I'm a grave menace to society

[Mekk]

Perhaps that wasn't the best example. Try this for size: Let's say that two people have the gene for having a flaky heart. One actually has a flaky heart and the other doesn't. Under the reasoning applied to speed limits neither will ever be allowed to become airline pilots even though one of them is perfectly healthy. Ever seen Gattaca?

I have seen and enjoyed Gattaca.

I don't think this example is the best either because we're dealing with very different situations. I was referring to practicality in a system that deals with masses (millions) of people. Numbers that are become impractical to police flawlessly with the amount of cops available.

It's different with an airforce position/Gattaca scenario because they have the resources to have a better solution for the people applying etc. Not everyone is going to be a applying for a pilot's licence (esp in NZ) but I'm sure a similar method of controlling the madness would be a speed limit to aircraft if they became mainstream transport methods.

The other thing is that the speed limit does not STOP you from driving, it limits it. I would maybe compare driver licensing to aircraft licensing, but not aircraft licensing to a driver's speed limit and vice versa. Different procedures and different factors required in order to reach a goal.

If you want to be tricky though, you could reduce my micro-chipping thing to something like a really hard to pass skills test for people qualified to drive over the speed limit? It might work, but there'd be a whole lot more things to consider if it happened.

As an aside, we don't see what happens to Ethan Hawke on Gattaca... for all we know he may have died in a fiery crash due to his heart condition. :P

I'm sure you're right. The powers that be need to get a clue.

If intended sarcastically, again, I'm not trying to be "right" or assuming that I know more than the authorities, I'm only providing an insight into what I think may be the case. Shrug.

[spudchucka]

Note that over half of all driving tickets are for speeding (740,000 in 2006).

All that indicates is how stupid Joe Average motorist actually is.

[Max Preload]

All that indicates is how stupid Joe Average motorist actually is.

Really... in what way?

[swbarnett]

Numbers that are become impractical to police flawlessly with the amount of cops available.

So because of practicality the innocent get stung. I think we're just on opposite sides of the fence as to were to err.

The other thing is that the speed limit does not STOP you from driving, it limits it.

And Ethan's character was "limited" as to how he was allowed to live his life because of a gene that had no effect on his health. My speed on the road is a condition that may, or may not, be a contributing factor in an accident. Most of the time it's impossible to tell which from the outside.

As an aside, we don't see what happens to Ethan Hawke on Gattaca... for all we know he may have died in a fiery crash due to his heart condition. :P

I thought the whole point of Gattaca was that he didn't have a heart condition, just the gene that made it ever so slightly more likely to develop?

All that indicates is how stupid Joe Average motorist actually is.

Or that the police concentrate too much on speed. Can't tell which from the figures.

[scumdog]

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. This is in essence what I've been proposing all along. Let the circumstances dictate the action.


So the police would have to put more effort into documenting the circumstances to prove the danger. Surely this would only bring road policing into line with other areas of policing ?

If 'speeding' was replaced with 'careless/dangerous use' EVERYBODY so charged would plaster the Courts with pathetic bleating (as they do with speeding) trying to justify their speed.

It would come down to words vs words of two people - and you know how cops lie so you wouldn't stand a chance! (Unless you had a fancy lawyer - $1,200 to defend what would have been a $120 ticket? hmmmm)

And which would you rather have - a pissy speeding ticket or two OR a dangerous driving/careless use conviction or two?

Some people know when to just get on with their lives after getting a ticket or two - others fester for yonks and joust at windmills endlessly, which are you?????????

[Sanx]

Some people know when to just get on with their lives after getting a ticket or two - others fester for yonks and joust at windmills endlessly, which are you?????????

The latter.

(Though I've lost my jousting stick).

[MSTRS:Me]

(Though I've lost my jousting stick).

Viagra could help?

[vifferman]

Whelp, I've had just two tickets in the last 32 years (which included quite a bit of speeding, BTW), and both tickets were annoying, but justifiable. The first was 132 in a 100, which was justifiable because I was so far over the limit, but annoying because it was in a passing lane, was momentary (I was doing 85 before passing, and 95 afterwards) and the cop caused far more disruption and potential hazard to other motorists in trying to catch up to me than I did in passing safely and efficiently. But I accept my error, even if the medicine was unpalatable ($300 and 40 points).
The second was different: 73 in a 50. I was VERY late for work, and a bit exuberant with the throttle. But the cop (like the first one) was reasonable: "Keep it under 60 and you'll be right". The ticket was fair enough - I needed another wake-up call. $170 and 35 points made me pay attention.

[Mekk]

So because of practicality the innocent get stung. I think we're just on opposite sides of the fence as to were to err.

