When everyone must be wrong about the speed limit

[Bernd Felsche]

"Shane" <sdw@coolcats.net.au> writes:
>"The Last Gunslinger" <jbngspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:joYed.37920$5O5.8499@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Michael Culley wrote:
>>> "The Last Gunslinger" <jbngspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:KCXed.37878$5O5.2847@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

>> I agree, it doesnt make it right but in a democracy majority
>> rules and one lives by the standards of many.
>> That doesnt/shouldnt stop people from having their own views and
>> continually striving to improve something they see as being wrong.

>Most companies cheat on tax returns, so using your thoery that
>should make it ok in the future?

Bullshit Shane.

MOST companies dare not cheat on tax returns because they cannot
afford to defend against the legal consequences. MOST companies
would rather take a loss than invoke the ire of the ATO. Even a tax
audit can be financially disasterous due to the loss of income it
requires. MOST companies run on a very thin margin.

Companies do make errors in filing information with the ATO; but
those errors are unintentional and usually corrected within an audit
cycle.

Companies with "good" accountants will try to squeeze every cent out
of a tax return to which they are _legally_ entitled.

Tax laws are several orders of magnitude more complicated than
traffic regulations.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[OzOne]

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:12:48 GMT, "Shane" <sdw@coolcats.net.au>
scribbled thusly:

>Most companies cheat on tax returns, so using your thoery that should make
>it ok in the future?

Once again you show just how far from reality you live.

Accountants are paid huge amounts of money to make sure that every
company gets exactly what it is LEGALLY ENTITLED to in its tax return.

Cheating is regarded very seriously and penatlies are just not worth
the risk.


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[Toby Ponsenby]

<| Bernd Felsche |> did write on 26Oct2004 at 10:32:07 AM
> Tax laws are several orders of magnitude more complicated than
> traffic regulations.

Huh?
I thought they'd be much the same, since they apparently serve the same
purpose.
Pillage.

--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Bernd Felsche]

"Shane" <sdw@coolcats.net.au> writes:

>That's where you're wrong. Most people support the speed limits and
>in addition to that the way they're enforced.

When asked in a survey... with leading questions... by the
government or its contractors.

>Go have a read of any number of surveys indicating this.

We have read about the surveys; and tried to get the entire script
of the survey but have *never* been able to obtain one. Some of us
are well aware about how a survey of the unwashed can be fashioned
to produce tailored results.

>The only reason most people say they speed from time to time is
>because the chances of being caught are so small it's hardly worth

The reason people exceed the speed limiot is because they feel safe
in exceeding the speed limit and that it appears reasonable to do
so.

>mentioning and those who admitted to speeding did so at speeds that
>were under the allowable tolerances therefore making detection all
>but impossible anyway.

Your perspective is clearly one of enforcement. You need limits to
ease the detection of "excessive" speeds. Yet the vast majority of
crashes, including those with serious injury and fatalities, occur
from speeds below the posted limit.

You wouldn't have caught them "speeding" anyway. Your actions, had
you been perfectly vigilant about monitoring their speed and
prosecuting even minute transgressions above the speed limit, could
not have prevented the vast majority of fatalities.

>If it was put to me I'd have to say I sped too. Does that make me
>a supported of higher speed limits? No it doesn't and the majority
>of the population also support this notion.

Dumbing-down and brain-washing a population is no cure for solving
the real problems of road safety.

*You* know the main problem and to your credit, you have in the
past tried to do something about it.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[Bernd Felsche]

Toby Ponsenby <toby@privacy.net> writes:

><| Bernd Felsche |> did write on 26Oct2004 at 10:32:07 AM
>> Tax laws are several orders of magnitude more complicated than
>> traffic regulations.

>Huh?
>I thought they'd be much the same, since they apparently serve the
>same purpose.
>Pillage.

You can probably read through the relevant Traffic Act in a day,
cross-referencing to the Regulations at the same time.

