Safe Speed Forums

What say we all avoid exceeding speed limits for a year or two, just until the morgue's are all overflowing with mangled corpses from the inevitable increase in road casualties that would result from such barbarous insanity?
Then there'd be an outcry, speed limits and enforcement would be abolished and we could all set about legally determining our own safe speeds without being harrassed and constrained by idiot do-gooders with defective adrenal glands.
Are you with me?

Er, not quite. Could you elaborate please?

Oh, and welcome to the forum.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

I've got an idea, why don't we boycott posting in threads started by people who no doubt have good intentions, but lack understanding of the problem, or our standpoint, and make clumsy attempts to ridicule it, whilst only succeeding in showing up their own ignorance?

Dammit, I caved!

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

Isn't 'morgues' the plural of 'morgue'?

Recommend a heavy dose of Lynne Truss (Eats, shoots and leaves)

I don't often read in this forum, but I read this and thought I could posit an alternative viewpoint or 3:

I had a similar thought a while ago, but thinking about the results, If "everyone" adopted the driving within the speed limit approach, what would the outcome be?

1) The safespeed view - fatalities and serious injuries would go up. In this case, the chances are that speed limits would be reduced.

2) The speed camera partnerships view - revenues would go down, making the SCP's financially a drain on the government, meaning:
2A) Speed limits would be reduced, or,
2B) the SCP's would be disbanded

I don't think any of us want a general reduction in speed limits (not even me) although some limits would be in scope for reduction if we could force a proper review of all limits.

Neither of the options above seem to suggest an increase in traffic police on the roads, again, something that I think we all (or most) want to see.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

And none of those options once mention improving driver standards! Which, IMVHO, would be a massive step in the right direction...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

I must say, I'm not the world's best troll spotter by a long chalk but I think Least Carpet has been treated unfairly here. I'd have thought it was a perfectly resonable post although I DO agree it COULD have ben sarcasm but on the whole, I'd have been inclined to give a newbie the benefit of the doubt!

As Handy says though, there are big dangers to this strategy - not least the fact that 100% compliance would bring the 85%ile speed down and that would then give the legislators an excuse to lower limits further - that combined with the loss of revenue!

Unfortunately, if the Cumbria Scamera Partnership is anything to go by, they've been at it a good 4 years now with no discernible improvement on the County's figures. I think therefore, that "a year or two" would not be regarded as anything like a long enough period of time for them to realise what a tiny proportion of KSIs are due to speed in excess of the posted limit. Worse still, during that time, cars would still get safer and many of the "bad junctions" and other accident blackspots would be re-engineered - making further improvements in the KSI figures that the Scammers would be quick to take the credit for.

Can I just say that I think people are missing something, (oh no, not you again!)

The people who endorse lower speeds limits and the use of cameras are themselves road users, so if it gets on our tits surely it will get on theirs too, sooner or later, and behold - the dawn of a new policy?

Sorry, I'm not sure how to punctuate the plural of tits/tit's/tits' ?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

People doing 'god's work' will put up with much if they think it's the one true way.

tits = more than one tit
tit's = belonging to a tit
tits' = belonging to more than one tit

"Tomato's" is the common error known as "the grocers' apostrophe".

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

I knew really

Rules For Clear Writing: -

· Verbs has to agree with their subjects.

· Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.

· And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.

· It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.

· Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat.)

· Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.

· Be more or less specific.

· Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.

· Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.

· No sentence fragments.

· Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.

· Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.

· Do not be redundant; do not use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.

· One should never generalize.

· Comparisons are as bad as cliches.

· Don't use no double negatives.

· Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.

· One-word sentences? Eliminate.

· Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.

· The passive voice is to be ignored.

· Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas.

· Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.

· Do not use multiple exclamation points NOR all caps for emphasis!!!

· Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.

· Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth shaking ideas.

· Use the apostrophe in it's proper place and omit it when its not needed.

· Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."

· If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.

· Puns are for children, not groan readers.

· Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.

· Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.

· Who needs rhetorical questions?

· Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.

· The passive voice should never be used.

· Do not put statements in the negative form.

· A writer must not shift your point of view.

· Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences of 10 or more words, to their antecedents.

· Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.

· If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.

· Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixing metaphors.

· Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.

· Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.

· Always pick on the correct idiom.

· The adverb always follows the verb.

· Be careful to use the rite homonym.

· And last...

· Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Everyone sticks to the limit.

KSI shows no movement

Limits reduced

KSI shows no movement

Limits reduced

KSI shows no movement

Limits reduced

KSI shows no movement

Return to 1822

Or how about

Everyone drives within the speed limit, casualties reduced!

Ah, welcome back patton, where would we be without your simplicity?

Here's an idea - they should take out all standard Gatso and Truvelo safety cameras, and replace them with SPECS cameras set at Limit + 20% to remove (particularly) the alledged panic braking effect and the "race off" crashes problem. Having a wider limit tolerance would reduce the alledged "speedometer gazing" problem.

You don't think it would just set a new pseudo-limit at limit+20%?

People still brake at SPECS cameras though, because they don't understand how they work (or they're just stupid).

_________________
www.misspelled-signs.com - A tribute to illiterate signwriters.

They couldn’t do that could they, just think of all the extra KSI's on the roads through drivers travelling at 20% over the limit.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Cutting through the sarcasm for the moment, the biggest overt problem with SPECS cameras is that they place excessive weight of attention on the speed limit. Having said that, setting them at 20% above the limit would mitigate that for a while.

One thing they would do without a doubt is encourage tailgating so as to miss the camera.

Not to mention changing lane suddenly.