The USS Quad Damage

Julian said about 1 hour later:

I don’t find this logic very convincing.

By the same argument, we should get rid of laws against accepting bribes, because sometimes ministers and police staff are caught taking them.

Anti-corruption laws are just a tax!?

Michael said about 2 hours later:

Bribes are simply formalized in Australia as political donations, fines, charges for police attending events, charges for meeting with political leaders at dinners, etc,...

Government advertising campaigns with regards to speeding paint the picture that a car traveling at 60km/h is safe where as the driver of one traveling at 61km/h is an out of control maniac who’s putting the lives of everyone on, near or around the road network in mortal danger.

Julian said about 2 hours later:

You raise some interesting new questions, but I don’t think you have addressed my concern.

If you want to write an article arguing that the advertising campaigns are painting a false dichotomy between 60 and 61 km/h, I’m listening with an open mind.

If you want to write an article arguing that speed limits are too low, that the punishments for breaking them are too high, or they are inappropriately applied, I’m still listening.

If you want to write an article arguing that Australian anti-corruption laws are filled with loop-holes and should be strengthened, I’m still listening.

If you want to write an article arguing that Australian anti-corruption laws are being circumvented and/or broken and therefore should be abolished, because the penalties are merely taxes, I’m still listening (but straining to hear over my chuckling to myself).

But the article as it stands suggests that the laws are unfair based on the evidence that a small number of police and ministers have been found guilty (and punished) for breaking them. I cannot see how this logic stands up.

I suggest that there are other laws that we can agree are fair and just, that also have been broken by some police and ministers. (I gave bribery laws as an example, but that seems to have introduced a distraction by not being clear-cut enough. I am sure there are many others. How about sexual assault?)

Hence, merely having a law broken by law makers and enforcers is not sufficient to argue it isn’t a just law.

Michael said about 4 hours later:

The point is that those people in the best possible position to know all the information the government has about the dangers of speeding and see the effects of speeding ignore them with regards to minor speeding offences.

Thus either the government is withholding information to the general public or the information is known to be inaccurate and used in public policy decision making for an alternative purpose. Such as raising revenue or looking good in the media.

Yes this encompasses both the dangers of speeding and effectiveness of government policy to curb speeding.

Sunny Kalsi said about 6 hours later:

Mike: I think I see what you’re getting at – Start with assuming police and other lawmakers are reasonable. Since they have a greater amount of information available to them (compared to “ordinary Australians™”) they should follow the laws with greater fervour (not just for others’ sake, but also for their own, given the dangers). However, since they’re not following these laws, either the laws are wrong, or the assumption is wrong.

Rather, you’re more specifically asserting that policymakers (I believe you see it as “the man”) are unreasonable in that they’re actually introducing said policy to increase revenue.

Using Julian’s analog, you’re saying that if politicians routinely engaged in (legally speaking) “corrupt” behaviour, then either the anti-corruption laws are wrong, or the politicians are doing something wrong. This may be for some seemingly unrelated end, like an increase in chocolate bars in urinals…

I might consider this to be a fair point, but the thing is, road safety is a difficult problem, and I don’t see you putting a better proposal up. Fact is, speed cameras reduce average speed on a particular road. This has actually reduced the number of accidents, in at least some cases, on a stretch of road.

A good example is of parents going over 40 in a school zone when dropping kids off. For pretty much every school zone now, you’ll likely see speed camera markings. This is going to slow people down and reduce injuries and deaths.

You can’t just criticise this stuff without coming up with an alternative.

Julian said 1 day later:

Michael,

I can see your point now. Thank you for explaining it.

I can also see a few implied assumptions.

1) That the police staff and ministers have more information about road safety than the general public, and can consume that information rationally.

Some, perhaps even a majority, of police may be involved in cleaning up the wreckage of speeding-related car accidents, but it is not clear that these are the same people as those who were caught.

It is also not clear that, even with the evidence in front of their eyes, people can draw a valid conclusion about the risks, and change their behaviour based on it. For example, I know several nurses that smoke.

I am also reminded of a physics PhD student I knew. She thought that if people were taught basic physics (and, particularly, that momentum is proportion to the square of the velocity) there would be much less speeding.

2) That police drivers face the same risk profile as regular drivers. Particularly for drivers who have graduated from additional special training for high-speed driving, in cars that are specially built for high-speed driving and are well-maintained for that purpose, this assumption seems flawed.

3) Given that some police are being caught and some are not, there is a big question about whether the number of infringements is significantly higher than the general population.

Indeed, eleven infringements in a five month period doesn’t sound particularly high, given the number of police cars on the road. It may actually be much lower than the general public, which would reverse your argument.

The number needs to be compared to a control group before we can draw any conclusion. (Don’t forget, when choosing your control group, that police demographics are biased towards young males, which is a similar demographic to speeders).

Michael said 2 days later:

Smoking isn’t analogous to minor speeding offences. It’s an addictive legal drug whos addicts on average start smoking at the age of 13 and 90% by the age of 18.

Physics is the study of physics. Psychology is the study of human behaviour.

If there are alternative risk factors other than speed in road safety and that it can be safe enough to travel at slightly over or even well over the speed limit in certain circumstances that pretty much proves my point doesn’t it?

It doesn’t matter if it’s significantly below the public average as the government and police have promoted the idea that somehow all speeding is a choice and can never be the most safe option availible or even a viable safe option. What would carry weight would be anonymous interviews with the people as to the circumstances as to why they were speeding. I would expect that they would tell you that they were traveling as safely as they could under the circumstances.

Julian said 2 days later:

Before I consider Michael’s arguments, I just wanted to correct a misstatement.

It is kinetic energy, not momentum, that is proportional to the square of the velocity. Whoops. Sorry.

I just wanted to fix that before one of my physics lecturers sees it and revokes my degree!

Michael said 2 days later:

Keep it as it is. They’ll take your friends degree away. Just say you forgot to put in a (sic) tag ;)