Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 15:47

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 08:50 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 01:48
Posts: 526
Location: Netherlands
Some posts (or parts of posts) are brilliant, either because of the eloquent manner in which they are written, the clever way in which a (sometimes complex) idea is conveyed, or because it is humorous yet relevant.

How about referring to your favourites here, perhaps with a link, then these gems will be easy to find, and not just be absorbed into general mass of the growing discussion group?

I also see no reason why quotes, references and links to other discussion groups and other sources could not be included too, as long as they are relevant to this discussion group.

[Moderator, feel free to move this post if there is somewhere more appropriate].


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2004 09:05 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 01:48
Posts: 526
Location: Netherlands
This is excellent:

Page 4 of Speed, Safety & the Law / BIBs get big grother first

quote:
arthurdent wrote:


basingwerk wrote:
arthurdent wrote:
Incidentally I think that the 'black box' transmitters have the potential to clarify considerably the accident causation picture. Provided these are tested on a sufficiently large and representative sample of the driving population, they could reveal the true relationship between 'bending the speed limit' and insurance risk, and hopefully and more importantly - the KSIs. This will be part of the data that we are missing now, I hope


I sincerely hope that they do, although I feel that drivers with lower average speeds will come off with lower risks. I know the 'time and circumstances' arguments are persuasive, but, as well as individual cases, the limits are also a political device to reduce average speeds and increase average safety, and that does not come across on this web site. Only time will tell.
Slower average speeds with reference to what? The speed limit? Or the average speed of traffic flow? Crash risk is elevated for both the fastest and the slowest in the driver population, presumably because they are the ones that encounter each other in an overtaking situation most often (or it could be something entirely different but we needn't necessarily know the real reason to draw conclusions from this speed-crashrisk relationship). Speed limits do serve a useful purpose and SS does not say otherwise. It would be foolish not to accept that a large margin over the speed limit is also very likely to be excessively fast for even ideal conditions. Excessive speed limit violations should not be tolerated and this is one of the reasons why sensible speed limits and sensible enforcement are needed. Convictions and fines for marginal speeding are unfair and more to the point they have unintended consequences that possibly negate any benefit. That is how this web site comes across to me.
Cheers
ad


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:01 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 01:48
Posts: 526
Location: Netherlands
Having followed the "12mph" debate, I am rather surprised that some people seem to miss the most important point of the argument.
So I rather like this comment in the "Anonymous submissions / they're at it again" thread, posted 16-Sep-2004 by SafeSpeed.

SafeSpeed wrote:
The page in question is:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/12mph.html

It uses a reasonable method to indicate that there is a disparity (worth at least several orders of magnitude in terms of injury severity) between free travelling speed and crash delta v. This disparity is largely the result of "road user response". Road user response is our most precious road safety asset. Anyone who denigrates the page runs the risk of squandering our most precious road safety asset.

The real crime is that those in charge of road safety presently don't even realise that road user response is an asset, let alone a precious one that must be managed.

Feel free to snipe all you like. If you can find anything wrong with the 12mph page I'll correct it. But you'll have to take the trouble to understand it first.
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Founder of the Safe Speed Campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2004 11:22 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Supertramp,

This is an excellent idea - thanks.

I've moved the topic here and I'll be very pleased if anyone wishes to highlight important, interesting or critical issues by adding to the thread.

I have also made it a "sticky", so it won't drop down the list as it ages.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:47 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 01:48
Posts: 526
Location: Netherlands
Risks et al, brilliantly put into perspective here, nice one Paul!
Link >> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... &start=150 (halfway down page) Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 6:14 pm

SafeSpeed wrote:
basingwerk wrote:
I don't think there is anybody who could deny that driving in excess of 70 on a motorway is dangerous.


All travel is dangerous. At least it is compared with staying in bed.

The point here, of course, is to try to determine if 71mph is more dangerous than 69mph. If one takes a purely mechanistic view of the world, it is obvious that 71mph is more dangerous than 69mph simply because there is more kinetic energy in the system.

