Anti Limit Meeting

[Slim]

Error of Composition - A single bad example is used to argue that all are bad, “One bad apple spoils the bunch…”

 

Er, isn't that how all laws work? We're not all about to go out and shoot someone, yet murder is illegal.

 

 

Ok maybe i'm not understanding, You want to complain about drivers going at 90 outside your house but you don't want a limit, But all roads like yours need a national speed limit?

 

I'm using my road as an example, it's a fairly typical manx country road that's treated most days like a stage of the RAC.

[Albert Tatlock]

RE: Error of Composition - A single bad example is used to argue that all are bad, “One bad apple spoils the bunch…”

 

 

Er, isn't that how all laws work? We're not all about to go out and shoot someone, yet murder is illegal.

Er...No. And by the way you are now using:

 

Argument from Accidental Circumstance: Applying a general rule to an instance where the rule may not apply.

 

False Dichotomy: Choice is limited to either or, this or that…

 

Ignoratio Elenchi Fallacies: Attempts to prove or disprove the point by proving or disproving some other proposition that is not at issue

[Nitro]

I'm using my road as an example, it's a fairly typical manx country road that's treated most days like a stage of the RAC.

 

I could understand if you wanted a limit, Have you ever though about filming these people?

 

I imagine it could be seen as dangerous driving, Really on a single lane even 60mph is to fast unless there is a clear view for quite a distance.

[Slim]

Er...No. And by the way you are now using:

 

So what you're saying is, we're all murderers which is why the laws there to stop us? Please explain rather than just saying 'no'

 

Argument from Accidental Circumstance: Applying a general rule to an instance where the rule may not apply.

 

You're full of shit. Can you not have a discussion without providing an example? Are you seriously suggesting my road is unique in the isle of man and the only one driven by RAC wannabe tossers? What roads do they drive down to get to mine then, or do they drive slowly down the rest of them and just speed up for my one? Get real.

 

Ignoratio Elenchi Fallacies: Attempts to prove or disprove the point by proving or disproving some other proposition that is not at issue

 

bullshit: (Eddie Murphy bull-shee-it) 1. n. Rubbish; nonsense. 2. v. To lie; deliberately mislead; talk rubbish to.

 

bollocks: n. 1. Nonsense; balls, as in: “That’s utter bollocks, that is”. 2. Knackers; balls, as in: “Them’s massive bollocks, thems is”. See also ballocks.

 

I was providing you with a personal experiance in a fairly typical scenario on this island. No, that doesn't 100% prove the point for every single road, but its a pretty good indicator.

[Albert Tatlock]

Er...No. And by the way you are now using:

So what you're saying is, we're all murderers which is why the laws there to stop us? Please explain rather than just saying 'no'

Argument from Accidental Circumstance: Applying a general rule to an instance where the rule may not apply.

You're full of shit. Can you not have a discussion without providing an example? Are you seriously suggesting my road is unique in the isle of man and the only one driven by RAC wannabe tossers? What roads do they drive down to get to mine then, or do they drive slowly down the rest of them and just speed up for my one? Get real.

Ignoratio Elenchi Fallacies: Attempts to prove or disprove the point by proving or disproving some other proposition that is not at issue

bullshit: (Eddie Murphy bull-shee-it) 1. n. Rubbish; nonsense. 2. v. To lie; deliberately mislead; talk rubbish to.

bollocks: n. 1. Nonsense; balls, as in: “That’s utter bollocks, that is”. 2. Knackers; balls, as in: “Them’s massive bollocks, thems is”. See also ballocks.

 

I was providing you with a personal experiance in a fairly typical scenario on this island. No, that doesn't 100% prove the point for every single road, but its a pretty good indicator.

 

Now you're using:

 

Argument by Intimidation: A put down

Argument ad Hominem: Directed at the opponent, an attack on the person and not the argument.

Argument from Pity: To evoke a sympathetic emotional response

Syllogism: Drivers are people, people drive badly, so therefore ALL people drive badly

 

My point is that your one example should not be used to make your mind up about such a complex issue, and you were offered, not only sound advice, but empathy, by other posters on how to get that one example sorted out.

 

Whenever I post on here, I expect people to debate my posts - especially if they were to be based on subjective rather than objective comments.

[Slim]

Now you're using:

Argument by Intimidation: A put down

Argument ad Hominem: Directed at the opponent, an attack on the person and not the argument.

Argument from Pity: To evoke a sympathetic emotional response

Syllogism: Drivers are people, people drive badly, so therefore ALL people drive badly

 

No, you're using some wanky debating book and misinterpreting what I say, whithout actually adding any points of your own.

 

I'm not saying all people drive badly at all, where did I say that? There's many people who do drive safely down country roads, including the one I live on. There are a few tools that drive like nutters, which is the whole point of the national speed limit. It doesn't matter to those of us who do generally drive under 60, obviously.

 

I am using put downs though, as I think you're talking out of your arse, fair cop.

 

My point is that your one example should not be used to make your mind up about such a complex issue, and you were offered, not only sound advice, but empathy, by other posters on how to get that one example sorted out.

 

Are you properly thick? I'm saying, repeadedly, that I'm using my single example as a typical scenario on a typical manx country road. Fixing my problem in isolation will not help the other roads that suffer a similar problem.

 

Whenever I post on here, I expect people to debate my posts - especially if they were to be based on subjective rather than objective comments.

 

 

Whenever I post here, I expect people to debate my posts, not ineptly apply the language to 'debating for dummies' and therefore consider my points invalid.

[Albert Tatlock]

Here you go Slim http://www.stressbusting.co.uk/

[Slim]

Well debated, bravo, that's me told.

 

The amusing thing about both of the speed limit threads, that none of the petrolheads have come up with a good reason not to have a limit. While the pro limit people have plenty.

[Albert Tatlock]

Well debated, bravo, that's me told.

 

The amusing thing about both of the speed limit threads, that none of the petrolheads have come up with a good reason not to have a limit. While the pro limit people have plenty.

Then you obviously haven't read the numerous posts...and rather than repeat them all I would suggest you do a search, as there are more than two threads.

[Amadeus]

Slim: Do you really think a limit would change anything? I live on a restricted road (South Quay), and in theory, everyone should drive at no more than 30mph, cause that's the limt....

 

In real life, this place is a race track - especially at weekends/nights

 

Road.3gp

 

Unfortunately, I didn't get many of the really fast ones, but loads of people open up the throttle on the stretch towards the nunnery. These are also the ones who would still drive fast if there was a national limit....

 

The problem I'm having with the idea of a national speed limit is, that the current legislation is not even being enforced properly, and then they come along with a new thing. Do you know how many coppers are on duty on, say, a Friday or Saturday evening? Not that many, and the ones that are, are patrolling the prom or arresting drunks - I doubt there are many looking after the roads...

 

And with a limit, there would be two scenarios IMO:

 

1: Limit is introduced but not enforced - loads of money spent with no effect...

 

2: Limit is introduced and we get loads of speed cameras at the roadside.

 

Even more money spent, and everyone will know their locations within days - it's a small place... I hear a radar van is on the cards, allowing for mobile speed traps (no more high-vis clad guy with radar gun, but an umarked car at the side of the road). That may well lead to what happened in many european countries: Radio stations offer a new service - text in the location of any radar vans you see, and we'll broadcast it after the news - hughely popular in Germany...

 

The DoT's campaign is just the completely wrong approach, carried out in an appaling fashion IMO.

 

One example of a campaign I saw a while back and thought was very good:

 

Two neighbouring cities in Germany and the Netherlands had the same problem the IOM has - too many young people were injured or killed in accidents every year, and that despite strict limits being in place in both countries. So they thought about how they could best reach the mostly male drivers. What they came up with is the following:

 

 

It's called "Schutzengel" (Guardian Angel), and aims at young women/girls, who very often happen to be in the car when Saxo Sam is showing off. It encourages them to say something - to make it clear that speeding, showing off, or drink driving is not "cool", and that they would like their partner/driver to get them home in one piece. The agencies involved correctly identified who has the most influence on young male drivers (the group most at risk) - girls!

 

And you know what? It worked - accident rates have gone down significantly, so have fatalities. Next to the guardian angel campaign, other measures, such as advanced driving lessons, and even sessions in a simulator are being offered (showing the effects of drink driving if I remember that right - you're sober, but the software lets you experience the effects of alcohol, i.e. slower reaction times, etc)

 

It's still not gonna prevent all accidents, but it's definitely better than a seriously one-sided "consultation"...

[Slim]

Slim: Do you really think a limit would change anything? I live on a restricted road (South Quay), and in theory, everyone should drive at no more than 30mph, cause that's the limt....

 

Yes, I do. Will it make everyone drive slower? No. Will it fix all the evil on the roads? Nope. But it certainly wont make things worse like some people are suggesting.

 

The problem I'm having with the idea of a national speed limit is, that the current legislation is not even being enforced properly, and then they come along with a new thing. Do you know how many coppers are on duty on, say, a Friday or Saturday evening? Not that many, and the ones that are, are patrolling the prom or arresting drunks - I doubt there are many looking after the roads...

 

Oh I fully agree, a limit is only a small part of the problem, but it's a start. We need better enforcement, MOT, retests for the elderly, road modifications, there's loads of stuff that can help road safety. None of that negates the fact that even if a limit cuts road deaths by 1 every ten years, its worth it.

 

The DoT's campaign is just the completely wrong approach, carried out in an appaling fashion IMO.

 

Agree with that too, it's not particulary effective from either camp, doesn't put me against a limit though just because the campaigns badly exectued.

 

It's still not gonna prevent all accidents, but it's definitely better than a seriously one-sided "consultation"...

 

Sure, it'll all help, so why not?

[=^..^=]

Slim - do you honestly think that the Speed limit 'consultation' is unbiased ?

[Albert Tatlock]

Please explain rather than just saying 'no'

OK. So by your assertion, then you'd probably agree that all video games that encourage violence of any sort should also be banned?

 

e.g. CBS_News, and BBC and Video Game News for starters.

[Lonan3]

...a limit is only a small part of the problem, but it's a start. We need better enforcement, MOT, retests for the elderly, road modifications, there's loads of stuff that can help road safety. None of that negates the fact that even if a limit cuts road deaths by 1 every ten years, its worth it.

 

Slim I actually agree with most of what you say - but the inability to enforce existing laws suggests that this whole exercise is little more than a cynical PR project (along the same lines as Operation Centurion), designed to make us feel that something is being done about a problem that we all know exists.

My major problem with it - and the principal reason why I'll be voting for 'No Limit' is that it will provide an excuse for actions that are more important, more relevant and, unfortunately, more expensive, to be put on the back burner.

 

Incidentally, I find it disappointing that none of the 'potential' (or existing) MHKs who use this forum have actually stated their opinion on whether or not there should be a national speed limit.

[Albert Tatlock]

Incidentally, I find it disappointing that none of the 'potential' (or existing) MHKs who use this forum have actually stated their opinion on whether or not there should be a national speed limit.

In an election year? Probably the same reason why Turkeys wouldn't vote for Christmas.