Car tax price Welsh v English

[Brigadier]

Sorry, Eric, but just how morally bankrupt do people have to be to argue that we can't have laws which lawbreakers ignore?

Appeal to Extremes fallacy.


There are some "laws" that are not appropriate, unfair, unjust.
Look at the recent furore regarding peoples' (reduced) rights to protest, as and when the Government doesn't want criticism.

Plus, we do supposedly have "policing by consent" in this country.................a "law" that is unfair, unjust, unnecessary will likely be unworkable, and therefore be unenforced.

 

[Avocet]

I never once advocated this position, just to be absolutely clear.
I was abundantly clear that, regardless of the posted limit, I will often "trundle" at well below that posted limit, based on my own assessment of the risk profile present.
I was abundantly clear - on more than one occasion - that I am all in favour of speed limits that are appropriate for the situation.
I was abundantly clear that the application of a default, fell-swoop reduction did - inevitably - capture roads where 20 mph is not appropriate.


You are throwing this in as a strawman.

It's all part of the "demonising the opposing view" strategy. It doesn't look half so dramatic to take someone to task over their feeling that in many cases, a 30 MPH limit might be more appropriate than a 20, that sounds far too reasonable! So what you have to do, is paint everyone who opposes that view, as being some extreme kind of "Mr. Toad" character, whose only while in life is to roar through urban areas as fast as possible, terrorising vulnerable (don't forget to stress the "vulnerable" bit, it sounds much better) road users into submission, leaving them cowering in the gutter - which, after all, is their proper place if they can't afford a motor car). (...Assuming you deign to allow them to live in the first place, of course...)

It's generally the mark of a weak argument, backed up by desperation and hysteria, that won't stand up to rational debate on its own merits.

I shall respond to it later...

 

[morqthana]

I never once advocated this position, just to be absolutely clear.
I was abundantly clear that, regardless of the posted limit, I will often "trundle" at well below that posted limit, based on my own assessment of the risk profile present.

You also made it abundantly clear that you think you have the right to drive at speeds above the posted limit if your own assessment of the risk profile present leads you to conclude that the posted limit is inappropriately low.

I was abundantly clear - on more than one occasion - that I am all in favour of speed limits that are appropriate for the situation.

But you are rejecting determinations of appropriateness made by others. You were abundantly clear that if you disagree with their determination you have the right to ignore them.


Why do I say both of those things?

Whilst it is perfectly possible to say you have the right to do things which are wrong, it is not possible for you to say it is right for you to do things which you do not believe you have the right to do. In other words you can't say "I don't think that I have the right to do X but it is right for me to do X". Obviously in the context of this discussion we're not talking about the legal right to do something.

Smoking, for example. Someone may think that smoking is wrong, but assert that they nevertheless have the right to smoke.

But it is not possible to claim that it is right to ignore speed limits with which you disagree and not, inevitably, claim that you have the right to ignore them.

I'm all for speed limits, but they have to be appropriate : otherwise, they'll be - rightly - ignored.

I was abundantly clear that the application of a default, fell-swoop reduction did - inevitably - capture roads where 20 mph is not appropriate.

It may have initially captured some, but councils and highways agencies have, just as they have always had, the power to set a different speed limit from the default by issuing TROs.

Worst case is a few roads which remain at 20mph for a few months while they work through the TROs. Hardly a jack-booted assault on civil rights, is it.

And doing it that way, by changing the default rather than going through all the roads and issuing TROs for every case where a 20mph limit is wanted, and having to install a lot more signage, is quicker, cheaper, and less confusing for motorists, because it maintains the status quo of how it all works.

It means going from this:

to this

Something which no driver should be unable to cope with.


And if, when it all shakes out, the legal authorities have decided that a given road should be 20mph, and you disagree, well, tough. Your opinion does not trump that of the duly constituted authorities.

 

[morqthana]

There are some "laws" that are not appropriate, unfair, unjust.
Look at the recent furore regarding peoples' (reduced) rights to protest, as and when the Government doesn't want criticism.

Oh please.

You really want to claim that a law which means that for a few seconds or minutes per day you have to stop accelerating once you reach 20mph instead of 30mph is up there with curtailing the right to peaceful protest, up there with locking people up for possessing a banner for longer than they'd get for a violent assault, up there with judges forcing defendants to break their oath in court?

Really?

And in doing so you don't think it might make you look just a tad like you've lost your grip on reality, lost all sense of proportionality?

Plus, we do supposedly have "policing by consent" in this country.................a "law" that is unfair, unjust, unnecessary will likely be unworkable, and therefore be unenforced.

