Safe Speed Forums

I developed an almost identical variation some time agobut mine was:

Always ensure that you can stop comfortably, on your own side of the road, within the distance that you can see to be clear and can reasonably expect will remain clear.

I'm not sure whether the difference between yours and mine adds up to anything?

I knew it had been discussed before. I think yours is better - not sure if there's much difference in practice, but it leaves less open to doubt.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

This thread was about mud on the road, and you hijacked it in an attempt to score some cheap points about speed. Nobody mentioned speed, other than you.
Had you been coming along the same road, sticking to your holier-than-holy speed limit (or even your regulation 10mph under it), you'd probably be history.



The farmer who placed it there, without any warning whatsoever, definitely should receive at least penalty points.
If I placed an obstruction in the road which subequently caused someone's death, I'd be up for murder.



On second thoughts, please don't.
You hijack discussions just to score cheap points and to wind people up, without attempting to add anything constructive to the debate on the subject. In doing so, you very amply demonstrate the complete vacuum of arguments for the other side and - as such - you're actually (unwittingly) one of SafeSpeed's best ambassadors.
So keep it up, BW. You'll eventually turn even the most hardened of camera supporters.
Can I give you Richard Brundstrom's email address?

Cheers
Peter

Actually, Paul, I think you'll find we were talking about mud on the road.
BW was the one who mentioned speed limits.

Don't worry, he has that effect on me as well.

Cheers
Peter

Yeah, you're right aren't you?

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

We all agree to abide by the law, unless we are small children or criminals. The law is not something you edit to suit your taste!

If you can't agree to stay in the limits, please don't drive! But if you can't agree to stay in the limits and you do drive, eventually you will loose the right to drive. The choice is yours.

_________________
I stole this .sig

but then before that, Pete317 had said



yet now he says



Please try to be consistent when you are putting your points across. With respect to your other points, never forget - the law is on my side! Only cranks want to scrap speed limits, and it will not happen!

_________________
I stole this .sig

That's rich - you asked me about speed limits yourself!

_________________
I stole this .sig

This is Old Basingwerk again, and at his finest too Do I really need to repeat all I've said about when I speed and when I won't? Apparently I do , but if it's not sunk in yet I'm not going to do it here. Suffice it to say that I've been through the idiot phase, through the dumb obedience phase (which was pretty brief as I realised I wasn't really driving any better than I was in the idiot phase), and now my concern is simply that I drive safely - no more, no less.

Oh, and btw, the law is edited all the time, including speed limits. Unfortunately it hasn't done us any favours overall. I'd like to see some rational editing going on in Westminster, but lacking that I'll carry on as now - staying safe is priority number one, staying legal is a secondary concern. Often the two line up together, but where they don't AFAIC safe trumps legal every single time.

Edit:Has anybody here ever seriously advocated scrapping speed limits? Adjusting, yes. Abolishing, no.


Sorry for continuing this off topic stuff . Back to mud...

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I expect some stubborn drivers to break the law, but the system will detect them in the end and dish out fines and points. Eventually, even they will get the message – speeding is a sucker's game. So go on, fill your boots (while you can).

_________________
I stole this .sig

The obvious inference when you mention speed basingwerk is that you are actually referring to the speed limit (the same inference as in the term “Speed Kills”). So no, speed was not mentioned until your, oh so predictable, reply.

On the subject of the law being on your side (and I’m assuming by that you mean that the law is not on our side), the law is on everyone’s side, that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the disproportionate enforcement of those laws by the use of speed cameras. The punishment should fit the crime, something that it patently does not do at the moment.

_________________
If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

Yes, sadly an old leopard like me cannot change his spots. But its SafeSpeed and Pete317 who have been making mischief with me again, and you have caught some flak. These sob stories about “hard done drivers” get me going. I can’t stand it when the pepipoo brigade turn on the waterworks! But look, your mnemonic, Gatsobait, hardly advertises you as a model citizen of the road, does it!



