Safe Speed Forums

[quote="handy
lol. Guilty of what? Guilty of having read reams and reams of Paul's "work" and still not being convinced? Oh you DO make me laugh![/quote]

Perhaps guilty of reading ,but not understanding (or not willing to see the other side)-.Paul's work is borne out by those few areas that have a working traffic police department -and surprisingly enough the Area with LEAST CAMERAS (Durham) heads the UK safety list -
Road policing done by REAL POLICEMEN = increase in road safety,because these police officers catch the problem AT THE TIME IT WAS COMMITTED (not 14 days later ).Add to that ,dangerous ,under the speed limit ,driving /Drunk driving ,and a whole host of other offences where no breach of the speed limit had occurred -like no licence /insurance /vehicle in dangerous condition.
They might decide to prosecute ,but they will try to educate(Look at IG posts re acid lectures ) - anyone seen a "safety camera" that does that , or catch the offenders not above the speed limit .?
Thought Not


Of course we could put this in medical terms -
Patient falls down stairs , has pain in leg ,taken to hospital ,sees doctor ,gets leg X ray'd ,gets fracture set ,all in a short time .Patient on way to recovry .
In another country -Patient falls down stairs , has pain in leg ,taken to hospital ,sees Nurse ,gets leg X ray'd ,but hospital has not got facilities to develope -so sets leg ,just in case -patient asks "when will I know "- "oh about 14 days " was reply .In meantime ,patient has to wait ,to discover whether leg is fractured ,and if set correctly .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

I think the problem with congestion is getting a lot worse.
10 years ago I could drive from Brighton To home and see very few other vehicles on the road[s] (3 in the morning)
Now the m/ways are getting crowded with trucks, at three in the morning.
The daytime congestion is longer-lasting, instead of just a few hours each day it is now spread over 5+ hours, in two stacks !
of course, the price of fuel may lower congestion, but I think not. Over half the traffic in day is business related, and the traffic at night has got to be more than that...
I have already done the calcs.
Fuel would have to treble in price, along with a trebling of road tax and insurance, before the personal vehicle becomes more expensive than PT. Assuming that the cost of PT does not rise.
When that happens, I will just stop driving socially....but you can still insert PT into your rectum via the appropriate orifice...travelling with the previous days smell of vomit and urine doesn't do me a lot of good. And some people need serious assistance with their personal hygiene.
Just to be an ass, I'll also book foreign hols via a foreign agent.
This is a seriously sad country when all an elected government does is try to take your cash off, you to fund extra public servants to take your cash off you, to fund extra....ahhh...sh**
Next election I'll vote for an non-party-aligned candidate.....if someone is standing as an anti-green, they'll get my vote !

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

perhaps I could put it in other medical terms:

Idiot jumps off a wall and breaks his leg, it hurts a lot.
Idiot jumps off the wall again, breaks his leg again, it hurts a lot, possibly even more than the first time.
Idiot jumps off the wall for a third time, breaks the leg a third time, now it really hurts a lot.
Idiot jumps off the wall a fourth time, breaks the leg, this time the leg will have to be amputated.

Of course, had s/he been less of an idiot, they might have realised after the first time that jumping off a wall and breaking their leg hurt, so perhaps they had better not do it again.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

But it doesn't apply to pedestrians does it handy?

Sweet dreams

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

It's all getting very clever the way we are talking about speeding/scameras without even mentioning them now, isn't it Anyway... to be more accurate Handy, try this

Average person walking safely along a footpath... some **** stabs him in the leg... it hurts a lot, person can't believe it but thinks better of retaliating as this other guy has a knife and could do a lot more damage than has already been done. "Better be more careful when on that part of the footpath next time"

Average person walking safely along same footpath after weeks of recovery, manages to sidestep the **** waiting with a knife, later same day some other **** stabs him on a completely different perfectly safe footpath... "what the hell man? why are there so many ****'s waiting for me with knives everywhere..."

It happens a third time... this time the guy decides he's gonna tiptoe around everywhere keeping an eye out for these knife weilding bastards instead of concentrating so hard on not tripping over a loose paving slabs, looking out for other pedestrians or where one pavement joins another etc etc

My angle, which we’ve discussed before, is that pedestrians can wander around with impunity whereas the driver is always culpable because he is the one in control of a ton of metal.

So if you are driving you are pretty much always to blame and pedestrians know this. In this blame culture, if the pedestrian still has unbroken arms after being knocked over he rubs his hands together thinking of compensation instead of prevention.

So no, it doesn’t apply to pedestrians anymore like it did in my youth where I would have been told off for being a silly arse.

In fact, everyone knew it back in those days - it was an incentive to watch out besides just getting hurt.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I think what’s happening is a reversal of power in effect.

If a kid spits in your face you can’t do anything and I defy anyone to tell me what you could realistically do?

Hold him while you call the police? That’s assault isn’t it?

Tell him to stay put while you call the police? (Yeah, I’m sure he’ll wait right there – not!)

Let’s say a PC is walking nearby and sees the incident. I feel a crime number coming on here but what about the paperwork so, “Do you really want to pursue it sir?”

So then of course we get to what ‘punishment’ will be exacted upon him to prevent him doing it again?

Back in my day you would have got a well-deserved punch back, so you wouldn’t dare do it in the first place. Quick and effective.

This, in principle, is what’s happening on the roads. In my day the pedestrian wouldn’t/couldn’t bully or intimidate drivers so they made sure they didn’t get in the way or ‘spit’ in the driver's face in the first place.

How’s that for a theory?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Another interesting link regarding our roads before the introduction of speed cameras..

"When the UK clearly has by far the safest roads in Europe, we have to ask why we also have the most anti-car government in Europe, if not the world.

The British government spends millions of pounds of public money on propaganda which gives the impression that our roads are the worst in Europe.

To implement it's so called "road safety" policy, it imposes speed cameras, traffic calming, speed humps, unreasonably low speed limits, bus lanes, road narrowing, and complete road closures. It covers our roads and pavements with a shambolic mess of white lines, red and green splodges, textured surfaces and obstructions.

Despite our motorways being the safest in Europe by a country mile, the government pig-headedly refuses to raise the utterly discredited 70 mph motorway speed limit.

We are not saying that road safety in the UK cannot be improved, but the way to achieve that is clearly to praise drivers for being the safest in Europe, and to encourage excellence through education. Battering drivers with an endless succession of 'sticks' may be something favoured by the likes of John Prescott, but people do not take kindly to such aggression and abuse of power."

True or false? You decide..

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

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Non sequitur of the year, there BigTone.

It doesn't apply to wool either, if we are going to be deliberately bizarre.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

errrr ... becuase bortach used a medical metaphor, I replied using his language?



You see, the reason that your metaphor fails is one of "who is at fault". Your metaphor WOULD work if drivers had no control of the speed of their vehicle, and in fact the **** you mention was in control.

So to rewrite your analogy ...

average person walking safely along a foot path STABS HIMSELF IN THE LEG ... and so on.

Unless of course, you think that drivers have no control of the velocity of their own vehicle, that is.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Yet if you refer to the graphs I linked to earlier, in your youth, (and mine), vastly more people were getting killed on the roads. The figures for pedestrian fatalities were far higher then ... yet it was better then? Even with fewer cars on the road, higher fatalities, yet the tufty club and the green cross code were at their strongest.

Or perhaps a slightly higher mortality rate is better, so more children know someone who has been killed on the roads personally. Yeah, I can see how that might work. Not.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

I think that supports my tongue in cheek campaign for "armed response speed cameras". Thanks Tne

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Your argument is about as supportative as bull wearing a G-String.

Luv Tne

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

This thread is getting like an old song (can't remember who sang it ) ,but I'll just modify it slightly --

"Big tone sitting on a wooden pier
Come troll , swim troll , bite along here-"

Unfortunately they fall off the hook just as we swing the club to knock some sense into them .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Botach, Tone and I are having a debate. If, as it seems, all you can do is resort to name calling and unfounded accusations, you really are out of your intellectual depth in this thread.

You accuse me of being a troll, yet it is YOU who is posting "irrelevant or off-topic messages" in this thread.

Please, if you can bring any intelligent points to the debate to show how healthy and effective the SafeSpeed "campaign" is, and how successful it has been thus far, then do please join in. Otherwise, leave the intelligent debate for those that are enjoying a full and frank exchange of views without having to resort to the level of name calling.

Best regards

Andy

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Don't be so defensive Handy, I wasn't being smarmy, I clearly said "we" meaning more than just you, I then joined in on the fun using a metaphor all of my own.



This would be true IF it went "Average person walking unsafely along a footpath and walks into a spiked wall, severely injuring themselves"

However as the person is walking perfectly safely the **** waiting with a knife is waiting for no good reason and their actions are completely unnecessary and unjustified - but I guess you won't accept that as the person should have been walking no more than 5 yards a in 10 seconds - just cos it's law...

Bringing me nicely to a question for you Handy... If a new law was introduced stating you could walk no faster than 5 paces every 10 seconds would you support it simply because it was law and the authorities tried to justify it by saying "too many people are bumping into each other... it's cos they are walking too fast" - would you not think "fuck me that's ridiculous... if people are walking into each other they should bloody well look where they are going, I'm certainly not walking that slow it'll take me longer than ever to get anywhere, and I can walk perfectly safely faster than that" ?

And before you say it's different because it's "proven" speed is why people crash, I'm sure they could "prove" people bump into each other due to the speed of walking.

I don't think handy would be quite so obtuse to state that, when it's blatantly obvious that the analogy is fatally flawed in the respect that two cars colliding (at anything above a brisk jogging pace) are generally going to cause several orders of magnitude worth of damage than two pedestrians bumping into each other.

There's something very heartening about a thread entitled "The campaign is over" running to a vigorous four page debate.

Quite clearly the campaign is not over.

So instead of facing the prospect of a pro-camera pro-stupid speed limits person answering what is clearly NOT a flawed analogy, you'll just try to find reasons to avoid it... says a lot about you to be honest.

I've not said anything about pedestrians bumping into each other causing serious injury, that's nothing to do with it (although they certainly can do so), i'm trying to get across how ridiculous a situation it would be to stop people who are perfectly capable of walking places at a decent pace from doing so, same as it is with cars. Of course SOME people will be unable to focus on walking/talking on a mobile phone at the same time, SOME will be unable to walk very fast at all, SOME won't be able to eat and walk at the same time... would you support measures to ban these things or is it only ok when we're driving because you've been convinced over time that it's so disgraceful that a minority of people can't drive well that everyone who can must suffer.

Don't worry I won't expect a reasonable answer, I fully expect some sort of dismissive comment about the whole thing - from you at least paton, I have higher hopes that Handy might at least admit it'd be a ridiculous situation and attempt to provide some solid reasoning why when 95% of the driving population wouldn't crash or travel at 100mph everywhere when left to their own devices that 100% of us must abide by the laws aimed at 5% of idiots.

By the way... to suggest people can't kill themselves and others when pedestrianised is amazing, truely amazing. How do you think half (or more!) of the pedestrian deaths are caused in 'road accidents' - it's by people walking without paying attention into roads.

Example
a) Person walking along not paying attention, rushing somewhere - trips up falls flat on face cracking their skull. Is this a minor injury?
b) Person walking whilst eating concentrating more on food walks out in front of a car
c) Person walking in a hurry somewhere whilst talking on the phone, not paying any attention clatters into pedestrian knocking them over - they hit THEIR head and suffer severe injuries.

These things are not only possible but probably happen every day.