From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Bill Sloman)
Subject: Re: Defeating Breathalyzer Ignition Interlocks
Date: 6 Jan 2003 04:28:10 -0800
References: <3E160F0D.B23A8BE5@sympatico.ca> <3E15ED10.email@example.com> <9zoR9.6018$Sa3.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3E161FF0.email@example.com> <0ryocPAJxpF+EwdE@jmwa.demon.co.uk> <%cLR9.4245$Hs3.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <2nUo$aBfmFG+Ewkc@jmwa.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Jan 2003 12:28:11 GMT
John Woodgate wrote in message news:<2nUo$aBfmFG+Ewkc@jmwa.demon.co.uk>...
> I read in sci.electronics.design that Bill Sloman
> wrote (in ) about 'Defeating Breathalyzer
> Ignition Interlocks', on Sun, 5 Jan 2003:
> >> The speeding still occurs.The accidents come more from other causes like
> >> running red lights,inattention to driving,improper lane
> >> changes,tailgating,reckless driving,etc.
> >Have you any evidence for this claim? This thread has been littered with
> >claims that speeding as such doesn't kill people, but it has been short on
> >any evidence.
> Bill, you are misinterpreting, I think. The complaints are about
> *speeding tickets*, especially where the violation is only a few mph. A
> lot of money is spent on 'catching' people and fining them heavily for
> doing something that is, in almost all cases, **not very harmful**.
The aim is simply to change people's behaviour - cutting average
speeds makes car accidents slightly less likely, and markedly less
damaging. Directly preventing accidents would be much more difficult,
and very much more expensive.
The introduction of automatic camera's in Nijmegen cost me one $30
fine, which persuaded me to drive around town at the legal 50 kph
rather than the previously tolerated 60 kph. Most of my friends and
colleagues had much the same experience, and reacted in much the same
way, though some had to pay two or three such fines before the message
> Near here, we have a dual carriageway as wide as a 2-lane motorway, with
> a 40 mph speed limit, and what were once country lanes but now carry
> quite a lot of traffic, with the 'national speed limit' of 60 mph for
> single-carriageway roads.
So you are campaigning for "the country lanes" to get a 40mph limit?
> Then, some way from here, is a twisty, undulating road which demands
> that you keep your eyes on the road all the time. It has a 20 mph speed
> limit, with cameras, so people look at their speedometers and run off
> the road!
As John Fields has pointed out, you don't need absolute pitch to use
the engine note to judge your speed pretty accurately - trying to
drive at a constant speed via visual feedback from the speedometer is
just stupid, and anyone who tries it and runs off the road is just
exhibiting evolution in action.
> In general, there is support only for complaints that most people
> consider reasonable. This is one instance.
> People are not defending 'boy racers'. We have our share here, who
> 'cruise' along Southend seafront at speeds in excess of anything you
> care to name. What is strange is that only now, after several years of
> trouble, is something **allegedly** going to be done to stop it.
I accept that they don't think that they are defending boy racers.
What they are defending *their* right to drive as much faster than the
law allows as *they* consider appropriate, while denying this liberty
to boy racers. This isn't entirely reasonable.
One of the downsides of living in a democracy is that from time to
time you have to subordinate your judgement to that of the population
as a whole. Bitching about exact local speed limits is rather like
argueing with the weather - though you can always try and get your
local council to adjust the speed limit on a particular road, if you
have the patience of Job.
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen