Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Oct 14, 2019 17:31

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 14:27 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
camera operator wrote:
yes i drive my personal car without constantly checking my speedo within the limit.

whilst driving the SCP van i would say i am more aware of my speed bigger engine, diesal etc, the effect my driving has on others, the use of indicators


Hmmm. Can i make the question any simpler perhaps? as it looks like Tom, Dick and Jimbob (Harry Callaghan couldnt make it) dont comprehend.

Whether or not you drive your own vehicle or your scammer vehicle "within the limit" wasnt the question at all, now was it?

Do you NEED a speedo to DRIVE SAFELY? That IS the question.

I propose that if the answer is NO, (and i suspect that NO is THE only correct answer)you dont NEED a speedo to drive safely, then i further propose you dont NEED speed limits, as everyone ( braindead loons excepted) will set a SAFE speed for the conditions in force at the time theyre travelling. Ergo we dont need you lot of greedy tossers "making us safer" by measuring an unimportant factor and fining us for exceeding your ideas of safe speeds.


Ok cscp and other scamsters, youre all invited to add your collective IQ's to compute this one),hows about having another wild stab at the answer?
Lets see how many attempts before it clicks with em. :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 27, 2005 14:55 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
Quote:
I propose that if the answer is NO, (and i suspect that NO is THE only correct answer)you dont NEED a speedo to drive safely, then i further propose you dont NEED speed limits, as everyone ( braindead loons excepted) will set a SAFE speed for the conditions in force at the time theyre travelling.

Correctly decided and protrayed speed limits are a great heads-up for novice drivers everywhere and for more experienced drivers on roads previously unfrequented. I wouldn't want to see them go for a moment, just the imbecillic and non-negotiable/non-discretionary enforcement that takes them out of proportion with other aspects of adequately safe driving.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 09:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
tim.tonal wrote:

I don't believe people who think they can gauge their speed without checking their speedo - the human mind is easily tricked. :o

Image


Id agree with you.

However, what we're discussing isnt whether or not we can accurately gauge a speed to drive at, but rather a SAFE speed to drive at.
And theres an ocean of difference between those two requirements!

Thats a concerning thought in itself as our unfriendly scammer/money grabbers actually believe that one particular set of velocities are somehow inherently safer than ones prohibited by their signs.

Multiple examples exist of why such "thinking" is dangerous and basically stupid and retarded, such as driving at the legal limit on a motorway in fog/other reduced visibility conditions, driving around built up areas foot planted at 30 etc etc etc.

The above reasons partly explain my stance on speed limits being used at all, even for novices.

Just WHO is in the best position to decide what speed is SAFEST at a particular TIME?
Some politician with an agenda of his own?
Some "Top Welsh Cop" trying to make a name for himself? (the fact that he's already known by varied names neednt be considered here...:D)
How about a supposed "impartial" Research lab who's "research" gets funded by its friends in the DFT?
Maybe supposed road "safety" organisations like Barking mad brake?
Or perhaps Trainspot BC2000?

The answer is that none of the above have any role whatsoever in deciding a safe speed to drive at as theyre ALL speaking from a position that is, lets say, tainted by the blood or money of their victims.

Only a driver, on a stretch of road has ANY idea of a SAFE speed to drive at, as only they have up to date information on conditions at their locality at that time. That speed when measured may be 20, it may be 120. Its unimportant to KNOW that speed as all we're interested in is being SAFE....or SAFER.
We are of course talking about sensible, alert, and professional drivers here, not the chavvy boy racer idiot types, or half asleep grandads, school run mums distracted by junior peeing on the seats, or the muppets we all see blabbing on their phones or reading a newspaper in lane three.

What all of this points us to is Driver Training and the need for major improvements to it.
Professional drivers, trained to a high standard WILL be safer than those without it or those without EXPERIENCE.
Dont believe me? Ok, let your local bus driver fly you to your next holiday destination! :)

I want to see a much more rigorous driver training programme undertaken, with ALL aspects of driving properly tested.
Including high speed and skid control aspects in different drive layout vehicles.

