Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner
221 - 240 of 287 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,552 Posts
There are good psychological studies to show that an under-stimulated brain is an inattentive brain. Driving too slow can be a distraction causing more accidents.
From practical experience, I think there would be plenty of people that would agree with that notion.

I find the over-reliance of all the new drivers aids in modern cars to thoroughly bore me during a drive - my mind doesn't have enough to do and there's the potential that my attention will wander.

Drivers aids such as lane keeping assist and travel assist seem to be there to mitigate inattentive driving for those that choose to play Roblox on their mobile phones, or doing their make-up, eating a cooked breakfast etc. while driving, but in my experience, having them on and relying upon them seems to breed inattentive driving habits. I need to keep my mind busy while driving.
 

·
Registered
Hyundai Ioniq 28
Joined
·
9,897 Posts
One aspect of a blanket 20 mph limit would be that a not insignificant portion of the driving population are hyper compliant and would insist on driving precisely at that limit ( speedo version - not GPS ) and absolutely resisting any overtake manouvre in their zealous insistence that no one should be overtaking anyway.

I had an Aunt that once told me that she rarely came across any traffic in front but was always being followed by a dozen cars everywhere. That could lead to severe road rage if it became a feature of every rural drive. As well as leading to numerous dangerous overtaking situations on narrow roads that in and of itself could lead to many more fatal accidents. If I was on a planning committee pondering on this suggestion I would be placing far more weight on that possibility than any other goody two shoes lip curling virtue signalling propositions.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
37,849 Posts
Discussion Starter · #223 ·
Thanks Geoff - I was unaware of that.
It will be useful to see what comes of such a trial. There could be a case for stretches of lanes (often narrow, twisty & with restricted visibility) with bad accident incidence, I'd expect.
There are many rural Essex areas near me where default NSL is simply impractical for a sane driver.
Obviously, like all other 'reasonable' uses of a 20mph limit, of course there may well be some country roads where 20mph is pretty much the going rate anyway. I can think of a few straight off, and my point above is not a flippant one about having no speed limits at all; the speed limit is 60mph and pretty much everyone drives at 20mph at that location because that is what is reasonable. 60mph on most country roads means drivers have to figure out what is reasonable for themselves, and most seem to do a good job.

But this particular 20mph thing is a blanket thing simply over a given area. No assessment per road at all.

Now, if we did away with speed limits altogether but someone did 30mph there, everyone else (one's peer group ... like court trials are meant to be) would say 'nah, you'd know 30 was way too fast for that bumpy bend with the overgrown bank that you can't see around' whereas a stretch with open fields either side doing 100mph they might say 'well, there was really nothing around, the road is just repaired and in a great way, there was really no reason 100mph would have been dangerous there.'.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
37,849 Posts
Discussion Starter · #224 ·
One aspect of a blanket 20 mph limit would be that a not insignificant portion of the driving population are hyper compliant and would insist on driving precisely at that limit ( speedo version - not GPS ) and absolutely resisting any overtake manouvre in their zealous insistence that no one should be overtaking anyway.

I had an Aunt that once told me that she rarely came across any traffic in front but was always being followed by a dozen cars everywhere. That could lead to severe road rage if it became a feature of every rural drive. As well as leading to numerous dangerous overtaking situations on narrow roads that in and of itself could lead to many more fatal accidents. If I was on a planning committee pondering on this suggestion I would be placing far more weight on that possibility than any other goody two shoes lip curling virtue signalling propositions.
I tried going up our 20mph road at 15 last evening. I had one person follow at a sensible distance and did not seem unduly perturbed. Probably bewildered and confused. I normally get tailgated when I do that road at 20!
 

·
Registered
2022 Tesla Model 3LR
Joined
·
1,637 Posts
Obviously, like all other 'reasonable' uses of a 20mph limit, of course there may well be some country roads where 20mph is pretty much the going rate anyway. I can think of a few straight off, and my point above is not a flippant one about having no speed limits at all; the speed limit is 60mph and pretty much everyone drives at 20mph at that location because that is what is reasonable. 60mph on most country roads means drivers have to figure out what is reasonable for themselves, and most seem to do a good job.

But this particular 20mph thing is a blanket thing simply over a given area. No assessment per road at all.

Now, if we did away with speed limits altogether but someone did 30mph there, everyone else (one's peer group ... like court trials are meant to be) would say 'nah, you'd know 30 was way too fast for that bumpy bend with the overgrown bank that you can't see around' whereas a stretch with open fields either side doing 100mph they might say 'well, there was really nothing around, the road is just repaired and in a great way, there was really no reason 100mph would have been dangerous there.'.
Maybe some people see the / sign and assume it means 60mph and its safe to drive at 60. Yes the sensible thing to do is drive at a speed you can safely stop within what you can see to be clear. But maybe people don't do that, and reinforcing that will be safer?

