Safe Speed Forums

[quote="Mad Moggie"]

He looks a bit blank though when you talk cycling and thinks cycling rags are for them "bike racy sporty guys" Few have heard of the cycling fora and those we point in the direction come back with

[quote]

There's no correlation. C+ is a forum where cyclists gather to talk. There is a lot of cycling related discussion, and a lot that has nothing to do with cycling. People go there to talk. If people don't know what a bike looks like, then never mind.

SS, on the other hand, is a campaign. With a case to argue.

If that's the case, why do people still brake even when under the limit?
why do people beleive that if they drive to the limit that they are safe?




Comeon Paton!! you quote statistics but then fail to provide a link to these mysterious statistics, where are they??????

If that's your'evidence' then it's a little on the thin side. You over simplify causation and hide behind the Road traffic act; we all know about the road traffic act etc etc, laws are based on policy and policy is based upon the evidence of statistics or data. In other words, for laws to be fit for purpose, they need to be based upon accurate information not bullshit, otherwise those laws could well be responsible for more crashes, not less. The Government has placed too much emphasis on speed alone and not on other causation factors therefore their policies have become muddled as has the law which follows




But people are believing it and the evidence is for all to see on this website.

Regarding tailgating, ever been on the M1 whilst specs is in operation?



Ever got off of a Japanese sports bike to put the side-stand down?

Or what about the braking distances then?

See that Paul? People don't support you because you have a valid cause. It's just because of me!

Now, about my cut...

Because you're poor drivers. Education solves that. Not removing cameras.



That's poor drivers for you. Educate them, or remove them from the road. Then the argument against speed limits, and people sticking to them, dies.

Unless of course you just want to be able to drive faster and don't like people telling you that you can't.

Ahhh, education is the key is it? so we need to educate ourselves that speed cameras have the secondary effect of causing drivers to brake even when they're within the limit? Ok! I guess you'll accept that Paul's been right all along then? that indeed speed cameras are a blunt instrument whereas road safety is somewhat more delicate.

Also if education's the key, then you'll agree that COAST can have a part to play in road safety too then?



But again, I was referring to an anti-speed device and again, it is a causation factor in what could contribute to an crash. There's not much use in educating someone about tailgating when the primary cause is a device that encourages such actions. You either remove the device causing the problem or you have to legislate even more thus creating a vicous circle.



On the contrary for safespeed has educated me to be more perceptive of hazards and as we have seen above, cameras and alike are hazards. If as you appear to agree, that education is the key, then why are you so against Paul? Most on this site would give the time of day for the nutters and let's be honest, it's the nutters and those not concentrating who are the biggest dangers to us all, whether it be cycling, pedestrians or driving etc.

The real trouble jub jub, is that your own judgement is clouded with a hatred towards Paul. That is why you cannot come up with a coherent argument

I don't know, maybe they should be more aware of their speed and surroundings.

Who says they do? Where's your evidence?



http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 612594.pdf

Pay particular attention to pages 14-16.



Where exactly is the evidence?



Try this section of the Highway code.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.htm#105

Maintaining a safe separation distance has nothing to do with SPECS cameras, only drivers.



What are you talking about?

Read that again, then think for a second. People who think that are exactly those who will not be caught by speed cameras!!

So what exactly are we arguing about here now then lads? Are you still challenging whether Paul thinks legal loopholes are 'brilliant' or not, or are you now planning to continue to issue nebulous challenges to SafeSpeed ideas, with no supporting evidence?

I think that exposing legal loopholes is 'brilliant', as it necessitates clarification of laws, and prevents sloppily written statute, or erroneous precedents, being abused by either prosecution or defence. I believe that practices that challenge poor legal procedures should be encouraged, and would rather one person walked free for travelling 33 in a 30 than that our human rights were impinged.

Thats not what SafeSpeed is about though, perhaps you clicked on PePiPoo by mistake...

