Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Apr 02, 2020 06:36

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 23:54 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
weepej wrote:
I understood the words "That's a clear claim. Please could you substantiate that?" to mean, "I don't beleive you are correct".

That's a straw argument.
It can also mean things like:
- I tend to agree but I have nothing to prove it.
- I had no idea that could be the case, could you demonstrate it.

weepej wrote:
Patently there are many places where travelling at the NSL is a very risky thing to do.

On reflection: I probably misunderstood what you were saying with your original words. Somehow I thought you meant something like 'a significant portion of'. If that's not the case then it's my bad.


weepej wrote:
certainly on country roads, as can be seen from the unrepresentitive ratio of crashes that occur on them.

Anyway, I notice you didn't even acknowledge my request for justification of that one above.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 02:15 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
weepej wrote:
anton wrote:
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!


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


Is a motorist, driving in excess of the speed limit, that is involved in a collision automatically at fault because they are speeding?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 02:16 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
weepej wrote:
smeggy wrote:
I never made any such claim anywhere, I merely asked you to substantiate your claim; I did not indicate that I agreed or disagreed with it in any way.


I understood the words "That's a clear claim. Please could you substantiate that?" to mean, "I don't beleive you are correct".


I understood it to mean "You are making a bold statement, do you have any corroboration?". Perhaps we are speaking different languages.

Do you have any corroboration for that claim?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 09:18 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
weepej wrote:
I reckon a good 70 percent of country NSL roads are places where if you hit 60 you're being extremely reckless.


:rotfl:

I don't know which country you live in weepej! I always had you down as a townie anyway. In Dorset I'd say it was about 25% and our roads aren't that bad.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:07 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
weepej wrote:
DeltaF wrote:
weepej wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
And if 'speed' within the speed limit kills, what on earth are we going to do about that?


Slow down?


To what speed? What numerical speed will make us all "safe" in all conditions?
Answer me that.


Cor, to a speed that is suitable for the conditions and the potential hazards around you.

Its not hard.


What planet did you say you were from?

So, lets get this right. If the speed limit is 40 and its safe and prudent to travel at say 60 (because the conditions and potential hazards around you make it so) what speed should i be travelling at?

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

Believe nothing- Question everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 22:54 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
DeltaF wrote:
So, lets get this right. If the speed limit is 40 and its safe and prudent to travel at say 60 (because the conditions and potential hazards around you make it so) what speed should i be travelling at?


Not more than 40mph, unless you don't mind breaking the law.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 22:58 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
RobinXe wrote:
Do you have any corroboration for that claim?


What, that on most country roads travelling at the NSL is suicidal, or homicidal?

And let's be clear, I'm talking country roads here, not A roads in the country.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 23:01 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
RobinXe wrote:
weepej wrote:
anton wrote:
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!


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


Is a motorist, driving in excess of the speed limit, that is involved in a collision automatically at fault because they are speeding?


Ridiculous comparison. Drunk pedestrians don't travel round at 30-40-60+mph.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 23:05 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
DeltaF wrote:
its your decision to propel yourself into a position in which you cannot stop in the space you see to be clear.


You see I don't think he 'decided' to propel himself into a position in which he could not stop in the space he could see to be clear, I just don't think he thought about it at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 09:24 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
weepej wrote:
DeltaF wrote:
So, lets get this right. If the speed limit is 40 and its safe and prudent to travel at say 60 (because the conditions and potential hazards around you make it so) what speed should i be travelling at?


Not more than 40mph, unless you don't mind breaking the law.


Well i dont mind breaking the law in regards to speed, but thats not what i asked.
What SPEED is safe to travel at given that the conditions stated by you are met?
KMH/MPH whatever, i need a SAFE speed to travel at. You seem to think that its dictated by speed limits, i say it its dictated by local conditions, driver ability/comfort/vehicle capabilities.
Now, cut to the chase and tell me what a SAFE speed to travel at is.

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

Believe nothing- Question everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 09:31 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
weepej wrote:
DeltaF wrote:
its your decision to propel yourself into a position in which you cannot stop in the space you see to be clear.


You see I don't think he 'decided' to propel himself into a position in which he could not stop in the space he could see to be clear, I just don't think he thought about it at all.


So, given that he didnt as you put it "think about it at all" can you explain why you seem to place more importance on the speed he hit you at ( "he shot out") rather than the obvious conclusion that he made a mistake in deciding to attempt the manouvre?

Remember, the speed followed (didnt lead) his actions, in other words a secondary issue.

Id submit that the driver either was inexperienced or of a couldnt care less attitude.
In the first instance an accident, in the second an attitude problem. Sweet F/A to do with speed as a cause.

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

Believe nothing- Question everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 13:38 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
weepej wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
weepej wrote:
anton wrote:
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!


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


Is a motorist, driving in excess of the speed limit, that is involved in a collision automatically at fault because they are speeding?


Ridiculous comparison. Drunk pedestrians don't travel round at 30-40-60+mph.


Hmm, I hope you don't think that no-one has noticed you weaseling out of the awkward questions mate! :D

Would you care to answer the question, and then we can debate the relative merits of the comparison afterwards. If you could answer the query about corroboration too that'd be super!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 17:21 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
He has no answers Robin, he's just trolling.

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

Believe nothing- Question everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 21:49 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 20:19
Posts: 306
Location: Crewe
Don't feed the trolls !!

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Safe Speed / Driving
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 23:13 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 14:48
Posts: 244
Location: Warrington ex Sandgrounder[Southport]
As "DeltaF" says the only safe speed to travel at is the correct one for the prevailing conditions at the time and as we all know some legal speed limits are set to low deliberately to catch speeding drivers purely to "raise revenue" for the camera partnerships :!: :!:

Take for example to do 30mph in the centre of Manchester in the rush hour could be classed as "dangerous driving" by the police yet to do this speed in the middle of the night could be just to slow "for the prevailing conditions" but to exceed this limit would be illegal but not dangerous as again in an accident speed is only a contributory factor AND NOT THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT as has been proved time and time again in all injury or fatal accidents onlya small % of accidents can be directly attributed purely to speed alone :!: :!: :roll: :roll:

So the answer to this conundrum is to a) feed the troll in this case :roll: :roll: :roll: or b) make all vehicles stationary PERMANENTLY then there would be no accidents at all :evil: :evil: :!: :!: :? :? :x :x

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

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

Spannernut


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Safe Speed / Driving
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 23:31 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Stormin wrote:
Take for example to do 30mph in the centre of Manchester in the rush hour could be classed as "dangerous driving" by the police yet to do this speed in the middle of the night could be just to slow "for the prevailing conditions" but to exceed this limit would be illegal but not dangerous


What a load of cobblers.

At night in a city centre is when you should be slowing down, not speeding up.

Its dark and there are people around who have been drinking (in cars and walking).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 23:37 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
RobinXe wrote:
weepej wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
weepej wrote:
anton wrote:
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!


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


Is a motorist, driving in excess of the speed limit, that is involved in a collision automatically at fault because they are speeding?


Ridiculous comparison. Drunk pedestrians don't travel round at 30-40-60+mph.


Hmm, I hope you don't think that no-one has noticed you weaseling out of the awkward questions mate! :D

Would you care to answer the question, and then we can debate the relative merits of the comparison afterwards. If you could answer the query about corroboration too that'd be super!


If it could be shown that if they were travelling within the limit then they would most likely have not had the smash, or the results of it would have been less serious then yes, the driver chose to disobey (or simply ignored) some pretty basic rules of the road and was therefore reckless in that respect.

If it couldn't be shown then, they were still breaking the law at least once.

I think the reasoning behind the sentencing given out in such cases reflects this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 23:43 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
DeltaF wrote:
In the first instance an accident, in the second an attitude problem. Sweet F/A to do with speed as a cause.


Nope, I still say if he had been going slower he might have had a chance to stop, so his bad choice of speed was a primary factor.

You don't need to have an attitude to use inapproriate speed in a car, just about another couple of centimeters on the accelrator.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 23:50 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
DeltaF wrote:
Now, cut to the chase and tell me what a SAFE speed to travel at is.


I've said it before, no such thing as a safe speed, anything more than 0mph is dangerous, and it gets hairier the faster you go.

Driving at 30mph along a residential street is a safer thing to do than 60mph, but 30mph is quite some speed and its certianly not safe; if I hit it on my push bike its throat in the mouth time, and I'm only likely to hurt myself if something happens.

If I juggle knives for 20 minutes but don't drop one on my toe does that make knife juggling safe?

Thinking any speed is safe is the first mistake many drivers make IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 23:55 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
weepej wrote:
Nope, I still say if he had been going slower he might have had a chance to stop, so his bad choice of speed was a primary factor.

You don't need to have an attitude to use inapproriate speed in a car, just about another couple of centimeters on the accelrator.

In response to a similar post from yourself a page or so ago, I remarked that a driver can always slow down, but to what. Your response was 'To a sensible speed for the conditions'. To me that seems to contradict the quote above (edit: as well as your last post just above "anything more than 0mph is dangerous"); could you reconcile?

BTW, a couple of cm is quite a lot ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 125 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 3 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 cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.796s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]