Tax laws change more quickly than you or any natural person can read
them. One typically has to deal with taxation from 3 levels of
government. If one does business across a tax boundary, taxation
becomes even more of a burden.

The ostensible purpose of taxation is pillage; for what the
government deems equitable redistribution.

The ostensible purpose of traffic laws is to provide for a
reasonably safe traffic environment. The pillage is necessary to
feed Shane enough doughnuts so that his arse moulds into the
extrawidth seats in HWP cars. :-)
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[athol]

Steve <steves@home.now> wrote:

> People tend to drive to their perception of the speed-environment of most
> roads.

Correct.

Aside from the few who decide that "this limit is BS so I'll completely
ignore it and go a lot faster".

> On a four lane divided road I regularly use the speed limit was 60 and it
> was multanova heaven for the authorities. I would suggest the average speed
> was between 70 and 75.
> Since the road has had it's limit raised to 70 the average speed doesn't
> seem to have altered much and it is extremely rare to see a multanova on it!
> This is far from an isolated case

Interestingly, the psychology apparently shows that the aforementioned
speed limit ignorers look at the limit and think "Oh, okay. I'll just
go a little over that". The median speed may not change at all but the
95th percentile can actually fall!

IOW, an underposted limit is more likely to result in blatant disregard
for the limit, while a reasonably set limit reduces the rate of
significant disobedience.

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>
Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Steve]

"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:cj3v42xj6a.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
> "Steve" <steves@home.now> writes:
> >"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> >news:5mcu42xou3.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
> >> budgie<me@privacy.net> writes:
> >> >>The relevant section are still fenced-off to prevent direct
> >> >>pedestrian access except at controlled intersections. The speed
> >> >>limit drop was associated with a widening of parts of the highway
> >> >>and re-surfacing of approaches to traffic lights; any reduction in
> >> >>crashes will probably be attributed solely to the reduced speed
> >> >>limit.
> >>
> >> >Are we talking about the Wilson stretch?
> >>
> >> Between Shelley Bridge and almost to the turn-off to the museum near
> >> the freeway (Bull Creek Drive).
>
> >Didn't it use to be 80 nearly all the way back to Manning Road?
>
> Not in recent memory. There's been a Multanova for east-bound
> traffic under the trees around the bend after Shelley Bridge for
> yonks now for those who dare to disobey the former reduction to 70
> signposted 1000 metres earlier.
>
> >I believe that the MRWA causes more harm than good with it's
> >apparent random assignation of speed limits on multi lane roads. We
>
> Assignation? You'd better stop taking English lessons from Dubya.
> :-)
>
> WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]
> assignation
>
> n 1: a secret rendezvous (especially between lovers) [syn: tryst]
> 2: the act of distributing by allotting or apportioning;
> distribution according to a plan; "the apportionment of
> seats in the House of Representatives is based on the
> relative population of each state" [syn: allotment,
> apportionment, apportioning, allocation, parceling,
> parcelling]
>

well even though that is not exactly what I meant it's meaning seems
uncannily appropriate :) (No. 2: that is)
and anyway you bloody well knew what I was getting at :)

> >see examples of 4 lane divided roads with speed limits varying from
> >60 to 90km/hr with no apparent relationship to how many accesses
> >there are on to such roads or other speed-environment affecting
> >issues. A bit of consistency would definitely help, and that
> >doesn't mean make em all 60 :(
>
> Inconsistency exists because they kowtow to political masters.
> Political masters whose time is consumed by minority, do-gooder
> lobbyists. Lobbyists who bounce around on a knee-jerk and have no
> understanding of the best practice and not enough of a clue to ask.
> --
> /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
> \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
> X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
> / \ and postings | to help me spread!

[Bernd Felsche]

athol <me@privacy.net> writes:

>Steve <steves@home.now> wrote:

>> People tend to drive to their perception of the speed-environment
>> of most roads.

>Correct.