I've often found it odd that we have so many roads that are marked like that. Feels like they just gave up trying to measure a safe speed and just went 'ah people will figure it out'. Can't hurt to try something new, we might learn something
 

·
Registered
2012 24kw upgraded to 40kw
Joined
·
447 Posts
You have argued the kinetic aspects. That's fine, but the statistic that 66% of accidents happen in 30mph areas rules out the argument that higher speed limits are, themselves, inherently dangerous.
I'm mildly amused by your straw-man god argument, though note that it contains a similar confounder error about cause and effect to the one quoted above.

If 66% of accidents happen in 30mph areas then there's not much (probably nothing) you can conclude about the 30mph speed limit (and surely you're not extrapolating... ?). It wasn't the speed limit that caused the accidents (or was even probably contributory) - it was things like traffic density, junctions, and drivers failing to see things such as people/object. The fact that there was a 30 limit is an irrelevant correlation. The factors/variables associated with accidents are different on motorways versus urban environments. Now, you've suggested that we can't extrapolate the 30mph/urban data to 'other' situations. It's certainly true that some of the issues aren't relevant, but the key one underlying a high proportion of accidents is 'didn't have enough time to stop/avoid'. Now, i'll go out on a limb and say that lower speeds will give drivers more time to react (assuming they aren't driving completely irresponsibly), so the speed part could be extrapolated to 'faster roads' (and the kinetic part is obvs). Yes, it would cause significant economic and societal impact, and post-hoc data analysis could show it was beneficial from a safety perspective. Then, one would need to decide what to prioritise - which used to be car drivers, but that may not hold for the future.

Your general view that planners/liberals/councils can't go around changing stuff 'unless it meets the Donald test' isn't really a reflection of reality or a route to progress ? I'd work on not letting it upset you so much.
 

·
Registered
Hyundai Ioniq 28
Joined
·
9,897 Posts
I have long been a student of how the 'boiling frogs' method has been used to socially engineer the population. What I find to be really interesting about this is the failure of so many people to recognise that this is happening. Even worse, many actually aid the effectiveness by openly admitting that they welcome the tip-toe moves without actually recognising that it is just another nudge of the thin end of the wedge.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,017 Posts
I have long been a student of how the 'boiling frogs' method has been used to socially engineer the population. What I find to be really interesting about this is the failure of so many people to recognise that this is happening. Even worse, many actually aid the effectiveness by openly admitting that they welcome the tip-toe moves without actually recognising that it is just another nudge of the thin end of the wedge.
And we think we are free spirits.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
37,849 Posts
Discussion Starter · #230 · (Edited)
I try my best to get people to open their eyes, but, 🤷‍♀️ , most really don't want to.

Red pill or blue pill, today? Do you want to go to a comfy home and tuck under your clean and comfy duvet and ignore all those difficult problems and questions, or ... ? Yeah, that one, the first one, please ...

There is a comfort in accepting one's status as a victim of society's progress, one can then blame others for one's own failures. I keep reminding people of this quite often (how many times here does 'the oil industry' get the blame for the consumption of those blaming them for something?).

Let's blame CO2 on all the 'deniers' for refusing to give up their ICE, rather than look at our own consumptions. Let's blame poverty on people's feckless lazy habits, than our desire to sell things, and our labours, for the highest possible price rather than 'a fair' price.

The thing about this 20mph nonsense, from whence did it actually originate? I think it is actually from zealous militant cyclists who have insisted on all these cycle lanes and protections, so the next step is to slow down all the traffic to cyclists' speeds.

I recall being stopped for doing 25 in a 30 zone once, and after the cop admitted the road was terrible and understood why I was 'swerving around the pot holes' still went on to say I was driving too slowly. Surely, if it was too slow then, it's still too slow? What's changed, apart from the desire for social engineering for it's own sake?
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
37,849 Posts
Discussion Starter · #231 ·
I have long been a student of how the 'boiling frogs' method has been used to socially engineer the population. What I find to be really interesting about this is the failure of so many people to recognise that this is happening. Even worse, many actually aid the effectiveness by openly admitting that they welcome the tip-toe moves without actually recognising that it is just another nudge of the thin end of the wedge.
I have just been reviewing the etymology of that saying. I note on Wiki, rather hilariously;

"
Experiments and analysis
During the 19th century, several experiments were performed to observe the reaction of frogs to slowly heated water. In 1869, while doing experiments searching for the location of the soul, German physiologist Friedrich Goltz demonstrated that a frog that has had its brain removed will remain in slowly heated water, but an intact frog attempted to escape the water when it reached 25 °C.
"


I think the simple truth of this is that most people's brains have been removed by consumerism, our so-called democracy, and the soft prison of society run by the state-robot police who don't know the law but will happily lie about it to keep you in your place. People seem to be satisfied with, and prefer, a good lie, told well.

The truth told abruptly always gets a backlash, as far as I can tell from my experiences on this forum and elsewhere.
 

