I have been holding on to this little snippet since before Christmas. My apologies to the magazine who originally published it. I do normally acknowledge my sources but in this instance I tore out the page from one of the many specialist transport magazines that cross my desk. All that's left is what you see. It may be that the magazine is called On Rank.
My interest was drawn to the piece partly because I drove 5 Cavaliers in a row in the 1990s and, indeed, well into the 00s. Also I spent around 12 years of my life as a taxi driver - probably the most over-qualified taxi driver in the world, although you would not guess that from the traditional taxi drivers' willingness to wax lyrical on almost any subject in the world. Let us not forget also that some years ago it was a London taxi driver who won one of our popular high brow quizzes called Mastermind. His name was Fred Housego. Not wishing to boast but I doubt if Fred could have come even close to some of my in-cab performances. I particularly enjoyed slipping into deep technical discussion with bright young things from the universities who, after a cracking night out, thought it would be great fun to show off their philosophical knowledge to the taxi driver. Big mistake! I won't bore you with the macho stuff but if you doubt my credentials then just pop over to my philosophical blog to satisfy yourself that I kid you not. It was particularly good fun when some cocky lad tried showing off by being an anorak in front of his girlfriend. I have grown quite rich on tips given me by gorgeous girls for putting their men in their places. Ha Ha.
I digress. My interest in the subject of speeding concerns the crime we are supposed to have committed by driving at some "terrifying" speed through the streets of our fair land. Forgive my naive ignorance but I always thought that you were supposed to have done something wrong in order to have broken the law. Apparently not. So we now have a situation in which it is illegal to drive at 31 mph in a 30 limit zone. My problems are as follows: Is it immoral to do so? I think not. Is it harmful to other people? I think not. Is it unjust. No. No. No. So why do people have to pay large sums of money when they are caught doing it? We all know examples of people who have been caught in, frankly, stupid situations - a midwife at 5am on her way to an urgent delivery but doing 31 mph through a speed camera, for example. What crime did she commit? The answer is that she didn't. So why is she fined and her license endorsed? More to the point why do people put up with this kind of dictatorship?
I think I know the answer. It is that very few people think for themselves. Mostly they come across other people's ideas and just agree with them because they seem reasonable. Bad idea. That makes us easy prey to... wait for it... people with an agenda!!! Oh no!
And the particular agenda we have fallen prey to here is the red flag brigade. They first made their appearance around 1865 when they managed to get the British parliament to pass The Locomotive Act which required a man to walk in front of a mechanically propelled vehicle waving a red flag. The speed limit was set at 4 mph in the countryside and 2 mph in the towns. It was 31 years before this rule was abolished and the speed limit set at 14 mph.
The main reason this legislation was introduced was because of self interest in the railways. What a coincidence. Nowadays we see government has a clearly enunciated bias toward public transport, including the railways.
Another reason given is that it is inherently dangerous (unlike trains which are held in place by rails and, of course, never crash.) It was so nice to hear government chappies bragging about how fast the new Eurolink trains travel! Nothing wrong with doing 140mph. Nothing at all.
Our illustrious police force who seem to dislike anyone other than policemen traveling fast in motor cars tell us "It's 30 for a reason" and the reason given is that you are more likely to kill someone if you are traveling at 40 mph and collide with them. They say you can prove anything with statistics and, if you are a spin doctor, that is exactly what you do. Think for a moment about the statistics of progressions and you will discover the lie and propaganda in all of this. Of course as you go slower the damage you do will go down, right down until you hit zero. Conclusion - the safest speed to travel at is 0 mph. And it always will be. What a gift. An argument for all occasions. Anyone who is moving is more dangerous than anyone who is still. So lets get 'em off the road. Nasty motor cars!
What is so sad is that the motoring organisations do nothing to fight back. The truth is that if you gave this stuff to your own spin doctors they could have a field day. It's just like the global warming argument. You feel so guilty about the damage you have done to the planet that you do everything possible to cut down on your use of heating, waste etc and as a result you save enough money to treat yourself to a nice holiday. Off you go on a shiny silver jet, feeling very smug, not caring that the jet alone has used twice the carbon monoxide that you saved in a year. Sigh.
So what kind of fight back could we mount. Well, did you know that all slowing down means that the volume of traffic on the roads goes up - that's a statistical fact. So the government's true policy is to increase congestion. Every detour around town means more miles - which is more pollution. Every time you stop at a traffic light you increase the time on the road and your carbon emissions by stopping and starting. Pulling away is the worst thing you can do to increase pollution. Driving smoothly without hindrance is the best. Oh yes, my favourite. The car most likely to have an accident is the slowest one because that car has a load of drivers bunched up behind him trying to get round him and getting bad tempered. The safest car is the fastest one - he's out in front with no one near him to bump into.
To return to the speeding issue. Obviously there are speeds that are inherently dangerous. No one would argue that it was morally neutral to drive at 100 mph in a town. But most speeding motorists are not doing anything wrong when they break the speed limit. It is the law that is wrong. Speeding should be used as evidence of a crime, not a crime in its own right. So, if you have an accident speeding should be taken into account. If nothing has happened, then you should not be penalised. That seems to me to be a more just way of administering the law.
Pierre
Tags: cavalier taxi Fred Housego Mastermind philosophical anorak speeding crime immoral harmful unjust dictatorship agenda red flag railways public transport Eurolink police kill propaganda statistics traffic pollution spin doctor congestion global warming
My interest was drawn to the piece partly because I drove 5 Cavaliers in a row in the 1990s and, indeed, well into the 00s. Also I spent around 12 years of my life as a taxi driver - probably the most over-qualified taxi driver in the world, although you would not guess that from the traditional taxi drivers' willingness to wax lyrical on almost any subject in the world. Let us not forget also that some years ago it was a London taxi driver who won one of our popular high brow quizzes called Mastermind. His name was Fred Housego. Not wishing to boast but I doubt if Fred could have come even close to some of my in-cab performances. I particularly enjoyed slipping into deep technical discussion with bright young things from the universities who, after a cracking night out, thought it would be great fun to show off their philosophical knowledge to the taxi driver. Big mistake! I won't bore you with the macho stuff but if you doubt my credentials then just pop over to my philosophical blog to satisfy yourself that I kid you not. It was particularly good fun when some cocky lad tried showing off by being an anorak in front of his girlfriend. I have grown quite rich on tips given me by gorgeous girls for putting their men in their places. Ha Ha.
I digress. My interest in the subject of speeding concerns the crime we are supposed to have committed by driving at some "terrifying" speed through the streets of our fair land. Forgive my naive ignorance but I always thought that you were supposed to have done something wrong in order to have broken the law. Apparently not. So we now have a situation in which it is illegal to drive at 31 mph in a 30 limit zone. My problems are as follows: Is it immoral to do so? I think not. Is it harmful to other people? I think not. Is it unjust. No. No. No. So why do people have to pay large sums of money when they are caught doing it? We all know examples of people who have been caught in, frankly, stupid situations - a midwife at 5am on her way to an urgent delivery but doing 31 mph through a speed camera, for example. What crime did she commit? The answer is that she didn't. So why is she fined and her license endorsed? More to the point why do people put up with this kind of dictatorship?
I think I know the answer. It is that very few people think for themselves. Mostly they come across other people's ideas and just agree with them because they seem reasonable. Bad idea. That makes us easy prey to... wait for it... people with an agenda!!! Oh no!
And the particular agenda we have fallen prey to here is the red flag brigade. They first made their appearance around 1865 when they managed to get the British parliament to pass The Locomotive Act which required a man to walk in front of a mechanically propelled vehicle waving a red flag. The speed limit was set at 4 mph in the countryside and 2 mph in the towns. It was 31 years before this rule was abolished and the speed limit set at 14 mph.
The main reason this legislation was introduced was because of self interest in the railways. What a coincidence. Nowadays we see government has a clearly enunciated bias toward public transport, including the railways.
Another reason given is that it is inherently dangerous (unlike trains which are held in place by rails and, of course, never crash.) It was so nice to hear government chappies bragging about how fast the new Eurolink trains travel! Nothing wrong with doing 140mph. Nothing at all.
Our illustrious police force who seem to dislike anyone other than policemen traveling fast in motor cars tell us "It's 30 for a reason" and the reason given is that you are more likely to kill someone if you are traveling at 40 mph and collide with them. They say you can prove anything with statistics and, if you are a spin doctor, that is exactly what you do. Think for a moment about the statistics of progressions and you will discover the lie and propaganda in all of this. Of course as you go slower the damage you do will go down, right down until you hit zero. Conclusion - the safest speed to travel at is 0 mph. And it always will be. What a gift. An argument for all occasions. Anyone who is moving is more dangerous than anyone who is still. So lets get 'em off the road. Nasty motor cars!
What is so sad is that the motoring organisations do nothing to fight back. The truth is that if you gave this stuff to your own spin doctors they could have a field day. It's just like the global warming argument. You feel so guilty about the damage you have done to the planet that you do everything possible to cut down on your use of heating, waste etc and as a result you save enough money to treat yourself to a nice holiday. Off you go on a shiny silver jet, feeling very smug, not caring that the jet alone has used twice the carbon monoxide that you saved in a year. Sigh.
So what kind of fight back could we mount. Well, did you know that all slowing down means that the volume of traffic on the roads goes up - that's a statistical fact. So the government's true policy is to increase congestion. Every detour around town means more miles - which is more pollution. Every time you stop at a traffic light you increase the time on the road and your carbon emissions by stopping and starting. Pulling away is the worst thing you can do to increase pollution. Driving smoothly without hindrance is the best. Oh yes, my favourite. The car most likely to have an accident is the slowest one because that car has a load of drivers bunched up behind him trying to get round him and getting bad tempered. The safest car is the fastest one - he's out in front with no one near him to bump into.
To return to the speeding issue. Obviously there are speeds that are inherently dangerous. No one would argue that it was morally neutral to drive at 100 mph in a town. But most speeding motorists are not doing anything wrong when they break the speed limit. It is the law that is wrong. Speeding should be used as evidence of a crime, not a crime in its own right. So, if you have an accident speeding should be taken into account. If nothing has happened, then you should not be penalised. That seems to me to be a more just way of administering the law.
Pierre
Tags: cavalier taxi Fred Housego Mastermind philosophical anorak speeding crime immoral harmful unjust dictatorship agenda red flag railways public transport Eurolink police kill propaganda statistics traffic pollution spin doctor congestion global warming
