Y Safle

In previous posts I have been reposting some correspondence I had with someone over issues of speeding. As we saw in the previous posts, the writer (MW) was relying on anecdotal evidence, rather than hard data to inform his views. For completeness, I recount below the remainder of my reply to MW, which dealt with speeding policy, sloganeering, some suggested solutions from me, and a bit about logic (MW claimed his logic was clear and sequential, which is why he numbered his propositions).

MW continued:
>4) Current thinking by the government is that lower speeds would reduce RTA mortality
> – why do you think they are conducting such extensive
> campaigns to get people to slow down, illustrating their argument with
> just this point?

My reply:

The government want to be seen to be doing something. They also do not
hold a consensus on “current thinking”. Indeed I note that current
thinking is very much divided on the role of speed limitation on reducing
mortality from road traffic accidents. There have clearly been benefits in
some locales from reducing speeds, but taken beyond what is sensible, the
results have been quite the opposite.

In 1995, Suffolk introduced 450 30mph limits on roads that were previously
60mph, since then the number of accidents has risen by an average of 51
per year, after falling by an average of 171 per year for the preceding
seven years.

You can see the statistics and the whole story at:

http://www.abd.org.uk/suffolk_accident_trends.htm

So no, there is no consensus of current thinking “that lower speeds would
reduce RTA mortality”. You are wrong on this too.

>>> 5) The
>>> current laws are not adequate to deal with the general attitude so
>>> clearly exemplified by some of the member of this group; that it is
>>> okay to speed because you’re such good drivers.

>> That argument is ad hominem. As far as I am aware, no such argument has
>> been proposed.

> There is nothing wrong with ad hominem argument, except in the rarefied
> world of Tractatus groupies. Most of political philosophy is ad hominem,
> just look at Hobbes, Locke, Marx et al, they reason through preference.

This is an irrelevant appeal to authority. It is as fallacious as the ad
hominem. It is also wrong. I have not read much Marx, but Hobbes and Locke
I have read and not noticed a strong tendency to ad hominem arguments from
either. There are certain assumptions in their work, but that is something
different. Locke sees property as something special, and the
non-propertied man somehow less than human (not his term of course). That
is a pragmatic assumption to make his philosophy work, and Locke is – of
course – one of the greatest philosophical pragmatists. However that does
not make his argument ad hominem unless he dismisses the logic of another
based on their lack of property (which to my knowledge he does not).

Now ad hominem arguments *are* fallacious, and if you do not agree with me
then all I can say is that your arguments are of no consequence to me
because your surname is Winters, and [anecdotally] everyone I ever met with that surname
was a simpleton! (:o)

And finally to your assertion that people who have disagreed with you over
speed humps and speed limiters think it is okay to speed: I think no such
thing. I have never said it is okay to speed and I don’t think it is. I
have never in my life had a speeding ticket, nor a single point on my
license, and I am a paid up member of the IAM. I agree with their policy
that speed limits are limits. I also have never had an accident.

But of course it is so much easier to cast aspersions at others rather
than deal with the issues. That is why the ad hominem argument is so
popular – because it is so much easier than actually thinking about the
issues under discussion.

> 6) Such culturally embedded attitudes require sterner measures to
> counter

You have not demonstrated a culturally embedded attitude. I also don’t
think that the law is the instrument of change for cultural attitudes –
it is education that is needed, which needs to treat people as though
they have the wherewithal to comprehend an issue beyond simplistic
sloganeering.

> In truth, we are approaching
> this from two differing philosophical standpoints. You seek empirical
> truth and logical reasoning. I’m offering deductive processes based upon
> witness testimony. A Posteriori if you like, given your fondness for
> archaic expressions.

Statistical data such as I have presented here *is* a posteriori. It is
based upon observation and is not deduced a priori. We may note that
scientists and statisticians are empiricists almost to a man. Thus it is a
posteriori propositions that are garnered to make sense of the world, and a
priori propositions are secondary, being analytic.

So no, our differences here do not come from some epistemological
distinction between rationalists and empiricists. The problem here is that
you are not thinking critically at all.

> 7) If you are prevented from speeding then the problem is partially
> solved

No, the problem is merely shifted. Treat the cause, not the symptoms.

> What were you saying about simplistic sloganeering? This is one of the
> best. Treat the cause, not the symptoms. Apply your logic to that. Where
> do you find cause?

In excessive use of the motor car, which leads to dependence on the same,
which makes it politically unacceptable to demand that motor vehicle use
might be limited to those who can consistently prove themselves competent
and safe to move said vehicles around.

We combat this by several measures:

1. Break dependence on motor vehicles by funding public transport,
changing planning laws to enable better designed communities with
amenities that do not require road trips, encourage alternative transport
means, discourage cars where they are problematic through road tolls and
orders etc.

2. Radically increase driver education, both for existing drivers and for
new drivers. Consider some level of testing that at least gets drivers
looking at the Highway Code! (How many drivers even know where their copy
is?!) A full driving retest at regular intervals would be good but
impractical all at once, so instead use driving schools for those who
commit traffic offences, and demand retesting for anyone who loses their
license. Life bans for driving should also be issued where drivers are
unwilling to improve their driving competence and attitudes.

I could go on, but you get the idea, I am sure.

> One of the problems with using semantically accurate deduction is the lack
> of any human quality. I know motorists, in general, drive too fast,
> because I have seen them. You would argue that because I have only seen
> black swans my logic is faulty in assuming that all swans are black.

I rather suspect you have only seen white swans, unless you live in Perth,
Western Australia.

If, based on your empirical observation that all swans you have seen are
white you then proceed to deduce that all swans are white, then yes – your
logic is faulty of course. However you may indeed *induce* the hypothesis
that all swans are white, which is an essential part of the scientific
method. I have no problem with that, but neither is it relevant here. On
discovery of the Black Swan River, you must abandon your hypothesis and
the faulty proposition. Likewise in the face of the evidence I have quoted
above, I invite you to abandon your faulty hypotheses in the message you
wrote previously.

> You
> don’t appear to understand that in some cases, deduction from observation
> is perfectly valid,

You are referring to induction. A hypothesis is an induction and its
validity is open to test. This is different from logical deduction and the
absolute validity or otherwise of a logical argument.

> Is there a better way to prevent
> speeding than to make the road unsuitable for fast driving?

Yes:

1. Better enforcement by the police. Use of Gatsos at accident
blackspots etc. and use of police traffic cars to keep a check on
driving standards.

2. Increase speed limits where they are clearly unsuitable, and then
rigorously enforce those limits (e.g. raise the motorway limit to 80).
This would be done alongside lowering limits in other areas.

3. More use of variable limits.

4. More rigorous road testing, including greater use of retesting and
training following traffic offences.

5. Greater education perhaps through positive encouragements to
undertake advanced driving courses.

6. A more well rounded debate in the media rather than repeated
sloganeering

> This is the voice of someone who does not understand marketing. At the
> risk of sounding patronising, you would only appeal to those of your
> intellectual standing and to be frank, you ain’t the problem.

Sloganeering panders to the myth that one is safe if, for instance, one is
not speeding. That is quite untrue and an example of why such sloganeering
is often counter productive. You will notice figures suggest that such
marketing campaigns have spectacularly failed to change attitudes.

Be Sociable, Share!

•