Speeding fines, parking tickets: why do people complain when they know they're doing the wrong thing?

Oh right, simm – because there’s some objection to the change here on RiotACT, that doesn’t mean those who argree are wrong. If that’s your argument, then you seriously overestimate your own self-importance and that of all of us hee on RiotACT.

Hi Chewy – couldn’t resist quickly diving in :-). So tell me, what has all of your railing against this decision got you – other than a robust (and hopefully engaging) debate on here? You imply that those of us who accept the rationale behind this decision (and I explained my reasons for such acceptance) and not seeking an explanation from the government are some kind of compliant putty in the government’s hands (my words, not yours). By all means challenge me on the reasons that I accept this decision and I’ll reply (as we did for quite some time on another thread) – I honour and respect that. But please show me the same courtesy and respect my right to hold that opinion.

Grumpymark,
I stopped replying on the other thread because there really was no point in continuing. I would say that in my opinion you haven’t had to deal with government’s all that much due to your faith in their processes and decision making. Particularly around your belief that it’s the experts always making these types of decisions, that they have the right information and that they aren’t tainted by political/ideological influences.

Let’s take another much bigger debate going on this website at the moment, climate change. The federal government has many experts working and advising them in the area. So you must believe that their decisions are sound, following the expert advice to balance competing needs to benefit all Australians?

And I don’t actually think any posts here or elsewhere would change the government’s decisions but it’s fun to debate the issues. It allows everyone to see other people’s perspectives and hopefully learn something on occasion.

Chewy
Absolutely agree with your last paragraph 100%
However, one thing that really annoys me about you is the fact you regularly engage in non sequitur fallacy, and have so above – because IMHO there is a rationale for the authorities lowering the speed limit and see no reason to question it and choose to believe that that particular decision came from expert advice (again, it is a choice of belief I’m happy to make because in a warped ‘end justifies the means’ way, I accept the outcome even if experts were not involved), you assume I have unquestioning faith in EVERY govt decision and I accept that that decision maker ALWAYS listens to that expert advice. You push the non sequitur fallacy even further by stating that because of the foregoing, I believe that experts provide advice to the Feds on climate change and because of that I accept the Feds action (or in reality, inaction) on combating climate change. I think you know that I am an advocate for urgent action in the climate change arena – so you end conclusion is wrong. And you followed this path because I stated that I was happy to accept the new speed limit because at 40 kph I’ve got more time to stop in the event of an idiotic foolhardy pedestrian (of which there are numerous in that precinct) walking in front of my car.
In the words of Simone Elkeles – “Opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one but they think each others stink.“ Not quite true, because again Intotally agrre with your final paragraph.

Grumpymark,
If you want to talk about logical fallacies your entire support of the changed speed limit is an appeal to authority.

You literally have admitted that you have no evidence to support the change but still believe it’s a good thing regardless because you think the “experts” have decided.

That’s fine, it’s your opinion, but it’s still wrong.

Chewy,
Ummm no, my support of the changed speed limit is not an appeal to authority … it’s actually based on the laws of physics, which I’ve already given to you that shows that a car travelling at 40 needs less distance to stop than a car travelling at 60. But rather than acknowledging or disputing my facts (because you obviously can’t) you went off into a tirade that I HAD to support your (non-existent) push to liwer the speed limit further. So instead of berating, as mindless idiots kowtowing without question to every decision of an incompetent govt, those of us, who believe the decision to change the limit is reasonable, how about you provide factual evidence that the decision is wrong? How about you provide evidence to discredit the many studies that reducing speed limits in high pedestrian traffic areas results in less fatalities / trauma? You seem to want actual deaths and/or trauma in these areas before you will accept the speed limit change. How about you provide evidence that by being risk averse and wanting to avoid potential tragedy is wrong? Just because you have no respect for the ACT govt, doesn’t mean the rest of us have to rail against every decision they make, even when we think the decision is a fair one. Links to facts please, Chewy, not just your opprobrium, as a reason for us to change.

Grumpymark,
Now you’re back to “simple physics” again? Really.

So let’s make the speed limit 0km/hr. Physics says this is the safest. Why are you so opposed to road safety? The research clearly shows its safer.

The entire point is that you would need to justify why 40km/hr is the optimal speed that balances road functionality with safety which you’ve been unable to justify except with an appeal to authority that the “experts” made the decision.

And all I’ve asked for from the beginning of this discussion is the governments evidence to support the change. It’s up to you to provide the evidence for change in this area, not me. But you’ve already admitted that you don’t have that evidence so here we are.

If you can’t provide such evidence for the change in this area stop replying, the discussion won’t go anywhere like the other thread. Links to the evidence or go away.