It is none of those things. It is popular, it has proven benefits, and it actually has virtually no inconveniencing effects on drivers.

You just want to portray a 20mph limit in built-up areas (and that's what it is, as TROs can be used to return roads in non-built-up areas to 30mph) as "unfair, unjust, unnecessary" because you don't want to be denied the ability to drive at 30mph wherever you think you should be able to.

 

[Brigadier]

@morqthana

My original reply was to your hanging your diatribe on roads in built-up areas".

My position was on appropriate limits on appropriate roads.

In the event that I am not being abundantly clear, I am of the opinion - with personal experience, this week - that some rural / semi-rural / non-built-up-area roads have been captured within the blanket reduction, inappropriately so.

Metaphorically inching down an empty, wide road with nought but fields on either side is evidently not appropriate.

 

[Brigadier]

You just want to portray a 20mph limit in built-up areas

No, I don't.

I have very clearly said that a safe speed is a safe speed, and may even be as low as "trundling".

That you are having to invent a position for you to knock down illustrates that you have no argument.

 

[morqthana]

In the event that I am not being abundantly clear, I am of the opinion - with personal experience, this week - that some rural / semi-rural / non-built-up-area roads have been captured within the blanket reduction, inappropriately so.

Metaphorically inching down an empty, wide road with nought but fields on either side is evidently not appropriate.

If that remains the case AFTER all the TROs are made to re-set the limit to 30mph then what we are left with is you disagreeing with the official determination of the speed limit, and you therefore thinking it is right to ignore it.

 

[Brigadier]

If that remains the case AFTER all the TROs are made to re-set the limit to 30mph then what we are left with is you disagreeing with the official determination of the speed limit, and you therefore thinking it is right to ignore it.

If

 

[Avocet]

I made that point to counter the claims from the entitled and selfish people that having a lower default speed limit on restricted roads is a monstrous idea.

Oh... OK... By the way, who has said it's a "monstrous" idea? (and in what way, are they "entitled and selfish"?

I made it to show that it is the accepted norm for enormous numbers of drivers.

I think you probably mean "the accepted norm for about half a dozen administrations that you named". You have not the faintest idea what the drivers think...

I made it to show that it is the shouty, how-dare-you-tell-me-I-must-not-do-30mph-don't-you-realise-how-essential-it-is-that-I-get-my-way snowflakes are the outliers.

In that case, you failed miserably.

Trying to compare accident statistics between different countries is pointless because of the number of factors which vary.

But it you want to remove all those other factors by looking at one particular country, I suggest you do not try to deny the correlation between speed and accidents, nor the data from UK 20mph zones showing lower accident rates and reduced casualties.

Like this research, you mean?

20mph Research Study – Summary and PACTS comment - PACTS

The Department for Transport has today (22 November 2018) published the 20mph Research Study by Atkins, AECOM and Professor Mike Maher...

www.pacts.org.uk

"The changes resulting from 20mph limits are disappointing but not surprising. The study finds that signed-only 20mph limits have very small effects on speed and, surprisingly, no statistically significant effect on casualties in the majority of locations. Local people do not perceive changes and behaviour changes are small.”

Or this one, maybe?

Investigating the impact of a 20 miles per hour speed limit intervention on road traffic collisions, casualties, speed and volume in Belfast, UK: 3 year follow-up outcomes of a natural experiment | Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

"Conclusion A 20 mph speed limit intervention implemented at city centre scale had little impact on long-term outcomes including road traffic collisions, casualties and speed, except for a reduction in traffic volume. Policymakers considering implementing 20 mph speed limit interventions should consider the fidelity, context and scale of implementation."

Some studies seem to show an improvement, others don't.

I suggest that because I know you really, really don't want it to be true, and the truth might upset you. And as you are a driver who cares about nothing other than the speed you may drive at, we can't have you upset, can we.

Nice bit of completely baseless demonisation, there... Possibly even slanderous, come to think of it...

Genuine complaint?

Reasoned, fact-based complaint which takes into account majority support, the benefits to the environment, the proven reduction in casualties, etc?

Or just confected, ignorant rage stoked by deplorable libertarian and partisan newspapers, and by idiots shouting lies on social media?

Who the f'ck are you to say otherwise? You haven't a clue what each of the half-million folk who signed that, had as a motive. I suggest that because I know you really, really don't want it to be true, and the truth might upset you.

Inappropriate 20mph limits can be revised in just the same way that inappropriate 30mph ones have been in the past. But you don't want to know that.

On the contrary, I very much do want to know it, and I very much appreciate you acknowledging that some 20 limits might, with hindsight, have been inappropriate!

