Safe Speed Forums

We, at SafeSpeed, are here because we want to be - either as observers or actively adding to the topics.

I've noticed the views are usually quite polarised, however, I have a friend/work-colleague whom I have tried to get involved in SS since I joined but have so far failed because he has a completely different take to most of us I think.

In my last attempt to enlist him as a user, this is what he emailed me back to say and, with his permission, I'd like to add this to the forum as a new and hopefully different topic.

I'll call him Vistaed (pseudonym, of course)...

"I still cannot get involved in this debate… I come from the point of view that as a society we should not have to rely so heavily on private transport (the car) and that is where the debate should really be focused, but that is a massive discussion around the virtues of capitalism vs other political models of social governance. The whole road speed/safety issue to me seems like moving deckchairs around on the Titanic that is so much more than just transport issues and so lies some distance from where my head is at. If the Titanic was sorted out, then road safety might not be the issue it is in the first place?"

Just thought it would be nice to get a rather different angle. It may also explain partly why many people are disinterested in the whole camera debate.

_________________
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.

I admire your patience BT. This guy sounds like a lost cause - he wants to debate ideological theory rather than practical solutions to avoid road deaths. He talks about re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic while he himself wants to enjoy the pseudo-intellectuality of playing the fiddle while Rome burns around him.

One way of "sorting the Titanic out" would be to ban ships.

Your friend seems to be saying that because the whole strategy of transport is, in his opinion, wrong then there is no point in becoming involved in the tactics of safety improvement.

This is a great philosophical point of view (and an excuse to do nothing) but doesn't help those killed and injured every day. Pragmatism must win every time in the real world.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

As a nipper I lived in a village 6 miles from town. I cycled every where. I had to rely on trains to go to my first job. They were mucky, late and I spent more time getting to the train, and waiting that on it. I had no control.

I have been independent ever since with my own bike, car, and motorcycle. The only times I use public transport is to London or when poor health forces me. I hate it! I hate waiting. I hate arriving wet or sweaty. I hate carrying heavy bags, It is expensive and doesn't go where I want to go, when I want to go there and it takes too long.

I would rather get soaked on a motorbike for 20 min than take “dry" bus trip for 40 min.

I prefer to drive 600 miles than sit on a train for 10 hours. (and it is cheaper!)

I would prefer a fiat punto 1.0 to a first class train ticket!
And when I buy something big the fiat punto would get it home.
I dread the day I am no longer able to drive.

_________________
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

You could probably buy a Fiat Punto for the price of the train ticket.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Well, I sent him the link so maybe he will dip his toe in the water some day. I'm not about to defend his corner, he can take good care of himself, but it has to be all for the good of SS if we get as many different people with a whole gamut of opinions and opposing views otherwise we're no more than wolves all howling at the same moon.

_________________
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.

I'm with malcomw. Though BT's mate is right that there is a bigger picture there always has been and the only people who've ever tried changing it were last centuries most notorious dictators. No democratically elected politician could or would make the swinging changes needed to 'save the Titanic' as it were. So in the meantime we should tackle the here and now, and let the band play on.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of road transport it's here for the forseeable future. The least we can do is expend 'reasonable' energies in making it operate safely while we have it.

Road safety and transport ideology are non-overlapping subjects and to use one to influence the other is fundamentally wrong (and risks wasting lives).

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

Seems big T has dragged me to this place...cheers BT.

My point about the titanic is that I see speed cameras as just one issue contributing to our dangerous roads. As such I support this campaign. But it is only one issue among many, it is a single deckchair. Surly we need to critically understand how all the issues contributing to our dangerous roads are linked and then develop a strategy to tackle the whole problem.

Most people drive because they have to drive. Ok there are some that drive for the fun of it, but I live in Birmingham and I fail to see the fun in driving here with present road conditions. Usually you have to because the supermarket is miles away, or you live far away from work, or some other reason forced upon us, you have no real alternative. Instead of thinking about having to use other means of transport to cover the same distances and routes we at present, how about re-organisation that meant we did not have to travel so far so often in the first place. That makes other means of transport a more viable option.

So we need to critical understand our current relationship with transport systems. How come we are forced to use transport in the current way? Is there another way?

I believe that another way is possible but for that change to take place there needs to be a marked shift in thinking not only about our transport systems but the way in which our whole economy is planned. That is the political aspect to the problem, or the titanic.

