In response to speedcamerajustice (23 Oct)

“AS THEY CAN BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO PERCEIVE IT.”

Well, it looks like this is the critical point Steve. I will maintain that the perception with speed limits is as black and white as you can get. There should be no chance of perceiving anything different to what the signs say.

My second post of 24 Oct explains how we can address your concerns while preserving the letter of the law, so that we don’t have to move into the very murky world of perceiving hard and fast laws in a soft and floppy manner.

“Liar”

Hells bells Steve! That’s a nasty retort…. and to someone who is very much on your side of the debate!! Wow!

You are representing an organisation on this forum. You’re not just speaking for yourself. This will be read far and wide, by many of the people to whom you are appealing. I would have thought that it is in your best interest to be polite and tactful at all times!

Yes “fatal crashes were caused by people sitting on 105 in 100 zones on dead straight country highways.”

And this is why I reckon we should redirect a large part of expenditure on new roads or major upgrades into driver training and policing.

.
Quiggley (23 Oct), you wrote;

“You make mention of the rigorous enforcement of the law. I can tell you now that there is no way you want the Police to do that.”

So you are happy with the schizophrenic approach to the law: we make laws….. and then they just get ignored or very unevenly enforced. Sorry, but I can’t accept that.

Yes, it would be a nightmare if police suddenly started enforcing every little thing. So we need to get back on track gently. We need to modify laws to make them practical and we need to educate the populace….and slowly improve the whole law-enforcement and law-abidance regime.

I am amazed that a police officer, or anyone, thinks that this schizo law regime is in any way defensible!

"So you are happy with the schizophrenic approach to the law: we make laws….. and then they just get ignored or very unevenly enforced. Sorry, but I can’t accept that."

Some would call it practical ...

"I am amazed that a police officer, or anyone, thinks that this schizo law regime is in any way defensible!"

Isn't it good that we have a public forum where you can discuss these ideas of yours and get feedback?

Ludwig, you still haven't answered my question about doing the little test of your own driving?

I could be wrong Ludwig, but I think 'speedcanerajustice's' comments you quote from the 23/10 were meant as a joke (at your expense) - at least that's the way I see them. I think you might be getting a bit serious about the whole thing (don't take this out of context either) and failing to see the Forrest for the trees as the saying goes.

Also you haven't told me what experience you have in this field and on which you rely to formulate your opinions.

Ludwig said: 'So you are happy with the schizophrenic approach to the law:' You have turned misinterpretation into an art form. Unless you want to pay for a Police Officer in every car and on every corner, all who have been brainwashed with exactly the same ideals, you will never, I repeat never, get totally consistent implementation of the law. Your ideals, whilst no doubt founded in sincerity and with all the best intentions, are simply unrealistic and unachievable given that we are talking about humans here, not programmable robots.

Ludwig said: '..and slowly improve the whole law-enforcement and law-abidance regime.' To say such a thing shows a high degree of naivety on your part. If everyone did the right thing to start with we wouldn't need laws and Police to enforce them, but we all that is not so.

You see I've heard all these arguments before, and I've found that most people who feel so strongly and passionate about them never listen to reason - especially from people with more experience on the topic, they just ignore it as it doesn't suit their arguement. They have all had little or no experience in the area and therefore have very little on which to base their opinions. If you can show me that you have at least as much if not more experience in this area than me, then I'll listen to you all day, but until then I don't think we will ever get anywhere.

"Hells bells Steve! That’s a nasty retort…. and to someone who is very much on your side of the debate!! Wow!

You are representing an organisation on this forum. You’re not just speaking for yourself. This will be read far and wide, by many of the people to whom you are appealing. I would have thought that it is in your best interest to be polite and tactful at all times!

Yes “fatal crashes were caused by people sitting on 105 in 100 zones on dead straight country highways.”

And this is why I reckon we should redirect a large part of expenditure on new roads or major upgrades into driver training and policing."

Wow. Just... wow. I never for a minute thought anyone, even you, would be able to misinterpret that one.

Anyway back to legal interpretation: the PERCEPTION of the law is that if your speedo says you're doing 60, you're doing 60. The reason for that is that it's compliant with the legal settings, and in a legal SENSE, if your speedo says that then you are doing that speed or close enough. However, the ACTUAL speed you're doing could be between 54 and 66. Your ideas of total enforcement and removal of discretion are absolutely insane, and the notion that there CAN be such uniformity is just ignorance at its very height, as Quiggley has said.

Where your mentality is totally screwed is that you are more concerned with the law, than the reasons BEHIND the law. Ideally we wouldn't even have speed limits, but obviously at some point that becomes unsafe. But to say that 60 is safe and 61 is not, or 100 is safe and 102 is not, or even grossly larger differences than that, as such an absolutist gesture is outright STUPID. As I have said and you have ignored, there are SO MANY VARIABLES, not least of which is the actual speedo itself.

"I find your argument here quite extraordinary. You are not questioning the minor laws that you mention, but you have a problem with them being enforced! Wow! We really do think in a fundamentally different way!"

You are totally missing the point: the reasoning BEHIND the laws should be enforced. A law on its own is just an official statement of that reason. The tree example shows exactly what I mean: it has to be kept 3m above the footpath for people's heads to clear it. If it's 2.9m high, who cares? It clears people's heads. If someone is doing 105 in a 100 zone and posing no real risk to anyone - which in reality is the case the VAST majority of the time - who cares? Why enforce a law when the reason behind it is being ignored?

Your obsession with equal treatment is just ignorant. It's totally impractical, unreasonable, and physically impossible. Nothing is absolute... for example, even a complete vacuum (ie outer space) has a pressure (like air pressure).

All I can say is that I'm damn glad Quiggley is the cop and not you.

Speedcamerajustice, you wrote on 24 Oct;

“Hell no. The ideal situation with regards to ANY such widespread issue, is maximum WILLING ADHERENCE of the general public to the law…”

Hell NO! If one thing is blatantly obvious, most people, or at least a large portion of the populace, will do what they can get away with. Hence the need for laws!

Unfortunately, we CANNOT have ‘willing’ adherence if we have minimal enforcement.

How obvious is it that MOST people exceed the speed limit by a few ks because they know can get away with it, despite knowing full well that it is technically illegal?

Gee, you really do need to rethink this one Steve.

“Over-policing creates quite literally a fascist state.”

Well it is becoming clear what degree of policing you consider to be over-policing – a very moderate degree of regulation indeed, apparently.

“how can you try and use an ad campaign to justify reality?”

It seems to me that you do make some odd assumptions. I think this ad campaign is absolutely wrong. But I don’t see the police objecting to it. So, for a police officer to condone a large leeway on speed limits, while not objecting to the absurdity of ‘every k over is a killer’ seemed totally contradictory. I am pleased that Guiggley has subsequently expressed disagreement with this ad campaign.

Quiggley (Oct 24)

“…what experience do you have in this particular field that you call upon in the formulation of your opinions?”

30 years driving in Australia. At least 15 years of real concern about road safety issues, during which time I have listened to the views of others on radio and TV, read a great deal, corresponded in writing and face to face with police, RACQ, Main Roads, Dept to Transport and local councils, and partaken in debates in letters to the editor and elsewhere on this forum.

But none of that should matter really. If I had no background, would I have any less right to be concerned about road safety and the rule of law?

Reached my word limit again. Bugger