Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 23:13

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 12:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
Steve wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
You have described what very bad drivers would do.

So, "good drivers" would forever be looking at the speedo? You didn't expressly state that, but that is the inevitable conclusion from your claim, especially in these days of needlessly low limits (such as motorways where the great majority of users say the limits should be increased).

You don't have to look at the speedo constantly to remain lawful and ou know it.
Steve wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
Alternately compliant, lawful driving is not at all difficult to achieve and be safe.
Why not promote a method that does both?

"safe" - well that obviously eliminates the camera option :lol:
This campaign is promoting a more effective method that really does do both (1, 2); ok the main focus of that method would be on the safety more than the compliance, but isn't the former the important factor?

I do't believe there is any support for the safespeed method from any noted authority on road safety and I also understand that the safespeed method is in direct conflict with all findings in road safety practice, methodology and research that exists save for the "research" published within these walls.
Like the nonsense leading to my question 1. here it stems from supposition and conjecture, nothing more.
Links to safespeed conjecture claimed as authority on matters as you have done above are of little, sorry, no value whatsoever.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 13:07 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
Steve wrote:
So, "good drivers" would forever be looking at the speedo? You didn't expressly state that, but that is the inevitable conclusion from your claim, especially in these days of needlessly low limits (such as motorways where the great majority of users say the limits should be increased).

You don't have to look at the speedo constantly to remain lawful and ou know it.

It seems the majority of drivers (especially on roads like motorways) would disagree with you.
In these days of limits set well below reasonable driving levels, and where there is enforcement of them, there is no real choice.

What do you think is the average time between speedo glances on limit reduced and enforced roads?
Being realistic, I would say about 'once every 10 seconds' would be viewed as "constantly" for all intents and purposes.


GreenShed wrote:
I do't believe there is any support for the safespeed method from any noted authority on road safety and I also understand that the safespeed method is in direct conflict with all findings in road safety practice, methodology and research that exists save for the "research" published within these walls.

Which of these noted authorities on road safety (the full-time, paid professionals) account for factors such as RTTM, long-term trends and 'bias on selection' when it comes to understanding camera effectiveness? :lol:
Aren't these factors critically important for the understanding of "road safety practice"?

Did you seriously suggest that speed cameras contribute as much as real police towards "safe" road use?
Do you agree this campaign actually does (your exact words) "promote a method that does both" compliance and safety (the latter to a greater extent)?

There are plenty of questions in there for you to evade - again!

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 13:31 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
Steve wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
Steve wrote:
So, "good drivers" would forever be looking at the speedo? You didn't expressly state that, but that is the inevitable conclusion from your claim, especially in these days of needlessly low limits (such as motorways where the great majority of users say the limits should be increased).

You don't have to look at the speedo constantly to remain lawful and ou know it.

It seems the majority of drivers (especially on roads like motorways) would disagree with you.

Then they are shit drivers then.
Steve wrote:
In these days of limits set well below reasonable driving levels, and where there is enforcement of them, there is no real choice.

I don't agree at all.

Steve wrote:
What do you think is the average time between speedo glances on limit reduced and enforced roads?

I have no idea and don't see the relevance, you can do it without any reduction in road observation.
Steve wrote:
Being realistic, I would say about 'once every 10 seconds' would be viewed as "constantly" for all intents and purposes.

So what? Looking at your speedo constantly and in a distracting way isn't required to maintain speed. It's easy and not distracting at all. You are promoting a herring shaped fish and it appears to have a red tinge to its hue.
Steve wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
I do't believe there is any support for the safespeed method from any noted authority on road safety and I also understand that the safespeed method is in direct conflict with all findings in road safety practice, methodology and research that exists save for the "research" published within these walls.

Which of these noted authorities on road safety (the full-time, paid professionals) account for factors such as RTTM, long-term trends and 'bias on selection' when it comes to understanding camera effectiveness? :lol:
Aren't these factors critically important for the understanding of "road safety practice"?

Did you seriously suggest that speed cameras contribute as much as real police towards "safe" road use?
Do you agree this campaign actually does (your exact words) "promote a method that does both" compliance and safety (the latter to a greater extent)?

There are plenty of questions in there for you to evade - again!

We see it working though don't we. Where are the 2008 and 2009 UK Road Casualty figures on your forum? Conveniently ignored because they don't warrant discussion. Are they an inconvenient truth?

How does RTTM work on a national road network basis? I would say that the highlighting of speed limits by way of a national speed enforcement system has had a national rather than a localised camera effect now seen in the Road Casualty figures for the UK network. I say you have noticed this also and have chosen not to admit it in your forum or address it by further analysis, such as your capabilities are. So come on, explain away the reduction in fatalities and serious injuries noticed on a national basis and see if you can avoid the conjecture of hospital figures and credit crunch.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 14:10 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
Couple of things I picked up on while reading through the thread.

From a post by dcbwhaley -
Quote:
This is a view echoed by the Hampshire-based motoring organisation, the AA. A spokesman said: "Fake speed cameras are a distraction, but how do you compare them with eye-catching adverts or photographs of pretty girls promoting films? Drivers have got to learn not to be distracted."


It is difficult to know what is a distraction and a potential hazard without looking at it and therefore being distracted from what is directly in front. In the case of adverts the key thing is not to keep looking at them to read them, they are not a hazard that needs any action. Cameras are rather different as they do present a potential hazard, that of getting a fine/points, so in the same way that you check for shadows or visible feet when approaching a parked van or 4x4 you check your speed. For a good driver they are a minimal hazard, but as we know if we can save just one life by removing a hazard...


GreenShed wrote:
Looking at your speedo constantly and in a distracting way isn't required to maintain speed.


It is not too difficult to maintain a speed to within a few mph on a clear straightish road, providing you can hear the engine, however it is much harder to know your speed within a few mph in an environment where you are continuously varying it in response to hazards/conditions. To know your speed well enough to avoid prosecution when accelerating after slowing for a junction, bend or other road user you have to check your speedo.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 14:15 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
Steve wrote:
It seems the majority of drivers (especially on roads like motorways) would disagree with you.

Then they are s*** drivers then.

the use of needless profanity says a lot about someone.

So the majority are very bad, yet are safe?
On a philosophical note: how can the majority be at the extreme end of the scale on an issue which is subjective? I think the majority would agree the only bad thing here is the setting of the limit (as well as enforcement of them). I know you don't agree, but you won't be able to justify how your subjective opinion trumps everyone else's.

GreenShed wrote:
Steve wrote:
In these days of limits set well below reasonable driving levels, and where there is enforcement of them, there is no real choice.

I don't agree at all.

How profound! :roll:

GreenShed wrote:
Steve wrote:
What do you think is the average time between speedo glances on limit reduced and enforced roads?

I have no idea and don't see the relevance, you can do it without any reduction in road observation.

I'm surprised someone of your capabilities, motivations, and dare I say resource, doesn’t know the answer - yet you feel you can comment on the significance of it :lol:
So you can constantly be looking at the speedo "without any reduction in road observation" :lol: and all of a sudden you can't see the relevance? :lol:
Reference please, or the fishy argument is yours alone :D

GreenShed wrote:
We see it working though don't we.

No and no!

GreenShed wrote:
Where are the 2008 and 2009 UK Road Casualty figures on your forum? Conveniently ignored because they don't warrant discussion. Are they an inconvenient truth?

How does RTTM work on a national road network basis? I would say that the highlighting of speed limits by way of a national speed enforcement system has had a national rather than a localised camera effect now seen in the Road Casualty figures for the UK network. I say you have noticed this also and have chosen not to admit it in your forum or address it by further analysis, such as your capabilities are. So come on, explain away the reduction in fatalities and serious injuries noticed on a national basis and see if you can avoid the conjecture of hospital figures and credit crunch.

They're not inconvenient at all. We've already discussed them, don't you remember? You were there! (I can't help but notice that was another post to you that went unanswered. I'll add that to my list.)

Plug in the latest net distance VS fatalities into the fatality gap curve you didn't understand (the 'no's linked above) and tell us how that deviation from trend is doing! :popcorn: (It's not like I didn't mention that within the first of those 2 links)



Nice try at a diversion, but I caught you. Yes you quoted my questions, but you didn't answer them.
Have another go:
GreenShed wrote:
I do't believe there is any support for the safespeed method from any noted authority on road safety and I also understand that the safespeed method is in direct conflict with all findings in road safety practice, methodology and research that exists save for the "research" published within these walls.

- Which of these noted authorities on road safety (the full-time, paid professionals) account for factors such as RTTM, long-term trends and 'bias on selection' when it comes to understanding camera effectiveness? :lol:

- Aren't these factors critically important for the understanding of "road safety practice"?

- Did you seriously suggest that speed cameras contribute as much as real police towards "safe" road use?

- Do you agree this campaign actually does (your exact words) "promote a method that does both" compliance and safety (the latter to a greater extent)?


There are plenty of questions in there for you to evade - again - again!!

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 16:24 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
GreenShed wrote:
You have described what very bad drivers would do.
If I said to you that whilst doing your job (assuming for the minute that it is a desk one - phoning and paperwork), that inbetween all your normal work you will loose your job, unless every 20 minutes on the dot every hour that you must do something that distracts you from your task at hand and pay attention to something else (refocus), plus if you fail to do said task/s 4 times, you would loose your job - no questions asked, just 7 seconds allowance, how long before you only work for 10 minutes intervals, before you stare at the clock to ensure you prioritise the required new task ?
GreenShed wrote:
Alternately compliant, lawful driving is not at all difficult to achieve and be safe.
Well it didn't used to be, with predictable road speed and layouts all across the whole Country one knew where one stood instinctively. This allowed any motorist to fully concentrate on road potential dangers and actual dangers and to have plenty to think and to anticipate. This enabled even many of the less well capable motorists time to think and react ... and as they gained experience they improved.
Now we are asking such precision and forethought to less crucial matters and such confusion on road specifics, that more attention is taken up with small details than the previous important one's. Less capable motorists are time consumed with these new requirements than 'just' defaulting to a capable safety skill. Hence why SI accident rate have been increasing across the Country over the last 17yrs.
GreenShed wrote:
Why not promote a method that does both?
We do not condone speeding as you well know. Even police drivers have been found to be speeding so what chance has the simple 'public' ? We can all you included make mistakes, and with precise numeric enforcement there are no mitigating circumstances, you are just considered guilty until proven (great stress, concern and cost!) innocent - hardly justice is it ?
Education is not meant to be read as teach how fast or slow one should or should not go - but proper education about road skills, knowledge and improving abilities. Couple this better process of education and learning and an excellent traffic police force that is well trained and understand how to enforce proportionately and when appropriate and that would be a great system - no ?
Wait a minute that is what we had - humm so who went and tried to fix it, to save money by reducing the numbers of trafpol ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 27, 2010 16:37 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
GreenShed wrote:
I do't believe there is any support for the safespeed method from any noted authority on road safety and I also understand that the safespeed method is in direct conflict with all findings in road safety practice, methodology and research that exists save for the "research" published within these walls.

:lol: You really do make me laugh ! :lol: Failing that, you must be totally failing to comprehend the road safety systems, that have been in place for decades.
What is the Safe Speed system ? well we would recommend that all drivers do the following just to start with (for LHD Countries) :
Safe Speed 100 Word Driver's Highway Code wrote:
Drive on the left.
Make sure you can see and be seen.
Keep a constant look out all around.
Be aware of signs and regulations and why they are there.
Be predictable.
Recognise and anticipate danger and keep clear space from it.
Always ensure that you can stop within the distance that you know is clear.
Develop your skills.
Give courtesy, co-operation and space to others.
Don't obstruct them.
Never take risks, drive unfit or compete with others.
Safety is paramount and far more important than priority.
Take personal responsibility for your safety and the safety of those nearby.
Enjoy.

copyright Safe Speed 2009


Why don't you tell me what you think is 'wrong' with 'our system' precisely ? :)

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 02:34 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
I do't believe there is any support for the safespeed method from any noted authority on road safety and I also understand that the safespeed method is in direct conflict with all findings in road safety practice, methodology and research that exists save for the "research" published within these walls.

:lol: You really do make me laugh ! :lol: Failing that, you must be totally failing to comprehend the road safety systems, that have been in place for decades.
What is the Safe Speed system ? well we would recommend that all drivers do the following just to start with (for LHD Countries) :
Safe Speed 100 Word Driver's Highway Code wrote:
Drive on the left.
Make sure you can see and be seen.
Keep a constant look out all around.
Be aware of signs and regulations and why they are there.
Be predictable.
Recognise and anticipate danger and keep clear space from it.
Always ensure that you can stop within the distance that you know is clear.
Develop your skills.
Give courtesy, co-operation and space to others.
Don't obstruct them.
Never take risks, drive unfit or compete with others.
Safety is paramount and far more important than priority.
Take personal responsibility for your safety and the safety of those nearby.
Enjoy.

copyright Safe Speed 2009


Why don't you tell me what you think is 'wrong' with 'our system' precisely ? :)

A reference to Road Traffic Law wouldn't go amiss.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:01 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
GreenShed wrote:
How does RTTM work on a national road network basis? I would say that the highlighting of speed limits by way of a national speed enforcement system has had a national rather than a localised camera effect now seen in the Road Casualty figures for the UK network. I say you have noticed this also and have chosen not to admit it in your forum or address it by further analysis, such as your capabilities are. So come on, explain away the reduction in fatalities and serious injuries noticed on a national basis and see if you can avoid the conjecture of hospital figures and credit crunch.


Yet again you make more demands, and attempts at obfuscation of the relevant points, and yet have left so many questions of your own standpoint outstanding, because you are unable to answer them without highlighting the glaring errors in your point of view. You are fully aware that 'RTTM' on a systemic level is manifested in the fact that road casualty figures have been trending downwards for decades, however the introduction of speed cameras saw a significant decline in the rate of reduction.

To dismiss the hospital figures as conjecture is specious, and yet another example of you trying to sweep aside inconvenient truths. The fact of the matter is that when the figures reported by partners in the SCP vary considerably in their favour from those reported by an independant organisation, directly involved with the treatment of these casualties, then that is significant, and differ they do!

So I note that the one time you have deigned to offer the substantiation requested of you for your nonsense it turned out that the source was nothing of the kind, presumably down to your lack of understanding of the issues at hand. Are we to assume from your ongoing disinclination to provide any substance to your waffle, or engage any points which may highlight this lack of substance, that really you don't understand this subject at all well?!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
GreenShed wrote:
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
I do't believe there is any support for the safespeed method from any noted authority on road safety and I also understand that the safespeed method is in direct conflict with all findings in road safety practice, methodology and research that exists save for the "research" published within these walls.
Safe Speed 100 Word Driver's Highway Code wrote:
Why don't you tell me what you think is 'wrong' with 'our system' precisely ? :)

A reference to Road Traffic Law wouldn't go amiss.
So you agree with 'our system' despite your earlier comments and can only try to find error by failing to understand the positive concept. Interesting.
You fail to understand the importance of observation and thought processes of driving, and now attempt to bring the discussion back to enforcement as you see no error in our system.
So since you agree with 'our system' please retract the statement above where you condemn our purpose and authority.

Since you fail too to understand the relevance of looking away to focus and re-focus to the speedo and camera locations and thought processes that accompany them, perhaps it is your methods and processes that are now called into question.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
GreenShed wrote:
How does RTTM work on a national road network basis? I would say that the highlighting of speed limits by way of a national speed enforcement system has had a national rather than a localised camera effect now seen in the Road Casualty figures for the UK network.

Analysing the National Stats helps appreciate the whole situation. The effect of cameras on the whole system is one of increased SI accidents and that of a deepening trend of fatalities too overall (last 17yrs). The UK is no longer holds the safest roads in the World - does this not bother you in the slightest? Blinkered bias belief in any system is wrong.

