10MPH limits anyone?

[Las Palmas]

27 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Well therein lies the problem for many things, Linas. Certainly it's possible to have less corruption, as the Scandinavian countries seem to have little, along with one or two others.

However, is it solely a government problem, or a societal one? Politicians don't spring up from nowhere, they come from the society they represent; so do we live in a society that breeds more people who are prone to be dishonest/corrupt?

I certainly feel that we live in one where people appear to be more self interested than community focused. Some people want to drive at whatever speed they like, whilst others feel that to be unsafe; some want to ride bicycles unhindered on main roads, whilst others want nothing to slow their progess in a car; and some want (and do) park wherever they like, regardless of any inconvenience it might cause to others.

People want what they want, and are either not aware, or don't care about the impact, needs or wishes of others, who might want the opposite. There's no attempt to say how can I get what I want, whilst recognising and trying to accomodate the wishes of others who want something different. There's no attempt to compromise, just an attempt by each side to grab as much power as needed to get what they want, even if it's at the expense of others.

This seems to be the culture we live in and, in such an environment, politicians are driven to appeal to those groups with wants, in order to gain votes. Doing so then gives them disproportionate power, which they can then abuse, because their supporters tolerate it in return for getting their needs met.

So yes, we could have honest, non corrupt political leaders, but it wont come from revolution, resistance or protest; in fact the answer is simpler than that. Instead it will come from us choosing our leaders based on their honesty, integrity and genuine desire to try and do what's best for everyone, even if that means we won't always get what we want; instead of voting for those who simply promise to give us what we want.

Democracy isn't simply about meeting the needs of those with the loudest voice, or the most votes, it's about serving everyone as best as possible. That requires compromise and therefore sacrifice, not from politicians, but from those who vote them in. Until we realise and accept that, and that we're part of a community,where others needs are as important as our own, then we'll continue to get the politicians we ask for and deserve.

Do not think that people in UK are worse or much different to people other places in the world, but when some countries seem to have less corruption (the Scandinavian ones) it probably is because they go quieter about it.

Would be great if politicians were honest and doing what is best for the country, but humans are more likely to look after themselves than after other people.

Revolution is just chaos and lead nowhere. They had one in France and look at the former president going to jail, for maybe not being honest.

Honest people are a minority.

[Linas.P]

I wrote like 5 different drafts of the comment and ever single one was way too long and philosophical. It is interesting discussion, even if not exactly related to the topic, but you probably right - the problem lies deeper, we as society have never been free before and it just cannot be expected for people to care for each other. 

For last ~100 years we were on the journey to more democratic country, but in last few decades it seems like 1 step forward and 2 steps back. Seems like we losing it recently, but it is constant fight... "freedom is not free" and I guess that goes back to my point - seems like people in charge are now putting a lot of deception, pointless reasons to fight about.. divide and rule. And obviously, in society where everyone looks for themselses it is much easier to create divisions.

 

[Bluemarlin]

3 hours ago, Las Palmas said:

Do not think that people in UK are worse or much different to people other places in the world, but when some countries seem to have less corruption (the Scandinavian ones) it probably is because they go quieter about it.

 

Perhaps not worse John, but certainly there are differences across countries and cultures. For example, when I did business with American companies, I had to check the contracts line by line, as there was always a clause that could trap you, and they wouldn't heiistate to use it if the situation arose. They saw nothing wrong with getting one up on the other person, as though it was all a battle, and you could only be a winner if there was a loser. On the other hand, with Miiddle Eastern businesses it often needed barely more than handshake, as both parties understood the spirit of the deal,  and would honour that with the goal of mutual co-operation and win/win.

Trump was right about one thing, he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and his supporters would still vote for him, as long as he gave them what they wanted. We're not as bad as that, but there's a spectrum, and some countries are further along it than others.

I don't know if Scandinavians hide it better, but I do know that they trust their politicians and leaders more than we do. In some of their countries they don't even have a government imposed minimum wage. Workers and bosses trust each other enough to feel that neither side will rip the other off, and they negotiate settlements that work for both parties. I don't know if their approach, culture or attitudes are better, but they usually appear towards the top of wordwide happiness tables.