>Aside from the few who decide that "this limit is BS so I'll completely
>ignore it and go a lot faster".

>> On a four lane divided road I regularly use the speed limit was
>> 60 and it was multanova heaven for the authorities. I would
>> suggest the average speed was between 70 and 75.

>> Since the road has had it's limit raised to 70 the average speed
>> doesn't seem to have altered much and it is extremely rare to see
>> a multanova on it! This is far from an isolated case

>Interestingly, the psychology apparently shows that the aforementioned
>speed limit ignorers look at the limit and think "Oh, okay. I'll just
>go a little over that". The median speed may not change at all but the
>95th percentile can actually fall!

>IOW, an underposted limit is more likely to result in blatant disregard
>for the limit, while a reasonably set limit reduces the rate of
>significant disobedience.

If it's obeyed, research indicates that drivers tend to adapt their
perceived risk subconsciously by e.g. tailgating, Google for the
author's name "Alan Buckingham". His controversial paper was also
published in Spring 2003's "Policy" magazine.

http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/spr03/polspr03-1.htm

The UK's Department for Transport (DfT) was recently forced after
complaints to the advertising standards commission, to stop claiming
that a third of all crashes were caused by "speeding" as their
advertising created the mis-conception that one third of crashes
were from speeds in excess of the speed limit. DfT admitted that
thay had no evidence to support the claim and is reviewing what they
actually put in their adverts.

See http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/412.htm

Google for other stuff.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[Lord-Data]

Theres been a shiteload of pplz arested/charged over child pornography
lately, and apparntly thats "only the tip of the iceberg" .. So many people
doing it .. Does that make it right?



"The Interceptor" <thisemailadress@willnotwork.com.au> wrote in message
news:1098614244.846096@quartz.westnet.net.au...
>I was driving down a highway today doing about 85 km/h or so. It's a 70
> km/h zone. So obviously I'm going straight to hell, but it seemed that
> just
> about everyone else around me was doing the same speed. What's wrong with
> this scenario? Could it be that the speed limit is too low?
>
> By the way, it was Leach Highway in Perth, in a zone where the local state
> MP (a nanny-state Labor lefty) recently got the speed limit reduced from
> 80
> km/h.
>
> Brett
>
>

[Tsunami]

"The Interceptor" <thisemailadress@willnotwork.com.au> wrote in message
news:1098614244.846096@quartz.westnet.net.au...
> I was driving down a highway today doing about 85 km/h or so. It's a 70
> km/h zone. So obviously I'm going straight to hell, but it seemed that
just
> about everyone else around me was doing the same speed. What's wrong with
> this scenario? Could it be that the speed limit is too low?
>
> By the way, it was Leach Highway in Perth, in a zone where the local state
> MP (a nanny-state Labor lefty) recently got the speed limit reduced from
80
> km/h.
>
> Brett
>
>
What's even more wrong, is that sepped zone was changed to pacify the
residents who are pissed off there will be more truck traffic thru there, as
the aforementioned Minister refuses to build the bypass that has been
planned for 20 years.

Cheaper to change the signs and silence some of the vocal (majority!!)
residents than do the right thing.

But yeah, 70 is a joke there.

Have noticed though that it appears the right turn lanes are to be
lengthened..... that will drop the accident numbers more than the speed
change ever will.

[Jeßus]

The Interceptor wrote:

> I was driving down a highway today doing about 85 km/h or so. It's a 70
> km/h zone. So obviously I'm going straight to hell, but it seemed that
> just
> about everyone else around me was doing the same speed. What's wrong with
> this scenario? Could it be that the speed limit is too low?

Could be too low... but anyway lets face it - they could up it to 120 km/h
and most ppl will then want to do 130km/h in that zone.

--
/Jeßus/

"My friend asked me if I wanted a frozen banana, I said "No, but I want a
regular banana later, so, Yeah."

