Ludwig,

I went to the other forum and the first things that caught my eye were these comments:

“On straight, flat, top-quality highways, with low traffic volume, you could argue that the speed limit could be perhaps 150, although I would say no more than 120.”

“Australian drivers are pathetically poorly trained or qualified to drive. How do you think they would stack up on our highways if we suddenly lifted the speed limit to 150?”

“Advocating a gradual increase in speed limits would not allow new drivers to gain experience, before they felt compelled to drive at top speed. And new totally inexperienced drivers have the highest accident rate, all else being equal.”

Considering what I just asked you about whether you wanted the speed limits raised and that you did not answer I would be interested to know what your answer is. If we had 120kph limits on freeways would you be less concerned with nitpicking on policing issues? In that situation would you turn to advocating driver training full time and stop insulting police? Would you be ok with leaving them 120 cf. raising further?

The following is the bit that impressed me. If you lost the pessimistic view of most people expressed in other posts and nitpicking you would be there.

”Pericles makes a very good point. If everyone is driving at about the same speed, it is relatively safe, even if it is fast. But when you have vehicles travelling at all different speeds, you have a considerably increased risk. If you then increase the maximum allowable speed by a lot while not forcing the slower drivers to drive a lot faster, you have a dangerous situation.”

People going excessively slowly always complain to newspapers when they are booked yet they are almost as much of a hazard as those going excessively fast. People should try to keep speed differences down. The link below is from an overseas DoT that provides information cf. our DoT's dodgy slogans.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/trafficoperations/traffic/limits.htm

"Steve, don’t you think that we should all be under the same rules? And that any particular rule should apply equally to all? Can’t you see that if we have fuzzy interpretations or leeways that are deliberately not elucidated, people are going to be copped for minor things in one instance and let off for more serious infringements in another instance?"

Unsurprisingly, you've wilfully missed the point again. The fact is that there IS no absolute right or wrong here. We don't HAVE a method of determining exactly how fast we're going. Yes it would be great if we could apply fair judgement to every single person, but the fact is that everyone deals with different people (different cops/magistrates/whatever), that every situation is actually different. If you believe in a uniform response to a non-uniform input as a means of IMPROVING this situation then you are sorely mistaken. Because, in fact, that produces quite the opposite effect to the equality you so dearly crave.

And you know, when personal judgement is involved - and it always is, that's what driving is all about - there's always going to be a discrepancy between one person's views and another's. What you perceive as dangerous, to another may be perfectly safe, and vice versa. Preserving the letter of the law (and keeping in mind a stated tolerance IS actually part of the law anyway, so your "but but but the law has to be enforced precisely" argument is irrelevant in this context anyway) should be absolutely secondary to preserving its relevance and reasoning. The reason we have speed limits is because they are an approximate means of determining a reasonable compromise between covering distance and safety. They're not an absolute measure by any means, and to treat them as such is to disregard one's own obligation to be responsible for their own judgements as a driver.

"This is not good. We should all just respect each other’s views no matter what their background, and just debate the issues without worrying about their qualifications or experience."

Yeah, right. I refuse to respect anyone's views just because they have one - everyone has one - I choose whether to respect a person's views on the validity of their arguments and basis thereof. That most definitely includes experience. You wouldn't bother having this discussion with a 5 year old, what the hell would they know about law enforcement or vehicle safety?

"Wonderful. I think you’re a lost cause mate."
That's nice dear. Strangely enough, I don't see too many people jumping in to agree with you, and the one person here who has an absolute wealth of experience with both law enforcement AND specifically road safety issues, is disagreeing with you. Yet you refuse to listen to physics, you ignore (or deliberately misinterpret) logic, and you dismiss experience. One would wonder if you are actually a logical, rational human being at all, and perhaps question whether it is YOU who is the lost cause. I don't know anyone else who would continue to try and argue the point in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary of your opinions.

“WTF? Willing adherence is REGARDLESS of the state of enforcement.”

Steve, you find my views completely incomprehensible and I find yours just as incomprehensible. I don’t think two people have ever been further apart on any issue!!

“I don't have people investigating me for murder every day "just to check", same goes for everyone else.”

What on earth are you on about here? You’ve lost me completely!

The simple fact is that people (or at least a significant portion of the populace) will just simply not obey laws, or any approximation to them, if they know they can get away with it or even if they think that there is a good chance that they will get away with it. This can’t be more obvious with all sorts of road rules.

This notion of willing adherence with minimal policing is just whacko!

“Ideally we wouldn't NEED enforcement”

Fine! In an ideal world. But completely impractical, idealistic and naïve in this world.

“Your ridiculous obsession with clarifying everything to the point where it becomes black and white is simply ignorant of reality.”

Your rejection of the notion that things should be as fair as possible for all of us is just unbelievable, as is your rejection of the notion that we should all know with as much clarity as possible where we stand with the law.

So you reject my idea of raising official speed limits by 10kmh. You would get your leeway and the law would be preserved at the same time. The public would get a big concession in return for the onus then being placed on them to make sure that their speedos are reading accurately or that they know the error margin or that they err well on the side or caution if they don’t know. An excellent compromise I would have thought. But no, it just gets another round of condemnation from you.

This really is beyond belief

“If you think people are just going to do whatever they can get away with, yes some may well”

Of course some will.

“but your implication of treating everyone as guilty until proven innocent”

Only those who break the law are guilty….. and you say I imply that everyone is treated as guilty! Where do these bizarre statements come from Steve??

“I am all for the absolute minimum of interference in my life from anyone else.”

That’s fine. But you’ve got to weigh it up against other things, such as safety on our roads, preventing people from being ripped off, making sure would-be crims stay would-bes or get their just deservings if they play up, etc.

We would NOT get an overall improvement in personal freedoms or democratic rights with a weaker law enforcement regime. Just the opposite.

In short, a strong system of law enforcement is needed across the board. For the average person strong law-enforcement would hardly further impinge on their daily freedoms at all, but would serve to improve their feelings of security and wellbeing.

I have to wonder why you seem so intent on there being a really low degree of police presence or visible law enforcement or however you would like put it.

“Having somebody else breathing down your neck ALL THE TIME is in direct contradiction to the personal freedoms democracy supposedly brings us.…”

Why do you say this? Am I advocating anything like this? What might you be doing to cause the police to constantly breathe down your neck if road-safety policing was improved?

The implication I’m reading in this is that you are one who would play up… or has stepped outside of the law, or the intent of the law, or beyond the leeway of the law and been copped for it. Even with the most vigorous law-enforcement system, the cops would only be breathing down your neck IF YOU PLAY UP!

“Rigid enforcement of any law, again, MUST be ignoring the purpose originally behind the laws…”

Uh oh, back to the really loopy stuff we go!

Mjpb

“Reality is that if any police officer publically objected…”

Agreed. But they can object through the appropriate internal channels, or on forums like this or anonymously to newspapers, and so on.

I think that if there was a considerable degree of objection, it would get out, even if the government or commissioner tried to suppress it.

“Can I clarify your attitude toward the laws.”

Certainly. Thanks for asking.

A law should be written in such a way as to allow people to be warned about things like 3m tree-trimming. Of course we don’t want a situation whereby people can be penalised for inadvertently violating the law. So as well as improvements in policing, many laws need redefining. I’ve made this point previously.

In your example, people would be given plenty of opportunity to clean up after a strong wind…. and this provision would be written into the law.

There also needs to be a good system of public education about these laws and readily available information about the nitty gritty detail. And of course the onus would then be on police and council officers to uphold this.

Conformity between policing and the law, that’s what I call for.

If you think more rigorous policing would be lead to silly fines, then it should be the laws that you are questioning, not the notion of an improved policing regime.

Please seek further clarification if this is not clear.

continued