Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Aug 21, 2019 15:36

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 21:03 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
martin* wrote:
Are we all agreed that speed limits are a necessary evil? Yes, they should be appropriate, but presumably we do need them?

Assuming we need them, don't they need enforcing or they will be meaningless?

So how do we enforce them? Traffic cops, technology, traffic calming measures or road user responsibility!; or a mixture of all? Is that not where we are at anyway?

As a speed limit is by definition only a very broad-brush definition of what is safe and unsafe, it needs to be enforced in the same spirit, not as if it were Holy Writ. In effect, although this is a concept that can't really be expressed in law, speed limits should be enforced as if they were strongly advisory.

Some enforcement is needed so that people don't feel they can ignore them with complete impunity, but road users really shouldn't be placed in the position of driving around in the constant fear that every white van parked by the roadside is a Talivan that is going to nab them for an utterly trivial infraction.

We also need a consistent system of speed limits that commands respect from drivers. Blatantly ludicrous limits erode respect for all limits.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 21:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 20:04
Posts: 14
gopher wrote:
.......... what I mean is that if people looked after the important things like, consideration, observation, attention, etc etc then their speed will be appropriate for the conditions regardless of the posted limit.



I take what you mean about limits perhaps being a guide, but there are many variables (interpretations, conditions, judgements, opinions etc.) that would probably make guideline limits meaningless.

Isn't it like asking for utopia - putting everything down to the "road user responsibility" category and none of the others?

Surely it's human nature to be irresponsible, inconsiderate, unobservant and inattentive at times, - we are not computers, hence the need for regulation and enforcement to make us comply?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 21:42 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
martin* wrote:
Surely it's human nature to be irresponsible, inconsiderate, unobservant and inattentive at times, - we are not computers, hence the need for regulation and enforcement to make us comply?

Yes, but the enforcement of every law needs to be judged on its utility - there is no point in enforcing laws for their own sake, especially if such a manner of enforcement is in a wider sense counter-productive.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 21:49 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 20:04
Posts: 14
PeterE wrote:
As a speed limit is by definition only a very broad-brush definition of what is safe and unsafe, it needs to be enforced in the same spirit, not as if it were Holy Writ. In effect, although this is a concept that can't really be expressed in law, speed limits should be enforced as if they were strongly advisory.

Some enforcement is needed so that people don't feel they can ignore them with complete impunity, but road users really shouldn't be placed in the position of driving around in the constant fear that every white van parked by the roadside is a Talivan that is going to nab them for an utterly trivial infraction.



Again, 'strongly advisory' seems open to an awful lot of interpretation. Isn't the 10% plus 2 and speedo over-reading factor enough leeway?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 21:53 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 20:04
Posts: 14
PeterE wrote:
Yes, but the enforcement of every law needs to be judged on its utility - there is no point in enforcing laws for their own sake, especially if such a manner of enforcement is in a wider sense counter-productive.


So who chooses which laws to enforce and when? Is it really sustainable to have so many traffic cops available to make that judgement, and if there were so many traffic cops, wouldn't we be driving looking out for them as is the case with cameras?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 22:11 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9260
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
martin wrote:
So who chooses which laws to enforce and when? Is it really sustainable to have so many traffic cops available to make that judgement, and if there were so many traffic cops, wouldn't we be driving looking out for them as is the case with cameras?

Time you read the words of some of the BIB who post in here - there's a great deal of wisdom coming from them - especially as to their discretion --they would sooner nip a problem in the bud , with education than ticket it ( well most of the time from my reading).
Can you ask a camera for road safety advice , breakdown/puncture on a dark road -can a speedcam help you /keep you safe, call for a breakdown service .

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 22:27 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 22:35
Posts: 643
Location: South Wales
martin* wrote:
I take what you mean about limits perhaps being a guide, but there are many variables (interpretations, conditions, judgements, opinions etc.) that would probably make guideline limits meaningless.


I didn't mean the law should be changed, I think sensible enforcement of law is more productive and by "treated as a guide" I meant by the driver and the enforcer.

martin* wrote:

Isn't it like asking for utopia - putting everything down to the "road user responsibility" category and none of the others?


I'm not sure I get your point here, I think road safety is absolutely down to road users and is in fact the most important part, unfortunately we have started to go down the route of road safety is the "car driver's responsibility" which is completely different.

martin* wrote:

Surely it's human nature to be irresponsible, inconsiderate, unobservant and inattentive at times, - we are not computers, hence the need for regulation and enforcement to make us comply?