The "innocent" get stung for breaking a limit set in place for practicality, in my view. This sort of thing is all across society, mind. We have to take a brainless roadcode test, do a simple motor skills test and all other kinds of bullshit due to idiots out there.

Even if we were to devise a specific license to allow you to go over 100km/h, there'd still be restrictions due to the fact that there are people who are unable to perform as others. Due to the fact that inequality exists.

I'm all for recognising inequality, but at this stage it's just not practical for a society to manage millions of road users every day in a more individual system. Especially one with an under-funded and under-resourced police department.

And Ethan's character was "limited" as to how he was allowed to live his life because of a gene that had no effect on his health. My speed on the road is a condition that may, or may not, be a contributing factor in an accident. Most of the time it's impossible to tell which from the outside.

Exactly, impossible to tell from an officer's standpoint. That's why this dude got ticketed and that's why "driving to the conditions" is irrelevant if you're over the speed limit. It's not like driving faster makes you any safer than if you were under the limit...except in special circumstances.

I thought the whole point of Gattaca was that he didn't have a heart condition, just the gene that made it ever so slightly more likely to develop?

I remember the first scene reading out the list of possible defects with Vincent and 99% being heart condition. I forget whether he actually had them or not.

[riffer]

If 'speeding' was replaced with 'careless/dangerous use' EVERYBODY so charged would plaster the Courts with pathetic bleating (as they do with speeding) trying to justify their speed.

Again, this is LAZY policing. My idea encourages the Police to use their discretion. Why would you have have to book EVERYBODY?

Come on, SD, you know if someone's driving stupidly. If they are using inappropriate speed for the conditions, do them for careless. If they are using stupidly fast speed for the conditions, do them for dangerous.

Surely you're not telling me that the Police have no idea at all whether someone's driving isn't up to scratch.

Its all about evidence. Currently we have a very lazy method of determining whether driving is dangerous based on an arbitrary line in the sand. What we need is a more scientific approach to the problem.

Take into account other conditions: yes speed; also time of day, road condition, weather conditions, road congestion, current condition of vehicle, and a whole load of other stuff I just can't think about as I type but will remember later.

If I used the same lack of scientific evidence in my job that Police can use to justify ticketing drivers, I'd be laughed out of a job.

[Mekk]

What we need is a more scientific approach to the problem.

Take into account other conditions: yes speed; also time of day, road condition, weather conditions, road congestion, current condition of vehicle, and a whole load of other stuff I just can't think about as I type but will remember later.

I agree, but again you have to look at practicality too. It's not laziness, it's just bloody hard for 1 cop to monitor thousands of cars.

If you've got an idea that'll effectively monitor someone as an individual and meets the following three criteria, awesome!

A) Needs to be fast
B) Needs to be able to monitor everybody fairly and equally
C) Needs to be cost effective so we don't have another thread on road tolls

The problem with the inequality thing is that people WANT equality, despite that being impossible. People bitch when they get singled out for breaking the law, yet want a system that lets them do what they do legally...and individually...it's a bit contradictory.

[idb]

Why not retain the speed limit as it is but allow the cops to use their discretion?
Get rid of the quotas.
No need for dangerous driving charges and if you get pinged the cop doesn't have to do any more work than he does now.

[scumdog]

Come on, SD, you know if someone's driving stupidly. If they are using inappropriate speed for the conditions, do them for careless. If they are using stupidly fast speed for the conditions, do them for dangerous.

Surely you're not telling me that the Police have no idea at all whether someone's driving isn't up to scratch..

But would the drivers/motorcyclists know and accept the were driving stupidly?
A majority of the time the answer would be 'no' hence why they would want to defend it.

the POLICE generally would know whether somebodys driving was not up to scratch - but getting somebody to accept their driving is crap is like getting them to accept the have a small willy - nobody wants to admit either.

Imagine if there were no speed limits as suggested - I can tell you there would be so many dickheads driving at 130+ in unsuitable areas with no idea on how to drive/ride AND who would argue whether their driving was up to scratch.
After all, look back only 6-7 years - NOBODY got a ticket from a cop for doing less than 20kph over the limit (well not down here anyway) and that became the 'norm' with a lot of people doing 130+ and moaning when they got a ticket.
With no limit? I shudder to think what speed a lot would think suitable.

[scumdog]

Why not retain the speed limit as it is but allow the cops to use their discretion?
Get rid of the quotas.
No need for dangerous driving charges and if you get pinged the cop doesn't have to do any more work than he does now.

I'll go with that.

(What are you ON idb??? - so much sense and so early too)

[idb]

I'll go with that.

(What are you ON idb??? - so much sense and so early too)

You can be so hurtful SD!!!!

All other areas of law enforcement rely on an individual officer's discretion, why not traffic?