·
Registered
2022 Tesla Model 3LR
Joined
·
1,637 Posts
I have long been a student of how the 'boiling frogs' method has been used to socially engineer the population. What I find to be really interesting about this is the failure of so many people to recognise that this is happening. Even worse, many actually aid the effectiveness by openly admitting that they welcome the tip-toe moves without actually recognising that it is just another nudge of the thin end of the wedge.
Whats the difference between boiling frogs and making incremental changes to laws and guidelines based on monitoring and adjusting continuously? other than conspiracy theories or personal insistance that your world view is right and everyone else is wrong?
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
37,849 Posts
Discussion Starter · #234 ·
Whats the difference between boiling frogs and making incremental changes to laws and guidelines based on monitoring and adjusting continuously? other than conspiracy theories or personal insistance that your world view is right and everyone else is wrong?
The intent.

Where one may be a natural evolution of changes towards an as-yet-unseen betterment, the other is a cynical ploy to implement an intended change by a series of small degrees so small that no-one can put their finger on a complaint regarding the last change.

If you need that explaining, then chances are you are already a victim of this.

EU membership was a case .. no 'one' treaty was enough for UK Gov to say 'Ah, now we need a referendum', so when that time came that the collective changes were too much and people insisted, it all blew up in their faces.

Covid policy was a classic case of this. First the measures were to flatten the curve and stop resources being overwhelmed, next it was to actually reduce the curve by delaying deaths until a vaccine, now it is just social control because we've had the vaccine and flattened the curve, there is no more dodging it. But somehow, the 'idea' lingers that countermeasures are essential .. for some reason that no longer needs to be stated ...

Global warming is another. When the Earth stopped warming and the data buggered up that claim, it morphed into 'climate change', and now that CO2 has been embedded synonymously with climate change, the last IPCC report doesn't even bother to mention 'temperature', it reports exclusively on CO2 emissions. So embedded is the idea, by piecemeal, that now the connection between 'temperature' and 'CO2' has become irrelevant to most people. It's just about the CO2 now, doesn't matter what the temperature actually is any more. If it is hotter .. climate change .. colder .. climate change ... more changeable weather .. climate change .. long periods of low winds and stagnant weather systems .. climate change .. higher sea salinity .. climate change .. lower .. climate change ... higher rates of depression .. climate change .. lower ... climate change ... good economic forecasts .. climate change .. bad .. climate change .. East Enders following a bad plot line .. climate change ... good plot line ... climate change ... and all because of CO2 .. somehow?

That is the difference. That you are tricked by small changes is no longer relating the stimulus to the appropriate response.
 

·
Registered
2022 Tesla Model 3LR
Joined
·
1,637 Posts
how do you define intent other than a subjective interpretation. And dismissing alternative viewpoints as 'you're already victim to it' as though others can't see what is in front of their faces is frankly nonsense and rude as hell
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
37,849 Posts
Discussion Starter · #236 ·
how do you define intent other than a subjective interpretation. And dismissing alternative viewpoints as 'you're already victim to it' as though others can't see what is in front of their faces is frankly nonsense and rude as hell
Whether someone 'intended' the end result from the outset, rather than made their way from one change to the next.
 

·
Registered
2022 Tesla Model 3LR
Joined
·
1,637 Posts
Whether someone 'intended' the end result from the outset, rather than made their way from one change to the next.
ok. So in the specific subject of speed limits - have we not seen gradual reductions in speed limits in town centres to 20mph, some larger roads (but still in towns) moving from 50>40, or 40>30? This seems a logical extension of that.
 

·
Registered
Hyundai Ioniq 28
Joined
·
9,897 Posts
ok. So in the specific subject of speed limits - have we not seen gradual reductions in speed limits in town centres to 20mph, some larger roads (but still in towns) moving from 50>40, or 40>30? This seems a logical extension of that.
A precise description of how it works. If they had attempted to go from 50 to 20 on rural roads in one move, apparently the ultimate aim, then the resistance would have been huge. But the boiling frog's system works yet again. And now everyone just shrugs and says - hmm - that seems logical.

Nothing at all to do with world views. It's just whether someone is attuned to how they work this magic or not.
 

·
Registered
2022 Tesla Model 3LR
Joined
·
1,637 Posts
A precise description of how it works. If they had attempted to go from 50 to 20 on rural roads in one move, apparently the ultimate aim, then the resistance would have been huge. But the boiling frog's system works yet again. And now everyone just shrugs and says - hmm - that seems logical.

Nothing at all to do with world views. It's just whether someone is attuned to how they work this magic or not.
also what works is reducing speed limits, monitoring accidents and death rates, and extrapolating that out to further changes

What exactly is the desire by this shadowy cabal to slow us all down to a walking pace otherwise?
 

·
Registered
Hyundai Ioniq 28
Joined
·
9,897 Posts
What exactly is the desire by this shadowy cabal to slow us all down to a walking pace otherwise?
You still miss the point I am making. Their aim may well coincide with your own, and a lot of people's perceptions, that the only way to 'be safe', to use the current idiom, is to reduce speeds everywhere. My point is not about that though. It may well be that a simple majority of people agree that it is a desirable endpoint to work towards. My observation is only about the way that they achieve that utopia. Boiling frog style. So that resistance is undermined. If you can't see that leaping to the end game in one bound would create a large resistance then I don't know how to explain it better.
 
221 - 240 of 287 Posts
Top