FAO Simon Mason

"Matt B" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

Cameras can enforce speed limits of 30/40/50

If cameras enforce speed limits how come over 1.5 million convictions
are handed out each year?

Because that many drivers are stupid enough to ignore this enforcement of
course.

Which proves the point really. Speed limits, even with camera
enforcement, do not deliver even speeds within the speed limit at one
specific location within their range, let alone safe speeds throughout.

In my experience that it not true. My wife has 9 points and now sticks to
the
limit all the time as she will lose her licence if she continues to be
caught
by cameras. The cameras have forced her to stick to the limit and so are
doing
their job.

They no doubt get persistent speeders like our local football club chairman
off the road if they clock up enough points.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:19:03 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Fail. Motor traffic is the leading cause of injury death in children
and accounts for around 3,000 deaths and ten times that number of
serious injuries annually. More people have been killed in road
traffic collisions since 1945 than in all the wars during the same
period. Compare that with the hysteria over the swine flu epidemic,
total death toll last time I checked was about 20 with around 5,000
confirmed cases worldwide. Sounds to me as if the "everyone" in
question turns out to be the standard driver's definition of
"everyone", meaning the driver himself.

Exactly the reaction I expected. As usual, you failed to read my post and
thus missed the words "under appropriate conditions".

No, because you completely failed to read /my/ post which shows that
the judgment of "appropriate" is usually wrong, and the people making
the judgment are often wrong in their base assumptions.

In some hypothetical ideal world where drivers have a realistic
assessment of their own skills and a correct view of the extent to
which documented risks apply to them, then it might very well be the
case, just as if wishes were horses then beggars would ride, but we do
not live in that hypothetical ideal world, with the result that
driving turns out to be one of the more risky things we do on a daily
basis. Plus, the risk applies disproportionately, with those who
themselves pose least risk being in their turn subject to more of the
risk posed by drivers.

And that's about an end of it, I'd say.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Newsgroup may contain nuts.

On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:24:34 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

In my experience that it not true. My wife has 9 points and now sticks to the
limit all the time as she will lose her licence if she continues to be caught
by cameras. The cameras have forced her to stick to the limit and so are
doing their job.

Those with multiple speeding convictions are more likely, mileage
adjusted, to be involved in collisions. So it does appear that
cameras are indeed targeting the dangerous drivers, albeit in a rather
crude way.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Newsgroup may contain nuts.

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

Funnily enough, I've not paid a speeding fine for 13 years.

Are you now admitting to being the same as everyone else?


It is no secret I got done for doing 95.9 mph on the M62 in 1996. I have
mentioned it before.
I got fined £60 and 3 points, I've not been fined since then.


Apart from my wife's, that is!

Why should you have been punished for your wife's speeding?

Ask her!

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:19:03 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Fail. Motor traffic is the leading cause of injury death in children
and accounts for around 3,000 deaths and ten times that number of
serious injuries annually. More people have been killed in road
traffic collisions since 1945 than in all the wars during the same
period. Compare that with the hysteria over the swine flu epidemic,
total death toll last time I checked was about 20 with around 5,000
confirmed cases worldwide. Sounds to me as if the "everyone" in
question turns out to be the standard driver's definition of
"everyone", meaning the driver himself.

Exactly the reaction I expected. As usual, you failed to read my
post and thus missed the words "under appropriate conditions".

No, because you completely failed to read /my/ post which shows that
the judgment of "appropriate" is usually wrong, and the people making
the judgment are often wrong in their base assumptions.

Not usually wrong, occasionally wrong, as evidenced on a daily basis.


In some hypothetical ideal world where drivers have a realistic
assessment of their own skills and a correct view of the extent to
which documented risks apply to them, then it might very well be the
case, just as if wishes were horses then beggars would ride, but we do
not live in that hypothetical ideal world, with the result that
driving turns out to be one of the more risky things we do on a daily
basis. Plus, the risk applies disproportionately, with those who
themselves pose least risk being in their turn subject to more of the
risk posed by drivers.

Then we need to change the situation. Bashing the vast majority people with
the errors of a few is not the way to get their co-operation and make them
willing to change their ways.

Simon Mason wrote:
"Matt B" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

Cameras can enforce speed limits of 30/40/50

If cameras enforce speed limits how come over 1.5 million
convictions are handed out each year?

