But when 'too fast' is being defined by arbitrary limits that in many (probably not even most, but many) cases make no sense, it creates a tendancy to ignore the limit in all cases in some people.
I drive according to my judgement of safety for the road I'm on, the road to Jennie's work is a 50, I tend to not go above 40 for a lot of it because I don't think it should be a 50 due to the bends.
But on other roads that have 30 limits, I'll do 40ish at times, got pulled over on one of them once (in Devon), police basically wanted to make sure I knew it was a 30 because of the zoning laws, despite being a bypass with no pedestrian access, it went through a residential area so had to be a 30, they said they virtually never ticket anyone on the road, but do keep track of who they've warned.
Implicitly, they agreed the speed limit was daft and I was driving safely--I didn't know it was a 30 limit, and I was driving safely.
Get the speed limits that are too low, of which there are many, sorted, and severely punish those that actually cause accidents through driving too fast.
I think that many people agree that some speed limits don't make sense. But I never see campaigns for the increase of speed limits, only for the removal of methods of telling if someone is breaking the law.
Which is exactly my point. The people who object to speed cameras always campaign against the camera, not the law they're there to enforce, and I wonder why.
It's not something I currently campaign on one way or t'other, given the car's dead and being sold, but I do think "this device shows I break the law, ban the device" is stupid, whereas "this device helps enforce a stupid law, change the law" is supportable in many cases.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-08-17 12:01 pm
no subject
Are the accidents caused by them speeding, or by them being idiots?
no subject
no subject
But when 'too fast' is being defined by arbitrary limits that in many (probably not even most, but many) cases make no sense, it creates a tendancy to ignore the limit in all cases in some people.
I drive according to my judgement of safety for the road I'm on, the road to Jennie's work is a 50, I tend to not go above 40 for a lot of it because I don't think it should be a 50 due to the bends.
But on other roads that have 30 limits, I'll do 40ish at times, got pulled over on one of them once (in Devon), police basically wanted to make sure I knew it was a 30 because of the zoning laws, despite being a bypass with no pedestrian access, it went through a residential area so had to be a 30, they said they virtually never ticket anyone on the road, but do keep track of who they've warned.
Implicitly, they agreed the speed limit was daft and I was driving safely--I didn't know it was a 30 limit, and I was driving safely.
Get the speed limits that are too low, of which there are many, sorted, and severely punish those that actually cause accidents through driving too fast.
no subject
no subject
It's not something I currently campaign on one way or t'other, given the car's dead and being sold, but I do think "this device shows I break the law, ban the device" is stupid, whereas "this device helps enforce a stupid law, change the law" is supportable in many cases.