When everyone must be wrong about the speed limit

"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.

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."

=?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!

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.

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.

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
>>
>>
>
>
>

"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

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?

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

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.

<| 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

"Michael Culley" <mculleyNOSPAM@optushome.com.au> writes:

>"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

50 years ago, drink-driving *wasn't* acceptable.

>years ago the majority would have thought public hangings for
>stealing bread was ok. Because the majority believe it doesn't
>make it right.

I doubt that there'll ever be a time when the majority will consider
people merely breaking an under-posted speed limit to be criminals.

What is not right is that under-posted speed limits exist.
What is not right is that under-posted speed limits are exploited
for revenue raising and as an excuse for overt assertion of power.

Governments making unreasonable laws and then enforcing the same is
called "oppression".
--
/"\ 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!

Toby Ponsenby wrote:

> <| 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.

Fucked if I will either, all the above have nothing to do with standards
that we follow though, they are purely a matter of taste (or lack thereof).

>
> See the problem there with your definition yet?
>

Nope

JB

BenOne© wrote:

> 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.
>
Agreed, however the laws that we live by should be set by the
morals/reasoning of the majority.
JB

Toby Ponsenby wrote:

> <| The Last Gunslinger |> did write on 25Oct2004 at 12:03:54 PM
>
>>Agreed, however the laws that we live by should be set by the
>>morals/reasoning of the majority.
>>JB
>
>
> True, but they aren't.
> And they never have been.
>
>
I wont argue with that.

<| The Last Gunslinger |> did write on 25Oct2004 at 3:08:57 PM
> Toby Ponsenby wrote:
>
> > <| The Last Gunslinger |> did write on 25Oct2004 at 12:00:55 PM
> >
> >>Toby Ponsenby wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>><| 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.
> >>
> >>Fucked if I will either, all the above have nothing to do with
standards
> >>that we follow though, they are purely a matter of taste (or lack
> >
> > thereof).
> >
> >>>See the problem there with your definition yet?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Nope
> >>
> >>JB
> >
> >
> >
> > Go ahead, watch that trash.
> > Everybody else does.
> > Apparently.
> >
> > Still nothin?
> >
> >
> I have no desire to watch that shite as I already stated.
> What I was saying was that if the majority views an action as wrong then
> that action "is" wrong by the majority definition which is what we live
by.
> Personal preference things such as what shows you watch, car you drive,
> undies you wear (or not) etc.. have no bearing on what is right or wrong
> and as such what the majority watches (I wish it wasnt australian
> fuckwit) has no bearing on what is socially acceptable/"right" or
> unacceptable/"wrong", such as speeding.
>
> JB
> :)

(Ponsenby whistles a joyous tune)

You've just described "Common Law"

< Rant mode>
As opposed to what passes for Law in our society.
Even though the turds formulating and running the Law claim it has common
law antecedents - little if any attention is paid to that.
Until people get up on their hind legs in court and tell them.
At which point, they aforementioned turds are done like a dinner.
Because they're caught out by their own SCAM!
Better news is that they can't legislate to legalize their SCAM without
changing the entire framework of their Law. And they aren't prepared to do
that any time soon for fear of revealing what they've been up to for the
past couple of hundred years.
< Rant mode temporary suspend>

So there.

--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

"Bernd Felsche" <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:5mcu42xou3.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au...
> budgie<me@privacy.net> writes:
>
> >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.
>
> >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?
I believe that the MRWA causes more harm than good with it's apparent random
assignation of speed limits on multi lane roads. We 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 :(

cheers
Steve

"Jeßus" <_._@ii.net> wrote in message
news:11815651.ex612ed8PK@iijeebz.net...
> 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.

that's definitely a false assumption on your behalf.
People tend to drive to their perception of the speed-environment of most
roads.
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

cheers
Steve

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

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?
>
> 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.

I was 130k over the limit today , and a guy in a Porsche passed me ,
damn I had to change out of 3rd .
( Yes it was the bike)
I feel no guilt what so ever as I was NOT speeding under the existing
conditions .
>
> Brett

--
X-No-Archive: Yes