[Bernd Felsche]

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Je=DFus?= <_._@ii.net> writes:
>The Interceptor wrote:

>> I was driving down a highway today doing about 85 km/h or so.
>> It's a 70 km/h zone. So obviously I'm going straight to hell,
>> but it seemed that just about everyone else around me was doing
>> the same speed. What's wrong with this scenario? Could it be
>> that the speed limit is too low?

>Could be too low... but anyway lets face it - they could up it to
>120 km/h and most ppl will then want to do 130km/h in that zone.

You don't have a clue about that; obviously. Leach Highway has a V85
of between 80 and 90 km/h on the sections where the speed limit has
been dropped for *political* reasons. It's not about road safety.
Main Roads isn't releasing figures as yet. It's a trial period!
The _purpose_ of the trial was NOT published.

The relevant section are still fenced-off to prevent direct
pedestrian access except at controlled intersections. The speed
limit drop was associated with a widening of parts of the highway
and re-surfacing of approaches to traffic lights; any reduction in
crashes will probably be attributed solely to the reduced speed
limit.

In part I suspect that the reduction in speed limits is a flawed
attempt to "soften" the impact of traffic on the prime property
adjacent to the highway; trying to reduce traffic noise and pushing
traffic onto as yet non-existent alternate routes. There's probably
real estate money and local, selfish interest groups behind it all.

Unfortunately, for now it means is that the major truck route will
have the pretty much the same number of heavy vehicles lingering for
longer in the "high value" area, which not only means more noise,
but also more pollution.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

[BenOne©]

Jeßus wrote:

> The Interceptor wrote:
>
>
>>I was driving down a highway today doing about 85 km/h or so. It's a 70
>>km/h zone. So obviously I'm going straight to hell, but it seemed that
>>just
>>about everyone else around me was doing the same speed. What's wrong with
>>this scenario? Could it be that the speed limit is too low?
>
>
> Could be too low... but anyway lets face it - they could up it to 120 km/h
> and most ppl will then want to do 130km/h in that zone.
>

Bullshit!

Driving around on the weekend I found people always passed me when I slowed to
80 or 60, but I passed them again when the limit went back up to 100.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[BenOne©]

Bernd Felsche wrote:


> Unfortunately, for now it means is that the major truck route will
> have the pretty much the same number of heavy vehicles lingering for
> longer in the "high value" area, which not only means more noise,
> but also more pollution.

Those whingy pricks deserve all the noise and pollution they get.


--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[The Last Gunslinger]

Lord-Data wrote:

> Theres been a shiteload of pplz arested/charged over child pornography
> lately, and apparntly thats "only the tip of the iceberg" .. So many people
> doing it .. Does that make it right?
>

Hello simple minded troll. :)
What is right for you or I depends entirely on our ethical standards.
What is right for society depends (supposedly) on a the majorities
ethical standards.
In reality (IMNSHO), what is "right" is defined by a bunch of
politicians who have lost sight of or have a warped view of the
majorities standards and wishes.
If the majority considered child pornography to be acceptable then it
should be considered "right" and not persecuted/prosecuted.
If the "majority" of people speed then speeding should be considered
"right" and not persecuted/prosecuted.
Speed limits should be brought in line with what the majority of the
population believe is right which appears to be above a lot of current
limits.

JB

>
> "The Interceptor" <thisemailadress@willnotwork.com.au> wrote in message
> news:1098614244.846096@quartz.westnet.net.au...
>
>>I was driving down a highway today doing about 85 km/h or so. It's a 70
>>km/h zone. So obviously I'm going straight to hell, but it seemed that
>>just
>>about everyone else around me was doing the same speed. What's wrong with
>>this scenario? Could it be that the speed limit is too low?
>>
>>By the way, it was Leach Highway in Perth, in a zone where the local state
>>MP (a nanny-state Labor lefty) recently got the speed limit reduced from
>>80
>>km/h.
>>
>>Brett
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Michael Culley]

"The Last Gunslinger" <jbngspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KCXed.37878$5O5.2847@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> If the "majority" of people speed then speeding should be considered
> "right" and not persecuted/prosecuted.
> Speed limits should be brought in line with what the majority of the
> population believe is right which appears to be above a lot of current
> limits.