Because that many drivers are stupid enough to ignore this
enforcement of course.

Which proves the point really. Speed limits, even with camera
enforcement, do not deliver even speeds within the speed limit at one
specific location within their range, let alone safe speeds
throughout.

In my experience that it not true. My wife has 9 points and now
sticks to the
limit all the time as she will lose her licence if she continues to be
caught
by cameras. The cameras have forced her to stick to the limit and so
are doing
their job.

They no doubt get persistent speeders like our local football club
chairman off the road if they clock up enough points.

That's the point, the dumbarses have to be put in fear of losing their
licence and being inconvenienced before they change their ways. That's not
enforcement.

On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:34:28 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

No, because you completely failed to read /my/ post which shows that
the judgment of "appropriate" is usually wrong, and the people making
the judgment are often wrong in their base assumptions.

Not usually wrong, occasionally wrong, as evidenced on a daily basis.

Yes, usually wrong. You can be usually wrong and still not quite
wrong enough to crash most of the time.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Road_safety/Overestimation_of_skill

The psychologists have a term for it: illusory superiority
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority).

Then we need to change the situation. Bashing the vast majority people with
the errors of a few is not the way to get their co-operation and make them
willing to change their ways.

The problem is precisely that the vast majority think the problem is
the errors of the few, whereas in reality it is the vast majority who
are at fault.

"What is dangerous driving? I have a tendency to believe that
everyone's driving is dangerous, except my own" – George Bernard Shaw.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Newsgroup may contain nuts.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote on Sun, 17 May 2009 17:00:37 +0100:

Driving is portrayed as safe, but the drivers
are only a proportion of those they place at risk. Risk and danger are
not intransitive.

When I had my first "proper" driving lesson, in 1960-something, my
instructor warned me, before he would allow me to start the engine for
the first time, that I was now in charge of a potentially lethal weapon
and that it was incumbent upon me to drive within both my capabilities
and the capabilities of the vehicle, in accordance with the prevailing
weather and traffic conditions and with consideration for other road
users. I never forgot it. Then he trained me to drive as quickly as
possible from A to B in accordance with those principles.

I've driven thusly for many thousands of incident-free miles each year in
vehicles of all sizes, until nearly 10 years ago when, with the
introduction of speed cameras and laser rangefinders, I collected a
series of tickets for speeding on motorways and was banned from driving
for 6 months.

I certainly found it almost impossible to heed speed limits on an "open
road", although I never exceeded the limits in built-up areas, and drove
very much slower than that in residential areas. Therefore, I never
applied for my license to be reinstated.

I'm now happier, healthier, wealthier and fitter now that my primary
means of transport is a bicycle.

I wonder what proportion of today's habitual speeders are of my
generation? Are there any stats for that?

--
Alex
Never say, "Oops!"; always say, "Ah, interesting!"

"Brimstone" wrote in message
news

They no doubt get persistent speeders like our local football club
chairman off the road if they clock up enough points.

That's the point, the dumbarses have to be put in fear of losing their
licence and being inconvenienced before they change their ways. That's not
enforcement.

I have no "fear" of losing my licence at all, cameras or no cameras, I don't
give a toss.

Like it or lump it, cameras are being used to enforce speed limits and
that's that.

You won't beat the law, so why bother moaning about how unfair it all is?
Set off a bit earlier, keep to the limit and you can forget they even exist.
You'll still no doubt end up in the usual traffic jams whether you get there
at the
legal limit or higher.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:34:28 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

No, because you completely failed to read /my/ post which shows that
the judgment of "appropriate" is usually wrong, and the people
making the judgment are often wrong in their base assumptions.

Not usually wrong, occasionally wrong, as evidenced on a daily basis.

Yes, usually wrong. You can be usually wrong and still not quite
wrong enough to crash most of the time.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Road_safety/Overestimation_of_skill

Yup, we're aware of that. Just because most people think that they are
better than the actually are doesn't make them bad drivers.

The psychologists have a term for it: illusory superiority
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority).

Then we need to change the situation. Bashing the vast majority
people with the errors of a few is not the way to get their
co-operation and make them willing to change their ways.

The problem is precisely that the vast majority think the problem is
the errors of the few, whereas in reality it is the vast majority who
are at fault.

What ever their self beliefs, most people don't cause collisions.