I agree that humans are fallible if that's what you mean, and as non-computers we may also find it hard to stick to a number post, that does not make us bad people does it? And why should we comply if we are doing no harm? That is very much human nature as well, that is why people are being criminalised and road safety is not improving (IMO)

Cheers

Paul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 22:34 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 22:35
Posts: 643
Location: South Wales
martin* wrote:
PeterE wrote:
Yes, but the enforcement of every law needs to be judged on its utility - there is no point in enforcing laws for their own sake, especially if such a manner of enforcement is in a wider sense counter-productive.


So who chooses which laws to enforce and when? Is it really sustainable to have so many traffic cops available to make that judgement, and if there were so many traffic cops, wouldn't we be driving looking out for them as is the case with cameras?


The law that is being enforced needs to be effective. The SCPs have proved beyond reasonable doubt that enforcing speed limits automatically has no effect on the number of KSIs on our roads, the problem is we cannot (at present) enforce the bits that do matter.

So rather than spend wisely our Govt chooses to appear to "do something" with something it can measure and waste our cash on, oh I don't know some other crap, whilst road safety is effectively ignored.

What good is this approach?

Cheers

Paul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2006 22:48 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9260
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Quote:
So rather than spend wisely our Govt chooses to appear to "do something" with something it can measure and waste our cash on, oh I don't know some other crap, whilst road safety is effectively ignored.



Problem is that to do something with something we can measure - we can use a machine -only real cost -installation, and minimal running cost, with maximum profit margin -- good business sense , poor safety sense.

To do something with something that has a calibrated, reasoning, discerning eye requires homo sapiens - cost - installation - high, running costs - high - profit margin - variable , por business sense , but brilliant road safety sense.


Accountants rule , so option a is chosen , road safety declines - ohh , need more deterrents , profits falling, need more deterrents and so the spiral continues , neglecting that a minimal investment in case b would have reaped dividends in long term road safety, with maximum road safety education and good multi use .

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 00:57 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
martin* wrote:
Surely it's human nature to be irresponsible, inconsiderate, unobservant and inattentive at times, - we are not computers, hence the need for regulation and enforcement to make us comply?


Yes, but only if such compliance can reasonably be expected to prevent, or mitigate, the accidents that happen as a result of our human foibles.
I'm not convinced that that's the case, or, indeed, anywhere close to it.
Inattentiveness, for example, is a massive danger which isn't mitigated by slowing down. Slow inattentive drivers have many more accidents and kill many more people than fast attentive drivers.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 01:58 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
martin* wrote:
Isn't it like asking for utopia - putting everything down to the "road user responsibility" category and none of the others?

Surely it's human nature to be irresponsible, inconsiderate, unobservant and inattentive at times, - we are not computers, hence the need for regulation and enforcement to make us comply?

Yet motorists are expected to use their judgement and slow down to appropriate speeds that are less than the posted limit if the conditions merit it - which by and large, the vast majority do. Is it reasonable to imply that the same judgement is incapable of deciding that a speed in excess of the posted limit can also be appropriate?

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 04:23 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
martin* wrote:
Sorry, just a quick reply (and I don't know how to embed quotes)

Councillors don't set speed limits, engineers in association with the police do. Yes, there is sometimes political pressure to set a speed limit, but any engineer worth their salt will fight this vigorously (although I'm not saying it doesn't happen).

Drivers are better placed to judge a safe speed depending on conditions?

Yes, but conditions vary. By all means, judge the appropriate speed up to the limit.

Why not COAST up to the limit?

Unexpected new changes in speed limit. Isn't a child running into the road an unexpected change?

My last point was "without having to ............... take the responsibility from the driver"

Actually, it is not always engineers and police who set limits, and they dont bite the hand that feeds them. Why fight a call for a lower limit - they dont see it as causing any harm?
Councils respond to pleas from residents for limits, and come up with policies of their own, which they then foist on engineers. When police make requests for changes in speeds, and other measures, they are often ignored for political reasons.

