Safe Speed Forums

Right, I think we all know what "race" means now - any more definitions would be prejudicial

Can we PLEASE move on and call a truce to this needless attempts at point-scoring and discuss the issue?

Handy, I think I know what you mean with this comment, but could you please clarify your point? I don't want to comment yet, as I may have misunderstood you.

Sorry for all of that ... I can get a bit high horsey at times.

Whilst I'm posting, though, please accept my heartfelt thanks for that last paragraph. It's given me the first laugh of the day - and like all laughs, yes I am also laughing at myself there. Consider me taken down a few pegs, I deserved it.

_________________
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.

Paul posted something like:

"If the limit is correct for a porsche, it may not be correct for a van
If the limit is correct for dry conditions, it may not be correct when it's wet".

And loads more examples.

The statement only makes sense if the expectation is that all vehicles will travel exactly at the legal posted limit at all times, whereas a limit is actually the "upper bound" of the legal travelling speed. It's kind of the definition of a limit.

So I would agree that

"if the travelling speed is correct for a posche, it may not be correct for a van
if the travelling speed is correct in dry conditions, it may not be correct when it's wet"

The problem is that common behaviour sees limit and travelling speed as the same thing, and they really shouldn't be.

_________________
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.

i can't beleive you're bringing race into it.. playing the race card ??.... whats anyone's ethnic background got to do with driving ?

Ah - I understand where you are coming from now. I would disagree though that there is an assumption that all vehicles will travel at the limit at all times. The limit is defined as per highway code as the maximum safe speed in good dry condition. Obviously this limit varies as to what you are driving, therefore there has to be an element of risk assesment from the driver based upon the speed limit information I grant you.

I always believed that was the message Paul was trying to get across anyway. In my own experience, I happen to own two cars, one is my pride and joy, a 1971 Bond Bug, since it has a flat out speed of just shy of 50mph, most speed limits are not a problem. However the handling, braking and a host of other characteristics of that car have to be considered when driving. Compared to my normal every day car which is a very modern car with all the airbags, ABS and that kind of malarky.
The speed I choose to drive the Bug will be very different to the speed I choose to drive my modern shopping trolley.

Would you concede that the powers that be also enforce the confusion with travelling speed and the limt? A good example is the hit me at 40mph and there's an 80% chance I'll die, hit me at 30mph and there's an 80% chance I'll live advert. This clearly says that the limit will be the impact speed, which is extremely unlikely. I think most reasonable drivers would attempt to avoid a collision, thus the impact speed will not be anything like the speed limit, as is reflected in pedestrian vs vehicle fatalaty rates.

I can't recall how that advert ends - it's part of the Think! campaign? If it ends with "Stick to the limit" or "It's 30 for a reason" then yes, I would agree with you, the government is adding to the confusion. If it ends with something like "ease up a bit, don't be in so much of a hurry and pay attention to the road ahead" then no.

Actually, whilst I am on the subject, I hate that phrase, "Stick to the limit". It's this kind of garbage that confuses the feeble minded drivers. It should be "Stay Within The Limit". "Stick to the limit" isn't even good English.

In regards to your signature line, statistics posted in the other thread show that, despite MUCH lower traffic volumes, at the height of the green cross code and tufty club (early 80's) more pedestrians were being killed by cars than now. So the green cross code obviously didn't work.

_________________
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.

With you 100%. Oh, and guess what? No one working on the road - typical bloody British system!! Why don't we use realistic speed restriction when they are actually needed????

Because that's common sense Dave. We don't 'do' common sense in England.

But I know that, and I know that you know that, and others know that everyone knows that..

We just can't say it anymore and IT DOESN'T HOLD UP IN COURT!

When I was last going to Shropshire, past Telford, I saw the most ridiculous DC with roadwork’s. (Should have taken a Video).

"Kill your speed not our workers!"

It was a 30mph limit which would normally be a NSP for a DC but there was not a single human worker in sight!

If a scamera was there, however, they would have had filled their quota a thousand times over! Speed Kills!

I confess, I allegedly kept with the traffic at ~40 mph that day.

KILLS WHAT EXACTLY?

Tony, alias Big Tone. Born August 1958. Started on the roads in 1975. I've neither killed nor harmed anyone and helped many...

