Safe Speed Forums

If you're referring to me here (I think so, given that I'm the only person who's mentioned opposing camera removal in a reply to you), can I just point out that I wasn't accusing you of anything. You gave an example scenario which would lend support to someone opposed to camera removal, I merely suggested it wasn't a valid example. Apologies if you interpreted my response as an accusation directed at you, that wasn't my intention.

No problem fellas. I wasn't asking for an apology, I just think it's important that we don't jump to conclusions when a new contributor (e.g., me) posts a topic for discussion. I was very reluctant to post anything for fear of being misunderstood and, if other new contributors feel the same, we may miss out on some interesting and useful points of view.

_________________
If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

You're right. I've been worrying about the same thing. Solutions? I don't know.

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

I think we've all got to start giving new users the benefit of the doubt for their first few posts. What some of us might think is a troll could just be someone who's had a bad day and is venting some frustration on the keyboard, or perhaps even has just worded the post in a way that can easily be misinterpreted. A new user might not have read many, or any, other posts, so they might not know what sort of thing is provocative. Again, I feel we should give them the benefit of the doubt. We can always yell "troll" later if they keep it up or move on to 100% undiluted flame bait. Perhaps there should be somthing large and clear on the registration page to encourage new users to read some posts first (there may be already, but I can't remember - sorry).

Perhaps new users could have a distinctive badge like the members and plods, only it would disappear after 10 or 12 posts. Maybe an L plate or a brightly coloured capital N or something. The rest of us would be expected to treat 'em fairly gently until it goes. I've seen this on other fora where "Newbie" or something similar appears by your name until your post count reaches a certain amount. Another thing I've seen, though I'm not sure if it's appropriate here, is that new users can only reply to topics to begin with. If they want to start a new topic they PM the mods, who can ask it to be reworded if it seems to be inflammatory. Again, this changes when the post count gets to a certain point and the new user can start new topics.

Anything any good, Paul?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I think there's some great ideas there. It's very important that every effort is made to encourage new users to the debate.

Part of the problem is that some of the regulars on this site have been contributing for a long time now and are familiar with the various personalities so are able to enchange friendly banter that can easily be misinterpreted as abuse by a new user.

I like the idea of an L plate until a user has posted a certain amount of replies but I'm not sure it's fair to restrict new users to just replies. The reason they came on to this site in the first place may have been to post a brand new idea so I think this would be too restrictive (it also smacks of the old boys club: "you can't post until we accept you won't rock the boat").

_________________
If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

Like I said, restricting new users to replies only unless they go through the mods is something I've seen used elsewhere, and I don't know if it would be appropriate here. Just offering ideas up. I agree it could well put off new users, which kind of defeats the object. Probably depends on how easy it is to get a new post on through the mods.
The big thing, IMO, is to give new users a chance to settle in and the benefit of the doubt meantime.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Paul has now set up the "L" plate thing for new users with under 20 posts, which seems reasonable to me.

Restricting people's posting rights would involve a lot of manual intervention; I don't think it's easy to do on phpBB.

_________________
"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

Thanks for the suggestions folks.

Forum users have a "New User" tag and an "L" plate for the first 20 posts.

I'm going to add some stuff to the rules about new users. They will be given extra latitude and extra courtesy.

Getting past 20 pots promotes folk to "User".

"User" is the highest "non-member" rank.

Donations of £10 or above earn a "supporter" status.

Memberships start at £45.

See: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/join.html

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

This is the problem I always have with the SafeSpeed doctrine. It is very well to talk of a new set of priorities, but the message isn't shared. I really think that we have absolutely not touched the surface of the difficulty of getting this "new order of things" into the cultural fabric. All that has been achieved is to stir up a grass roots rebellion against cameras because they are there. Even among driving elites, there is dissent. If the SafeSpeed rule were better than speed limits in theory, adapting the public to it would be a nightmare, assuming it is possible at all.

It is a paradox that, while a simple tribal society has a shared consciousness of what is right for the tribe as a matter of course, a complex society like ours can only have a shared consciousness of what is right if the messages are simplified. This is evidenced by the fact that it has taken 40 years of public service efforts and we still haven’t extinguished smoking from the popular culture (pardon the pun). The message ‘speed kills’ may be a poor model of reality compared to SafeSpeed’s rule, but it is comprehensible to all, and reminds us that we have simple obligations to fellow road users. Similarly, the limits provide a basic minimum baseline for our behaviour (with a weight of history behind them), in a era when any constraints are becoming intolerable.

_________________
I stole this .sig

This is barking.

We can't replace speed limits with the safe speed rule.

Neither can we have road safety without the safe speed rule. We have it. It's everywhere. Everyone is using it, mostly with precision and success.

The speed camera project tends to replace the Safe Speed rule with a dumb and dangerous "stick to the speed limit and you'll be safe" message.

Safe Speed demands that the safe speed rule is returned to it's proper status and the fundamental means of setting an appropriate speed. This isn't about "relacement". It's about priorities.

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

Thank goodness for that. It means that the safe speed rule exists in conjunction with speed limits, which is a good thing.



Confirmed.



Safer (with a r), not safe.

_________________
I stole this .sig

you won't be safer if, droning along at 70 on a motorway, you fall asleep, crash and kill yourself ( as happened to someone I knew) when by driving at a more appropriate and higher natural speed you would remain alert

Sorry Richard, there are a good number of specious arguments and reasons borne from misdirected logic for letting drivers exceed the speed limit. This one is near the top of the list.
Let me drive faster and I'll be more alert..to use one of Paul's favourite words, piffle

The crux of the argument is not that letting drivers exceed the speed limit makes them safer, but forcing them to adhere to the speed limit (regardless of how appropriate it may be), by methods that take their attention away from other factors, makes them more dangerous.

_________________
"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

Piffle to you. I have already posted elsewhere that on a regular long drive that I do I tend to get drowsy when travelling at the speed limit. I am NOT tired, just BORED and so I get drowsy.

When I increase my speed to one that I feel both appropriate and comfortable I stay awake and alert. The increase is only about 10mph but I really feel much better at that speed.

The chances of an accident in my case, and probably for most drivers, are far less at the higher "natural" speed

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

This is a mis-statement.

There's another side to the coin and it's important.

If we use excessive speed enforcement to force people outside their zone of optimal performance we risk increasing danger. It's not about "letting them driver faster" - it's about the risks associated with slowing them down too much. It fits into this topic:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1033

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

Thanks for the L Plate, I feel like a teenager again!

Seriously, I think it is a very good idea. We now just need to make sure we give these new users the benefit of the doubt when posting topics (much the same as you would give a driver displaying L Plates on the roads the benefit of the doubt).

_________________
If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

I'm glad you like it. I have to write it up in such a way that it's defined as something positive and helpful, rather than some sort of insult or restriction. I've had a stab and found it rather difficult.

I would love to run the highest possible quality forum with a minimum of discontent and a maximum of intelligent debate.

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

Not it isn't a mis-statement (we're not playing mealy mouthed semantics lotto again are we ) The solution being inferred is to let them drive faster. Not just inferred, but stated by M3TBMW. So how much faster? 10mph for him, how much more for others?



The inference is most definately about letting them drive faster than the speed limit, of that there is no doubt.
"Driving outside of their zone of optimal performance", sounds compelling and fantastic doesn't it.
Unfortunately there are an awful lot of simple primates amongst the UKs 30 odd million licence holders to whom that statement would mean nothing at all. Couch it any other way and the message they will receive (whether youy like it or not) will be "drive faster to stay alert".
In sum, it is a perverse use of logic to suggest that slowing motorists down risks increasing the danger because the poor dears may lose concentration. If loss of concentration is an issue then there are many other ways of addressing the problem.

This isn't a semantic argument.

I'm not calling for anything we haven't had on the roads (except proper control of speed trapping activity of course).

I AM calling for normal responsible behaviour to be left alone.

We already have loads of 85-90mph traffic on our motorways. They are the safest in the world. If we suddenly enforce the 70mph limit, more folk will die as we force them outside their personal zones of optimal performance.

There ARE other things we should do to protect and preserve concentration. But this issue will affect crash rates IRRESPECTIVE of any other measures.

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