I support this forum and the campaign that has lead to its inception, but like the rest of us, I only have a certain amount of energy and I choose to spend on different campaigns to this. If increased road safety is the goal, then we campaign for the same outcome but I feel that road safety is but one symptom of a fundamentally flawed system.

All the best!

_________________
The point of life is not to merely understand it, but to try and change it for the better.

This is the real issue.

People don't like their houses to be next door to a factory. This is why there are housing estates and industrial estates now rather than the miner's cottages of the past at the pit gates. Given this is an expresssion of the aspirations of the public then travelling a reasonable distance to work is unavoidable. How would you change their minds? Suggest putting a factory in a residential area and see how far you get.

Shops used to be on the corner. Now they are in retail parks and have a bigger choice, are cheaper and you only need to visit them once per week instead of every day. Travel distance is being reduced by Internet shopping. Or is it, with all those delivery vans about.

Let's be realistic. It will be politically impossible to return to the days when people could live their life in their village and never venture beyond the local town for fear of falling off the edge of the world.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

You're welcome, dragged or otherwise.



Essentially the road safety battlegrounds are 'engineering' (cars, roads, medial and rescue) and 'psychology' (driver skills, behaviours, attitudes). Since the engineering is going along quite nicely under its own steam, it must be the job of policy to create and promote the 'good psychology'. Which is the direction of our Manifesto: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/manifesto.html



I'd rather trust the market than the planners. Yes there's a bit of room for both, but EVERY modern economy in the world has built a motor transport dependency. The market knows. I'm absolutely positive about it.

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

In addition.
How many people can actually afford to live close to where they work?
How many families could have every working member with a local job?
How many people could afford to move every time they changed job?

The only way this could work is if you were allocated jobs and somewhere to live which does not sound like a political system I would like to live in.

Technology could help with telecommuting but many jobs require at least some physical presence. A massive and cheap public transport system with provision for seamless transport of goods and luggage might also help, think go to the supermarket and at the checkout you pay and walk away then the purchases arrive when you do whether that is a 20 minute trip home or 7 hours later after going to work for the day.

_________________
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

A massive and cheap public transport system is a contradiction in terms.
Even with the massive subsidies allotted to it the present system is not cheap.
Given that the present system of diesel buses is itself contributing in a large part to the pollution problem, increasing the bus system with more of the same is not a good idea. In any case, the loss of the income from private vehicle ownership (and operation) would cripple the country. Paying more money to public transport in the form of complete or partial subsidy would not be economically possible.
The nonsense part of all this is that proposed by the green party. Their policy of building homes on "brown belt" land goes with their idea of moving industry back into towns so the workers would have less distance to travel. Hmmm.....
I rather like the chinese idea: that of a town where all the crops are grown IN the town for its own consumption....the power would be obtained from renemable sources and solar power. There would be large areas of waterfront for the boats to be moored and the select would have houses near roads, while the workers would live where they could....when they are not tending the crops....yeah...and red-ken is going to look at all this....nice little trip...maybe congestion charging is a better idea than being a crop-tender to support the idle rich....although, it may be just more of the same.

I would suggest you are not trying hard enough. My supermarket and work (and the kids school) are both within 2 miles of home.

When I drive I drive through choice and feel no need to make excuses for it.

That's laudable but depending on what you do for a living, not always practicable.

Maybe if I want to stack the shelves at Tesco - yes. But if I get made redundant or simply want to chase a better job, am I supposed to up-route my wife and family, change my child's school, ask my wife to find something else or do I bite the bullet and do the travel thing? Maybe I just shouldn't aspire to better myself and stay put?

Another person's situation always looks easier.

(I don't have a wife or child by the way. Nobody loves me That's why I keep posting here )

_________________
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.

This is no longer a workable solution in today's working environment. I could not find a job to pay for my (rented because I can't afford to buy it) house within the town I live or within cycling distance. We've gone too far to enable people to live and work close by.

Edited: Also I can't afford to move closer to where I work as the house prices are even more expensive.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

And surely the opportunity to travel further afield broadens your horizons both in terms of the kind of jobs you can get and in a more general sense.

Just as global trade gives you a far wider range of goods and services to buy.

It isn't possible to put the genie back in the bottle and somehow reduce the need for travel. The only way to do that is to tax it - but that leads to people living more restricted and miserable lives.

_________________
"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