I pass daily through a village with a 40 limit which was requested by a group of villagers, who got up a petition etc. during their campaign.
They used a horrific accident in which two motorcyclists were killed to justify their campaign, but the accident was below the 40 limit, and was caused by a foreign driver clipping the kerb, and bouncing out into the oncoming traffic. Finally, it occured OUTSIDE of the 40 limited area which is now in place.
Clearly, MANY motorists who pass through the village correctly feel the limit is unjustified. The straight road, with three lanes was first re-engineered to two lanes, with a solid grass separator, with protected lanes for turning, within the grass median. There is NO reason whatsoever for a 40 limit.
However, after mobile enforcement, there were enough accidents - mostly SMIDSY's or outside the limited area (but within the 1 km qualifying area) to up the "enforcement" to FIXED cameras. NONE were due to exceeding the posted limit!

Now NO amount of "enforcement" can prevent vehicles traveling at NSL outside the limited area having accidents, and there have been several this last twelve months, but the village DOES lie on a busy tourist route, with thousands of vehicles passing every day, who recognise that it is clearly safe to travel at more than 40 mph through a superbly engineered stretch of road (the village lies mostly to ONE side of the road, not across it) and one cannot help thinking that the limit was imposed by the council for the express purpose of creating an opportunity to collect speeding fines.
It certainly has had NO affect whatsoever on the safety of the road in question. Our local police inspector and several of his officers do not approve of the cameras - and some decry the limit - to no avail!
Image
No amount of campaigning will persuade the council that they have made a mistake - after all the camera partnership to which they are signed up, is proof that they care about road safety! They can also make motorists who are NOT compromising road safety pay fines which can be used to pay for the propaganda they produce!

This same council refused in the face of police concern to provide a PELICAN crossing in fron to a school and sheltered housing scheme on the grounds that nobody had been killed yet! (cost £48,000)

They also FAILED to address police concerns about a stretch of road about a mile and a half from this site. Today an 18 year old student at my son's school was killed. Dead. Forever. At best, if the council react, we might see an improvement made in a few yers, but more likely when there has been another fatality.

Road safety has been abandoned in many areas to the speed camera.
They earn money, provide a sop to feed the electorate, and divert attention from the woeful state of driving standards, and proper enforcement.
They are simply another form of toll, and inappropriate limits are the toll "gate".

I already judge a safe speed for ALL conditions, and vary my speed as conditions vary.
Sometimes I am well below the posted limit, sometimes I am AT the limit.
In a few instances I might be over the limit, but until the introduction of cameras, I have never felt it necessary to compromise mine and other road users safety by taking my eyes off the road, just to ensure that I was not more than 3-5 mph above the limit even for just a few yards - and the cameras are usually located where proper observation is more important than slavish adhereance to the limit.

You clearly believe that councils do what is best for you, and that the police oversee this benevolent policy. I doubt the children injured so far on the crossing (not seriously YET), or the family of the boy killed today will have the same degree of faith you have. :oops:
Our particular council safety engineer is called Nick Raymond.
Personally, I would not trust him to engineer a padded cell.
He decrys cars who make an illegal right turn as dangerous, but accepts that busses can make the same manouvre without compromising safety!! :o :oops:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 08:52 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
Ernest Marsh wrote:
I pass daily through a village with a 40 limit which was requested by a group of villagers, who got up a petition etc. during their campaign.
They used a horrific accident in which two motorcyclists were killed to justify their campaign, but the accident was below the 40 limit, and was caused by a foreign driver clipping the kerb, and bouncing out into the oncoming traffic. Finally, it occured OUTSIDE of the 40 limited area which is now in place.
Clearly, MANY motorists who pass through the village correctly feel the limit is unjustified. The straight road, with three lanes was first re-engineered to two lanes, with a solid grass separator, with protected lanes for turning, within the grass median. There is NO reason whatsoever for a 40 limit.
However, after mobile enforcement, there were enough accidents - mostly SMIDSY's or outside the limited area (but within the 1 km qualifying area) to up the "enforcement" to FIXED cameras. NONE were due to exceeding the posted limit!


This ist backed up by all the locals of this village und the local papers too...

Quote:
Now NO amount of "enforcement" can prevent vehicles traveling at NSL outside the limited area having accidents, and there have been several this last twelve months


Und there was the tourist who fell asleep after a strenuous Fell Walk und Potholing weekend....

Quote:
, but the village DOES lie on a busy tourist route, with thousands of vehicles passing every day, who recognise that it is clearly safe to travel at more than 40 mph through a superbly engineered stretch of road (the village lies mostly to ONE side of the road, not across it) and one cannot help thinking that the limit was imposed by the council for the express purpose of creating an opportunity to collect speeding fines.
It certainly has had NO affect whatsoever on the safety of the road in question. Our local police inspector and several of his officers do not approve of the cameras - and some decry the limit - to no avail!
Image



Ist true ... und yesterday's Vine Lunchtime R2 Programme reported on Surrey villagers being given a mobile camera to cop the "non-local" speeders killing the village children each day (ist no reports of these tragedies in press anywhere - by the way...)