I agree with your conclusion but not how you go there. 50 years ago drink
driving would have been acceptable to the majority and 200 years ago the
majority would have thought public hangings for stealing bread was ok.
Because the majority believe it doesn't make it right.

Michael Culley

[budgie]

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 23:21:03 +0800, Bernd Felsche
<bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:

>=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Je=DFus?= <_._@ii.net> writes:
>>The Interceptor wrote:
>
>>> I was driving down a highway today doing about 85 km/h or so.
>>> It's a 70 km/h zone. So obviously I'm going straight to hell,
>>> but it seemed that just about everyone else around me was doing
>>> the same speed. What's wrong with this scenario? Could it be
>>> that the speed limit is too low?
>
>>Could be too low... but anyway lets face it - they could up it to
>>120 km/h and most ppl will then want to do 130km/h in that zone.
>
>You don't have a clue about that; obviously. Leach Highway has a V85
>of between 80 and 90 km/h on the sections where the speed limit has
>been dropped for *political* reasons. It's not about road safety.
>Main Roads isn't releasing figures as yet. It's a trial period!
>The _purpose_ of the trial was NOT published.
>
>The relevant section are still fenced-off to prevent direct
>pedestrian access except at controlled intersections. The speed
>limit drop was associated with a widening of parts of the highway
>and re-surfacing of approaches to traffic lights; any reduction in
>crashes will probably be attributed solely to the reduced speed
>limit.

(snip)

Are we talking about the Wilson stretch?

[The Last Gunslinger]

Michael Culley wrote:
> "The Last Gunslinger" <jbngspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:KCXed.37878$5O5.2847@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>If the "majority" of people speed then speeding should be considered
>>"right" and not persecuted/prosecuted.
>>Speed limits should be brought in line with what the majority of the
>>population believe is right which appears to be above a lot of current
>>limits.
>
>
> I agree with your conclusion but not how you go there. 50 years ago drink
> driving would have been acceptable to the majority and 200 years ago the
> majority would have thought public hangings for stealing bread was ok.

Peoples standards change.
Societies standards change.
Society might have thought drink driving etc. was all right whilst some
individuals had different ideas and eventually society evolved to the
idea that drink driving was bad.
Whether we agree with the current crop of social standards or not they
are what we have to live by or live around.
People will / have argued that the current speed limits / enforcement
are a reflection of what society wants but I dont think thats accurate.

> Because the majority believe it doesn't make it right.
>

I agree, it doesnt make it right but in a democracy majority rules and
one lives by the standards of many.
That doesnt/shouldnt stop people from having their own views and
continually striving to improve something they see as being wrong.

JB

[BenOne©]

Michael Culley wrote:

> "The Last Gunslinger" <jbngspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:KCXed.37878$5O5.2847@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>If the "majority" of people speed then speeding should be considered
>>"right" and not persecuted/prosecuted.
>>Speed limits should be brought in line with what the majority of the
>>population believe is right which appears to be above a lot of current
>>limits.
>
>
> I agree with your conclusion but not how you go there. 50 years ago drink
> driving would have been acceptable to the majority and 200 years ago the
> majority would have thought public hangings for stealing bread was ok.
> Because the majority believe it doesn't make it right.

It's really only your morals/reasoning that say what is right and wrong.

--
Ben Thomas
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[Toby Ponsenby]

<| The Last Gunslinger |> did write on 25Oct2004 at 11:10:39 AM
> I agree, it doesnt make it right but in a democracy majority rules and
> one lives by the standards of many.

Yeah?
Fucked if I'll watch Big Brother, 60 Craptes and ACA.

See the problem there with your definition yet?

--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur