Safe Speed Forums

I don't get that though. On here the prime defense of the act of speeding (i.e. breaking the law by exceeding the posted speed limit) is that loads of people do it and don't have a crash so it must be OK.

Well, I see loads of people going through red lights every day and they don't crash.

So why won't you defend red light jumping in the same way that you'd defend speeding?

A hypocritical standpoint from my point of view as I would never condone speeding OR red light jumping except in perhaps very rare exceptional circumstances.

Weepej,

there are two reasons why you 'don't get it'

1- you are being wilfully argumentative
or
2 - you aren't the type of guy who gets picked first for the pub quiz team.

let me spell it out.

If you jump a red light then there is a pretty good chance that you will be putting yourself directly into the path of opposing traffic. It is an act of negligence, criminal negligence at that. I condemn a cyclist or a motorist doing it.

if you exceed a posted limit there's a pretty good chance that.....nothing untoward will happen. You are simply exceeding an arbitary limit. Think about how daft it is, you have simply driven at a number greater than the allowed number. You haven't put youself into the path of opposing traffic, you've simply driven a little bit faster. I don't condemn the cyclist for exceeding a posted limit any more than I do a driver.

You are implying that Safe Speed is about purely and deliberately 'breaking a road rule', but it is not.
When 75% of people openly admit to breaking a rule but only 2% of crashes have anything to do with excessive speed then is 'speeding' the real causation factor - in other words are the authorities truly concentrating on the true and correct and real world, 'problem' ? Or are they trying to solve a supposed 'problem' that does not exist in the first place?

Applying knowledge, skill, and aptitude well, takes experience and learning, to fully apply excellence. But many drivers never attain this level, and yet many, many drivers never have accidents, however with better skills they can drive better and make less mistakes that might lead to an accident.

This argument goes around and around, and it is based upon one's fundamental stand point. It depends, does it not, on what you want to actually debate? Like I have stated before, state your points, then discuss those, so that the fundamentals of the debate are clear, so that circular arguments are then stopped, and a good debate can ensue (and without attacking the poster).

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Most people I see jumping red lights are in no danger whatsoever, the road is clear, if it wasn't they'd wait, treating the lights like a normal junction.

OK, scenario for you, so there's a ped crossing half way along a straight road, the light's gone red, the sole pedestrain has crossed already (on a red man) and is long gone, is it OK to jump the light?

Um, that depends on whether there is actually opposing traffic. The greater the chance of such, the more appropriate the presence and function of the traffic light. I know many of us prefer traffic lights that respond to the presence of a car vs timed lights, as well as traffic lights that switch to flashing yellows and reds when traffic density decreases below a certain threshold.

Um, that depends ...

I've never jumped a light. As a taxi driver, I will admit; late at night, usually between midnight and 3AM, when most people are asleep in a quiet neighborhood, I might treat a redlight as a stopsign, meaning I will stop, inch forward slowly, check if it is safe to cross [, check for the presence of law enforcement], and then proceed to cross.

I will also admit to treating stopsigns as yieldsigns during similar conditions.

I have only been pulled over for rolling through a stopsign once, and I beat that ticket. I have never been pulled over for running a redlight.

August 14th, 2003. Is that date familiar to anyone?

Massive NorthEastern American Blackout

Suddenly, there were no such things as redlights, yellowlights, or greenlights, or the like, for all of New York City, and most of the rest of NorthEast Amerika and Canada.

Despite the agonizing commute, and without looking up the statistics, I would hazard a guess that 99.9% of the people who drove during that blackout managed to defeat the ensuing confusion at every intersection between start and finish safely.

It is a wonderful coincidence that, upon seeing a greenlight, 99.99% of the people who crossed that intersection got the desired result, but the fact is that the greenlight and the safety of that intersection are coincidentally linked, not causally linked.

Traffic lights have been replacing stopsigns at an ever increasing number of intersections in my neighborhood, as well as surrounding neighborhoods. I know that many people who might 'roll' through a stopsign will probably stop at a redlight. (Yieldsigns are also falling out of fashion, being replaced by stopsigns.)

That doesn't change the fact that it wasn't the traffic light that made the intersection safer - it wasn't the stimulus.
It was the driver's choice that made the intersection safer - it was the driver's response.

(I also know that I don't feel any more or less safe, either as a pedestrian, or a driver, and when pressed, I will admit to being offended).

Traffic lights, speed 'limits', etc. etc. are all there for very good reasons (I missed the traffic lights on the 14th, but I was used to it the 15th), but they, in and of themselves, do not make driving any safer.

If you do not know how to safely treat a redlight like a stopsign, a stopsign like a yieldsign (you call it a 'Give Way sign, yes?), and a yieldsign like a mergesign ...
If you cannot judge a Safe Speed without the presence of a posted speed 'limit' ...
Park your car. (By the way if your Lexus LS460 or LS500h is trying to compete with me and my Caprice for the same spot, you might as well start looking for another 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

I got the sense that you were, which was nice. We should all be open and honest.


I respectfully dissagree.


I didn't feel uncomfortable and I think it's a shame that you have gone. This site has never discouraged opposing views. Quite the opposite in fact.


That came across as insincere but all I have left to say is be careful what you wish for. I am of the belief that the pro-camera lobby will shot themselves in the foot once they are through shooting everyone else. Time will tell...

_________________
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.

Hi Guys

Been away from the Forums for a while, but not surprised to see the same old bollocks being talked about Speed Limits.

Why is the blindingly obvious so difficult for some?
Exceeding a Speed Limit is breaking the Law. Period. It has virtually nothing to do with Road Safety.

Driving to Speed Limits is driving by numbers. It's road safety at plankton level. Drivers need to use their brains, not their speedos...

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

Nice to see you back Grumps

As for your post?

We're still singing from the same hymn sheet or as I put it earlier: "People try to bang the speed kills drum when in fact they are simply bent out of shape about people not sticking to a law. Fair enough I say! If that is your argument then put that across but please – don’t mix speed with safety."

It's almost a religious belief to them and, like all religions, it's not based on facts or truth but instead a blind faith or loyalty to the government mantra.

_________________
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.

So is posting here part of your job? Or are you in your spare time? If the latter then I suggest that it's more than 'just a job' to you.

With respect, no I'm not. Like it or not there are posters on here that state speeding (and we're talking purposefully driving in excess of the limit for a good period of time) is OK and use the defence that thousands do it every day without issue so it must be safe.

The Safe Speed campaign states that limits must not be broken does it not?

Also I believe the forums are intended to be distinct from the campaign?



Linking 2% of crashes being recorded as having been caused by excessive speed and the act of speeding is disingenuous IMO. I've said already that police choosing to record 2% of crashes as being down to excess speed does not therefore imply that only only 2% of crashes involved vehicles that were/had been speeding just before the crash.



With respect, I don't believe the argument is circular.

Posters state that red lights should not be jumped by cyclists (or car drivers), but over my time I've seen thousands do it with no issues whatsoever; I don't do it myself, but then neither do I purposefully travel at a speed above the limit, unlike some who admit they purposefully do because they might perceive it gets them where they are going faster and/or actually does.

By the logic of saying that speeding is acceptable because thousands do it with no problems I can't quite understand how somebody stating this won't also agree that red light jumping by cyclists is acceptable for the same reason.

On the flip side we do have anti-speed governance posters on here trumpeting from the rooftops relating stories about cyclists being fined for speeding in the royal parks, which is about the only place a cyclist can actually break the law by exceeding a speed limit posted on a sign.

So, the government stats contradict your position, thus the police must be fudging them? Riiight.



Ahhh, so its only worthy if its your own anecdotal accounts, official stats are just too unbelievable!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Equating 2% of crashes being caused due to excessive speed is not the same as saying that only 2% of all crashes involved people that were speeding at the time, you know that.



I see cyclists do it every day; stand on any london street near traffic lights and you will too. I've never seen a cyclist struck by a car (although of course it does happen). I've been cycling in London for 12 years and currently travel 28 miles a day through the place whch takes two hours.

It's still wrong though.

You only prove my point Weepej, you're happy to discount the government stats that speeding is massively underrepresented in KSIs, and yet expect your own anecdotal accounts of red light jumpers to be taken as above reproach. You're also still comparing apples and pears.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Two officers have helped lose the battle. Not worthy of being police. I hear they no longer are - it as yet an uncnfirmed rumour.. but I hope it true as those idiots set back campaign for realistic limits big time.

_________________
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!

Weepy my pal. I find some foreign stuff which I post up in "NEWS". You may find it interesting read.

_________________
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!

And they of course have every right to their opinion, and we can of course start a whole new thread on that very issue which involves a host of many driving issues and would need a very clear debate standpoint or it would go around in circles and probably drive every reader around the bend !


The ideal is that everyone should try and want, to never break the law. Ideally these law's are fair, reasonable, just and enforced with appropriate knowledge, just & fair play, and understanding by, good quality Traffic Police (with regard to traffic rules).
So yes we should never break the Law. I can also take this further that the numeric enforcement currently in play is at odds with the equipment in almost every car. After all has every car been calibrated? Is my speedo accurate - no I know it is not, according to the Sat Nav - but just how accurate is that ? So I have to - with regard to speed try, my very best to apply my throttle as accurately as I possibly can.



Much of the Campaign is obviously discussed here on these boards. The forums are a way in which the campaign can voice it's thoughts and ideas, but it is the main website, and myself, that are currently the voice of Safe Speed.
Does that fully answer your question?





The stats are far more involved that you have simplified it down to here / above, and what you state is not accurate. Now what is it that you are failing to understand ?
Perhaps - the figures have already been hauled out of all the rest of the figures, and *I* haven't linked it (linked being the wrong word to accurately describe the precise statistic too). Every word is importantly placed, when stats are involved. You have also joined my two concepts as IF they ARE joined and that is also wrong. Each fact is taken and observed, investigated and a conclusion drawn. So any then 'other' collection of collating certain facts and figures can completely alter a perspective and then a conclusion.
Now this is why I say that having a clear stand point first is SO important - in other words are we all talking about the VERY same issues or do we first have to understand what the principals are - first - then you can then have a debate once that has been established !
And this is where many of the 'circular' arguments can stem from.

So to clarify what I said : 1 study = 75% of people questioned said - yes we speed.
then from DFT figures and various sections of the stats the conclusion is that 5% of accidents are down to any excessive speed (that is AT ALL) but they have not taken out drunks, drugged, thefts etc - so from the figures that paul had at the time the stat. was reported he calculated that we can estimate a 2.5 or 2% (as stats are rarely suggest as a .5 (apparently!) so it is phrased as 2% of accidents have any (or all if you prefer) excessive speed.
I am 'simply' reporting facts - one can draw all the conclusions that one can dream of from this but those facts still remain. It is what the Government is doing with them and what Safe Speed Campaigns for - is the difference as to why we believe that the government is 'wrong' - as : if 75% of people from the survey say they speed and the accidents are not down to speed then why spend So much time and money on a 'very small' 'problem' ?
I hope that explains and makes sense to you ?

What cars do before a crash is not part of these figures ! It looks at Statics which by their nature is looking at the END result. For example if you were filming a car chase but while filming it out of shot another event (whatever) took place, the film in the camera still has the shot - job done end of story. The fact that an event - out of shot happened but had NO effect to the resulting film is the point. It WAS out of shot, not in shot. And stats are a bit like this - they are in or out - they are fact. The cameraman may be effected by the out of shot event but it made no difference to the film result. So there is an effect but it did not change the Stats !
Take this back into the driving arena and no one is saying that the 'outside effects' do not need looking at - hence engineers investigate the road to improve it, but the council sign stating a Black Spot is the (in the film) Stats bit ! that is the fact - the improvement is the 'effect'.
I am sure that a statistician could explain this far better than I but I hope that helps a bit.
This IS why every word is phrase very carefully and why Stats are looked at and why the Gov should be totally 'unbiased to them'. Their responsibility is to try to help improve those Stats and when year after year (and allowing for natural Stat 'flow') they do not 'change' it is heartbreaking as they are not 'doing' the right 'things' to make things better and this is why Safe Speed trys to point this out and lobbys Government for proper changes ! numeric enforcement does nothing to 'change the film result' but does have very negative 'effect's and that makes the film result get worse!




I did not precisely state that anyone had - it was a reminder as it is potentially heading that way, and I wanted to nip it in the bud - so to speak, simply a reminder to be clear about the discussed basics and then 'attack the message not the poster'. I might have been better posting it separately to be clearer and non associative.


So which do you want to discuss ?
Red Light and the principals of that, or general driving rules, or posters who disagree with the rules, or speeding drivers ?
They are all very involved topics.
So to be clear - which ?
You see - if I then chat about red lights and the obvious danger that that can cause, you may then wish to come back and then chat about any one of 100 other rules that are broken on the road every day ?
Or is the implication of purposeful speeding relating to a person type and are they all of the same psychological make up or are there differences ?
You see we can take this into 100's of off shoots as the established points are not clear. This can of course be a perfect way to chat about many topics too BUT when we are trying to 'progress' learning and thoughts it can be very frustrating when we then appear to go back to the beginning after we (perhaps) thought that we were half way down the road with one 'train' of thought - or half way to filming the car chase (to bring that back in !). That stops the 'flow' of the discussion, and take sit back to the beginning so to speak.