Couple intense driver training with a complete rethink and reversal (where necessary) of stupid road planning and maintainance schedules and we'd see a marked improvement in accidents occuring on the roads.

But then again, all of this costs money, and our scammers only like to MAKE money from deaths.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 22:00 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
If a diesel ticks over at 1000 revs, and redlines at 4500 - 5000, then there can only be a small difference in revs between 30 mph and 37 mph.
The engine note/revs are not sufficient on their own to be a guide to speed.
Accoustics of the vehicle which give rise to vibrations/harmonics are a better guide when they occur at the correct speeds - for example my car vibrates at 30 when in 5th gear, as the engine slows.
When in 4th gear, the vibration occurs at 22-25.
It is NOT an easy guide to speed even with practice.
Movement over the ground, in relation to near and distant objects ONLY works for experienced drivers, and only under ideal conditions.
In fog, rain, dark etc. you have to be sharp to adjust your perceptions accordingly.

I dont believe SCP vans or drivers are any different.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 29, 2005 22:19 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
camera operator wrote:
yes i drive my personal car without constantly checking my speedo within the limit.

whilst driving the SCP van i would say i am more aware of my speed bigger engine, diesal etc, the effect my driving has on others, the use of indicators



Hmmmm!
Makes you wonder why someone ever thought it would be a good idea to fit cars with speedos in the first place!

...and why someone else thought it would be an even better idea to make it an offence not to have one that worked!..

...unless they just wanted to make money out of motorists - but who in their right mind would be so callous as to do that instead of trying to keep our roads safe?!

Honestly, I've never heard so much s^&*t in my life!

Well, the question I asked of the last person to make this claim was:

"OK, so you're telling me that I can put you in any car, on any road, day or night, with or without street lighting, in any weather and any traffic conditions...

...and you'll always be able to stay within the speed limit at all times (without causing an un-necessary obstruction to other traffic!) ???

I'd love to see that!

There is a SLIGHTLY better argument for claiming you can do it in your own car once you're familiar with it but even then I wouldn't have held my breath!

Incidentally, with regard to the pedestrian injuries, this is one area where I'm expecting type approval legislation to start making a difference. Already, manufacturers are voluntarily starting to comply with the "pedestrian protection" directive. Soon, it will be mandatory for new types of vehicle and we will start to see these filter through on to the streets. On the other hand, at an accident investigation course I went to once, one of the speakers mentioned that most fatal head injuries sustained by pedestriants were caused by them hitting the road surface or other roadside furniture (camera housings maybe? :wink: ) than hitting the car. If that's the case, maybe all pdestrians should wear crash helmets? After all, we're all serious about casualty reduction here aren't we?
I mean, obviously, it's not going to be as effective as fleecing people doing 79 on the M6 for £60 but surely it's a start, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 00:04 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
Mole wrote:
If that's the case, maybe all pdestrians should wear crash helmets? After all, we're all serious about casualty reduction here aren't we?


well given that the majority of pedestrian fatalities are the pedestrian's fault, and that in the majority of those cases the pedestrian is intoxicated, maybe we should just ban alcohol :thumbsup:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 18:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
Nice to see the collective Moe, Larry and Curly at cscp didnt manage to get around to giving a straight answer to a simple question.

If they cant even manage to answe rthst one, then how on earth can they be trusted to save lives on the roads with a device that fines you 2 weeks after you were photographed? .....whooop whooop whoop........

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

Believe nothing- Question everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2005 21:28 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
As I recall, that's pretty much where we left it on the CSCP board. Someone from their side made a similar claim and we asked pretty much the same questions and generally laughed our socks off at them! I certainly asked much the same thing (i.e. "what, ANY car in ANY circumstances"?) and all of a sudden, it all went quiet...

To my mind it just undermines the credibility of any other statement they might care to make.

