Safe Speed Forums

That's not the issue. You could make the same point about people stepping on cracks in the pavement, if stepping on cracks were against the law. The question would be why it's against the law.
Or eating mince pies on Christmas day - which, AFAIK, is still illegal.
Or, more topically, at certain railway stations it's almost impossible to breathe with all the choking clouds of diesel fumes - yet it's illegal to have a puff of a fag.

What purpose do these laws serve?

Would you still be as supportive of speed limit enforcement if they lowered the speed limit to 5mph in town, 10mph in the country and 20mph on motorways? And that's not completely outside the bounds of possibility, the way things are going.

Incidentally, I agree that it's fairly straightforward to stick to the limit - provided you're driving at a steady speed. But, with the dynamics of driving in traffic when you're more-or-less constantly slowing sown and speeding up, it requires a considerable amount of undue vigilance to ensure that you never blip over the limit. And, if you do 30.1mph for half a second you're just as guilty of breaking the law as someone doing 36mph.

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

I don't believe this, another person who hasn't read what I said to Tone in this post: Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:26 am

Read that and see if it means you should change your post in any way.

Can you provide a link back to that post? If not, it doesn't matter, because you could always quote it in this thread. This would be very helpful to all concerned.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

Personal trolling, which is why I put "For someone who has put "hjegn", I would suggest that you need to control your own trolling urges." Why did you do so? Why did Robin do so? I've repeatedly asked both of you and never actually had an answer. I believe that you were both trying to wind me up, in other words you were trolling. (And if that doesn't count as trolling then it still counts as negative, unpleasant behaviour.)

As for trolling a forum, yes, I would agree with what you say above. But quite why you think that someone who merely disagrees with you, as opposed to deliberately trying to wind you up, is a troll I don't understand. I suggest you read the comments on this page:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/troll_definition_of_0

I suggest you leave me out of this.

I was only mentioning you because of the specific topic. I suggest you either stay out of it or, if you ARE going to reply to what I am saying to someone else, then you answer the question in the post. Considering that you have written the above you could very well have answered the question, but as you haven't you have effectively just confirmed that you were, in deed, trolling. That is negative and unpleasant enough, Robin, but for someone who was accusing someone else of being a troll, there is also the unbelievable hypocrisy of it.

And no answer from Johnnytheboy either.

I will no longer enter any sort of debate with you whatsoever. If you have specific questions for me, my inbox is always open, however I suggest you stop bandying my name around in open forum.

Thanks.

Thank you for at least conducting yourself in a more pleasant manner these last two posts.

However, that was your second opportunity for answering the question...

If you are still going to write posts aimed for my attention but are not willing to answer the question publicly, then I would be grateful if you were to answer the question by way of PM. Neglecting to do so just provides greater evidence to back up my assertion that you were trolling, which is generally negative, unpleasant, and hypocritical in your case.

I am sure that you won't want to continue being associated with those attributes.

Having been ignored previously, I will again ask weepej and hjeg2 to describe the ways in which they would like to support, as users of our community, the aims of our community and the SafeSpeed ethos, as they both seem to be at odds with one of its basic premises.

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

I hope they support them! Or at least understand why SafeSpeed exists.

Chaps... you two DO understand why SafeSpeed exists, don't you?

Maybe that would be a good start? Getting them to explain why they think SafeSpeed was set up and why it exists?

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

It might well be less painfull to be hit by a modern car at 20mph than a bike. The car is designed to reduce the impact on pedestrians and is nice and wide.

A bike is very hard and narrow.

Not really, I don't think its message is very clear at all.

The only clear one I can see is the request for the immediate cessation of all speed camera operations, which I strongly disagree with.

I've seen two people hit full on by a cycle that I can remember, both got up and dusted off; I've seen one person hit by a car, broken leg and shoulder.

A cycle is likely to collect the victim, with the cyclist probably grabbing onto the unintended target for support, people bounce off cars and hit the floor from a height (often after their head has bounced off the windscreen).

Then why are you posting here? Seriously? Do you think everyone here is wrong and that it is your duty to correct them?

Do you think that every speed camera is in the right place? Do you believe that no speed camera has ever been put in a place to earn money rather than to improve road safety?

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

I strongly disagree with pursuing a policy of automated enforcement that causes the reduction in traffic police and thus the increase in dangerous driving.

I strongly suspect that everyone who supports cameras has forgotten the intended goal of them. That was to improve safety, not reduce it.

And in answer to Odin's excellent point, we now have an example -in South Yorkshire- of an incident where a speed camera actually reduced road safety.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

Paul was always welcoming to those who had an alternative viewpoint.

We had several discussions (via forum and private message) on the subject, do I detect the beginnings of a less welcoming and inclusive forum - members are only welcome if they agree?

_________________
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.

there were several goals in the beginning, as I recall. One of them was to reduce the workload on traffic police so that they could be freed up to concentrate on other, less quantitative types of transgression of the law, by allowing automated measurement and civilian processing of paperwork.

The loss of THAT goal is tragic. IMvHO that is.

Andy

{p.s. I am one of the supporters, Odin, and I had not forgotten that. I think TPTB may have done though}

_________________
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.

To which question? You ask a lot, but you don't answer many!