I don't know, I'm a little more optimistic about human nature. Just look at those gofundme type sites, where people receive money from complete strangers when disaster strikes. Often it's even the poorest people who are donating. So, I don't think people are inherently selfish and dishonest, I just think that honesty is poorly rewarded compared to dishonesty, and so people aren't incentivised to co-operate and act as a community.

[Linas.P]

53 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

I don't know, I'm a little more optimistic about human nature. Just look at those gofundme type sites

US is really really outdated and has sort of third world mentality, another country with such culture is China... it is considered that "fooling the fool" is almost like a good thing. Regarding the Trump it is true - again country is split along party lines and they would tolerate literally anything as long as they get the decision they want, they don't even care how it is achieved. Trump has been literally charged for sexual assault couple of weeks ago and I just can't understand how person like this could even run for president... it is truly beyond me. So he would not be able to get work anywhere now (he isn't like on s*x offenders list, but still... probably should be), but apparently there are no safeguard whatsoever who can stand for election?!

Scandinavians definitely have corruption, but it is more "reasonable", that is - they know what they need to do to make country prosperous and then whatever is left they as well misappropriate, but the don't get to the level like we in UK where people can't afford homes, can't afford travel, can't even afford food... yet BP and Shell can still profit £50bn just in first quarter of the year... or NHS track app can misappropriate £20bn for for app which doesn't work and everyone is off-the hook. And by the way I would be fine with some level of corruption - as long as country is prosperous, roads are in good condition, NHS is functioning, housing is affordable etc. I really do not care if somebody awards the contract to their cousin or wife. But when we get to the point when only safe speed is 10MPH, because on one hand roads are just ruined, on other hand it is convenient, because government loses so much fund due to corruption that it needs to plug the holes from speeding fines. At this point I think is crossing the line where some harsh punishment for corruption is in order...  

I am not sure about gofundme being an example of "optimism", there are many examples of fraud where people pretend to have cancer or something and take money from people poorer than them. 

[Las Palmas]

44 minutes ago, Bluemarlin said:

Perhaps not worse John, but certainly there are differences across countries and cultures. For example, when I did business with American companies, I had to check the contracts line by line, as there was always a clause that could trap you, and they wouldn't heiistate to use it if the situation arose. They saw nothing wrong with getting one up on the other person, as though it was all a battle, and you could only be a winner if there was a loser. On the other hand, with Miiddle Eastern businesses it often needed barely more than handshake, as both parties understood the spirit of the deal,  and would honour that with the goal of mutual co-operation and win/win.

Trump was right about one thing, he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and his supporters would still vote for him, as long as he gave them what they wanted. We're not as bad as that, but there's a spectrum, and some countries are further along it than others.

I don't know if Scandinavians hide it better, but I do know that they trust their politicians and leaders more than we do. In some of their countries they don't even have a government imposed minimum wage. Workers and bosses trust each other enough to feel that neither side will rip the other off, and they negotiate settlements that work for both parties. I don't know if their approach, culture or attitudes are better, but they usually appear towards the top of wordwide happiness tables.

I don't know, I'm a little more optimistic about human nature. Just look at those gofundme type sites, where people receive money from complete strangers when disaster strikes. Often it's even the poorest people who are donating. So, I don't think people are inherently selfish and dishonest, I just think that honesty is poorly rewarded compared to dishonesty, and so people aren't incentivised to co-operate and act as a community.

I am from Denmark, most of family and friends think that politicians mean something till they change their minds and that is mostly because they believe there are more votes to get from their new ideas. I was in Norway when people were voting about joining the EU and though the politicians were mostly for joining, the outcome was a rejection.

As you say, most good people are to be found among those that have little. Otherwise, no country would burn corn to make electricity and keep price up, when people other places in the world were dying from hunger.

Democracy is a good idea, unfortunately is intelligence of voters nothing to be proud about.

[Las Palmas]

17 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

US is really really outdated and has sort of third world mentality, another country with such culture is China... it is considered that "fooling the fool" is almost like a good thing. Regarding the Trump it is true - again country is split along party lines and they would tolerate literally anything as long as they get the decision they want, they don't even care how it is achieved. Trump has been literally charged for sexual assault couple of weeks ago and I just can't understand how person like this could even run for president... it is truly beyond me. So he would not be able to get work anywhere now (he isn't like on s*x offenders list, but still... probably should be), but apparently there are no safeguard whatsoever who can stand for election?!

Scandinavians definitely have corruption, but it is more "reasonable", that is - they know what they need to do to make country prosperous and then whatever is left they as well misappropriate, but the don't get to the level like we in UK where people can't afford homes, can't afford travel, can't even afford food... yet BP and Shell can still profit £50bn just in first quarter of the year... or MHS track app can misappropriate £20bn for for app which doesn't work and everyone is off-the hook. And by the way I would be fine with some level of corruption - as long as country is prosperous, roads are in good condition, NHS is functioning, housing is affordable etc. I really do not care if somebody awards the contract to their cousin or wife. But when we get to the point when only safe speed is 10MPH, because on one hand roads are just ruined, on other hand it is convenient, because government loses so much fund due to corruption that it needs to plug the holes from speeding fines. At this point I think is crossing the line where some harsh punishment for corruption is in order...  

I am not sure about gofundme being an example of "optimism", there are many examples of fraud where people pretend to have cancer or something and take money from people poorer than them. 

Had you not mentioned your speed limit issue I would have agreed with you completely.

[Linas.P]

4 minutes ago, Las Palmas said:

Had you not mentioned your speed limit issue I would have agreed with you completely.

The 10MPH example is maybe little bit exaggerated, but it is certainly related...

As discussed previously, speed reduction is alternative to road improvements or even maintenance, but if the goal is to extract money from motorists, then improving the road is not desirable... actually it is better to leave it to crumble and introducing increasingly unacceptable limits and then blame drivers for not following them. 

There is actually one much more relevant example and very common in UK. So called "smart"-motorways, I think the plans to make them have been frozen or about to be frozen, but many roads were converted and already operates like this. And by the way the part of using emergency stopping lane is what is being frozen/reversed... yet they haven't said anything about "variable speed limits"... and this is not some sort of mistake... they keeping variable limits, because they are absolute cash cow. And for those that don't know (don't live in UK)... variable limit means that you could get full fine and 3 point on the license even when driving at the normal speed e.g. 60 or 70 MPH on motorway... because those limits can go as low as 20MPH (although usually they don't go below 40). And I have been on empty motorway at night many times with this stupid variable limit in place for no reason for miles. Literally driving at 40MPH for 20 miles for no reason... and if you drive at 70MPH then you will pretty much going to get done for dangerous driving, 9 points if not outright ban, £1000+ fine etc. It is treated exactly the same as if you actually would be speeding by 30MPH! And this is exactly the type of measure we discussing here... it is the case of not making the road suitable for purpose (i.e. not wide enough, not enough lanes), then arbitrarily reducing speed way below what would be deemed reasonable, as such making compliance poor and then raking just ridiculous profits, from motorists who I would not consider were even speeding e.g. I do not consider somebody driving on 70MPH motorway at 60MPH speeding... even if suddenly variable limit goes to 40MPH.

And by the way they use extremely scummy tactics on these variable limits. I have seen multiple limes where you go past 10 gantries saying 60MPH, then on random gantry says 50MPH and then next one is back to 60MPH. As you can imagine as you coming towards speed limit you look at what speed is displayed, maybe for 2, 3 gantries and then just driving at that speed... nobody is expecting that there will be one short section somewhere with slower speed, as well 50 looks awfully similar to 60, especially if you not absolutely check every single gantry. And I know it sound like excuse, but this is just reality... when you go past dozen signs saying it is 60, you just do not expect one to suddenly be 50... and they playing on that exactly. And as well this is very relevant to what I said earlier - speed cameras and speed limits should only exist to make roads safer... but tell me honestly, what do you think is safer 1. actually looking at the road in front of you or 2. constantly looking at he gantries above your head just in case speed suddenly changes or there is one odd gantry showing 10MPH less? I would argue variable limits makes roads more dangerous. So no only they don't make roads safer, not only they are just "policing for money", but I would argue they make roads less safe... and since when this is alright?

[Las Palmas]

28 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

The 10MPH example is maybe little bit exaggerated, but it is certainly related...

As discussed previously, speed reduction is alternative to road improvements or even maintenance, but if the goal is to extract money from motorists, then improving the road is not desirable... actually it is better to leave it to crumble and introducing increasingly unacceptable limits and then blame drivers for not following them. 

There is actually one much more relevant example and very common in UK. So called "smart"-motorways, I think the plans to make them have been frozen or about to be frozen, but many roads were converted and already operates like this. And by the way the part of using emergency stopping lane is what is being frozen/reversed... yet they haven't said anything about "variable speed limits"... and this is not some sort of mistake... they keeping variable limits, because they are absolute cash cow. And for those that don't know (don't live in UK)... variable limit means that you could get full fine and 3 point on the license even when driving at the normal speed e.g. 60 or 70 MPH on motorway... because those limits can go as low as 20MPH (although usually they don't go below 40). And I have been on empty motorway at night many times with this stupid variable limit in place for no reason for miles. Literally driving at 40MPH for 20 miles for no reason... and if you drive at 70MPH then you will pretty much going to get done for dangerous driving, 9 points if not outright ban, £1000+ fine etc. It is treated exactly the same as if you actually would be speeding by 30MPH! And this is exactly the type of measure we discussing here... it is the case of not making the road suitable for purpose (i.e. not wide enough, not enough lanes), then arbitrarily reducing speed way below what would be deemed reasonable, as such making compliance poor and then raking just ridiculous profits, from motorists who I would not consider were even speeding e.g. I do not consider somebody driving on 70MPH motorway at 60MPH speeding... even if suddenly variable limit goes to 40MPH.

And by the way they use extremely scummy tactics on these variable limits. I have seen multiple limes where you go past 10 gantries saying 60MPH, then on random gantry says 50MPH and then next one is back to 60MPH. As you can imagine as you coming towards speed limit you look at what speed is displayed, maybe for 2, 3 gantries and then just driving at that speed... nobody is expecting that there will be one short section somewhere with slower speed, as well 50 looks awfully similar to 60, especially if you not absolutely check every single gantry. And I know it sound like excuse, but this is just reality... when you go past dozen signs saying it is 60, you just do not expect one to suddenly be 50... and they playing on that exactly. And as well this is very relevant to what I said earlier - speed cameras and speed limits should only exist to make roads safer... but tell me honestly, what do you think is safer 1. actually looking at the road in front of you or 2. constantly looking at he gantries above your head just in case speed suddenly changes or there is one odd gantry showing 10MPH less? I would argue variable limits makes roads more dangerous. So no only they don't make roads safer, not only they are just "policing for money", but I would argue they make roads less safe... and since when this is alright?

Never heard about variable speed limits and reading what you write makes me happy to be where I am. Not that I ever would want to be in UK for more than a couple of hours as the only 2 times I have been there it was raining and windy. Less appealing than even Denmark on the west coast where it is always windy.

[Bluemarlin]

19 hours ago, Las Palmas said:

Never heard about variable speed limits and reading what you write makes me happy to be where I am. Not that I ever would want to be in UK for more than a couple of hours as the only 2 times I have been there it was raining and windy. Less appealing than even Denmark on the west coast where it is always windy.

Variable speed limits are less about safety and more about traffic flow. For example, on a busy motorway like the M25, it makes no sense for traffic to travel along at 70 mph, only to then hit a traffic jam and have to crawl along at 5 mph for several miles.

On what might seem like a relatively free flowing motorway, one person hitting their brakes can have a knock on effect that results in a traffic jam some way behind it; so it's better to slow the approching traffic and spread them out, than let them all rush into a jam at 70 mph, thus making it bigger. Variable speed limits are based on looking ahead at flow, and then calculating what speed would allow the most cars through a particular stretch, whilst maintaining a constant speed. As such, temporarily slowing things down to 60, or even 50, keeps things moving and prevents everyone from grinding to a halt.

That's the theory anyway. Of course it's not perfect, and doesn't always work as planned, but that's probably down to operator error or the algorithms, rather than malice. In truth, it's better for both the road operators and motorists to move as many cars as possible over a given distance, and my experience is that it mostly works ok.

Of course the problem is that because it's looking ahead, and attempting to head off anticipated problems, to the motorist it can sometimes appear pointless, as all they see is free flowing traffic and not the slowing down that might be occuring a couple of miles ahead. As such, opinions vary, based on one's emotional make up. I'm fairly unemotional, and so can see the intention and the logical benefits, whilst accepting that nothing's perfect and won't always work.  I know others though, who get annoyed by it, and take it personally that they have to slow down for no apparent reason.

[Linas.P]

On 5/23/2023 at 3:41 PM, Bluemarlin said:

That's the theory anyway.

I think that pretty much sums it-up!

I often see traffic jams on the other side and they always are in the section with reduced limit... obviously this would be just conspiracy, but it seems variable speed causes more jams than they solve from my observation. Most of the time when the traffic occurs on unlimited stretch I can see cars slowing down to maybe 60MPH... but when there are variable limit of say 50MPH, often the actual speed drops to literally 10MPH.

Again - I agree that in theory they suppose to smooth out the traffic and make roads more efficient... but this does not explain why they are often used on empty motorways at night or for ghost roadworks which are not there. Likewise I don't think breaking variable-limit should be treated the same as breaking THE limit. Then there is as well issue of having to constantly monitor variable limit... because well it is VARIABLE... so you concentrating less on driving and more on checking every gantry as limit can literally change from one gantry to another every 400m or whatever. 

Then there I think we should recognise that there are different ways of making motorways to flow better and as it happens variable speed is least efficient way which generates most money. For example enforcing strict lane discipline and allowing unlimited speed could improve the flow as well. Because in theory the higher is the speed, the higher is the throughput of the road.

If anything variable speed limit seems to be curing only the symptoms and not the problem - the problem is that 1. road capacity is not sufficient, we simply need more and wider roads with more lanes or 2. the layout is not optimised e.g. constantly going between 3 and 4 lanes is less efficient than constantly having just 3 lanes , multi level free flowing crossings should be used instead of roundabouts with traffic lights etc. or 3. there is no discipline on the road so middle and outside lanes get hogged by slow moving traffic which refuses to move over and allow faster traffic to overtake.

As well the whole theory about variable limits is kind of flawed, because not only it does not address actual issue of why there is traffic jam in the first place, but as well slower moving traffic reduces road capacity not increases it. Besides all the calculation is as well wrong, because algorithm assumes drivers actually keeps the distance... they don't. Like it or hate it, but cars in outside lane already moving at 90MPH bumper to bumper, so it may be dangerous, but is it already most efficient way... The whole theory that by reducing the limit, you can reduce the gap between cars and increase capacity is simply wrong... so there is nothing to gain by making same cars drive bumper to bumper just at 50MPH... it doesn't smooth anything out, it just slows everyone down. And as well algorithm assumes cars are driving at 70MPH... which they are not. It was a while since the actual speed on motorways was measured, but if my memory servers in 2016 80 percentile speed was 86MPH (that is actual, so indicated was over 90).

As well road are not parking lots, the point of the road is to allow the cars to go from A to B FAST and not to slow down traffic so much that cars could be as close as possible to each other, there is no utility in motorway if you can't drive at 90MPH on it.

But it all comes down to all the points we already discussed and actually I think it is evidence of what I was saying... making roads good costs money, making everyone drive artificially slow and fining them for not following retarded speed limits actually makes money. So no imagine you are some sort of minister ... what are you going to do 1. make entire M25 to be 5 lanes wide consistently and upgrade all the junctions to be as free flowing as possible and allow 90MPH limit for the cost of £100bn or 2. introduce variable limits for something like £170 million (this is just the cost of speed cameras and electronic signs) which makes the road borderline useless 22/24h per day and as bonus get ~£140 million income from fines every year. The conversions to "smart" motorway already paid itself off on M25 within just over a year. What I am trying to say - there is no motivation for actually making the roads good! Why make it good if that loses you millions of £ in income?