Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:31:40 +0100
Simon Brooke wrote:
in message <1182975487.961845.45020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, W.Warburton@xxxxxxxx (' W.Warburton@xxxxxxxx') wrote:
On 27 Jun, 20:22, Simon Brooke <s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
No, there /isn't/. As Ian Smith rightly points out, the kids who can'tThat's cars, not "speeding".
go freely about their affairs, who can't visit their friends without
supervision, who can't play in the street; and the old and infirm who
become trapped in their houses, are just as much victims of speeding as
the people who are injured and killed.
If we want to live our lives like that we arn't going to achieve it
simply by capping the speed cars travel at, are we?
No, we need to change the whole attitude of society to the motor car and
its use.
Exactly, I agree.
We (that is, people who agree with me, not you and not
necessarily any other contributor to this discussion) need to persuade
society that driving a car is a serious business which merits a serious
degree of care.
Yes. Where I suspect we may differ though is, that I believe that the consequences of lack of care, which *will* inevitably result from time to time, can be ameliorated if by, pruning regulations, road design changes, education, applying "social pressure", or whatever, the de-facto priority and implied superiority given to (and therefore used by) motor vehicle drivers is removed. The result, I believe, will be a road environment where all users have _equal_ priority, and _none_ have _right_ of way. Each will then _have_ to negotiate each manoeuvre involving another, and who goes first is by mutual agreement.
Just capping speeds isn't enough. It's part of the
solution, but it isn't the whole solution.
I don't think that "capping speeds" is an /input/ to the system, I think it will be an /output/ from a well designed system. The result of a correctly functioning system _will_ be reduced speeds.
And even that won't happen
unless a sufficiently large constituency are sufficiently vocal about it.
I was in a meeting this afternoon with a number of senior officers of our
local traffic police, and was able to congratulate them for achieving the
highest per-capita level of speeding fines of any constabulary in the UK.
I wish I hadn't been able to congratulate them on that... because I wish
people weren't speeding. But if people are going to speed, I want them
caught.
"Speeding" is merely a function of _appropriate road design_, and _appropriate speed limits_. If "speeding" is high then one or both of those two is wrong.
--
Matt B
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: Pyromancer
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- References:
- Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: Marc Brett
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: fred
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: Peter Clinch
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: The other view point, there is one you know...
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: Alistair Gunn
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: Simon Brooke
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: W . Warburton
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: Simon Brooke
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: Peter Clinch
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: Simon Brooke
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: W . Warburton
- Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- From: Simon Brooke
- Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- Prev by Date: Re: Not a day for cycling.
- Next by Date: Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- Previous by thread: Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- Next by thread: Re: Law-abiding majority 'is a myth'
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|