He said the drivers slow for the fixed cam und speed up again... which ist as we all know und one of reasons why these contraptions do not save any lives und both the Surrey Chief Super und his "Martin of the busybody going around in Ever Decreasing Circles Village Yokel" even agreed on this - sayng this ist why these villages are now becoming rat runs...They also both said the prats decide where the cams go... und the busyboyd even agreed these were at revenue raking spots und not where needed. They stressed warning letters if copped by the village busybody

Councillor from Cambs said they tried it there ....und village ended up in fisticuffs afret two weeks as they targeted those they argued with... und those who argued against the cam being used in first place...


We also had a :bib: from Newcastle late of Staffordshire on the show saying that those who call for speed cameras und so on in village A were the ones the police copped speeding themselves in village B too...und that ist matter best left to police. He also mentioned that this ist "on the cheap" as the prats und police are suppposedly partners und there ist time built into deplying staff to survey these roads properly.

Quote:

No amount of campaigning will persuade the council that they have made a mistake - after all the camera partnership to which they are signed up, is proof that they care about road safety! They can also make motorists who are NOT compromising road safety pay fines which can be used to pay for the propaganda they produce!

This same council refused in the face of police concern to provide a PELICAN crossing in fron to a school and sheltered housing scheme on the grounds that nobody had been killed yet! (cost £48,000)

They also FAILED to address police concerns about a stretch of road about a mile and a half from this site. Today an 18 year old student at my son's school was killed. Dead. Forever. At best, if the council react, we might see an improvement made in a few yers, but more likely when there has been another fatality.

Road safety has been abandoned in many areas to the speed camera.
They earn money, provide a sop to feed the electorate, and divert attention from the woeful state of driving standards, and proper enforcement.
They are simply another form of toll, and inappropriate limits are the toll "gate".


EXACTLY.

Quote:
I already judge a safe speed for ALL conditions, and vary my speed as conditions vary.
Sometimes I am well below the posted limit, sometimes I am AT the limit.
In a few instances I might be over the limit, but until the introduction of cameras, I have never felt it necessary to compromise mine and other road users safety by taking my eyes off the road, just to ensure that I was not more than 3-5 mph above the limit even for just a few yards - and the cameras are usually located where proper observation is more important than slavish adhereance to the limit.


We find it get in way of drive as well...und we are also checking in vicinity of cams even if we are legal...und below limit even. But you drive at all time to conditions und adjust accordingly... ist called driving to C O A S T :wink:

Quote:
You clearly believe that councils do what is best for you, and that the police oversee this benevolent policy.


All councillors und politicians only have one benevolent aim... how it gives them political plaudits. As they egotististical self obsessed .... Grrr :censored: :hissyfit:

Quote:
I doubt the children injured so far on the crossing (not seriously YET), or the family of the boy killed today will have the same degree of faith you have. :oops:


I have no faith in any of these idiots .. especially sub-marinated ones....

Quote:
Our particular council safety engineer is called Nick Raymond.
Personally, I would not trust him to engineer a padded cell.
He decrys cars who make an illegal right turn as dangerous, but accepts that busses can make the same manouvre without compromising safety!! :o :oops:


:clap: I do agree.... he could not even engineer getting the Fisher Price shapes into the right holes - a game which our youngest managed within seconds of being given this game some time ago....und GeoMag? He would struggle...:laugh:

A lot to be said for Scalextric.... :wink: Somehow I think he miss out on this...

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 17:22 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 15:14
Posts: 420
Location: Aberdeenshire
Wildcat, must you use German joining words? It's very tiring to read :shock:

I joined this group today infact as I have many views on road safety, but Transport 2000 is too heavily censored to allow me to express my (very moderate) views.

I have 3 points on my license (since January 2004). I was caught at 85mph by a camera van on a motorway flyover one quiet (well, deserted actually), sunny Saturday afternoon. No sour grapes, although if I was that dangerous I can't help but feel a police car and a good telling off would have made the road safer than a letter 2 weeks later did but hey ho....

I feel that there are many on this forum who simply like to rant about being caught, although I genuinely believe that the overwhelming majority are here to impart reason to a subject much more complex than many appreciate.