Chewy, again you use opprobrium rather than fact.
As I said in my very first post on the matter of the speed limit being dropped from 40 kph to 60 kph and I quote “I for one am happy to sacrifice those 12 seconds, if it means I would not have to live with the consequences of accidentally killing or maiming a pedestrian (albeit because they were doing the wrong thing).” Those 12 seconds were the extra time it takes to travel that 400 metres at 40 kph instead of 60. And I was happy with that because at the lower speed I would travel 19 m less distance if I had to perform an emergency stop. Facts you didn’t dispute.
Please note the continual use of the pronoun “I”. Now you decided that I was not allowed to accept the government’s decision for the reason I outlined, because YOU don’t like it. Consequently I have to justify to YOU, MY reason for accepting it. You say “all I’ve asked for from the beginning of this discussion is the governments evidence to support the change” but that’s not true – you have demanded that I provide said evidence – “If you can’t provide such evidence for the change in this area …”. Why? So you can then let me have my opinion?
On another thread you posted “… it’s fun to debate the issues. It allows everyone to see other people’s perspectives and hopefully learn something on occasion.” Debate is about challenging other’s opinion – but not their right to hold them.
You don’t see or respect other’s opinions unless they accord with yours. So, no I am not going to continue to respond, but also, no, I will not change my acceptance of the decision to lower that limit.

Obviously you don’t follow the news of how things are in less regulated, or unregulated, countries. Some spoilt Westerners always expect the protections that regulation provides but whinge about any regulation on them personally. It doesn’t work like that and most of us realise this however we all have to put up with a whining minority.

Astro,
No one is talking about an unregulated system.

And having travelled to many countries with less heavy handed over the top regulation, their citizens are mostly more responsible, more self sufficient and enjoy greater individual freedoms.

Not sure why you think that is a bad thing?

No, they’re not talking about “an unregulated system” they’re talking about regulation that doesn’t impinge on what they want to do (e.g. drive at whatever speed they like) but regulation that protects them from the consequences of these actions. don’t think you can be serious about the impacts of a lack of regulation in other countries. We are seeing the impacts of this in countries torn apart by COVID. You really need to access the news a little more. The writer of this article makes the point well but the whinging continues.

“they’re talking about regulation that doesn’t impinge on what they want to do (e.g. drive at whatever speed they like) but regulation that protects them from the consequences of these actions.”

Can’t see many people who are suggesting anything like that. We are talking about not over regulating every facet of people’s lives to accommodate the lowest denominators of society.

And honestly, trying to use a once in a generation pandemic as evidence of the benefits of authoritarianism is plainly ridiculous. By your position countries like China would be beacons of good governance.

Perhaps you should access the news a little more to work out why that isn’t a good idea.

The foot-stamping and tanty-throwing over a simple reduction in speed limit in a built-up area from 60k to 40k is all the evidence you need. And, let me assure you, there is nothing ridiculous about COVID-19 and the impacts of not properly regulating a national health response are particularly unpleasant.

Astro,
No it’s not all the evidence I need, I prefer real evidence not strawmen and projection.

Also notice you ignored the point around Covid, so I’ll just take it that you’re onboard with the Chinese approach to governance and freedom. Look at how much their heavily regulated system has achieved.

Hmm and you haven’t explained why you’re so upset about a simple rule change, backed by evidence, which has already been posted on articles here, from 60 to 40, without carrying on about it (which is the point of this article).
Anti-China rants aren’t relevant at all in this context. Most Australians understand why we are applying public health regulations to keep the pandemic under control. Some will stamp their feet about having to wear masks, apparently, this also happened in the so-called “Spanish” influenza epidemic.

Astro,
Except as I’ve repeatedly shown, the changed speed limit hasn’t been backed by evidence. As I’ve asked others, provide a link showing the “evidence” in this area. It doesn’t exist.

And I wasn’t engaging in an anti China rant, just pointing out the ridiculousness of suggesting that heavy handed regulation was a good thing. It’s far more complex than that.

Actually Chewy, you haven’t shown “the changed speed limit hasn’t been backed by evidence”, you have opined that the evidence doesn’t exist simply because , others like myself, can’t give you a link to the ACT authorities reason for the decision. ”I can’t see it, therefore it does not exist” is yet snother example of your use of nob sequitur fallacy.

Grumpymark
Thanks for once again admitting that you don’t have the evidence for the change.

I don’t have to prove the null hypothesis, you have to provide the evidence for change. But we both know it hasn’t been provided, yet you still have faith because, um, hmmm…….experts…..

Physics obviously not your thing then? However you’re an expert in anti-China rants (pretty irrelevant in this context though).

Chewy14, Perhaps you could answer this simple question for me: Why do I have to provide evidence to YOU (or in fact anyone), to justify MY reason for accepting the lowered speed limit change?