Police getting tougher on speed tolerance

[swbarnett]

Who I try to ignore...

Good for you. I wish more people would take the higher ground. One of my pet hates is people that do things that are against their core principles just because it puts food on the table. Don't get me wrong, I don't really blame the average Joe or Josephine for caving in but if we all stuck to our core principles the corporates and government wouldn't be able to get away with the crap they do.

[rastuscat]

Good for you. I wish more people would take the higher ground. One of my pet hates is people that do things that are against their core principles just because it puts food on the table. Don't get me wrong, I don't really blame the average Joe or Josephine for caving in but if we all stuck to our core principles the corporates and government wouldn't be able to get away with the crap they do.

The hard part is to weave our own beliefs into the corporate structure, as those who head toward the top of the structure have normally done so by either believing the party line (regardless of the sense of it) or by compromising their own beliefs for the purpose of advancement.

That's probably why I've risen to the dizzy height I have, and I'm unlikely to rise further. Because I don't believe everything I would have to in order to progress higher. I also think I have a lot to contribute at my present level, and I can see a lot of that disappearing if I get any higher.

Still, people tend to work for a variety of reasons. One of those is to get paid. So it sometimes means doing stuff you don't want to, in order to get paid. If the job was totally because of what we wanted to do, it's unlikely they'd pay us to do it.

It sure is a big compromise. I recently had time with a guy who is a card dealer at a casino. We spent a day in a foreign town, just being tourists. He doesn't agree with gambling, but works at a casino. That's one compromise I wouldn't do myself.

[scumdog]

The hard part is to weave our own beliefs into the corporate structure, as those who head toward the top of the structure have normally done so by either believing the party line (regardless of the sense of it) or by compromising their own beliefs for the purpose of advancement.

That's probably why I've risen to the dizzy height I have, and I'm unlikely to rise further. Because I don't believe everything I would have to in order to progress higher. I also think I have a lot to contribute at my present level, and I can see a lot of that disappearing if I get any higher.

Still, people tend to work for a variety of reasons. One of those is to get paid. So it sometimes means doing stuff you don't want to, in order to get paid. If the job was totally because of what we wanted to do, it's unlikely they'd pay us to do it.

It sure is a big compromise.

Pretty much sums up my whole approach and attitude - and similarly explains my lack of 'dizzy hight' rank despite my years in the job!

[swbarnett]

He doesn't agree with gambling, but works at a casino. That's one compromise I wouldn't do myself.

Indeed neither would I. Although the consequences may not be as severe I liken this to POWs that drove trucks for the Japanese in WWII.

[rastuscat]

Indeed neither would I. Although the consequences may not be as severe I liken this to POWs that drove trucks for the Japanese in WWII.

Those guys did what they had to to stay alive. I have no criticism for that.

[caspernz]

Indeed neither would I. Although the consequences may not be as severe I liken this to POWs that drove trucks for the Japanese in WWII.

Try peace keeping missions and being given orders you don't agree with. Civilian life still cracks me up, folks worry about the most menial things...

[swbarnett]

Those guys did what they had to to stay alive. I have no criticism for that.

That's one side of the argument that may have merit. On the other hand every POW driving a truck released a Japanese soldier to go and kill their mates. "All that is required for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing". Or in this case help the enemy.

[FJRider]

Garrick Tremain had theory ...

[FJRider]

And as for the ACC levy's ...

[swbarnett]

Try peace keeping missions and being given orders you don't agree with. Civilian life still cracks me up, folks worry about the most menial things...

First world problems all right. This is exactly why I will never enter into any kind of military organisation. My right to refuse an order because it's against my core principles is a fundamental right that I hold dear. If I was conscripted I'd probably end up being court martialed for insubordination.

[swbarnett]

Garrick Tremain had theory ...

Even going to a charity leaves them open to accusations of nepotism.

And as for the ACC levy's ...

And this is completely backwards. protecting our right to partake in the things that make life worth living is exactly why ACC is so useful to a society (if it were run properly).

[FJRider]

Even going to a charity leaves them open to accusations of nepotism.

Surely the simple fact the Government slush fund is not getting any of it ... not make you smile at the thought .. ???

And this is completely backwards. protecting our right to partake in the things that make life worth living is exactly why ACC is so useful to a society (if it were run properly).

But ... "Our" rights come with a cost. You didn't mention personal responsibility though ... or is that not one of "Our" rights .. ???

[swbarnett]

Surely the simple fact the Government slush fund is not getting any of it ... not make you smile at the thought .. ???

Yes and no. The government will still get the political mileage. I'd rather see cash confiscated and burned.

But ... "Our" rights come with a cost. You didn't mention personal responsibility though ... or is that not one of "Our" rights .. ???

Personal responsibility is such a sliding scale that it can't be factored into any ACC type scheme. As far as I'm concerned one can free-climb El Capitan WITHOUT safety ropes if that floats your boat and I'll still contribute to a scheme that will pick up the tab when you fall off. Any thought to the contrary is a step down the path to banning bikes and all other activities that don't involve cotton wool.

[speedpro]

It seemed worthwhile to repost this from January 2015:

"I'd like to see fully "independent" analysis of crash statistics, and driving in general for that matter. Of course the data collection would have to be "independent" as well. No point analysing skewed data. If that was possible I would expect the information could be used to formulate some worthwhile policy, such as but not limited to tougher driving tests. The politicians of course would select the experts to perform the "independent" analysis and the terms of reference would be worded such that the only possible outcome of the independent analysis would be that "speed kills" and gosh isn't the government doing a wonderful job.
I have serious trouble with the stats and their analysis that are provided. It could be that I'm wrong about speed (not) being the big demon but I've seen nothing I would consider reliable to back up the assertion.

I must be getting old, I find myself nodding in agreement with Winston again. Had to laugh that the Police hierarchy got all offended saying he was trying to make political gain from the road toll. Really? Winston? Of course they were going to express offence, their policy of strict enforcement has been a complete failure. We should be offended that so many of us have died unnecessarily whilst the Police are checking for drivers going 1Km/h over the limit."

[scumdog]

It seemed worthwhile to repost this from January 2015:

"I'd like to see fully "independent" analysis of crash statistics, and driving in general for that matter. Of course the data collection would have to be "independent" as well. No point analysing skewed data. If that was possible I would expect the information could be used to formulate some worthwhile policy, such as but not limited to tougher driving tests. The politicians of course would select the experts to perform the "independent" analysis and the terms of reference would be worded such that the only possible outcome of the independent analysis would be that "speed kills" and gosh isn't the government doing a wonderful job.
I have serious trouble with the stats and their analysis that are provided. It could be that I'm wrong about speed (not) being the big demon but I've seen nothing I would consider reliable to back up the assertion.

I must be getting old, I find myself nodding in agreement with Winston again. Had to laugh that the Police hierarchy got all offended saying he was trying to make political gain from the road toll. Really? Winston? Of course they were going to express offence, their policy of strict enforcement has been a complete failure. We should be offended that so many of us have died unnecessarily whilst the Police are checking for drivers going 1Km/h over the limit."

So (a) how many have got tickets for 1kph over the speed limit?

And (b) does not a lower speed at time of impact not ( generally) result in less damage to all concerned?