Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

20 year old speeding ticket issue! Watch

    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Which is a strong argument for driving slowly in the daytime in residential areas with lots of cars lining the streets. However, there are plenty of not-particularly-residential roads which are wide, clear, and generally safe which nonetheless end up designated 30 zones. For all we know OP's worries relate to such a road, perhaps on a clear night, and in that case the child-death lecture is rather less pertinent.
    The town planners and authorities had a reason for the speed limit which may not be obvious, but nonetheless valid. The law is the law.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uberteknik)
    The town planners and authorities had a reason for the speed limit which may not be obvious, but nonetheless valid. The law is the law.
    Perhaps, but you seem to be confusing two separate arguments:

    (1) You should follow the law because it is the law; and

    (2) You should follow this law because children are likely to die if you don't (or, people will get hurt if you don't).

    This is also the problem with the 'look at the effect of slightly exceeding the speed limit!' arguments made ITT. The fact is that this form of argument takes an entirely arbitrary starting point, unless you fall back on the quite separate 'the law is the law' argument. Which, of course, if accepted is sufficient in itself to reach the final conclusion that speed limits should be followed anyway, making the 'effects' part of the argument redundant.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Perhaps, but you seem to be confusing two separate arguments:

    (1) You should follow the law because it is the law; and

    (2) You should follow this law because children are likely to die if you don't (or, people will get hurt if you don't).

    This is also the problem with the 'look at the effect of slightly exceeding the speed limit!' arguments made ITT. The fact is that this form of argument takes an entirely arbitrary starting point, unless you fall back on the quite separate 'the law is the law' argument. Which, of course, if accepted is sufficient in itself to reach the final conclusion that speed limits should be followed anyway, making the 'effects' part of the argument redundant.
    Empirical evidence for the second, justifies the creation of the speed limit with penalties enforced in law. You seem to be agreeing with both. I don't think it's confusing at all.

    I simply pointed out a reason attempting to raise awareness why excess speed increases the danger to pedestrians involved in a RTA. This response was to a previous poster who seemed to suggest speed limits are out of step with modern cars and drivers.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.