I'm not a road engineer, but I am a degree qualified and industry practicing mech engineer with a firm grasp on maths, physics and statistics.

Overall, I like this forum simply because most members are aware that road safety and speed are not directly proportional to one another.

For example, the old "1mph reduction in speed equates to a 5% reduction in accidents". Well, if that were the simple truth then enforcing a 50mph limit on motorways would garuntee that there would never be another motorway crash ever again...... Would Transport 2000 let me post that up?? Would they heck.....

Britain has been crippled by "divide and rule" mentality for as long as I can remember and then some. That is why Britain is positively rubbish in the world market and uncompetitive compared to all the world's leading countries in terms of quality of life.

Where everywhere else seems focus on training and education, in the UK we always load on more rules and enforcement of rules then wonder why all action has the opposite effect to that intended.

Total dependance on limited technology capable of measuring one criteria (i.e. speed) is used to impose safety on our roads.

Speed cameras do not detect drunk drivers, they don't educate drivers without lights on in poor visibility. They don't catch drivers going blantantly beyond the realms of reason in fog or snow. They do however catch people driving in excess of the speed limit (which I assume is based partly on wet weather conditions???) on dry days with good visibility.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 18:59 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 13:01
Posts: 472
jamie_duff wrote:
Wildcat, must you use German joining words? It's very tiring to read :shock:


I thought it was just me! I've pretty much given up reading Wildcat, Moggy and In Gear's posts, it takes a lot of effort! :o

jamie_duff wrote:
For example, the old "1mph reduction in speed equates to a 5% reduction in accidents". Well, if that were the simple truth then enforcing a 50mph limit on motorways would garuntee that there would never be another motorway crash ever again...... Would Transport 2000 let me post that up?? Would they heck.....


I always understood this as a sort of half-life reduction. 1mph reduction = 95% a further mph it is 90.3% (i.e. 5% off 95%, not 5% of 100% off 95%) and at 50mph the percentage is 35.8%.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 19:22 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
jamie_duff wrote:
For example, the old "1mph reduction in speed equates to a 5% reduction in accidents". Well, if that were the simple truth then enforcing a 50mph limit on motorways would garuntee that there would never be another motorway crash ever again...... Would Transport 2000 let me post that up?? Would they heck.....


IIRC, the input data used in the original TRL study which came up with that figure showed a decrease in accidents with increasing speed.
They then applied some statistical jiggery-pokery to conclude the opposite.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 19:58 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
jamie_duff wrote:
I feel that there are many on this forum who simply like to rant about being caught ...


Actually, I am not conscious of this being the case. Could you point to any examples ouside of the "Help ... " forum.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 20:27 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9260
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
malcolmw wrote:
jamie_duff wrote:
I feel that there are many on this forum who simply like to rant about being caught ...


Actually, I am not conscious of this being the case. Could you point to any examples ouside of the "Help ... " forum.


To the contrary - a lot of advice in here helps to raise observation skills to spot limits/cameras/vans and avoid getting caught.

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 08, 2006 20:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 15:14
Posts: 420
Location: Aberdeenshire
Perhaps I missed the mark - I take that back.

I will suggest instead though that there are a small number of people who appear to hold the opinion that speed limits should not exist, nor should they be regualted.

In honesty, reading on from any posts which sound like that, the poster is usually new (like myself) and quietens down shortly after.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 22:43 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
jamie_duff wrote:
Wildcat, must you use German joining words? It's very tiring to read :shock:


She's Swiss and - yep - hard to live with :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:
I joined this group today infact as I have many views on road safety, but Transport 2000 is too heavily censored to allow me to express my (very moderate) views


Tis a site of "nodding dogs.... " :wink: .


Quote:
I have 3 points on my license (since January 2004). I was caught at 85mph by a camera van on a motorway flyover one quiet (well, deserted actually), sunny Saturday afternoon. No sour grapes, although if I was that dangerous I can't help but feel a police car and a good telling off would have made the road safer than a letter 2 weeks later did but hey ho...


IG and his team are rather blunt :wink:

He rehearses it to us :lol:

But we know what you mean :wink: .

Quote:
I feel that there are many on this forum who simply like to rant about being caught, although I genuinely believe that the overwhelming majority are here to impart reason to a subject much more complex than many appreciate.


