Safe Speed Forums

If I went off to another message board and quoted that piece I figure you could say that, but on the same thread on the same board?

Nope, sorry, that doesn't answer my question. By what logic do you (and so many others it seems) deduce that because a mindset opposes automated speed enforcement and unreasonably set speed limits, disbelieving of the "speed kills" lie, that same mindset wants to drive as fast as they possibly can, often in excess of the safe speed for the conditions.

Is that supposed to be an answer? It isn't.

And of course you are very well aware that the point you have attempted to make by quoting me out of context has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I made.

This looks like ugly trolling behaviour which I would remind you is against forum rules. At the very best it's a cheap attempt to 'score points'.

It's easier and much more useful to enter an honest debate. Why not give it a go?

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

VERY VERY IMPORTANT, thanks for summarising it so.
This message must indeed be clearly communicated to the masses.
Perhaps a discussion point for the "campaigning" section, with the result being prominently used on SafeSpeedLite. (hey, that's SSL, could this be (ab)used?!... "invitation to set up an SSL link" or somesuch... whatever...).

How about a matrix with 3 columns, one for unenlightened public, one for SafeSpeed supporters, and one for criminals & boy/girl racers etc..
By filling in accept/reject symbols appropriately under each heading it can be visibly represented who believes/supports what (e.g. safer roads, more drastic speed restrictions, more cameras, more traffic police, less automated ticketing etc.)

Just thinking aloud.

_________________
p.s. I am still absolutely floored by Paul's death. May 2008 be the greatest ever for SafeSpeed. His spirit lives on.

Still qualifies as an accident. I seriously doubt-stupid as he was that he intended to hit you.





My point exactly. So whats sticking to a speed limit got to do with tearing around anywhere? And why use such language to try and support an unsupportable point in the first place?





Rubbish. Whys it unsafe? Its not like its just shoved down the road and left to go wherever, its got what we term; "A driver" who directs it safely hither and thither.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Some time back we hd a list of fatal accidents from a rural police officer. Many of these "accidents" were total acts of foolishness.
now my little parish is on the edge of southampton and the fatals round here are similar. A 3x drunk chef crashed into a walkl killing his passengers. two drunk and drugged teenagers crashed head on into a car on thier moped. A man was hit walking home from the social club 1 hour after it should have stoped surving drinks. and someone was killed on the motorway as they had a heart attack.

3 out of 4 were avoidable. The primary cause was not speed.

I think we need to revive that list and ask permision to use it.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Something that you seem to have missed on this one except for one excellent post if you REDUCE or REMOVE the hazards which can be anything from tight bends to badly positioned road islands and sign hazards etc.

Obviously some "speed freaks" seem to think that the way to stop accidents is to install more "speed calming devices" such as narrowing roads or installing traffic islands where there is no need for them.

Correctly giving plenty of warning signs etc. then speed can be increased SAFELY without the risk of accidents as accidents happen simply because as human beings WE make mistakes that is a fact of life we have to live with and unfortunately there are times when someone suffers injury or sadly a fatality.

ALL the prevention in the world will not remove this fact of human nature so irrelevant of what speed we drive at accidents will and do happen "even in reverse"

For other examples children fall out of trees so what do you suggest we do cut all trees down, they fall off swings in the park so do we remove all the swings your reasoning is totally flawed because as proved by "official Figures" from DfT only 7% of accidents can be attributed to excessive speed so do you say we should all drive at 10 mph everywhere so as not to injure other road users as we are ALL responsible for our own actions / inactions and must take the consequences as a driver you can only think for YOURSELF and no one else !

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

Debateable for the first three, if the drunks hadn't been travelling at a speed outside of their capabilities then they may not have crashed.

Brilliant! you are a troll.
What are you going to say next "it's okay to drink and drive if you travel at a speed within your capabilites."

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

Its well known that if a corner is straightened out then generally people will travel faster around it.

And sure, we might be able to reduce road deaths by turning the country into one big motorway system, but I don't think that's the solution.



You sure about that, if we order everybody to drive at a minimum 70mph everywhere tomrrow you don't think injuries and deaths would increase, and the outcome of accidents would be far worse?




If kids died falling out of trees at the rate they die on our roads then I'm sure we'd be discussing a programme to stop kids climbing trees.

And anyway, a kid falling out of a tree and being killed is one thing, being struck by a car that could have/should have been travelling slower is something completely different.

Really? And do crashes go up or down?

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

I dunno, I imagine they'd stay about the same, or go down, but both with increased severity due to increased speeds.

Make it utterly straight and yes I imagine the crashes go down, a lot, but we're not going to straighten every bend in the UK so I think its a better idea to try and educate people not to go round bends at silly speeds (unless you're on a race track of course).

Taken to the ultimate level you could ask for the complete abolition of bends in the UK, not doubt it could be done, and you could rip anybody to shreds for resisting it by saying their refusal is costing lives I guess.

Thousands of peeple speed along my road every day. That is travel over the posted limit. none of them crash. there are corners, wet leaves, horses and cyclists.
One night in the wee hours. No horses, cyclists etc and a drunk chef crashes and it was speed rather than drink that was the cause.


Hundreds cross the road on the A3053. School kids, pensioners... All sorts. But it is a person worse for drink who gets hit when there are few cars around and they have 2 55w headlights!


and the kids on the moped were out at 2am. on 17, one 15 if I recall in a 60 limit. they came off a roundabout into the path of a vw golf I believe.
Speeding? I doubt it.


Come on, wake up and smell the coffee!

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

That doesn't mean they are driving safely.

Is a drunk pedestrian that gets hit on the road automatically at fault because they are drunk?



But I bet the driver was trying to go as fast as they could though, or at least too fast.

Speed killed (note speed, not speeding) in that case I reckon.

I have, if people want less road related deaths and accidents then we should all just slow down IMO.

We can always keep slowing down - the question is: to what?

Hmmm.

An entirely avoidable situation IMO.

He shot out from behind a tram not knowing what was on the other side of it at such a speed he had no chance of stopping if there was something there.

And there was something there; me.

So, if I ran around a corner at full tilt on a pavement and smacked straight into you is that an accident, or my idiocy for running at full tilt around corners not knowing what's on the other side?

Hay, I might try that tomorrow and if people complain I can say "it was just an accident", every time and get away with it right?

To a sensible speed for the conditions, which is often much less than the posted speed limit anyway, certainly on country roads, as can be seen from the unrepresentitive ratio of crashes that occur on them.

ok ok - using your idea, what about places where a suitable speed for the condition is above the currently posted speed limit... should we not then raise the posted limit and errr 'slow down' to what is suitable, rather than what is current posted. ie - as it is suitably safe to travel at 90mph on motorways, why can't we do that?

and if you think we can... then you agree with the SS argument, that we should be driving at speeds safe for the conditions, the only area you differ from most people on here is your odd view that faster = death, slower = safe.