I don’t often agree with Neil Harding, but for once we are in broad agreement even if it is for slightly different reasons. Neil is appalled at the money Liberty has wasted pursuing the recent case in the court of human rights.
But spending money in support of motorists who just want to avoid speeding restrictions demonstrates how wayward Liberty as an organisation have become…
Ah, well, I don’t agree with everything Neil says here… This was not about speeding motorists wanting to avoid being caught or avoiding restrictions; rather it was about something altogether more fundamental. However, before we get back to that, let’s clear away a few of the strawmen so that we can see just what the argument is all about. What it is not about is smoking:
With the smoking ban coming into effect on Sunday, there have been renewed articles in the press about smoker’s civil liberties being infringed (there are even articles suggesting our cultural heritage and artistic expression will be damaged – (it seems any madcap idea will do to protect this dirty habit – smokers are getting increasingly desperate)). If they wasn’t so serious it would be funny…
Different argument. Liberty’s case has nothing to do with this, so it is irrelevant. Let’s stick to the point.
Okay, driving. Er, actually, it isn’t really about driving either. It may seem that way, but it isn’t.
I agree with those who comment such as Urko:
If I got caught by a speed camera (unlikely) I’d just pay up because I’d deserve the fine, however I do question the siting of a few I’ve seen. I agree I’d rather a poor driver was going slowly, although given the numbers of fines being handed out, poor drivers still seem to be zooming past the cameras.
Indeed – my general reaction to those who get caught is to question their observation skills. I do, however disagree with those who suggest – as Neil does here – hiding the cameras:
…lets talk about why these things were made visible in the first place. Should we not be observing the speed limit without ‘looking’ for cameras. In my opinion they should all be hidden and if you don’t want to be caught breaking the law then DON’T SPEED.
There is a hint of vindictiveness about this position. It is the car-hater who wants people to get caught. Making them visible is to use them as a deterrent. To encourage people to obey them and therefore the speed limit they are enforcing. That their effectiveness is limited (whether hidden or not) is evident in the amount of fines collected. If they worked, they would not raise any revenue at all.
However, that, too, is another argument; one I’ve discussed before; one about driver behaviour and education along with effective enforcement of road traffic law. It is not one that this case is about.
No, having put aside the irrelevant and the strawmen, we are left with Liberty supporting a case whereby two British drivers claim that their human rights are being violated because they are required to incriminate themselves.
They have a point. If an offence has occurred, it is beholden on the enforcement agencies to gather their evidence and for the CPS to prosecute. In the case of fixed penalty notices; faced with evidence of their guilt, the accused is offered an option of coughing up or going to court. Most, sensibly, take the former option.
There is a problem with this method, however. Cameras – at least some cameras – can tell what vehicle was used, but not who was using it. So a vital piece of evidence is missing; the identity of the perpetrator. What happens next is that the the owner of the vehicle (in the case of privately owned vehicles is likely to have been the driver) is required to fill in the missing piece of evidence. In other words, the accused is being expected to build the prosecution’s case against himself.
That, frankly, is absurd. The drivers in question therefore had a valid point to make. Was it worth Liberty taking it to the court of human rights? No. They were on a hiding to nothing from the off. That said, it doesn’t invalidate the underlying point, merely that there are more pressing civil liberties issues to deal with.
For myself, I would do as Urko would – take the rap, kick myself for being a damned fool and make sure it doesn’t happen again. As I tell trainee driving instructors; if you want to keep a clean licence; obey the speed limits. It really is that simple.
My point about hiding the cameras is that they would no longer be distracting to the driver if hidden. It was only pressure from powerful driving lobbies that got them painted yellow in the first place and caused a big furore about them not being ‘visible’. If drivers were law abiding – why would this matter? It is only because these drivers wanted to break the law that they are now like beleisha beacons. They then have the cheek to suggest that cameras ’cause’ accidents because drivers break when they see them. Wonderful isn’t it. I would like a little honesty on this – rather than this cowardly hiding behind civil liberties. It is a weak excuse and reduces liberty to triviality – it is disgusting hypocrisy really. Drivers should just admit they want faster speed limits and try and defend that.
I agree about campaigning for higher limits where appropriate. I have made a similar case in a recent edition of Motorcycle Rider magazine. Limits should be risk based.
