have ...

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 05:16:34 +0100, Rob Morley
wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 23:15:03 +0200
Ace wrote:

Arbitrary limits, and automated enforcement thereof, actually serve to
encourage speeding, as many reasonable drivers can see they're a
complete waste of time, and therefore treat all limits in the same
way.


That's an interesting notion of reasonableness you have ...

You disagree? Perhaps 'reasoning' would be as good a term. Whether you
think it's reasonable to question rules or not is up to you, but
Western democracy has a long and interesting history of so doing.

My point is not that they're right to ignore limits, but that imposing
them arbitrarily where they seem inappropriate does nothing to
encourage motorists to obey them, and therefore leads to an attitude
whereby they ignore all limits as a matter of course.

On 2009-08-02, Rob Morley wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 23:15:03 +0200
Ace wrote:

Arbitrary limits, and automated enforcement thereof, actually serve to
encourage speeding, as many reasonable drivers can see they're a
complete waste of time, and therefore treat all limits in the same
way.


That's an interesting notion of reasonableness you have ...

Compare cycle facilities. A minority of them are actually useable,
useful even, but my default position is just to automatically ignore
them all because most of them are so rubbish.

Only after riding past one several times might it occur to me maybe it's
worth a try.