Good old Jeremy

[Old Greg]

Yes so they can put up speed cameras. Do you know many people who go for strolls accross dual carriageways?

Whatever

[DodgyAgent]

This is pretty typical of Clarkson's I can do what I like and **** everyone else attitude.

I know a family with a bereavement caused by a speeding motorist and it makes you think about these things. There's a reason why there's a 50 mph rather than an 80 mph speed limit.

Why 50 and not 51mph limit. Speed limits are a classic example of how the state indoctrinates its people into believing that a law has a sacrosanct morality about. Why is 52 mph on an empty road in the middle of the day illegal (and according to your logic "unsafe") whereas 50 mph on the same road in pi***** rain in the early evening rush hour traffic is deemed as "safe".

Why are so few speeding convictions accompanied by "dangerous driving" convictions? The speeding laws are set not according to any logic or relationship between speed and danger but because they are easy to enforce (2 digits with a zero so that old bill can understand them easily). We all know this which is why we all ignore them and make our own decisions about how fast we drive.

Accidents are caused by reckless driving not by speed on its own.

And why should Clarkson or anyone give themselves to the law without defending themselves?

[Bagpuss]

Whatever

You don't know the road, in your mind it's a built up area with schools on both sides. Clarkson laughing manically as he knocks over wheelie bins and narrowly misses the cutest child you could possibly imagine. In reality it's a 'dual' carriageway with 3 lanes on each side, and no footpaths.

[TheFaQQer]

Most cars go >50 anyway.

Maybe you should consider a career as a defence lawyer, defending those caught speeding.

[TheFaQQer]

Why 50 and not 51mph limit. Speed limits are a classic example of how the state indoctrinates its people into believing that a law has a sacrosanct morality about. Why is 52 mph on an empty road in the middle of the day illegal (and according to your logic "unsafe") whereas 50 mph on the same road in pi***** rain in the early evening rush hour traffic is deemed as "safe".

Why are so few speeding convictions accompanied by "dangerous driving" convictions? The speeding laws are set not according to any logic or relationship between speed and danger but because they are easy to enforce (2 digits with a zero so that old bill can understand them easily). We all know this which is why we all ignore them and make our own decisions about how fast we drive.

Accidents are caused by reckless driving not by speed on its own.

And why should Clarkson or anyone give themselves to the law without defending themselves?

I'm not prepared to argue the merits of each and every case, whether the road is safe or not, or why there are speed cameras on roads.

The law is that on that stretch of road, you do not drive at more than 50 miles per hour. Someone broke the law and should be punished for it.

[Old Greg]

I do know that section of the A40, and I agree that there won't be pedestrians. In general, I'm against excessive state power and control, but I'm not happy with the idea that we all just decide to do whatever we like independently. If the government's sh1t, get rid of it if there's a better alternative so that the A40 has an 80 mph speed limit. Or should we all choose as individuals which laws we choose to keep or not?

Having said that, I think mass disobedience (although I don't see Clarkson as part of that) has a place in changing laws so maybe I'm talking myself out of it. Maybe I just don't like Clarkson and I'd like to see him done. Nothing wrong with personal vindictiveness IMHO.

[Bagpuss]

The law is that on that stretch of road, you do not drive at more than 50 miles per hour. Someone broke the law and should be punished for it.

Most drivers do not drive within the speed limits, especially on that road. Would you punnish all drivers?

Let's put it in perspective, 50 in a 30 zone is bad. 80 on a road that was not that long ago deemed fit to be 70mph (even when cars had 13inch drum brakes it was OK) is not the same. Most people drive within +15% of the speed limit and it's not a demolition derby out there.

Most accidents are not speed related, even after manipulation of the data, e.g. classifying driving without due care and attention as speeding

[DodgyAgent]

I'm not prepared to argue the merits of each and every case, whether the road is safe or not, or why there are speed cameras on roads.

The law is that on that stretch of road, you do not drive at more than 50 miles per hour. Someone broke the law and should be punished for it.

The thing about some people is that their minds cannot cope with uncertainties, "greyness", or people/ events that cannot be either measured or categorised according to predetermined rules. They can only cope with rules strictly applied. It is no coincidence that mathematicians, often highly intelligent, fall into this stereotype whereby they can only deal with situations like mathematical equations.

Likewise speed limits are a crude example of how law is arbitrarily made for its own convenience rather than as a serious attempt to overcome a problem. Because this law can be broken without causing any harm (and is regularly done so by almost everyone) then it needs to be applied with common sense, not as "the law has been broken someone should be prosecuted"

[_V_]

This government is only interested in victimless crimes.

If I do 51 mph on a dual carriageway, I am a criminal and no one is a victim of my crime.

[Old Greg]

Speeding is an odd criminal offence because it is (in its conception, whether or not it is in reality) about risk, not harm. It and other traffic offences like drinking and driving are not unique in that. Health and Safety regulations are another example. If laws are purely about harm and not risk, then we need to ask the questions: Will there be more harm overall? and: If there is more harm, is it worth it in the name of liberty?

There is an extreme libertatian view that laws relating to risk should be repealed. E.g. if someone drinks 10 pints and drives home without hurting anyone, fair enough, but if they kill someone, they should be very harshly punished. The idea is that people will themselves choose not to drink and drive because they will measure the risk themselves.

I don't agree with the above view myself so I suppose the trick is to find a middle ground.