That said, if we are to have enforcement by camera, then they should be clearly visible. The distraction argument applies to constantly checking the speedometer as much as checking for cameras. The best place for a driver’s eye is on the road in front with an occasional and brief check of the instruments. A good driver is constantly adjusting speed to match the prevailing risk. I generally know what speed I’m doing without checking the speedo, but, then, I am experienced and have spent time teaching others so have become used to making this judgement based upon the feel and sound of the vehicle.
The speed limits are already quite fast (30 in urban areas is very fast). Yes I am sure there are some (a small number I imagine) that could safely drive a little faster than some speed limits, but the limits have to apply to everyone and that means taking into account what speeds the vast majority can cope with, which is probably an argument to reduce limits – especially if we consider the vast number of deaths and injuries on our roads. Another thing to remember is that these limits are MAXIMUM limits to be observed in PERFECT conditions. At most times drivers should be driving well BELOW the speed limit. The only reason drivers have to be distracted by the speedo is because they are driving as close to (or in excess of the speed limits) even when driving conditions are quite poor.
Most drivers think they are better than what they actually are at driving. This explains why we all feel we can drive faster – but we have to change a very strong ingrained culture of speeding here. We have allowed a terrible situation to occur.
If we really cared about the environment – we would drive at 55mph on motorways and not complain about speed limits. If we really cared about the safety and quality of life of peoplwe woe uld drive at 20mph in most urban areas (or better still hardly drive at all).
Most people could manage their urban journeys comfortably on the cycle or bus and the more people who stop using cars the better it will be for cyclists and the more frequent buses would be. It is a win-win situation for the vast majority but it needs the government to take a lead and it needs a change in our driving culture.
The difference between you and me on this issue seems to be, that you think reducing speed limits and enforcing them properly is a bad thing and I think it is a good thing – both for the safety of people, their quality of life and for the environment. Surely these are bigger liberties than the liberty to drive faster?
It depends. In some cases, yes. In others, no. That’s why I am never prescriptive. That’s why I keep banging on about risk based limits.
Given that they are not risk based, this is not true. They are all too often a knee-jerk reaction to a one-off accident or a campaign by local residents who are happy enough to travel quickly past other people’s homes but want other drivers to travel slowly past theirs.
Not necessarily. It all depends on the context. If you have ever taken any form of advanced assessment you would realise just how untrue this statement is.
And perhaps we should return to an agrarian economy and get around using a horse and buggy. Meanwhile, back in the real world…
Possibly so. It all depends… It would be nice to see more investment in light rail and tram systems if only local authorities would stop frittering out money on wasteful and incompetent traffic schemes. Meanwhile, back in the real world…
There are a number of ideological and philosophical differences between us. This does not describe them.
In the real world over a 100,000 people are injured or killed by cars every day in the UK alone – this suggests to me that drivers are not driving safely and speeding is an important part of that abuse.
So the driver’s right to drive faster is more important than the right for pedestrians and cyclists to be free from excessive danger and pollution. Don’t you just love right-wing libertarians – always on the side of the rich and powerful.
I doubt 30mph is too slow in most built-up urban areas – like I say i think there are more roads where it is too fast (well if we value life that is). As most journeys are less than 5 miles – how much time would someone save by driving faster anyway? 5 mins? 10 mins? Is this worth a single life?
As for speed limits not being properly assessed read this;
“For fixed site cameras, the guidelines are as follows:
1. There must be at least 4 fatal or serious collisions per km in the last 3 calender years
2. at least 8 personal injury collisions per Km in the last three years
3. Collisions where causation factors are not speed related must not be included.
4. At least 20% of drivers are exceeding the speed limit in this spot.
5. Collisions are clustered close together around a single stretch of road or junction
6. There has been a site survey carried out by a road safety engineer that has concluded that there are no other obvious practical measures to improve road safety on this strtch of road.
7. The cameras must be well signed and highly visible.”
For mobile cameras it is even more stringent.
It is about time the motorist realised it is more important to save lives then increase speed limits.
These guidelines are for placing cameras, not for assessing the suitability of the speed limits. Another strawman. At no time have I commented on the placement of cameras. I am aware of the guidelines and for the most part have no problem with their placement.
Oh and please… stop with all this “right wing” bollocks. Why is it that anyone who happens to disagree with you is labelled “right wing”? This is about effective road safety, not economics. And please, with the “rich and powerful” twaddle, too. The vast majority of drivers on our roads are ordinary working people struggling to make ends meet (of which I am one). Sometimes your insidious politics of envy are shown in all their nastiness. And I thought I had a misanthropic streak.
Given that I have over thirty years experience in the subject along with over twenty years as a professional trainer and over a decade in risk management, the significant difference between us is that I know what I’m talking about when discussing road safety, driver education and risk-based management systems. All of which means that at no time have I said anything that equates to:
Yet another strawman. Have you spoken to Brussells about that agricultural subsidy yet?
As there seems to be cameras on virtually every road nowadays I think it is relevant that they have been ‘risk assessed’ and there are that many fatal collisions.
You said that 30mph limits were half-assed because there were no fatal collisions on these roads – the level of assessment of cameras proves you that a lot of raods have been assessed and that there most certainly is fatalities.
And don’t try to pull rank. I shudder to think that you are teaching drivers your laissex-faire attitude to speeding.
My god, you do talk some bollocks. Having been caught out with your strawmen, you come back with even more.
No, this comment is irrelevant. I have not suggested that the placement of cameras is necessarily inappropriate (although some may be) nor that no risk assessment was involved in their placement. My comments were specifically about the relevance of statutory speed limits and their relationship to the risk.
I didn’t say anything of the sort and you know it. Jesus H Christ! You are full of shit sometimes.
And with this thoroughly nasty, ill-informed and ignorant comment you have just lost your argument. So anxious are you to demonise me and misrepresent the points I am making, you appear to have overlooked the last couple of sentences in the preceding post. I repeat them for you:
So is reading posts written in plain English and responding in kind, but it is a skill you have yet to acquire.
So thats it – keep a clean license – the only reason for not speeding, that sums up your immoral attitude on this. Not bothered about loss of life or environment.
You say camera risk assessments are irrelevant – but surely nearly every road has been risk assessed for a camera – which means every road has been risk assessed for the speed limit – so it is relevant. So to suggest as you have, that speed limits are wrong because there are no fatalities or accidents is incorrect.
You said in regards to 30mph limits and I quote;
“They are all too often a knee-jerk reaction to a one-off accident or a campaign by local residents who are happy enough to travel quickly past other people’s homes but want other drivers to travel slowly past theirs”.
So you did say effectively that there were no collisions on 30mph roads – the evidence doesn’t suggest that.
I have upset you because I have suggested that drivers do not have a right to drive fast – you are trying to defend the indefensible – but hey you have a lot of people on your side that buy into the speeding culture and are immune to the death and misery they cause others as a result.
You stick to defending speeding if you like – but you are not defending liberties that are important and you are removing the right to life and a decent quality of life from millions of vulnerable people. I think it is you who needs to re-assess your priorities.
Strawman + Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Strawman + Post hoc ergo propter hoc + non sequitur + assumption
Strawman + Post hoc ergo propter hoc + non sequitur
Strawman + Post hoc ergo propter hoc
When you learn to discuss matters by responding to what is said as opposed to your warped interpretation of what you would like me to have said; when you can discuss without making wild unfounded assumptions and assertions in order to construct your farmyard full of strawmen; when you finally understand what a logical fallacy is; then, maybe, just maybe, we can discuss this matter sensibly. Until then, I really cannot be bothered with you.
According to Neil:
In the real world over a 100,000 people are injured or killed by cars every day in the UK alone – this suggests to me that drivers are not driving safely and speeding is an important part of that abuse.
Er, on who’s figures, Neil?
According to ROSPA on the latest figures:
The full figures show the number of people killed in road accidents fell by one per cent to 3,172 in 2006. There were 31,845 killed or seriously injured, down one per cent, and the total road casualty figure was down five per cent to 258,404
On your figures about half the total population would have been killed or injured in a year, not a quarter of a million. And before you start, I am not saying the correct figures are acceptable, but at least they are correct not arse like your “real world” ones.
Good point – I hadn’t bothered to go down the challenging the figures route, daft though they were. I suppose the effort of wading through so many logical fallacies becomes too enervating after a while. When discussing anything with Neil I am reminded of Kipling’s lines from “If”:
“If you can bear to see the truth you’ve spoken twisted by knaves to make traps for fools…”
I meant to put over 100,000 killed every year – genuine error I apologise. Obviously 100,000 a day is ridiculous.