Safe Speed Forums

Pedestrians? Cyclists? Bikers?

But we should value the experiences of the emergency services while also guarding against the emotions that they may be subject to.

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

Very true, duly noted.


I suspect those people are generally better than the general populous at emotionally distance themselves from it.

Hell, yes. They probably have to be.

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

I thought it was interesting in an interview the other day when Menzies Campbell said: "I never answer hypothetical questions".

The problem with hypothetical questions is that they can be framed as traps, where sensible answers suggest an untrue conclusion.

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

Yup! I disagree with that!

You do a crash test with an unbelted dummy, the dummy gets pureed against the car interior and / or anything else it might come into contact with. Do the same test with belts and it stands a much better chance of surviving (although it's quite obvious that the belts exert big loads on it and would undoubtedly cause some serious injuries).

Show me a similar test on the effectivenes of a speed camera and I'll start looking at them in a whole new light!

As an "aside", by the way, I tried (for reasons I can't divulge), to book a crash test on a vehicle with no seat belts a month or so ago. It might be worthy of note that EVERY lab I phoned for a quote insisted that I underwrote the cost of the test dummies if I was going to crash a car with no belts! At £85K a throw, the client's budget wouldn't really have run to that, so the test never went ahead.

Yes they do. Speaking as someone who married one. Mrs. Mole has been a hospital doctor for about 20 years now and during that time has seen most of the gory fallout from all manner of unpleasant situations. She is, of course, hardened to it - at least in the sense of being able to retain her stomach contents when confronted with it and make rational decisions on the best course of action.

Unfortunately, however, that's only part of the story. It is one thing for her to "loose one" despite every reasonable precaution to mitigate against the effects of the accident having been taken. It's a very different feeling she comes home with after having fought precisely the same long battle when the victim could so easily have done more to avoid it.

My point<------------------------------------------------------------------------>Your answer.

HTH.

You're clearly far too clever for me - I think you might have to explain that! (although if you don't want to lower yourself, I'll understand....)

The point that you have missed by a mile, presumably in much the same way that the majority of people fail to notice that speed cameras 'don't work', was NOT about being hurt if you crash a car when unbelted.

Since the unbelted driver is the person who will suffer the direct consequence what is the need for compulsion and since there is some evidence, and has been since the mid '70's, that the use of seatbelts does not reduce the overall numbers killed an injured on the roads why should we blindly accept potentially faulty evidence?

No, I didn't miss it. From your previous posts, I had a feeling it's what you might have meant and I'm afraid I find that argument is so tenuous as to not make me want to change anything I've said. If you apply it to seat belts, you'll have to apply it to just about every other advance in car design too - and then we just end up chasing our tails:

"Lots of people are being killed by "x" problem".

Let's design something that prevents "x".

"People are still dying as a result of "y" problem".

"Well it's obviously caused by the solution to "x" problem.

- hardly a watertight argument is it?

IF (and it's an "if" that I accept could be true to an extent), safety features "cause" some drivers to take more risks, we need to fix the drivers, NOT the features!

Then please don't reply to anything I post in reply to others until you have bothered to read some of the work on the subject that I am referring to. I recommend John Adam's Risk to help you get a better understanding.

Yes.

There is a logic in this, because taken to its conclusion the cleaner uppers would perhaps be happiest that we all walked. But don't we all get right royally p***ed off when our job is made more difficult because simple, effective and cheap changes aren't implemented.



No there's not but a rally car without belts, harnesses, roll bars, helmets, or anything else is just a car. And it wouldn't be on a rally either.

Barkstar

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

Then please don't try to patronise me until you can be sure I haven't!

You haven't. Otherwise you would not have 'missed the point by a mile' and disagreed that there is some dispute about the benefit to 'road safety' of the effectiveness of seatbelts because you would have already read it.

Ah yes, I've "diagreed that there is some dispute as to the benefit to 'road safety' of the effectiveness of seatbelts..."


by saying:


"IF (and it's an "if" that I accept could be true to an extent), safety features "cause" some drivers to take more risks..."



I think what you really mean is that I don't agree with you and therefore shouldn't respond to your posts!

You are clearly getting confused about what you have said in what post.

That post is where you missed the point by a mile and suggested (by your comment) that you have no knowledge of the work of John Adams. There is little point in continuing discussing anything further with someone as limited in your knowledge as you would like to appear.


Not at all. I don't disagree that people strapped into cars tend to benefit from seatbelt wearing and I don't think I have ever said that they do. You have failed to notice that I am discussing a totally different point.

Please, have the last word as I'm sure you want to astound us with your lack of knowledge some more.

Come off it mate, the guy works in the industry
Does a single book always hold all the answers? Do you believe the consiracy theories about (say) 911 just because someone is able to couch their point of view in an articulate and suggestable way? Or are we more likely to be conviced by an argument if we really want to believe it in the first place?

_________________
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.

It was not a wriggle, it was entirely factual, and you know that.

hmmm, nope, no, sorry. There was no element of blackmail in the post. For it to qualify as Blackmail there would have had to have been some element of imposed obligation, so for example If I had said something along the lines of "if you really cared about people you wouldn't do that", then perhaps the argument would have some grounds, but as I didn't, then it doesn't.

It was "Emotive" language, that much is true, but it was not "emotional blackmail"

Let's examine your case for the prosecution ...

Yep, you got me bang to rights, that was me. Have a lolly.
also known as "poster who started this debate"
[trying to do sound effects from that "family fortunes" program] Uh-err.
Where is the implied or stated obligation being imposed?

Yes, well, quite. Yov'e never had any legal training have you?

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

The defence argument was unconvincing and you have been found guilty as charged.

More seriously, let's drop this distraction from the more interesting material in the thread. If you feel you must continue take it to PM, email or start another thread. I should warn you that my time is at an extreme premium this week, so replies may be slow.

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

ah ha, we've reached the "stage 3" of Paul's standard defense of shakey ground. Refuse to argue the point, as by doing so he may be forced to admit he was wrong, and as we know, despite having NO published credentials and NO peer reviewed work, he can never be wrong.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.