Safe Speed Forums

In a pedantic sense the accepted definition could be of a speed carrying 'acceptable risk' rather than 'safe', this is where much of the disagreement can come from I think.

Of course if you want to be really pedantic even not moving at all carries a risk and 0mph is therefore not safe.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

Yes, far too many too worry about, let's just concentrate on the minority shall we????

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Life's a dangerous hobby, it will surely kill you in the end so you might as well face up to it. The only thing that you have to decide is how you want to live it and evaluate the "risks" involved of everything you do.

We all have different ideas of what we want and what it's going to cost us in differing terms. If you are one of those people frightened to go out of the door every morning so be it but I believe in living my life as best as I can, so long as it doesn't upset too many other peoples lives. (you will always upset some people , no matter what you do).

My driving is a mixture of getting where I want in a reasonable time without taking too many "risks" (everything we do involves some sort of "risk"), upsetting as few people as possible and trying to ensure the best possible safety of myself, my passengers and road users around me.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Round we go again..............................................

See: viewtopic.php?p=203480#p203480

...and you wonder why you don't get answers to all of your senseless questions...you just don't realise when you have already had them.

Well that's real nice of you...same as me...now just try to do it lawfully as well.

I don't suppose you'd care to point us in the direction of any research that you might be aware of that addreses each of Steve's confounding factors and shows why each can be discounted - or better, quantifies the effect of each of them and explains why they can be discounted?

Anyway Greenshed, I'm glad you're back! I saw something the other day on PH and thought of you!



Here are a couple of new ways (that are now in the public domain) of reducing occupant decelerations without making cars larger:

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default ... ryId=20096

Who said that I wasn't doing it lawfully and if I'm not, is it really any concern of yours?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Your not being able to determine the logical sense doesn't mean none exists. Besides, I reckon I know why don't answer my questions....after all everybody, except those whose job is related to SCP activitierss, seems to understand and accept these very simple concepts.
Let's see if you can spot this and the other hidden message
How does my argument of 'bias on selection' not make sense to you? Please explain.

Do you really think you're doing your stance any favours by still failing to understand those extremely simple logical steps:
Camera success is indeed measured in KSI reduction, but many other things cause KSI reduction, even at camera sites; hence it follows that the standard measure for camera success, as you have stated it (the KSI reduction), is a fallacy."

Is your entire stance really based on that not making logical sense?

Seriously?

Here's your chance to redeem yourself. Either accept it, or demonstrate the fallacy contained within it, or accept you don't have the mental capability to participate in this debate.
(we know it's not the latter, but I thought I would cover all bases for completeness)

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

The problem with this country is that, due to ill informed people who can't see past the end of a spreadsheet, what was legal one day and has been for decades can suddenly become illegal tomorrow and this is happening all over the country on a day by day basis. So the difference between doing something legally and illegally can be down to one or two person's interpretation of "safe".

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I suppose would be worthwhile starting with finding some research that said they existed in the first place but I don't believe that it would be down to me to do that.

I'm guesing you are making an obtuse reference to roads that have had a speed limit changed in the downward direction.

If so then moving the legal limit downward and then driving at the previously higher limit will have an adverse effect on safety; drivers, a large number of them will be expecting drivers to be expecting ther drivers to be approaching at or about the maximum posted limit;anyone exceeding that will be putting others at a higher risk.

So what was legal will therefore become detrimental to safety if not observed.

Speed limits are not conditional; if that is what you would prefer then make arrangements to campaign and lobby for that; so far this campaign has developed nothing worth advancing that would be considered in favour of making such changes. almost 7 years and zero progress...well done all!

You have so far advanced nothing in support of your claims yet demand much of thse who argue against you. When references, freely available to you are provided you read and dismiss one with further unsupported detractions.
A barbed coment on intellect sharply withdrawn when you know it is obviously petty and untrue does you no service; you would be well advised to take notice of the site owners comments earlier in this thread.
You have aked for and been provided with said references provide none and then make personal attacks claiming the upper hand and demand answers to charges you provide no support for...it should be no wonder to you that further response is not forthcoming from this quarter. Further demands for questions to be answered from you sir, will be met with silence until you show the intellect, wit, manners and observace of the forum rules that would deserve such.

I still have the textbook I used for my statistics course in 1966. It explains Regression to the Mean very well. Would you like to borrow it.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Freely available? Where? I've directly asked you this and you didn't respond to that post at all.
I supported my detraction with logical arguments which I openly explained to you. If you aren't able to counter my argument then you have to accept the possibility that my argument is sound - is that not a fair comment?

So far, your approach to such analysis has been 'well, no one has published any hard research on it, therefore it must be untrue, even though you have demonstrated a sound argument that holds against scrutiny', does that seem like a reasonably logical way to respond? What would you have said to those arguing the RTTM case before the Four Year Report came out?


You have gotten confused yet again. There was no personal attack; I merely pointed out all the possible options of what must be.

Repeating myself again, I don't believe you lack the basic intelligence to understand the concept of:
A is claimed to result with Y
B also results with Y
Therefore Y cannot necessarily have been caused by A
...so do you understand this or not? Unless you want to argue that Y must have been caused by A only?


I already gave the necessary response. Isn't an logical argument, which as yet remains unrefuted despite ample opportunity for scrutiny, not strong support for my charges? If not then why not? If you cannot answer this then your response is invalidated.


You've already ignored many of my responses to you; on one occasion where you did reply said you won't give a point by point response, so this doesn't make much difference anyway.
What you mean is that I've not attacked you, but you actually decided the last option within the given three of "Either accept it, or demonstrate the fallacy contained within it, or accept you don't have the mental capability to participate in this debate." must be the only applicable one, even though I had said "we know it's not the latter".
Tell us why you inferred the last option must be the only applicable one, when no such implication was given; are you really not able to “accept” or “counter” my explained arguments?
Wouldn't you say my statement with the three options is inherently logically correct? If not then how could you possibly dispute it?

If you think that was a breach of the forum rules then please report that post - let us know how that goes!
As much as you might try to misrepresent it, my method isn’t one based on ad hominem; it is actually one intended to either derive a decent response from you, or failing that to show the reader the carss (oops, typo) cards you are likely to be holding.

I will continue responding to you; your ignoring me will further demonstrate to the reader that you have no adequate response and you'll do further damage to your own stance

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

Sorry Greenshed, but that's not how the game is played! You ought to know that by now!

By saying:



you are making a claim. It's now up to YOU to back that up with some FACTS - if you want anyone on here to take you seriously, that is! I know you might feel that a simple statement from you ought to be sufficient to have us all stop dead in our tracks and "see the light", but you ought to know by now that we're pretty hardened to SCP "bluff and bluster"!

So...

..for the avoidance of doubt, I'm looking for YOU to provide US with evidence that:

RTTM is "nothing more than assumptions on our part and has no supporting base".
Reduced exposure is "nothing more than assumptions on our part and has no supporting base".
Less overall travel is "nothing more than assumptions on our part and has no supporting base".
a concerted crackdown on other offences is " nothing more than assumptions on our part and has no supporting base".

and while you're about it, some evidence that:

Casualty reduction due to improvements in vehicle design have been "nothing more than assumptions on our part and has no supporting base".
Casualty reduction due to improvements in road layout have been "nothing more than assumptions on our part and has no supporting base".
Casualty reduction due to improvements in medical care of A&E vitims is "nothing more than assumptions on our part and has no supporting base".


...and so on, for each of the other factors that could have also brought about an improvement in the KSI rate.

And that's BEFORE you provide us with some kind of independently audited figures to prove that it would be impossible for the partnerships to "manipulate" their "SI" figures. You see, using your own figures puts you in the same credibility league as the car company that claims "0-60 in 3 seconds, 200MPG" and then in the small print at the bottom of the ad - (manufacturer's figures)

I say again, if you were a pharamceutical company trying to sell us some miracle cure that you were espousing the benefits of, you'd sell plenty of it to the vulnerable and gullible, but to anyone else, you'd need to prove that it's claimed benefits weren't, in whole or in part, due to some other effect!

Just because you've answered something doesn't mean you're right!

On this point:


I had a little look around the interweb, and despite these confounding factors being nothing more than assumption with no base, it is amazing how many organisations seem to agree with them. Let's just focus on safer roads and cars:
http://www.eurorap.org/casualty_reduction
Note that EuroRAP believe that a casualty reduction of 44% could be acheived in the UK by improving the infrastructure.

TRL work with EuroNCAP even though safer vehicles are nothing more than assumptions on our part and have no supporting base:
http://www.trl.co.uk/consultancy/automotive/euroncap.htm

EuroNCAP themselves are improving tests to further increase car safety:
http://www.euroncap.com/Content-Web-Article/a9c0de14-ed3f-41cf-a5ed-c2dd83f10a5f/new-rating-to-play-starring-role-in-improving-car.aspx

A lot of time and effort seems to be spent on these assumptions that have no supporting base.

I do apologise for that late response to this:

You have made the classic error of many debaters that support automated enforcement. You assume that if someone is against automated enforcement then they must exceed the speed limit all the time.
I do not, and I doubt you will find a single poster on here who does.

The other classic mistake is that we must want to exceed the limit without getting caught, this again is not true, I simply want to drive legally at a sensibly set speed limit.

Exactly, Odin, respect for speed limits comes from the fact that they are sensible and the "majority" of drivers, feel them to be safe.

Greenshed,
You seem to think that speed cameras go a long way to reducing accidents, personally, I don't but what really upsets me, more than the number of caualties on the road, is the really bad standard of driving which IS getting worse and cameras won't do anything to remedy this.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.