GreenShed wrote:
I say you have noticed this also and have chosen not to admit it in your forum or address it by further analysis, such as your capabilities are. So come on, explain away the reduction in fatalities and serious injuries noticed on a national basis and see if you can avoid the conjecture of hospital figures and credit crunch.
Speculation is usu wrong.
The quality of the motorist today is better or worse would you say ?

Your do not understand RTTM or you would not ask unless it is for banter since the question is not necessary if you appreciated the significance of the webpages Rttm Speed and speeding and of course effects.
However in answer to your Recession issues - it is as I have said on air, there is always a drop in fatalities when there is a recession. People drive more 'defensively' to start with, they go less far, less often. Therefore they are exposed to danger less often for shorter periods, hence the fatality drops ...
Seatbelts, car improvements, direct accident medical care, aftercare in hospital all have helped the figures which should be less than they currently are !

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 22:47 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9230
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
botach wrote:
Tell us something Greenshed ( after all you invoked the honesty idea ) -
1) Please confirm or deny that you are SCP( I.E PUT UP OR SHUT UP)
2) Is this constant smokescreening of topics ,particularly those with newcomers part of the overall SCP plan ,or just something you do on your own account .( And I always thought using smoke was something done by naval SURFACE vessels to avoid further enemy action and damage .)


I beg to offer evidence that said person has failed ,once again to answer a direct question :shock: .I therefore suggest he be awarded a red camera avatur to warn newbies of his presence .

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 23:18 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
The fact that Greenshed alludes to having some inside knowledge of the "road safety" industry but then refuses to elaborate tells me he's a nobody in reality. Only the spouting of meaningless party line contradicts that opinion.

Unless he'd like to tell me otherwise. :tumbleweed:

By the way Greenshed, are you really saying that the majority of car drivers on the motorway network are "shit"?
Or altenatively are you trying to tell me that the majority of car drivers on the motorway network do 70 or less?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 00:11 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9230
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Johnnytheboy wrote:
The fact that Greenshed alludes to having some inside knowledge of the "road safety" industry but then refuses to elaborate tells me he's a nobody in reality. Only the spouting of meaningless party line contradicts that opinion.

Unless he'd like to tell me otherwise. :tumbleweed:

By the way Greenshed, are you really saying that the majority of car drivers on the motorway network are "shit"?
Or altenatively are you trying to tell me that the majority of car drivers on the motorway network do 70 or less?


What bothers me is that this SCP clone crops up to upset newbies,and present them with unsafe driving practices - we regular timers recognise him for what he is - the rear end of a dieretic pig ( ful of wind and poo) .We don't yet have a system in place to nip his testoronal bits ( bit like nuetering an fighting pig).

_________________
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 04, 2010 12:48 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
How does RTTM work on a national road network basis? I would say that the highlighting of speed limits by way of a national speed enforcement system has had a national rather than a localised camera effect now seen in the Road Casualty figures for the UK network.

Analysing the National Stats helps appreciate the whole situation. The effect of cameras on the whole system is one of increased SI accidents and that of a deepening trend of fatalities too overall (last 17yrs). The UK is no longer holds the safest roads in the World - does this not bother you in the slightest? Blinkered bias belief in any system is wrong.

GreenShed wrote:
I say you have noticed this also and have chosen not to admit it in your forum or address it by further analysis, such as your capabilities are. So come on, explain away the reduction in fatalities and serious injuries noticed on a national basis and see if you can avoid the conjecture of hospital figures and credit crunch.
Speculation is usu wrong.
The quality of the motorist today is better or worse would you say ?

Your do not understand RTTM or you would not ask unless it is for banter since the question is not necessary if you appreciated the significance of the webpages Rttm Speed and speeding and of course effects.
However in answer to your Recession issues - it is as I have said on air, there is always a drop in fatalities when there is a recession. People drive more 'defensively' to start with, they go less far, less often. Therefore they are exposed to danger less often for shorter periods, hence the fatality drops ...
Seatbelts, car improvements, direct accident medical care, aftercare in hospital all have helped the figures which should be less than they currently are !

Have you found the answer to the challenge to your claim yet?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.280s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]