Safe Speed Forums

Steve, you have had over twenty , independent, corroborated sources that refute your "research".

You cannot find a single source that replicates this "research".

you now claim that this is a world+wide conspiracy to back up the governments position. Are you seriously that paranoid.

What, for the second time, are your qualifications in data extraction that leads you to think that you alone are right and everyone else is wrong ?

Is it another conspiracy?

Come on mate, you cannot replicate those findings anywhere, nobody has replicated the figure in a single attributable source, you're clinging desperately to one, solitary graph like a drowning man.

A thousand out of 6000 odd is...what... 17% or s0?

And that's just pedestrians on the pavement killed or injured by drivers who lose control.

That's without even considering drunk drivers.

Drugged drivers.

Drivers on mobiles.

Speeding drivers.

Drivers recklessly overtaking.

Stolen cars.

With those included, do you still maintain your 74% figure is accurate?

Tell you what, find a single attributable source that replicates that figure, I'll donate fifty quid to safespeed.

Deal?

Where? Were they those I rebutted? Not once did you acknowledge my counter arguments against your so-called sources, let alone give a counter argument..


What, do you think we need another parallel compilation of the stats19 reports?
Do you really understand what you are demanding there?


No, I just sift through the spin from authorities who have a vested interest on keeping things like RTTM quiet.


Does it matter really? I could tell you anything, you wouldn't know if it was the truth or otherwise. the fact is, the facts I gave add up and has withstood scrutiny.


My 74% figure? I got that from the DfT, so are you questioning their figures?
I’m claiming my interpretation of them is accurate; the rest you’ll have to take up with the DfT I’m afraid.


Let's get this straight: are you really outright dismissing the DfT compiled, RCGB2007, hosted at dft.gov.uk, this being the only source of raw data? Seriously? Are you now going to claim a government conspiracy?

I've asked you several times already to quote alternative reports giving such data in such a detailed format. If you cannot find one then you have to accept that this one is king and trumps all your news articles.

It seems your entire argument rests on the dismissal of this DfT document, yet without providing an alternative raw data resource for evaluation. I think we can leave the reader to draw their own conclusions on that!


It seems we're wrapping up here. Please ensure following posts are with substance and not trolling.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Having lurked on this forum for years I felt I must reply to this topic as stevegarrod appears to have proved the point for steve.

As stevegarrod points out just taking the number of pedestrian killed on pavements and crossinggs between 1998 and 2005 was 1009 out of 6318 (stevegarrod's figures I have not checked) and this implies 15.9% of pedestrians clearly could not be held to be at fault in the accident. It is also clear that a unknown number of further pedestrian's would be killed while sensibly going about there business in a careful manner. However we are generally good at keeping pedestrians and traffic apart so that this number is unlikely to be large even taking into account drunk, druged and phoning drivers (if they had killed a pedestrian in one of the safe areas they are already in the statistic for 1009 and not ignored as stevegarrod suggests). Personally I think 10% is a high estiamte for people killed in this way but if accepted gives the 26% not being resposinble for the accident.

I also did a quick check on the total fatality figures to assume the data was sensible. This is not exact but I believe is not unrealisatic. Assuming 3,500 fatalities a year between 1998 to 2005 (8 years assuming inclusive) gives 28,000 fatalities. Assuming all the 74% of pedestrian fatalites in which it is believed that the pedestrian played a part to be excluded leaves 23325 fatalities which were caused by the driver. Assuming all to involve driver negligence (not an unreasonable assumption as stevegarrod has already indicated that 95% of accidents involve driver error) gives a percentage of 83%. This seems to be perfectly consistent with the 95% figures as it both slightly overestimates (not taking account of accidents out of the drivers control i.e. mechanical failure) and strongly underestimates as acidents involving pedestrians may have a contributary factor of driver error (i.e. multiple failure).

I hope my maths is right, but assuming it is I think stevegarrod has gone to great lengths to prove himself wrong.

Ah, but any contradictory (to stevegarrod) evidence becomes anecdote by some alchemical process and thus irrelevant.

He's already 'shown' that...

I can never find that welcome thingy, but welcome.



He has posted and got himself banned many times on here before. I was referring to him as Number9, this is his username on another forum, that has also banned him many times. Check him out, his view are truly repugnant for any rational person.

I can't fully agree (or fully disagree). Table 4I does have a row showing: "Pedestrian wrong use of pedestrian crossing facility" - which accounts for 5% of collisions (excluding effects of multiple factors such as the biggie 'failing to look properly'). Hence being on a crossing doesn't mean the pedestrian wasn't at fault. This is of course offset by collisions on pavements (something which I've recently experienced - let's just say that red-nosed driver reserved 95 lashes), which on the scale of things seems about right. This is probably a point of pedantry, so carry on


It took me a while to understand where you were going with your thoughts, but it does seem to make sense.
He has indeed gone to great lengths to try to prove the compiled DfT figures to be incorrect.

Oh, and

For Odin: : welcome : (but without the two spaces).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

If stevegarrod was more capable of comparing apples with apples then this thread would be somewhat shorter.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Thank you for the welcomes.

Steve I agree my analysis was very simplistic. All I was trying to do is demonstrate that the data given by stevegarrod was not incompatible with the head line of the DfT report. I hope I achieved this in a back-of-an-evelope way.

I am sorry if I didn't do this completely rigorously.

Calling a ped who steps out in front of a car that should be stopping for them and then gets hit "at fault" is bizzare in the extreme.