But road safety is not even remotely a mechanical system. We don't get crashes when the system breaks mechanically. We do get crashes when people make mistakes. If we give people good information and good training, if we give them responsibility for their own safety then they will perform better and make fewer mistakes.

If we take away responsibility and give them false and distorted messages we should expect them to make more mistakes.

The difference between 69mph and 71mph becomes completely irrelevant - instead we should be concerned with attitudes and responsibilities.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 23:20 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 01:48
Posts: 526
Location: Netherlands
Rigpig, I think this is a great post which makes an excellent point...
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 2&start=30 (you have to scroll down a fair bit if you follow the link)
Here's the text:

Rigpig wrote:
I'm actually quite intrigued by the emergence of the concept of 'luck' in this thread. I believe that this is the way many people who are involved in incidents look at it, a matter of bad luck.
Even the use of the word 'accident' attracts the insinuation of an element of misfortune in the event; "That's why they are called accidents" I once saw written in a newspaper letter.
IMHO, categorising motor vehicle incidents in this way represents a 'societal acceptance' of the inevitability that circumstances will periodically conspire to create a crash and that drivers themselves are just unlucky if they happen to be involved. I recall very well the time I was rear-ended by a van driver on the A1 and the driver's point blank refusal to accept that, had he left a larger gap betwen us, it could have been avoided. Even the witnesses who stopped to check all was OK, shrugged and put it down to 'one of those things that happens'.
Countering this blithe acceptance of 'bad luck' as a factor in motor vehicle incidents msut sit somewhere high on the list of 'things to be corrected' in the minds of the motoring public.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 22:55 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 01:48
Posts: 526
Location: Netherlands
Two top class funnies, well done guys...

I agree with Colinjg, brilliant one-liner, Serge:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1661
Colinjg wrote:
Serge wrote:
They do employ parking wardens with brain cells, it just depends on which one's using it at the time.


:lol: The award for the funniest post of the day. I almost split my sides laughing :lol:


And Gatsobait, excellent delivery :D
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... &start=135
Gatsobait wrote:
The pavements have always been alongside roads. Not just modern roads either. Wheeled transport goes back to biblical times, and I'm sure that pedestrians walked to one side or other of the cart tracks rather than constantly crossing in front of them. Except of course where Wimbledon station stood about 3000 years ago where I'm certain some twat was run down by a yak because he was paying too much attention to his copy of the Daily Papyrus. :twisted: Sorry, i digress. Point is roads do not chop through pavements, any more than they chop through other roads at junctions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 15:56 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:35
Posts: 92
Location: Midlands
I just wanted to post something on this thread because it seems like supertramp is the only one that uses it.

I have to agree with PeterE on this one, it's a strangely interesting thread but I have no idea what they're talking about.

PeterE wrote:
Peyote wrote:
I love the way arguments on this site are so involved and technical! :)

It would take me hours to figure out what you two are saying, but the simple fact that you seem to know the subject and can discourse in such detail is somehow comforting.

Maybe I need a break from C+! :lol:

Yes, it's like Sumo wrestling. You don't really understand it, but it's strangely soothing :|


Paul,

Is there any way of advertising this thread to all users as it does seem to have been overlooked somewhat.

_________________
If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 14:16 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 01:48
Posts: 526
Location: Netherlands
Serge wrote:
I just wanted to post something on this thread because it seems like supertramp is the only one that uses it.

Thanks, Serge (if you're still around!).

Ok next goodie:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3448

SafeSpeed wrote:
"It should be quite obvious to anyone who has examined the subject that strict speed limit compliance is a much lower safety priority than paying full attention to immediate hazards - yet in the distorted world of the speed camera the opposite is true."

I can't think of a good argument which a pro-camera person could use to refute this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 04:49 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
I was rather pleased with this that I wrote in reply to Vonhosen on Pistonheads:

Quote:
NEVER forget that the speed limit is just a proxy for the desired behaviour; NEVER let the importance of the proxy exceed the importance of the desired behaviour.

Keep your eye on the ball, never the referee.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.572s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]