I expect I'm not alone...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 31, 2005 13:43 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
But we already know that due to the lies from Speedfinder-General Callaghan, there has been no credibility in anything they say for a very long time now.
Job-preservation crap is all they spout and cash-collection is all they do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 21:12 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
Still waiting here for an answer Scamera proponents.

I wonder if they realise that the less they attempt to communicate, the more suspicion will be generated by what they have to hide?
My question is reasonable, to the point and on topic, so why are they having so much aggro to give an answer?

Heres what i suspect: They know full well the minute they answer (and they can only realistically answer the way ive already suggested, ie: NO) then their whole reason for existing gets thrown into question.

So, again: Do we NEED a speedometer to drive at a safe speed?

If yes, then elaborate on that, similarly if no.


I also have another question, although this ones open to everyone.

Since the courts are part of the "partnerships", how can a driver electing to have his case heard before them, expect to have a fair and impartial trial?

Conflict of interests i believe and explains why theyre so hard on drivers electing to defy them!

Human rights legislation anyone????

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

Believe nothing- Question everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 11:03 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
How can you possibly need a speedo to drive safely?

If you need a speedo as some form of crutch to help you drive at an appropriate speed then quite frankly you shouldn't be driving.

I must have said this before but we seem to walk around shopping centres without having accidents and the last time I looked I didn't have a speedo fitted!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 13:59 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Ah, I quite agree, but do you need a speedo to drive "within the speed limit"? (although in some people's minds, that's the same as driving safely and at an "appropriate speed")!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 17:30 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
civil engineer wrote:
I must have said this before but we seem to walk around shopping centres without having accidents and the last time I looked I didn't have a speedo fitted!

Well that is because the vast majority of the traffic will be doing 3 to 4 mph with almost none exceeding this speed. So all traffic is going at a well controlled speed with almost nothing exceeding the speed limit (lets call the human walking speed the speed limit).
The traffic in a shopping centre is to all intents and purposes not even controlled in lanes but as the expected speed is the average speed and also the maximum speed (just about) then there are very few collisions, when there are they are far from serious.
Now consider what happens when someone runs through a shopping centre, they come very close to and even do collide or at least cause many pedestrians to veer from their normal track. When they do veer they don't often cause other collisions because the rest of the traffic is travelling at the same speed. When collisions do occur after avoiding action they are minor because there is very little differential speed offered into the collision.
Now lets take 2 sprinters in the shopping centre, more risk of collision, more veering shoppers so more risk of potential accidents all because there are more shoppers travelling at unexpected and faster speeds. More alarmingly there are limit abiding shoppers having to take avoiding action and because there are more shoppers above the speed limit there is potential for more differential speeds and injury to limit compliant shoppers. Then of course you could get 2 sprinters colliding as they overtake, we all know that is a common event with rather serious consequences.
I could go on and on with this but you have just demonstrated in your misconceived question exactly why a "safespeed" method is not satisfactory nor safe for use on the roads or in a shopping centre for that matter.
Is there not a part of the Civil Engineering discipline that would explain this?
Well done and thanks for the opportunity. 8-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 17:48 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
Quote:
Is there not a part of the Civil Engineering discipline that would explain this?



Provided the sprinters slow down in ample time before reaching the crowd so that they can take in all hazards potentially in their sprint path and be able to comfortably miss any foreseeable activity, it isn't a problem. Anything faster - or put another way, the sustained sprint into the crowd is asking for trouble, that trouble being a collission with pedestrian or pedestrians.

Extending this analogy a bit further, the chances are also that in such a crowded situation, the dangerous speed - that at which collision is likely to happen - will almost certainly be within the speed limit to which you refer, so any precinct cameras would not have been automatically triggered - although a trained eye of a "pedestrian traffic cop" would see the problem in a heartbeat and be able to pull the miscreant over there and then with education.

Does that explain it adequately?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 17:49 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 15:43
Posts: 2416
Looks like Steve is using the JJ name again today. I know it doesn't make a huge amount of difference, but I for one would have a bit more respect for you if you just went back to using itschampionman, or any ID as long as it's yours and you stick to it. It's just a courtesy detail. I find it annoying replying to JJ (or yourself using the JJ name for that matter) and not knowing which one of you is going to come back. It's a web forum, not a bloody ouija board.

Back on topic, I notice that you've gone straight for the point about not needing a speedo as a pedestrian in a shopping centre. There is such a thing as stretching an analogy too far, you know. Yeah :wink: I know you know. How about answering the far more important question that you managed to miss?
civil engineer wrote:
How can you possibly need a speedo to drive safely?

If you need a speedo as some form of crutch to help you drive at an appropriate speed then quite frankly you shouldn't be driving.

:popcorn:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 19:21 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
JJ wrote:
civil engineer wrote:
I must have said this before but we seem to walk around shopping centres without having accidents and the last time I looked I didn't have a speedo fitted!

Well that is because the vast majority of the traffic will be doing 3 to 4 mph with almost none exceeding this speed. So all traffic is going at a well controlled speed with almost nothing exceeding the speed limit (lets call the human walking speed the speed limit).
The traffic in a shopping centre is to all intents and purposes not even controlled in lanes but as the expected speed is the average speed and also the maximum speed (just about) then there are very few collisions, when there are they are far from serious.
Now consider what happens when someone runs through a shopping centre, they come very close to and even do collide or at least cause many pedestrians to veer from their normal track. When they do veer they don't often cause other collisions because the rest of the traffic is travelling at the same speed. When collisions do occur after avoiding action they are minor because there is very little differential speed offered into the collision.
Now lets take 2 sprinters in the shopping centre, more risk of collision, more veering shoppers so more risk of potential accidents all because there are more shoppers travelling at unexpected and faster speeds. More alarmingly there are limit abiding shoppers having to take avoiding action and because there are more shoppers above the speed limit there is potential for more differential speeds and injury to limit compliant shoppers. Then of course you could get 2 sprinters colliding as they overtake, we all know that is a common event with rather serious consequences.
I could go on and on with this but you have just demonstrated in your misconceived question exactly why a "safespeed" method is not satisfactory nor safe for use on the roads or in a shopping centre for that matter.
Is there not a part of the Civil Engineering discipline that would explain this?
Well done and thanks for the opportunity. 8-)



Well howzabout that then???

Managed all of the above diahorrea but actually missed the question....yet again!

Glad to "give you the opportunity" matey, have another stab at the original question, lets see if youre sunglasses stay on this time Mr Cool. :D

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

Believe nothing- Question everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 22:00 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
JJ wrote:
civil engineer wrote:
I must have said this before but we seem to walk around shopping centres without having accidents and the last time I looked I didn't have a speedo fitted!

Well that is because the vast majority of the traffic will be doing 3 to 4 mph with almost none exceeding this speed. So all traffic is going at a well controlled speed with almost nothing exceeding the speed limit (lets call the human walking speed the speed limit)."


YES! Why not? An arbitrarily imposed speed limit with little scientific foundation! Great idea! In fact, to make it a bit more like real life, what you need to do is not so much impose your arbitrary limit as being the maximum speed at which (say) 85% of pedestrians walk but set it somewhat slower so that everyone is massively inconvenienced for no real discernible benefit in safety!


"The traffic in a shopping centre is to all intents and purposes not even controlled in lanes but as the expected speed is the average speed and also the maximum speed (just about) then there are very few collisions, when there are they are far from serious."


Yup! Excellent stuff! Whatever you do, don't focus your attemps at casualty reduction on the real problems (despite the fact that you are well aware of them as you have just said) Focus instead on making them slow down rather than walk in a more sensible manner to start with!


"Now consider what happens when someone runs through a shopping centre, they come very close to and even do collide or at least cause many pedestrians to veer from their normal track. When they do veer they don't often cause other collisions because the rest of the traffic is travelling at the same speed. When collisions do occur after avoiding action they are minor because there is very little differential speed offered into the collision."