And as for society - year after year after year, surveys show a supportpposed ratio of 6 or 7 to one. I get that you don't want to know that, ut how credible do you think your denials are going to be?

Like I said... half a million signed that petition. Despite your attempts to dismiss it and denigrate them, it makes rather a mockery of your claims of such overwhelming support...

Obviously it is better for society if people obey laws willingly.

Words you would do well to dwell on...

But for the outliers who refuse to accept the legitimacy of laws which they personally dislike, I see no reason why enforcement cannot be used more widely, and more forcefully.

Put it this way - if all the drivers in the 500,000 who signed that petition in Wales systematically defied the law then I would regard the scenario where each and every one lost their licence as ideal.

What were you saying about "entitled"? Democracy eh? what a bitch.... I'm afraid that your opinion is worth no more than the next guy's and you're not in charge. You're just going to have to suck that up, I'm afraid, but by all means carry on throwing your toys out of the pram.

You seem to like polls - here's one that suggests *only* 7 out of every 10 people are "outliers"...

Wales 20mph: Calls made for 1,500 roads to revert to 30mph

Despite widespread opposition to the plan, police point to a drop in casualties and crashes.

www.bbc.co.uk

Or maybe it's *only* 85% who are "outliers"?

Vehicle speed compliance statistics for Great Britain: 2022

www.gov.uk

I'm sure they do.

I'm equally sure that for most people, as they start racking up penalties for ignoring a 20mph speed limit because it used to be 30mph and they cannot tolerate it changing, the penny will drop that no, it really isn't up to them, and ignoring it really is not an OK thing to do.

Why stop there? We should deport them to the colonies! Maybe even hang them? History is absolutely chock-full of disproportionately severe penalties...

...that did absolutely nothing to reduce the crimes. Like you so wisely said: "Obviously it is better for society if people obey laws willingly." (Or as Brigadier subsequently put it, "policing by consent". Not many people want to live under your dictatorship...

Proof, please.

Let's start at home, shall we?

Anything else I can help you with today, sir...?

The "whataboutism" was designed to show how fatuous the argument is that we shouldn't have laws because some people disrespect them.

Tell that to the suffragettes....

Maybe you're the guy who would have resolutely gone down to the village green to put in his required number of hours of archery practice long after everyone else had given up, just because it was still on the statute books?

There is no better one. However much you wish it were not so there is a positive correlation between speed and the incidence and severity of accidents.

Yes, if you stop cars from moving, there will be fewer car accidents. You really don't have to convince me of that.

The one place where we can see what happens when drivers are left to their own devices to determine what is an appropriate speed vs not, with all other possible contributory factors cancelled out, are German autobahns.
According to the German Federal Statistical Office, fast driving is the main cause of collisions on autobahns. An evaluation by the German Road Safety Council showed that in 2016 statistically 26% fewer people died on autobahns with a speed limit per kilometer than on autobahns without. A similar trend could be observed in the number of serious injuries.

 

[Avocet]

Am I right in thinking that the speed-limited autobahns had speed limits in excess of 20 MPH though? Do you really think that the difference between autobahns were some vehicles could be doing 200 MPH and some doing 60 is particularly relevant to the topic under discussion (the difference between 20 and 30 MPH limits)? Really?

And as you know (but may well be utterly desperate to deny) there is a reduction in both the number and severity of accidents when 20mph zones are introduced in the UK.

In some studies, yes. Not all.

The trend is downwards when you consider the increase in traffic volumes

Traffic volumes (lockdown years aside) have been rising pretty much since the war! If we look at the bigger picture (rather than just the last 10 years or so, you can see that the rate of reduction has dropped off massively - effectively flatlining between 2010 and the lockdown years. Genuine question: why do you suppose that is? Cars are continuously getting safer. Traffic volumes haven't increased anything like as much between 2013 and 2023 as they have in previous decades, so it can't be that. We had about 3000 speed cameras in the UK in 2004 and 7000 in 2022. We've had widespread speed limit reductions since then, and even more enforcement, yet the figures remain stubbornly similar. So why do YOU think that is?

View attachment 359463

At what point are you going to stop thinking that your "right" to drive at 30mph on busy urban roads trumps the interest of every single other person using the roads to walk, or cycle, or take their children to school, or allow them to go there unaccompanied?

I have said nothing about anyone's "right" to drive at any particular speed (including mine). All I have said, is that you have to balance the admirable desire to improve road safety, against the benefits that the motor car brings to society. I'm every bit as interested in road safety as you are (perhaps more so, as I'm not dogmatically wedded to the notion that speed is the biggest problem...