Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Apr 25, 2026 22:21

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 01:54 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
Quote:
You know very well that I do not suggest that speed limits should be abolished.


Why, if you think they are irrelevant?

Quote:
Drive at a safe and appropriate speed within the speed limit.


How about:

Drive at a safe and appropriate speed within the speed limit and always be prepared to stop in the distance you know to be clear in front of you. The speed limit has been set based on the worst case hazard scenario that can reasonably be expected on this particular road. Conditions will normally be better than this situation, but to accomodate for factors which may be beyond your abilities regarding anticipation, awareness and reaction times, you must still not exceed this limit.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 01:58 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Of course he's joking, the CAA (in their infinite wisdom) would not be daft enough to give someone that insane an ATPL!

I think he's weakly trying to make the same old point that 'speed kills'. He's 'conveniently' ignoring those NSL SCs where 60 is far from safe, and similarly discounting roads where doing more than the speed limit is perfectly safe. He is trying to eliminate this inconvenient point from the argument by saying 'nobody cares'.

The thing is, we do care, its the whole bloody point! Yes, if we conveniently forgot our principles then we would all agree with his point of view, duh!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 02:00 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
mpaton2004 wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
mpaton2004 wrote:
Which quite clearly means that driving at higher than the speed limit would be even more suicidal. The caveat was "staying at or within"


And if you need to stay 'well within the speed limit', as is extremely common, the speed limit is once again completely irrelevant. It's no help at all in achieving a safe and appropriate speed. So much so that it (the speed limit) isn't even worth mentioning.


Do you therefore suggest, if the speed limit is so 'irrelevant', that we should abolish them entirely and allow drivers to do as they please?


I know I've answered this already, but I'd just like to highlight the disingenuous leap that you have made in ignoring the fact that the statement I made was CONDITIONAL.

mpaton2004 wrote:
Fortunately it's not going to happen, because there would be relative carnage. The 17-25 year olds would love it though, as I'm sure would Subaru and Mitsubishi.


Relative carnage? As in the German Autobahns having HALF the fatality rate of the Belgian and Austrian Motorways perhaps?

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 02:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
mpaton2004 wrote:
Quote:
You know very well that I do not suggest that speed limits should be abolished.


Why, if you think they are irrelevant?


Ah yes. You're still being disingenuous.

mpaton2004 wrote:
Quote:
Drive at a safe and appropriate speed within the speed limit.


How about:

Drive at a safe and appropriate speed within the speed limit and always be prepared to stop in the distance you know to be clear in front of you. The speed limit has been set based on the worst case hazard scenario that can reasonably be expected on this particular road. Conditions will normally be better than this situation, but to accomodate for factors which may be beyond your abilities regarding anticipation, awareness and reaction times, you must still not exceed this limit.


Apart from the fact that we can no longer rely on speed limits being sensibly set, it's not very catchy is it?

And it mentions the speed limit three times which is possibly about 2.75 more times than its road safety value would suggest.

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 02:19 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
SafeSpeed wrote:
Relative carnage? As in the German Autobahns having HALF the fatality rate of the Belgian and Austrian Motorways perhaps?


Why do you only refer to Motorways, and more importantly, why did you specifically pick Belgium and Austria? We don't live there.

What's the fatalitiy rate of the Autobahn (derestricted sections) like compared to the UK?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 02:26 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
RobinXe wrote:
Of course he's joking, the CAA (in their infinite wisdom) would not be daft enough to give someone that insane an ATPL!


Consider the following scenarios.

If you were a regular GA pilot with a PPL - would you fly through the Shawbury MATZ and over the field, then do an unannounced touch and go off 06L at EGCC after flying across the low level corridor at 3300' (while sqwawking 7500 for a laugh) because it was safe and clear to do so?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 02:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
mpaton2004 wrote:
...because there would be relative carnage...
SafeSpeed wrote:
Relative carnage? As in the German Autobahns having HALF the fatality rate of the Belgian and Austrian Motorways perhaps?


Why do you only refer to Motorways, and more importantly, why did you specifically pick Belgium and Austria? We don't live there.


Because they prove that your suggestion is bollocks.

mpaton2004 wrote:
What's the fatalitiy rate of the Autobahn (derestricted sections) like compared to the UK?


Double would be a good guess. Do you think that proves something?