This is just "word salad" - it doesn't even make sense. First you're saying how terrible it would be if someone went faster than everyone else and then you're not saying its that much of a problem because veryone is going at the same speed!



"Now lets take 2 sprinters in the shopping centre, more risk of collision, more veering shoppers so more risk of potential accidents all because there are more shoppers travelling at unexpected and faster speeds. "


I thought there were only 2 reckless fools exceeding the speed limit a minute ago - now they're all at it -crazy damned fools!


"More alarmingly there are limit abiding shoppers having to take avoiding action and because there are more shoppers above the speed limit there is potential for more differential speeds and injury to limit compliant shoppers. Then of course you could get 2 sprinters colliding as they overtake, we all know that is a common event with rather serious consequences.
I could go on and on with this but you have just demonstrated in your misconceived question exactly why a "safespeed" method is not satisfactory nor safe for use on the roads or in a shopping centre for that matter."


Whereas your brilliant bit of thinking is likely to win a Nobel prize for road safety? I think not!

"Is there not a part of the Civil Engineering discipline that would explain this?"


If there is, you probably wouldn't understand!



"Well done and thanks for the opportunity. 8-)




Think nothing of it my good man! I think you have siezed the opportunity and in doing so, have amply illustrated precisely why current speed enforcement policy IS NOT SAVING ANY LIVES (sorry to harp on about this but it's people's lives we're talking about here)!

To complete the picture though, you ought to go on about how you would make shopping malls a safer place by using a network of cameras and letting people get away with walking too fast for a week or two before asking them for £60.

Come to think of it, maybe that's why they banned "hoodies" from shopping malls!


Whatever you do, don't take up a career in road safety!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2005 22:04 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Oooops!

Cocked up the nested quotes there!

Just ought to point out that not all the stuff above was by "JJ" - the bits in between are mine!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 14:17 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30
Posts: 2053
Location: South Wales (Roving all UK)
Oh dear JJ,

who ever said anything about a speed limit in a shopping mall?

Look around next time you shop, some old dear shuffling around very slowly, people late for work running and others at varying speeds in between.

The point it that we all chose the speed that is appropriate and all seem to manage to move around, interacting at differing speeds without colliding, when we see a slippery surface we slow down, when its crowded we slow down etc etc.

Now lets go back to the question 'do you need a speedo to drive safely' (i paraphrase). Well the answer has clearly got to be no.

As for the movement of pedestrians within confined spaces...I believe that there are areas of my profession that do indeed cover these things. Civil Engineering is a broad church. Although we all start at first principles and base our conclusions on fact not myth.

Now that you brought the subject up, my particular branch of the profession is in contracting, the construction of major infrastucture projects, managing design teams, challenging assumptions and so on. I am now concerned with the performance of the construction process, key performance indicators, root cause analysis. Basically my current job requires me to identify areas of poor or exceptional performance, find out why, and apply the lessons learned.

So JJ, forgive me if I find the whole scamera industry to be founded on some pretty dodgy ground.

While we're on the subject why don't you lay out your career c.v so we can all see what sort of experience we need to become a road safety expert.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2005 21:12 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
Must be a hard question for them to answer, thats all i can say.

I sent the same question to the Transport Research Lab around 3 weeks ago and ive heard nothing from them either.

Conclusions to be drawn?

1)They know the answer but wont say as its not toeing the party line to divulge such "sensitive info" (labour beneficiaries that they are).

2)They dont know the answer....fair enough, we can let that one slide as no ones perfect....not not even me...:p

3)Theyre just like cscp, Ignorant chavs with a mistaken view of whats safe and whats not.

4) They didnt get my mail......unlikely.

BTW, havent you answered my question yet JJ, stevey babes, or Kevski?

If not why n........forget that itll just turn into another unanswered.

Think ill just send this one to the tabloids and see what they make of a scameraship that cant/wont answer a basic safety question. :)

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

Believe nothing- Question everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 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 2 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.379s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]