Safe Speed Forums

I'd put it a slightly different way. They want to eliminate risk. Hence the use of soft material in children's playgrounds. Hence the school which banned conkers because a child suffered from a nut allergy. The problem with tryng to eliminate risk is that you can't. All you succeed in doing is making it harder for people to cope with the unexpected when it happens. The human race got where it is (whether you like it or not) because it learnt how to cope with risk. And for millennia it was very successful.

IMV speed limit enforcement for enforcement's sake falls into the same category. Eventually we will all turn into mindless zombies obeying rules "because that's the law", and lose our ability to make decisions. When the "little green men" finally invade, we will have no chance.

_________________
Brian

I had always thought that one of the reasons why we had better accedent rates in the UK compared with other countries was because we had roundabouts instead of lights.

Roundabouts

You have to observe, think and make a descision!

Lights

You do as you are told.

Most accedents occur because of bad descisions. Our preference for roundabouts rather than lights historically produced a driving population that was better at making descisions. hence safer!

Unfortunatly for reasons that i really cannot comprehend TPTB seem determined to destroy this culture of "intelegent" safety!

WHY in Gods name??

Any Gvmnt lurkers out there I would *really* like to know!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

Todays headline on one of the papers... hamster walks

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

He'll be back in the jet car in no time Just to annoy the sandalista/guardianista type you understand.

Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

At the risk of being just as cynical as the anti-speed people for capitalising on this issue.

If speed kills is the be all and end all of road safety, how come Hamster is back up on his feet just a few days after a 300mph crash.. <follow with information about all the other aspects that make an accident serious or not>

There's an excellent column by Jeremy Clarkson about Richard Hammond in today's Sun:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006440317,00.html

_________________
"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

It is good for us short blokes everywhere that Hammond is getting better. I see a lucrative future for him endorsing head ache remedies, 'cos god knows he's going to have the mother of all head aches for a while.

So the answer to if "speed kills what speed kills?" must surely be... "more than 300mph"

Classic!!

Daily Telegraph

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.