It's a bit like saying somebody who get's punched in the face was "at fault" for not ducking, technically true, but insidious and morally repugnant to suggest.

Especially when it gives ammo to people who think they should get brownie points for whacking peds who are in the road; it's dangerous propoganda.

spindrift aka Red Kite etc

_________________
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.

Does it not occur to you that this person, or people actually are not trolls, but care about road saftey, and believe that Safe Speed is nothing about road saftey?

But I visited the Swiss guys at ag 14 and got done by a nasty gendarme for crossing on a red light man. He really hit me with pure memorable acid at the time. My Swiss first and removed cousins all got into trouble for "not looking after me properly"

Hey .. Wildy has even posted up three cases whereby an eight year old[/i] was prosecuted for "causing an accident" by stepping out on a crossing showing a red man . . and another at a zebra crossing in that country It only allows 3 moh above any lolly by the way .. so if driver had been above this . he'd be HAMMERED .. which suggests Swiss equivalent of CPS were satisfied the kids had cases to answer there

Now not saying they are right . but showing how another country does things. ..

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Anyone who truly believes that has either not done their research, or is incapable of reasoned thought.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Indeed, all he has ever shown that he cares about is flaming people on this forum, and that motorists are ultimatley responsible for all deaths on the road. Drunk pedestrians who wander onto the motorway should not be held to account. Sorry, I used his specious reasoning to arrive at that conclusion.

We know .. guy's a troll .. called spindrift. Even the cycling fora have banned this person many times over.

The fact he re-registers under other guises and posts 64 plus posts at any one time rather proves he has never ridden any "cols" .. never mind Trek 4000 .. Ventoux or Tourmalet.


I have signed up for a charity ride. I spent most free time in training before our twins were born, Wildy was ill as result .. seriously so despite her brave denials. We now know the cause and are working on her recovery.


But I know you have to train seriously to do those rides. He does not. Thus a fake.

Odin . yes . we know . to well . as did Paul.

As said . I engineered its removal from PH. I've expected it to post bile

_________________
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.

I can't help but agree, you only have to look through the threads with a critical eye to realise that.

I would like to believe people who contribute to these forums are sincere, but in this case the repeated and blatant misrepresentation, and the blanking of reasonable responses, show them to be anything but, regardless of what they think of the Safe Speed campaign.

It is of course possible these people are ... of a certain road user group who believe any tactic of eliminating a certain other road user group is a valid one (a la 'fair game').
It is also possible they are SCP employees trying to obfuscate the issues surrounding their gross exaggerations and subsequent failures of policy.

Who knows, who cares!
At end of the day, the sincere reader will consider only the logical and reasoned arguments.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

steve wrote:

I look on it as reverse flattery!
If people have to sink to the levels they seem to do Safespeed must be having one hell of a load of success!
More power to your elbow.
p.s. your keyboard must be nearly melting steve!

Not for an instant, no. Do you think it's only Safespeed he trolls? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

He's just some web-loony who hates people that like cars. I don't think he gives a fig about road safety, but wants to paint anyone that thinks you can drive a car in a safe manner without doing <20mph as on the same moral level as a paedophile.

Probably for some deep-seated childhood reason, like his first/only girlfriend dumped him for some guy with an Escort.

Weepy .. believe me spindrift does not. We have too much information from edp24 to a sheffield forum on this guy and he has been BANNED from ALL of them.


We have support for drug taking.. support for parents who allowed a child to suffocate in the sand .. support for all things Blairite from this guy,. and wiki and dubious sites to support his comments..

it does not care about road safety.. only the law as it relates to SPINDRIFT .. to the exent that it posted to PH claiming to be spindrift . a widowed estate agent called Cathy Brown , from norfolk .. only Klaril (eldest of Team Swiss) found that it was posting as spindrift . CathyBrown and an alex smelling and arguing with itself in EDP24 in 2005. She was fresh from the USA on a sabbatical exchange. She was posting to a local news site to get to know the area when she came across this guy and challenged him or her,. Another poster the EDP 24 site .. called Observer (not our Tim) of here and PH) exposed the person as a fake- as did a poster to C+called Spen

The person .. weepy . a fake. He does not commute to any "work". 64 posts on here in less than 24 hours .. plus whatever to cycling and other boards?

I could post all we know here. I may let you know via pm . but I need to know I can trust first,. Vrenchen thinks so based on a pm to her in which she worried she offenced and you replied that she could not if she tried at the time. .. Which is true. We are not seeking to offend anyone .. but we are aware this person is not as he or she claims to be.. and numerous bans from cycling and motoring sites suggest a blatant disregard for rulles and decency.

Weepy . this person does not care one jot about others. Only his own selfish and arrogant issues. A thug . in lycra .. A cyber bully as well and all fora ban . but his or her blatant arrogance and bad manners. disregard for any rules . mean it re-registers and folk are sick of it. Look at its posts in cold light. MEANINGLESS DRIVEL AND SPITE FOR THE SAKE OF IT.

I may not agree with you all of the time. I agree some of the time. When I disagree with you . I sure as hell do not post insult. I may tease , but my smiley abuse rather suggests this to be so.

Johnny I made the point to this idiotover "speedophile" back in 2004, It was seriously offensive.

OK . so I make another long post here Johnny , but I think you like and respect me ;.. Vrenchen and Charles all the same . when you get over our smiley abuses

_________________
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.

The sub-thread discussing 'the car is potentially a dangerous weapon.' has been split into a new thread here.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign