Safe Speed Forums

A post on Pistonheads prompted me to write:



How simple is that?

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

It is simple, but at the same time a bit esoteric.

Sometimes you need to drive both safely and altruistically. The debate invariably seems to 'hang' (witness the interminable Portmouth 20mph thread) because various stakeholders have differing perceptions as to what constitutes safe - to many it does not simply mean 'absence of obvious and immediate danger', it means comfort and rights of passage in their own environs as well.

Agreed. And to the discerning, experienced, class 1-trained (but off-duty) trafpol, I daresay I daresay the safespeed is typically higher than Mk 1 numpty. It may even exceed lolly speed.

The simple, self-evident fact is that we have to trust drivers to choose safe speeds. Nobody else can do it - only the driver is in control of speed. It is facile to think that we can compel drivers to choose a safe speed simply by enforcement of speed limits when there is many times more than enough potential for tens (or hundreds) of times the road casualties we presently see even if 'speeding' was eliminated, completely, overnight. (This is all stuff you've said many times before.)

The above is not an argument for no speed limits or for higher speed limits. It is a statement of ineluctable truth. The conclusion that must follow is that, to the extent that crashes/collisions/road casualties result fron excess speed (whether 'speeding' or not), it can only be addressed by training (or somehow inducing) drivers to improve speed selection. And it must follow from that, because selection of safe speed is clearly an attribute of 'better' drivers, that we must aim to improve 'driver quality' and nothing, simply nothing, else will do the job.

The problem being, of course, that the concepts 'just right' and 'too much' are variable within a substantial range; not just according to road and traffic conditions (which vary from moment to moment) but also driver attributes (concentration etc) that also vary from moment to moment.

It is simple - but elusive.

Absolutely - but it does put a useful bridge between our position and the 'speed kills' dogmatic position.

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

Building bridges just doesn't seem to be enough. Look at 7db and BFF on PH. They are driving enthusiasts who are both articulate and intelligent (even, up to a point, sympathetic). Nevertheless, they are, at the same time (it seems) still unable to grasp the central, simple principles that underpin the SafeSpeed philosophy. Is it politically inspired sophistry or a mental blind spot? Assuming the latter, how much harder will it be to illuminate that blind spot in the minds of those who do not have their intelligence or passion for good driving.

There seem to be two fundamental human ways to test the quality of information. One is to analyse it to see if it works. The other is to look at the source and see if you trust it.

There are huge numbers of people who don't trust their own analysis and prefer to defer to the opinions of those they trust.

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

Is it concievable they're just being devil's advocate to the 'nth degree'. or are you of the opinion they really believe what they say?

_________________
If I have to explain you won't understand.

Simple is nice I once read a book called The Kite Runner and, if my memory serves me well, one passage had some words of wisdom from a father to his son. It's been a while since I read it so I'll have to paraphrase. It went something like this...

Son, I will ask just one thing of you and that is that you do not steel. When his son asked how such a simple philosophy can encompass all that you need to live a good life his father replied: My son, if you kill someone, you have stolen his life. If you are unfaithful to your wife, you have stolen her belief in you as a husband. If you lie to someone, you have stolen their trust.

There was more to it than that, and put better than I have here, but you can see the idea.

As an atheist/agnostic myself, my own philosophy is simply to treat people as I would wish to be treated. If I was a traffic cop, no matter how much money they offered to pay me, I honestly couldn't point a speed gun at someone going just over the limit whom I know to be driving safely - I would be a hypocrite! Sadly, there are plenty out there who will, and do.

However, I would happily be a traffic cop ready and willing to pull over someone who's driving dangerously or whom I suspect is driving under the influence of drink or drugs.

In this dog-eat-dog world I guess it makes me a weaker person but then I'd rather be hated for who I am than loved for who I'm not.

Sorry - got a bit deep there.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

That should have been steal of course not steel. (Thought I'd better get in quick before someone else does )

More haste less speed.

Say, maybe I need a camera pointed at my keyboard...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.