Safe Speed Forums

Much better and much smarter if you can tell them why they need to know such things. There are many ways we could create a 'pull' and do without the 'push'. More effective, easier, and more pleasant for everyone.

Of course that that won't draw it in should have it pushed at them.

I'm not entirely comfortable with 'COAST' as such either. It's good, but doesn't say much about risk management or responsibility.

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

maybe, but you need to start somewhere.

MIND DRIVING.

(I know what bits of it to start with too - the 'beliefs'. I also know that many people have the beliefs, but don't connect them to practical driving. We can make the connection and 'switch on' the beliefs. As far as public communications problems go, this is easy peasy.)

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

You're bang on the money there johnsher. In my mind its about responsibility and reward. You ensure that drivers take proper responsibility for their speed at ALL times, slowing down when necessary, and you reward good responsibility with the ability to judge when its safe to EXCEED the limit.

Lizard. WRT to driving safely AND legally. Let me try to tell you how I feel about it. You're driving at your best when you're relaxed and focussed - call it being 'in the zone'. Everything feels 'right' - you're in touch with the vehicle, the road, the prevailing conditions, everything. You don't have to consciously think about your speed because the conditions set that for you. If you put an artificial cap on that speed then the relaxed focus has to be diverted and the concentration that should be monitoring the road is now monitoring something else.

Parrot. Yes, Jub Jub's talking mostly rubish now, but I think (hope) Lizard is actually genuine.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Most normal, sensible people do!

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Sorry, but I'm a lazy bugger, and have just jumped from page 1 to the end, so apologies if this has already been covered.

The very first post said:



Surely a very busy junction is exactly the RIGHT place. People leaving the m/way, changing lanes etc, is exactly the sort of place that is made even more dangerous by speeding motorists. Anyone who speeds in this maelstrom of traffic should be castrated (even the women!)

Welcome.

That's just the point though. If you induce panic braking/distraction at that point you're causing MORE danger.

Most normal sensible drivers WILL slow down to a safe speed at that point anyway if the traffic levels dictate.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

We know that the chances of an RTC increases in road works where a camera is employed but as I understand it the reason for this has not been examined. However road works resemble the scenario above in that they often have increased traffic, tightly spaced at lower speeds with people around.

It seems to me that introducing a camera where hazard density is at it's highest just increases that density which in turn makes the not so good drivers make wrong decsions based on their desire not to do anything wrong (legally) rather than the desire not to do wrong (safety wise).

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

How can you 'speed' at a very busy junction?

My bold.

"Intentionally deceptive" you mean a bit like this, taken out of the C+ forum:-


Which is, of course, an absolute travesty of what Mabberly actually wrote. You have deleted the intervening discussion, the statistical argument (you know, the one backed up by a proper statistician in another thread) and cherry-picked two statements that are not related to each other - all to score a cheap point.

If this isn't deliberate deception, I don't know what is! And why should anyone now believe anything else you claim, or post in support of your arguments? If you're willing to fabricate something so obviously disproveable, who's to say you won't fabricate "facts" far more difficult to track down?

Or is it OK as long as it's only done to discredit SafeSpeed?

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

Is that the best you can do? Defend by diversion, using dramatic language to add to the severity? Note that you're acknowledging that Paul was being intentionally deceptive, and so are agreeing with me. I haven't fabricated anything, just pointed out facts, which are there, and which people can make their own minds up about.

WRT your comment about my post, you've deliberately ignored the rest of that thread. Which is vital. Read it all. Then you might have a proper understanding of the argument.

See? We can all play the 'deliberately deceptive' card. The difference is that I am not running a campaign by being deliberately deceptive.

I'm not going to go through it again here, but if you'd like to click on the link you'll see the arguments.

http://www.cyclingplus.co.uk/forum/topi ... _ID=116443

BTW Paul, you posted this thread on C+ explaining your stance, and inviting people to highlight flaws in your campaign, saying that you will then discuss them. No doubt that you are aware that there are several pages of valid flaws and questions. Are you going to ignore them, or even better only answer the ones that you want to?

Now, where have I seen that technique in use? Ah, I know, the "white van man" thread in the C+ forum. And who uses it? Oohh, some chap called "Mister Paul" and another called "Jaded" and another "Yusuf something-or-other" and "Tourist Tony" and...


Where did I acknowledge that "Paul was being intentionally deceptive"? That was your assertion, not mine. I just likened your behaviour to that which you so stridently object in front of your disciples in C+.


Sad git that I am, I've read every sodding word of it, and every word of the "Calling any professional Statisitcians [sic]" thread. The misunderstandings, many deliberate, some from limited intellectual equipment, seem to fall heavily on the "C+ Mafia" side. I've not often seen supposedly intelligent people so resolute in their determination not to understand something.


That's true. Instead you're doing your best to undermine one by being deliberately deceptive.


It looks more to me that there are not so much "flaws" as several pages of the same scurrilous nonsense repeated over and over again... Plus a few dogmatic "I know that speed kills" and "Motorists should be shot on sight" from the Lycra Nazis... Not exactly "reasoned discussion".

I'll bet that poor old "dynohub" in the "statistician" thread didn't know what he was letting himself in for either when he tried to be helpful and explain simple statistics, but made the fatal mistake of "coming to the wrong, ie unacceptable, conclusion"!

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

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Now I'm just off to the phone box to put on my Mike suit.

Have you noticed that Mike vanishes then Jub Jub arrives

has anyone seen them in the same place together? Bruce Wayne and Batman??

Who knows they may both be Wonder Woman

That's an interesting thought Sixy, thank you. Not easy to legislate for though I guess

We had a good safe compromise in the past, and we can again. See: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html

Actually, I think we could get the compromise far better than we had it in the past, now that speed cameras have forced us to learn about how it worked.

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

Its not though, its covered by either DWDCA or careless/dangerous driving.

Trouble is, all of the above require a police presence...

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.