Worth commenting that I've never been caught by a speed camera (touch wood), have never had points on my licence, etc. So I have no axe to grind, I merely want to see safer roads, and I agree with SS, having reviewed the evidence myself, that speed cameras are not the answer.

I do hope that you chaps aren't planning on trolling around here arguing with proposals if you haven't read the SS site in it's entirety, along with references and supporting study, or you will continue to look pretty silly.

Educate yourselves, form your own opinions, then come back and argue if you still feel as you do now, but don't troll, it's quite unbecoming.

You're wasting energy going too far past where you need to. If speed cameras result in (don't cause -it's the driver who is responsible for their actions, otherwise we would all do it and we don't) some poor drivers panic braking, then they need to be brought up to the standard of those of us for whom they are not a problem.

Poor argument. 2/10



I don't hate Paul. I don't completely understand him. Probably because he has called me a liar and pathetic, and then clearly, by his own words, shown himself to have lied ("I didn't say that"-"I can't remember saying that"-"I did say that", for example). And he persists in being able to put into context words which he claims I have taken out of context. I don't believe him, and there is clear justification for that.

No, I don't hate Paul at all. I find many flaws in his reasoning. He has displayed on other threads that he has a problem with authority, he uses dodgy research, and he draws impossible conclusions from stats that are only partly related to his particular issue at the time.

So he is either not very good at what he is trying to do, or has alterior motives.

And I hardly see how that clouds my judgement about whether people can learn to drive past speed cameras without them being a problem to them.

It's about education. Not about removing the mechanism for penalising people who drive above the speed limit and above the 'allowance' zone. There is no excuse.

Sounds suspiciously like you're describing a scameraship!



Education would teach the correct spelling of ulterior perhaps.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html



http://www.safespeed.org.uk/dangers.html




http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr112.html



www.safespeed.org.uk

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html



http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html

[quote


What are you talking about?[/quote]

The motorcycle test insists that the rider gets off of the motorcycle to put the stand down. It is a remnant of the days when all bikes had centre stands but hasn't yet been updated. If you've ridden a sports bike and I guess you haven't, you would know, that to get off of a sports bike each time you wished to put the side stand down, would have you on your arse each time you tried. My point is that whilst for the most part, advice from guidelines are useful, common sense has to be applied first. The guidelines that were written for yesterday, may not apply today, understand all that?

anyway, must dash, going out for pint, will continue later.

All you have posted is an individual analysis of data and associated derived conclusions by SafeSpeed which have no real world merit.

Where's the actual 'real world' evidence?

WRT your motorcycle comments, I've owned and ridden bikes from FS1Es through Bonnevilles to Ducati 998s - current stead is a VFR800.

How does this have any relevance to improving road safety? Getting off the bike without the stand down will indeed likely result in a motorcycle and rider on its side, so you put the side stand down first. That's improved safety.

Driving faster than the speed limit doesn't improve safety.

Don't be so obtuse.

You sound like everyone else.. I suppose "Driving at an appropriate speed within the limit" means "Oh, so you're saying that if you drive at the speed limit you'll be safe are you?" to you...

What statistics? The statistics you just read from your bog roll?

I haven't ever read such rubbish in my life as I just read when I saw your post.

Thats not completely true. There are a great many roads I can think of where the speed limit has been dropped to ridiculous levels, which results in more tailgating, more frustrated overtaking, and more congestion.

Blame whoever you like, its the end result thats important.

Sarcastic maybe, but obtuse?

I'm sorry, but your statement displays to me a total lack of understanding. A skill built only on the HC rules is basic in the extreme. You need to set your sights much higher than that.

And I accept your compliment that I sound like everyone else.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

Did say I was not directing at you personally to be fair. No idea which handle you are over there ... do know there are some decent ones like me and my wife who sincerely want road safety and see COAST principles as the ultimate reminder of the behaviour required by anything on wheels.


We cannot keep running around in circles over superseded and revised opinions. We live in the now and not 5 years ago. I did not read these sites back then anyway or rather my internet activity was related to showing off the harem .. and the family as whole has one heck of collection .. including Siegli's lurid pink Trabi Trabant and seeking out parts with Wildy and family.

I think a very green, young and naive Paul was trying to make sense of the various views presented to him at the time and seizing on anything to highlight the problems with automation. I think you are perhaps trying to read something which is not in the essence of the person because you want to and because your pals of 20 incarnations (and those are the known ones) are egging you on in the hope they can post more moronic abuse about Paul and even about my wife's family. I thank my God that I have only disclosed my identity to a chosen few off-line. Else I'd be suing for libel myself as posts that this family are "scientologists.. tried to close a forum.. ... made personal calls to magazine staff.. " are riduculous and laughably untrue. Family only know the switchboard number and given various members of this family have had photos reviewed by experts in a sister publication by this group and won prizes in the past ... then I guess .. we would know the switch number I would not judge my sisters' skills by the one offs they uploaded for me either. Both of them have featured in the Countryfile calendar in the past.




Well... we cannot keep running around in circles arguing over now deleted threads and posts. These are superseded with others or would have been and I think that poor legal bod over at HQ must be really upset to find that he told Krissi on the phone the matter was a dead topic and thus he had nothing to answer for suddenly dredged up again. We aint't responsible mate. All we've done in reality is simply as for the site to be moderated by someone objective and certainly more objective than the person we know to be "moderating".


Ahh! Now I did say I was not directing at you. No idea who you are on the other channel by the way, My sister-in-law and Andreas and his chums plus some other pals they roped in did say they were some very decent chaps over the road ... I will assume you to be one of them as I do know some folk are as alarmed and shocked as we are at the manner of those posts - even if we agree to disgree over speed camera policy. Police and VAS .. engineering.. education and enforcement if all esle fails. IG did post that he considers a fine and verbal NIP to be his final sanction .. a bit like my Mum counting to three when I was a little boy if you like and then issuing that slap on the legs if I was daft enough to continue. Up until then .. like our Mums and our teachers .. there should be an opportunity to heed a warning. Now .. in fairness to Lancs and Staffs .. and 11 other Pratnerships.. there is a Speed Aware Course .. but they vary in price and qualilty. I'd rather some form of Graded Assessment every so often which would carry an incentive to improve .. by offering "insurance premium holidays" or vouchers to purchase car servicing or something as reward or return for the assessment fee. By refreshing or at least re-testing fol periodically on "theory" to meet Mr & Mrs Paton halfway (It's his wife posting.. by the way. His wife got a bit lathered when my wife pointed out that she was not fooled by the Tom Tom which led to a howl of "How dare you criticise my driving. I remember it well as Wildy was posting to take he mind off the fracas with me and one very drunken foster child and wondering how the hell I'd explain we'd up to the powers that be at the time. It's OK .. lad is still with us and I think I've tamed him based on the booze available to him over past days. ) I think Mrs Paton did not warm to the COAST message in Wildy 's blunt twang.


Am just filling you in Jubs. Martin is I fear a bit henpecked and I really suspect his wife and not himself is posting much here.

For record .. our family posted up a "Head Up Bikers Out There" to notify of a decent biker training day with which Martin and his wife are involved. We did so to get more takers as we do not who hits the site.

There are a few things we agree with Martin over. A few we do not. Riggers and self have had the odd set to.

But we are still pals who respect and like each other instinctively and I do include Martin here.

We had the odd difference with basingmate.. and I think again .. he respected the point of view as presented by self, gatsomate and IG. and many others. But ad hominem abuse and OTT insult had no place in a forum in which we ask for genteel and calm discussion - tinged with the odd bit of cheek and banter.

I accept there may be a fine line between banter and "perceived insult" and I do know Jolly Inked Up the Inky got a bit upset over the very teasing term of "muesli muncher" and read into it something we had not even thought of at the time. We never ever meant it to mean what he thought.. It was being "playful" I did apologise to him .. but he never apologised for "speedophile" and given our foster/adoption in our private lives.. I really do see "red" over that term which is not "banter" nor can be perceived that way unless context like my "muesli muncher" depicts otherwise.


Point at the time was that adhering to speed limit does not make one safe. Rhyl driver as you recall .. he was legal in speed terms but grossly illegal in tyre terms and his bad luck and the cycling club's bad luck that they met the sheet ice at the same second.

For record .. as someone who lost someone he liked in my wife's cousin as a result of a vehicle with multiple defects including tyres (why we joined BRAKE at set-up really ) - I will agree he seemed to have gotten off lightly.. but realise that his stupidity did not cause the incident. Had it been raining .. I'd have been baying for blood alongside spinny! And put like that Jub Jub.. I hope you see the person behind this keyboard and realise that he tries to be fair to all at all times-= whilst sticking to his gut feeling that automation cannot possibly deliver road safety.

Kriss and Mike by the way did post when the forum first opened .. but got very disenchanted when those louts marched in. Kriss (sister-in-law) was seriously angry back in 2004 over the horse incident wiith the mountain bikers, plus one involving my then pregnant wife up on our local path around the Water, followed at Christmas 2004 with the pavement cyclist almost SI-ing their daughter and a cyclist taking out Mike's wingmirror whilst he was waiting to turn at a junction. The cyclist incidentally just road out into the traffic causing inconvenience to others as well. They decided to post up the incidents originally under their old account handles (which were "respected") - but Kriss blew a gasket when she read of one woman claiming that at least was still able to use her mobile phone whilst riding her bike. That's like waving a red rag to a bull in a china shop. Triple S can verify that my wife gets claws out over "Handy" as she calls them , Her sister's just the same - maybe worse Then there was the "cars are crappy - chuck rocks" thread .. and some others regarding kicking at cars whilst at the same time proclaiming that Europe is so much "safer". You cannot claim that on the basis of a holiday and their stats are as dodgy as ours in reality. As far as cyclists are concerned.. we had one person claiming that Germans stopped cycling when cycle paths were introduced. If that were true.. then no wonder zero deaths

But it's not true. Europeans cycle and they have better and segregated facilities - and that accounts for the safer rating as less conflict. Also .. I think there is greater eye contact and negotiation going on. I base that on my own personal experience by the way. It;s much better than second hand on the internet But Kriss challenged these claims. At no point did she or Mike or Andreas and his chums post abuse or make whatever threats imagined by the zeros who have taken over that site.

Yeah - she went off on one over hi-viz. The woman lives in rural area. She knows the dangers of the dark on the moors.

She's also Swiss and they have an ingrained cultural thing about this as well So I guess I am asking you to be aware of a foreign slant and just accept hers and the Brandy "trio" (inverted commas cos I discover to my horror that the secretaries posted as they never logged out. ) do subscribe to the "BE SEEN" advice. The wear big hi-viz capes there cos of the weather. You may not be aware from summer hols.. just visit November onwards and you will see [i]reality [/i}

Now I am posting this to set matter straight. I am as aware as everyone else of what these idiots have been posting and the only ones looking a bit silly is themselves.

Jubs or whoever you are over the road -please accept that this site has more to do with promoting road safety than internet forum point scoring over the past.

I mentioned the above in an attempt to set record straight with regard to the Swiss family and will ask again that the lurking troll ceases to post blatant fibs or get a comeuppance sooner or later.

_________________
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.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d ... 612594.pdf

Most people is not 5%, or 12%, or even 14%.

I'm still laughing. And wiping my bottom.

I was spot on wasn't I?

In case it's not clear:

The foundations and building blocks of safe driving are contained in the Highway Code. Whilst it is not the be all and end all of safe driving, a large proportion of road users in this country would benefit greatly by learning and applying the advice it gives.

Well in that was the case then everyone to have earned their licence since the introduction of the theory test should be a much better driver than those before, since they are examined on the highway code!