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 02:54 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
mpaton2004 wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
Of course he's joking, the CAA (in their infinite wisdom) would not be daft enough to give someone that insane an ATPL!


Consider the following scenarios.

If you were a regular GA pilot with a PPL - would you fly through the Shawbury MATZ and over the field, then do an unannounced touch and go off 06L at EGCC after flying across the low level corridor at 3300' (while sqwawking 7500 for a laugh) because it was safe and clear to do so?


Considered, and still failing to see the relevance.

Civvies....geez!

EDIT: Remind me which class of airspace MATZs are again?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 07:21 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
mpaton2004 wrote:
Crushings? I should hope the pedestrian would have enough time to walk out of the way...

you've not taken much notice of pedestrian behaviour in this country have you? Walking out of the way would require then to have bothered looking where they were going in the first place, something they are even less likely to do if vehicles are only moving at 10mph.
BTW, how many kids are run over by their parents every year?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 07:37 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
johnsher wrote:
mpaton2004 wrote:
Crushings? I should hope the pedestrian would have enough time to walk out of the way...

you've not taken much notice of pedestrian behaviour in this country have you? Walking out of the way would require then to have bothered looking where they were going in the first place, something they are even less likely to do if vehicles are only moving at 10mph.
BTW, how many kids are run over by their parents every year?


Since about 30% of pedestrians involved in RTAs' are drunk, I doubt they could walk out of the way of a brick wall.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 08:18 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
jomukuk wrote:
Since about 30% of pedestrians involved in RTAs' are drunk

Do you have a source for that? Ta

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 08:21 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
jomukuk wrote:
Since about 30% of pedestrians involved in RTAs' are drunk, I doubt they could walk out of the way of a brick wall.

AIUI about 30% of pedestrians involved in an RTA are over the legal alcohol limit for driving, which in no way equates to being "drunk".

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 12:26 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
mpaton2004 wrote:
Drive at a safe and appropriate speed
Always - totally agree... :yesyes:

mpaton2004 wrote:
...within the speed limit

Why?

mpaton2004 wrote:
...and always be prepared to stop in the distance you know to be clear in front of you.
Always - totally agree... :yesyes:

mpaton2004 wrote:
...The speed limit has been set based on the worst case hazard scenario that can reasonably be expected on this particular road.

Not where I live...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 13:58 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 16:04
Posts: 816
mpaton2004 wrote:
The speed limit has been set based on the worst case hazard scenario that can reasonably be expected on this particular road.


In that case why isn't the limit on the M25 set to 20?

_________________
Prepare to be Judged


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 15:33 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
mpaton2004 wrote:
The speed limit has been set based on the worst case hazard scenario that can reasonably be expected on this particular road.


So there we have it folks, according to mpaton it is always perfectly safe to drive AT the speed limit!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 17:56 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
From what part of my statement did you infer that garbage?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 18:08 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
Quote:
From what part of my statement did you infer that garbage?


Quote:
The speed limit has been set based on the worst case hazard scenario that can reasonably be expected on this particular road.


If speed limits were set like that, then it would indeed always be safe to drive at that speed, and usually safe to drive above it.

If speed limits are the true maximum, they should be set for the best conditions.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2007 23:51 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 17:46
Posts: 823
Location: Saltburn, N. Yorks
'The speed limit has been set based on the worst case hazard scenario that can reasonably be expected on this particular road.'


Worra plank! :lol: What ideal world does HE live in?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 18:19 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 21:19
Posts: 1059
The real one, unlike correspondents on this site who believe they are above all motoring laws, and any sort of law that inconveniences them in any slight way.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 26, 2007 18:41 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
mpaton2004 wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
mpaton2004 wrote:
(Please don't give me the one about deserted motorways in the middle of Middleonowhereshire at 3am on a Bank Holiday, nobody cares.)


Why? Because it is inconvenient to your argument?

Essentially you are saying that our current range of speed limits are not broad enough to cover all roads and eventualities (duh).


Incorrect, they are quite comprehensive.

In fact you could reduce fatalities to almost zero quite easily by hard limiting all vehicles to 10mph.



Once attended a case in which someone ran over their own child in the driveway. Speed was low reversing speed. Bumper hit child's head.

Quite a few nationwide of this type of incident - only we class them as "domestic accidents" :popcorn:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


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 can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.096s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]