Again too many unestablished precise points ... it too open and too wide to 'pin down' ...
I will say though that in answer to the first par to of this sentence ... The government has to always balance 'acceptable' losses for example in war, and this stems right down to the control of almost every part of the human life. Children will fall off a bicycle and it is acceptable despite the fact that they may be hurt. We drive a car and know that we might have and accident. We do our jobs and know that we might have problems (of all natures) and they are all acceptable.
The you can get into the realm of unacceptable, those generally go into the 'likely hood of a real problem', eg if someone drove the wrong way down a one way (lets stay under the limit here) and they are highly likely to cause a serious accident and injure many innocent people. Now I am trying to recall an article or some such that I heard or read somewhere - there is a whole system of managing risk and this explains all this (as a good example) ...
So problems have a likelyhood of an acceptable risk and a high likelyhood of a definite unacceptable 'risk'.
If I said that you could go through a red light as much as you liked BUT you were to be blindfolded - your who risk has changed. Only a foolhardy person would risk it, because the risk is too great as it is likely that injury will happen. Some things are too risky. Now say speed a few miles an hour over the limit lets say 35 in a 30 and and you are blindfolded for just 2 seconds and 'probably' nothing would change if you kept your steering straight (if a straight road etc etc - assumed !) and so the risk factor IS less but NONE is acceptable behaviour. Both are foolhardy. Now take the blindfolds off - yes the cyclist 'COULD' look and go BUT it is against the law, and as they travel so slowly they are in danger for a number of minutes = high risk.
Now take the driver going a few miles and hour over a limit, for a few minutes, and they too are observing as best as possible. they are also driving against the law but which is - if you had to choose is the 'less risk'? The driver is a few miles an hour, over in a straight lined road, is taking a less risk given *this* scenario. the two are very 'risk' different can you see this ?

[/quote]

OK what flip side of what *exactly* - this is unclear (to me) ... but again look at the 'risk' ... they have deemed that a cyclist 'whizzing around a park can be dangerous - well it 'could' be one would 'assume' that they have done research and found that there was a need to take these measures (specifically).. however now-s-days 'risk' is not really seemingly involved - as there are too many cases where the Stats do not justify the actions and the 'risk' is not addresses or a real risk that requires to be solved !
OK - does this help ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

With regard to red light jumping. I can see where it could be perfectly safe to do as long as due care was taken. Similar to crossing a junction with no lights. In India my friend always drove through red lights as he said he concentrated much more while doing this. Scared the bejesus out of me right enough.

As a nation I think everyone is scared these days because we’re told there’s danger where most often there isn’t.

My child can’t play outside for paedophiles lurking, if it’s dirty it needs to be sanitized and of course any digression from the speed limit is always dangerous.

The fact that your child can play outside and there’s probably not a paedophile lurking and a bit of dirt is actually healthy for you doesn’t matter to the populace anymore. And as for speeding?

Historically, speed limits were introduced because they had nothing better to gauge what they considered was the culprit in road KSI incidents. No one questioned it and the fact that this practice still goes on today, and is on the increase, is a sad indictment that we have not learned anything over the past hundred years about road safety or indeed the abuse of power and indoctrination.

It is propaganda at its worse; duping a nation into believing an untruth or to be kind, not nearly as helpful as they would have us believe. It’s almost up there like the dark practice of drowning suspected witches.

If you had enough officers watching drivers and their habits they would probably prosecute far more for careless or dangerous driving and drunk/drugs etc. than they ever would for simply speeding because any officer worth his salt would assess the danger of the situation.

This is how I remember it ~30 years ago. It wasn’t perfect but what we have now is far worse IMO. If they had built on that, instead of scameras, there’s no doubt in my mind there would be many more people alive today.

It’s like being gay back in the 70s, or a 'poof' as idiots used to call them. You couldn’t admit to being gay back then any more than you can to declaring “I occasionally speed where it is safe to do so” - Like Med Hughes did no doubt. (Well, who did he hurt or kill?)

One day scamera operators and supporters will come out of the closet and declare “it’s not helping safety”. Until then we just have to face the music and dance.

When are you going to come out weepej? (Just pulling your leg)

_________________
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.

Perhaps he /she has - next thing we need on the NHS - ----- an anti weepy jab.(protects us and kills/deletes his speech/text capacity on contact )

_________________
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

I got this when I hadn't even denigrated any poster: