Safe Speed Forums

Is 13th December Official Welsh Logical Fallacy Day?

The vast majority of drivers set out in the knowledge that at some point on their journey they will exceed a speed limit, perhaps not by much, but they will exceed it all the same. They know that it will be irrelevant in safety terms, and up to about 15 years ago they knew it would expose them to minimal risk of prosecution. If that amounts to intention, then it is intention. But it is very different from deliberately tear-arsing through residential estates at 70 mph.

If you are drawing a distinction between those drivers who know they are likely to exceed a limit, and those who are wholly confident they won't, then it is a pointless classification that tells us nothing about safety.

And thanks Paul for giving BW a prod, though sometimes one does feel in the mood for a good argument

_________________
"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

Where did you go BW?

you went missing for quite some time

It is a shame that you dismiss the valid point as a 'distraction', BW, for exaggerating the dangers of driving, and then falsifying the benefits of the current policy of rigid speed enforcement are very much at the crux of your arguments, as they are for many people with hidden, dare I say it anti car agenda.

If this were a boxing match the ref would have stopped it 7 rounds ago

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Boxing Match?

No, he's more like the pub drunk, reeling out of the door at closing time shouting "I'll fight any f***er!!!"

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Anyway, my patience with you all is over, and now I’d like an answer instead of all this ducking and diving.

What message do you suggest we give to young drivers, who are more likely to die in a crash than anything else? Should we recommend that they stay within the limit, or should we tell them that staying within the limit is a load of old guff, and only northern blokes with flat caps in Morris Minors bother with it?

With respect to the amount of attention, it is totally impossible to measure attention in percentage points, so SafeSpeed will have to wait until hell freezes over.

_________________
I stole this .sig

We must tell them that skills, attitudes and a sense of responsibility are the key factors affecting safety. We sure as hell should not be telling them that the number on the tin sign has any great relevance to safety.



You can characterize it in any terms you choose. I don't mind. If you choose not to, we'll all know that you cannot face the reality that there's a real danger from drivers paying too much attention to speed limit compliance.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Yeah. I took a breather. I'd still like people to sign up to the speed limits, but I'm getting a lot of AH back, even from the Boss, which says a lot, as he is the biggest complainer about that kind of thing. It's a mad world, civil engineer. He can't accept that the actions of one driver influence others, nor that speed limits set expectations. I think he has a blind side about group behaviour, so perhaps now he’s prodding me into giving him some AH back. Fat chance!

_________________
I stole this .sig

I really do not know... All that I do know is that in study after study, the majority of motorists admit to exceeding speed limits as a matter of course.


Why so? Other than the possibility of getting "pinged" it's not as if speeding appears to make you more likely to be involved in an accident - assuming that you're sober, drug-free and not on the phone at the time.


But it doesn't appear to be getting smaller though...


Personally, I see nothing "right minded" about obsessively observing limits that are in many cases utterly ludicrous. As I've said on numerous occasions, I see nothing wrong with observing speed limits that have some reasonable correlation with reality.


Advice? Depends on the degree of inexperience... But I'd base it on the concept that I use to judge the general standard of my own driving - "have I been surprised by something or someone?". If "yes" then I've been lacking in one or more of the COAST principles and I need to concentrate more. Speed limits can be treated, as you espouse, as absolute limits and woe, woe and thrice woe is called down upon anyone who exceeds them... This is perhaps good advice to an absolute novice, but has the disadvantage of absorbing a perhaps excessive proportion of their limited skills watching the speedometer. As experience increases I'd suggest that they tend to pick their own pace - with an eye on the limit as a guide to hazard density - but if they found themselves running into unexpected situations (ie being "surprised") they were "driving too far ahead of their observation skills" and should slow down.

It is possible to take the purely legalistic view that exceeding the speed limit is criminal and should be treated as such. However, as I think we're all agreed, it's possible to be travelling at an inappropriate speed within the limit. A driver is expected to be able to realise this and slow down if necessary. If not - then you have an accident "but weren't speeding" - so it's alright!? My take on it is that if a driver has the judgement to reduce speed to less than the posted limit because that's the apropriate speed for the conditions, there's no logical reason (and I say "logical" rather than "legalistic") for said driver not to travel faster than the limit, should it be judged (using the same judgement skills) safe so to do.


You must keep far worse company than me. I never drop litter, nor do any of the people that I know, ditto graffiti things, vandalise things or allow my dog to crap on the pavement.


Well, you've got it... If you can make any sense of it..


Bearing in mind that, for many people, a ban can equate to loss of livelyhood, which could lead to loss of home / wife / family... Are you seriously advocating that someone should be "banged up" for a non-trivial length of time for four instances of pinching paperclips?

In my opinion, one of the main reasons for the total failure of the "speed kills" message to have any noticeable effect on speeding behaviour is that motorists do not see breaking the speed limit as particularly reprehensible. Despite the increasingly shrill protestations and claims from the "camera lobby" there has not been one single shred of reliable, statistically-significant, proof found that sticking resolutely to speed limits reduces casualties. And therein lies the crux of the matter.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Not from me you didn't. I said your arguments stink, and you know it. That's not ad hominem...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Good man. Those things are right! I know you are concerned when you have to help your chums out.



I’m glad you are involved here – you are so clear. I’ll take that as a general opinion that some were afraid or unable to say. Your campaign basically says that new, young drivers should never be told that the national programme of speed limits is relevant to safety. I’ll give credit where it is due. Pogo has made some good points, and yours is a fair, but bold one too.

But of course, a man with your experience knows that this means that new drivers will perceive that the speed limit is NOT relevant to their safety, and it is only a short (but false) step to conclude that speed is NOT relevant to safety. This is a very bad message, and I hope you have less success in putting it across – works on car cranks but I hope the public is to smart to be dupped. But at least you have the guts to admit it unlike the others who have sparred with me. I can see the headlines now:

SafeSpeed Boss Tells Youth Drivers to Pay No Heed to Limit



I don’t duck and dive. I do think there is a knack to complying with the limit, and it should be taught. I’d recommend the amount I use, which is expressed in these terms. To get to near-zero-risk speed checking, speed checks on the clock can be done at known-to-be-safe moments (yes I know those don’t really exist, but they almost do, by your own arguments). Attention given at those times adds little risk overhead. Then use dead-reckoning between the checks. Listen to your motor and feel the bumps. It’s easy. You have mentioned before that you have trouble with dead-reckoning. Do others have the same trouble, and could that be why you are troubled by speed detectors?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Although you have taken pains to dress it up a bit, your argument is objectionable because it implies that I would deliberately mislead you. E.g. fishy stories stink. You have done that, I suspect, in order for you to avoid addressing the basic point, although you did so in the end. In any case, it is an appeal to emotion, as well, so it’s basically a crock of shit, whatever fancy Latin phrase you choose. Have I just given you some Ad Hominem back? Cripes!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Now you have pissed me off. I don't take kindly to having my words deliberately misinterpreted. You know damn well that that is neither what I said nor what I meant.

I'll give you a short while to post a substantial apology. If you fail in that duty you will be banned.

This is not a game. If you want to play games, then you are in entirely the wrong place.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

<THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK>

_________________
I stole this .sig

is basingwerk Brunstrom???

Man snatchesdrowningchildfrom icy lake

Jesus. You should work for a Partnership PR office. (No that's not a compliment by the way.)

Basingburk is clearly a time wasting troll.

He needs to go and earn some overtime at the scameraship (until its shut down).

After this I felt I had no option but to suspend basingwerk's user account.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I consider that too big a price to pay for such a small, somewhat ambiguous remark. Basingwork maybe argumentative and his remarks are often barbed, but I consider him a great asset to this forum. He's good entertainment at any rate. I urge you to consider lifting his suspension at the earliest opportunity.

If for nothing else but not letting anyone else have the last word...ever

379 replies to this thread? For f***'s sake.