Safe Speed Forums

lauren o'dare, Do you believe then that airplanes should keep there speed down to 10 mph when taking off, just in case a pedestrian might walk onto the runway, or that they should have pedestrian crossing on runways giving pedestrians the right of way. Or do you think that they should have speed cameras on runways to limit the speed a plane takes of at, thus preventing a more serious injury to pedestrians, and that a pilot if caught speeding can be prosecuted. I would ask also that you don’t look in the mirror when you answer my question because I would like the answer from you and not Georgeda.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

I think that whatever the drink-post limit on this forum:

Someone has exceeded it.

.

Sorry you seem to place an emphasis on drinking, do you have a problem with it yourself?. Anyway we where discussing speed and safety. Don’t you want to discuss it things anymore?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Do I?



No.

But from your earlier post you seemed to have problems combining it with posting.



Were we?

I thought we were discussing why motorists think it is OK for the authorities to oppress motorists.

But why motorists don't think the same standards should be applied to other forms of transport.



Not if that's what the discussion is about.



By the way.

You were talking about teachers redlining my work earlier.

Well, we don't "discuss it things" anymore.

It's "their" and not "thier", or even "there".

"Trains" and not "trians".

"pedestrian crossing" should have been "pedestrians crossing" or "pedestrian crossings" depending on what you were trying to say.

And it's "off" not "of"!!!!.

And "were" not "where"!!!!!!!!!!!

You'll be expelled if you keep coming into school p!ssed!


.

Indeed it is. Does that mean you're a girl, then?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

"Safespeed.org: cerebral debate on the transport issues of the day"

I'm also a Senior Citizen.

82 if I remember correctly.

But I don't suppose that'll stop you trying to manhandle me.

.

How about other cross-over names like Caroll Shelby


Or Marion Morrison


So whats in a name

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Yeah!

Don't be judgemental about cross-dressers!

However cross they get.

Or the PC WPC Laura Norder will get you.

.

When I posted that I was working on the assumption that his argument was aimed at showing how ludicrous it is to follow the line of thinking he was advocating, with the implication that it must also be ludicrous to apply it to cars, i.e. the "if it saves just one life it must be worth it" type argument. However I appear to have completely misunderstood his post and he was actually seriously making the argument that I thought was ludicrous.

2001 was foot and mouth year, so my explain the absence of casualties - many footpaths were closed.
At ALL unmanned crossings, trains are required to sound a 120* decibel two tone horn
*5 meters from the SIDE of the track, or in front.
2004 eventually saw 18 people killed on unmanned crossings - a bumper year! There are 8,000 unmanned crossings in Britain.
They have warning signs which warn of the possibility of trains, but NOT the use of extremely loud horns!

However, many of them look like this!!!
You are free to cross the railway at these points - however if you do, it would help if there was a timetable to hand!

An express can take up to 1.5 miles to stop.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Was I?

.

However, if the "if it saves just one life" argument is going to be applied to cars, then I am quite happy to seriously argue that it should also be applied to "trians".

.

Yes, clearly the two points of view must rationally go together. Also, unless someone believes that the first life is more important than the second life that can be saved, and so on, if someone believes the "if it just saves one life" argument, they must, to be thinking rationally, believe in banning all cars, trains etc, as that is the only way you will no longer have just one more life that can be saved.

Exactly.

But some drivers seem to think that lives lost on the roads have more value than lives lost on the rail roads.

That, somehow, a life lost on a rail road is worth it.

Even though the benefit it is weighted against is the same passenger or goods milage as on the roads!

.

I have had to suspend the 'lauren o'dare' user account following a complaint that it was being abused by a banned poster.

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

Thank you for the explanation Paul.

There are figures available which explain how Network Rail arrive at the value of a life. They get their advice from the Rail Standards and Safety Board (RSSB) and a life is worth £1.3 million pounds.

Behind my house are THREE foot crossings, 180 metres between the first and last. It has been suggested that they remove two, and simply link them with a track side path (plenty of room - the single track USED to be dualled), but they said no! It would reduce the horn noise to a third, and the risk and maintainence, so what is their problem?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I can't believe you think it is acceptable to use such a tragic waste of life to try to score a very poor point.

Your post makes me sick.

Sympathies to any of the family friends who may read this on a public internet forum.

_________________
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'd like to try to build a bridge here before the argument gets out of hand.

The subject of this forum is life and death. For many of us the greatest tragedy is the needless loss of life on our roads because the authorities have their road safety priorities wrong.

Recent figures show, for example, that drink drive fatalities have reached a 12 year high. I am confident in claiming that this loss of life is directly attributable to reduced police traffic patrols, and that reduced traffic patrols are due directly to a mistaken belief that speed cameras would make our roads safer.

So, Handy, please forgive us if sometimes we're excessively passionate. Lives are at stake and it's a damn serious business.

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