The limits only says the maximum speed, not the minimum. It is unlikely that legal means unsafe, so you are not often called upon to use your trump card. But I can agree that the law has to be acceptable to ALL stakeholders, including drivers. It could be that drivers are not getting a good deal, especially in the contentious m-way limit, and perhaps some urban routes. Perhaps a place to focus in on methods of limit setting and due process. I can dig that. But limits and limit enforcements (for they are bound at the hip) will not be abolished in the near future. A little judicious straying over the line near the town boundaries is not something I really care about (although I don’t do it myself), nor would the odd foray into the low 80's on the m-way make me raise an eye-brow, if you want to chance your arm with the law. But speeding in the 30 zone is a chump’s game, and petty speeding anywhere generally rots the culture, like all petty things (littering, spitting, fly tipping, burning tyres, shop lifting, pissing in alleys, farting in lifts!)

_________________
I stole this .sig

It also be from the term “Safe Speed”, or “Legal Speed”. Pete317 made no distinction when he brought the issue up. He simply said he ‘wasn’t going very fast’ or words to that effect.



At last, I have found a fellow on this site with whom I can agree! A small crime with a high chance of detection should have a small punishment. But to work as a deterrent, a small crime with a low chance of detection should have a heavy punishment <pause to lick my lips!> - otherwise, no example would be set.

Now, until recently, the chance of a speeder getting caught was small, so a heavy punishment was levied. Now speeders can be caught easily and cheaply (for they pay for it themselves!), so it is not necessary to make on a example of the ones we find.

To fix this we should either a) set the cameras so we only get the worst speeders, then make an example of them or b) keep it as it is, rounding up all the speeders, and just add a levy to their car tax so that they can repay their debt to society, although we should still have a cut off point to strip away the licenses of really bad drivers.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I'm sorry, but what the badgery f**k does the chance of detection have to do with the severity of the punishment? That is about as far from the punishment fitting the crime as you can get. If that was the case, the tiny minority of burglars that were actually caught and prosecuted would be strung up by the testicles on fish hooks.

I will refrain from reacting to the accusation that our views are in any way similar, you must obviously be taking the piss.

_________________
If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

Apologies for the swearing but basingwerk does spout some complete and utter tosh at times.

If there are any children watching, swearing is not big and it's not clever. On the same token, neither is trolling.

_________________
If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

I depends on your views on how the law works on society to control it. One view is if a crime has a small chance of detection, the punishment that you give to the ones that you do catch should be very heavy, in order to deter those who fancy their chances. It’s a bit of a game, the law is, as any old lag will tell you. It might be the case that we have so many burglars because we don’t string up the ones we do catch by the testicles – a course of action I whole heartedly support. Indeed, I have a While Sails sailing certificate and I am a former Alpine Mountaineer, so I could tie the knots!



I am looking forward to opening my Easter eggs, so there is an element of levity in my posting today!

_________________
I stole this .sig

However much I enjoy your textual sparring with others on this forum (and I have to admit the above did make me smile), your arguments never appear to move the discussions forward one jot. Is this a deliberate ploy on your part or are you truly that stubborn and single minded (I managed to avoid saying narrow minded there)?

_________________
If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

I wasn't going to get drawn in by more OT stuff here, but I can't leave this: :loco: There goes the concept of punishment fitting the offence, to be replaced by the wonderful new concept of punishment fitting the technical ability to detect the offence. On that basis burglars would be more severly punished than most murderers. Hello Law and bye-bye Justice.

Really? I remember my mum getting pinged when I was about 11 for doing 40ish in a residential 30. IIRC she pleaded guilty by post and got fined about thirty quid. More a slap on the wrist than a heavy punishment, even accounting for what thirty quid was worth in the early 80s as opposed to now.

Option (a) isn't a bad idea, but I don't like the "make an example of 'em" bit. Punishment must never be disproportionate just because it was harder to catch the offender. We change that and I really believe we can kiss the idea of a just society goodbye.

Interestingly, option (b) sounds almost like you agree that the current system of fines is a stealth tax on naughty drivers. I'm sure I'm misreading it as I'm sure you've been adamant that it's nothing of the kind before. One of the few things you and I agree on. I don't think it's a stealth tax either, just a crap idea.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Apologies accepted! But don't feel bad - badgery f**k is pretty mild in the scheme of things.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Serge, I just can't stand people who think they should be a "special case" because they are such great drivers - in thier own eyes.

_________________
I stole this .sig