_________________
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.

It's not like you can watch the commercial once and automatically have it installed as a permanent street-crossing subroutine. Hypnopaedia requires rote repetition.

If one were to equate the Green Cross Code to something akin to parental advice, how long would it take for such a measure to ripen, so that its efficacy could be measured? If it takes a decade or more, it could be seen as a failure for up to nine years, after which most agencies would declare it as a failure, while it finally begins to blossom?

However, I also remember Steve Haley writing in "Mind Driving", something to the effect of:
"Kids would turn their heads without looking, observing, or assessing anything, and then walk into the street anyway."

If that is truly the case, then the Green Cross Code is simply insufficient. What's missing there is the measurement and management of risk.

By the way, how do we know that the guy we were originally speaking of mismeasured and mismanaged his behavior, when he was apparently 'racing' by himself?

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

"Totally Indefensible"
This case is a done deal,
but many (maybe most) roadworks I have seen have signing errors which woud be a defence to the charge of excess speed.
I recently took trip to Scotland up the M6-A74-M74, the roadworks near the border had some non-compliant speed signs, and had average speed cameras in operation.
The "racing speeder" may have had a valid defence, and could have ended up with an aquittal.

fatboytim

We don't Rush but hey, it sells newspapers. It's sensationalism and that's what the punters want.

Dog bites man makes news but man bites dog is news.

Good news doesn’t sell newspapers. That’s why more people buy newspapers than the Bible

_________________
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.

Aye, me too mate!

It may be, of course, that there were more pedestrians about then. Or cars were less pedestrian-friendly in collisions. Or medical care was worse.

_________________
"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

Hey careful - that's CSCP territory, and Callaghan's boys NEVER make a mistake, and he would take you to court to the ends of the earth to prove it!

Mind you he'd have a hard time with THIS clown working for him!

Everybody knows that speed kills - you only have to look at the flies stuck to the front of my car to see that they weren't going fast enough!

What is important here is WAS the driver among the road works, WAS he slowing down for the road works, and HOW FAST was the other traffic going... the white car behind him must have been reasonably close to his speed, and not doing 30!

I dont seek to defend what he was doing, merely to take some of the invective out of the thoughtless rants which have gone on in the press and on other forums!

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

I believe the Tufty Club WAS effective - it was the green cross code which saw the slip - but maybe not just because of the Green X Code, and it's failings.
The Tufty Club was aimed at children, and they REMEMBERED it, where as the GXC man was nowhere near as memorable except later as Darth Vader!

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

I'm sure it ends it's 30 for a reason.





Whilst that is true, I think you'll find there were many other reasons for this. The most obvious would have to be the fact that cars are now designed not to kill pedestrians, and are rigourously tested for this. I don't think you can say that the green cross code was a failure based upon the stats. I think my main objection is that when I was young, it was drummed in to us to be responsible around the roads. Now however it is drummed into kids that it is always the drivers fault, that advert is a prime example of this as well.

You should have seen the 30mph speed restrictions on the Dorset Way/Upton Bypass for the "road works". Some of it didn't even have cones!
When you can do three times the speed limit without dying, catching on fire, exploding or anything remotely dangerous happening you have to wonder if it has been set correctly.

So yes, a perfectly good dual carriageway with a few signs which people look at and think "you've got to be kidding" (and everyone ignores) does happen over here.

_________________
Andrew.

My warning to you ...

Where I live, that's called a speedtrap. When traffic can be relied upon to ignore speed 'limit' signs by more than 10+MpH, all that's left to do, is to find a spot to hide a cop, and a cop with a pen to hide in that spot.

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Yes, but there was nowhere to park a van profitably, not even have them parked visibly.

Here is a video of the road. There's cones there, but the approach to the roundabout from the other side didn't have any.

Edit: When I say roundabout, I meant the second one. That entire road other than the last ~3 seconds had a 30mph speed restriction on it. The guy driving was trying (not 100% successfully!) to drive no faster than 30mph the entire way. Everyone going faster was 'speeding' and therefore a criminal/child killer/whatever.

Towards the second (Holes Bay North) roundabout the slowest people (criminals) were normally doing around 40-50mph when I drove along there.

Now if you can imagine approaching the second roundabout from the other direction it was possible to get up to 90mph as you entered the 30 limit before having to slow down for the roundabout.

The video is not of the road in question, but it shows that such situations do exist.

_________________
Andrew.