IG has managed to control a few. Have to admit- he's a really nice chap and fully committed to reducing incidents without fanning flames. 8-)

Nightmare to have as your passenger though.. :yikes: He notices [i[ everything [/i] :shock: I once said in pm to Gatsmymate that it's like being on a test... :shock: :roll:

Quote:
I'm not a road engineer, but I am a degree qualified and industry practicing mech engineer with a firm grasp on maths, physics and statistics.


IG has top degree in Maths and Physics ( he plays down - so I think I will blow his trumpet for him :lol: )

I did Maths instead of "General Studies" for my 'A'Levels - so am "au fait" with stats :wink:

Quote:
Overall, I like this forum simply because most members are aware that road safety and speed are not directly proportional to one another.

For example, the old "1mph reduction in speed equates to a 5% reduction in accidents". Well, if that were the simple truth then enforcing a 50mph limit on motorways would garuntee that there would never be another motorway crash ever again...... Would Transport 2000 let me post that up?? Would they heck.....



Tis a forum of "nodding dogs" Suits one type - our muesli and lentil burger munchers :wink:


Quote:
Britain has been crippled by "divide and rule" mentality for as long as I can remember and then some. That is why Britain is positively rubbish in the world market and uncompetitive compared to all the world's leading countries in terms of quality of life.


Yep - but if you did manage to understand other lingos apart from English - you would soon discover that most of Europe is sick of Strasbourg and Brussels and "petty dictators" :wink:

I learned German and Schwyz soon afer meeting my wife -- it was really "need to know!" :wink: :wink:



Quote:
Where everywhere else seems focus on training and education, in the UK we always load on more rules and enforcement of rules then wonder why all action has the opposite effect to that intended.

Total dependance on limited technology capable of measuring one criteria (i.e. speed) is used to impose safety on our roads.





Continent has increase :bib: and "Figaro", "Monde" , "Soir" "Blick", "Matin", "Bild" and a anumber of regionals would seem to support this

I do understand the foreign lingos - because I need to - the Swiss relatives will switch lingos .... High German... Schwyz/...romansch... French and Italian... so I had to learn - and so did IG .... anyone marrying into this family does learn fast

Quote:
Speed cameras do not detect drunk drivers, they don't educate drivers without lights on in poor visibility. They don't catch drivers going blantantly beyond the realms of reason in fog or snow. They do however catch people driving in excess of the speed limit (which I assume is based partly on wet weather conditions???) on dry days with good visibility.


True - they do not catch- and it was pure chance they copped Donna applying her make-up :wink:

PS

B cyclist - yet another reminder - hope tactul and no deisre to cause offence as we are not that sort... as entire family - we talk "blunt- painn and straight!" :lol:



this is safespeed's forum and personal attacks are usually ignored. For record IG is respected by his staff and his colleagues and has some very pleasant commendations and regards on other sites as well.


As for my wife? She's Swiss bred...thinks in her own language before she thinks in English - and she and I and =those closest to us - survived something which NOBODY - not even Paul Smith, Mary Willliams, Richard Brunstrom,Paul Garvin, Summerbells, Merrydydd, Chapman or anyone on this planet apart from myself and the Swiss family could contemplate in their wlidest dreams = so

[i] My wife and myself respectfully request apology for nasty personal remarks and politely request that you abide by Paul's rules and debate without the silliness


:listenup: THIS IS SAFESPEED A REFINED BOARD AND NOT A PLACE TO MAKE STUPID - UNSUBSTANTIANTIATED PERSONAL INSULTS


Now - are we now clear on this B and it would be nice to have an apology - but not going to hold my breath on this anyway.

But if you are not man or adult enough - you cease to exist on this board as far as we are concerned..

Our time is valuable and we do not waste on people whose intent is to make daft nasty and spiteful comment. The C+ management are more than aware of our complaints for the record and yoyu have zero idea of what Mike and Kriss have endured for over 12 months ... and the TROLL IS GUILTY OF A CRIMINAL OFFENCE in any case. ]

Now does this spell out why he is BANNED by the other site and why those "supporting" found themselves on "wrong side of the site owners?

Bear in mind - the site in question does have a reputation ... does have responsibilties and it is THEIR forum like this one is PAUL's forum and PH is "Petrol Ted's" forum and as such we have a moral and decenbt obligation NOT TO BRING ANY ONE SITE INTO DISREPUTE.

So - are we now clear on this? :wink:

By the way Paul - please accept my apologies for straight talk and modify if you think I have gone too far.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

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 : 0.388s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]