Safe Speed Forums

Generally, yes. Of course, the different economic and social aspects get mixed up here, but a strong belief in individual freedom could be a way of saying that you want to behave how you want and screw everyone else.

I discovered the following site quite a while ago which you may find interesting:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

_________________
Before you moan about middle-lane hoggers, check that you yourself are obeying all the rules of the road.

It's come up here before: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8905 and http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 2459#42459

Please, folks, don't let the political compass issues take over this thread. Start a new thread if you feel the need or reactivate one of the old ones.

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

Its crossing a boundary defined by a law, with intent.

Yes, an act of aggression.

I'd say the same for cyclists who choose to cycle on pavements or go through red lights.

Funny IIRC most people here came out of the Political Compass test as libertarian left...

Yes, and does that mean they've made the correct judgement?

No.

Thing is wildcat, I have no problem if people want to strap themselves in to a racing car and dash round a circuit with a greater possibility that they could be injured or killed, I've done it myself.

I don't even mind if they injure or kill others who choose to do the same thing with the knowledge that the actions of somebody else could cause them harm or death.

I absolutely do not subscribe to the concept of restricting treatment of people who put themselves at risk and come off worse, and that extends to smokers and the obese.

However, on our PUBLIC roads there are people who seriously don't want to be subjected to such risky behaviour.

I did see a great post once where a guy questioned the placing of a speed camera on a road with no pavements, he said something like "There's no children on that road" and somebody else replied, "yes there is, in the back of my car".

How about someone who's driving at 90mph on an unrestricted Autobahn, then crosses the border into another country without the road changing at all? Does their driving suddenly become aggressive just because they've passed some signs? Are you going to skip my questions again because you can't answer them? (One would have thought that if you "couldn't keep up" then you'd only answer the latest questions, or follow some other pattern, rather than cherry-picking the ones which happen to be easiest to answer.)

Every time I give a scamera supporter like you the benefit of the doubt and take them at face value, I'm sorely disappointed. I think you do have a hidden agenda, like safetyman and all the rest. Doesn't the fact that you have to keep it hidden tell you something about its validity? The wait for a scamera supporter who is prepared to debate honestly continues, and the longer it continues, the more telling it is.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

If I class choosing to break the law as an act of agression, then yes.

You're sticking two fingers up to the law (and the people that make it adn approve it, and that includes your fellow citizens).

What do you think the mindset of a cyclist is who chooses to ride on the pavement?

They know they're doing something wrong (as defined in law), but they choose to ignore it.

Please excuse me for repeating this post... but you appear to have overlooked the point I posed in it, and since we are in a topic about Med Hughes driving, I feel it should be pertinent.
Is driving at 90 mph SUICIDAL?
If you have evidence of this, it would be extremely important, as I regularly drive on the continent and may well have been placing my life in extreme peril - for several years now, and again this next week!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Well, if something untoward happens you're likely not going to come off very well, neither is anybody you might come into contact with.

At 90mph you are travelling at 132 feet a second.

Crudely, that's 60 feet you've travelled before your brain even detects you've done it.

It would be better for you to travel at a lower speed, but sure, if you decide travel at 90 you've at least got to concede that you're operating on finer margins.

Weepej, I am confused, perhaps you can help:



you then go on to state:


and:


So are you saying that you are an aggresive driver who flouts the law with intent?

Er, no.

So your statements only hold true when applied to other people then?

Er, no.

I'm not aiming to drive at 35 to 40 in a 30, and certainly not 90 in a 60.

I didn't say you were aiming to drive at 35 to 40, just pointing out that you do by your own admission.

Come on, 32, 33 max, and if I'm doing that I'm already slowing down.

I don't make a concious descision to accelerate through the limit and stay there like what Hughes did.

How can you be sure, if you've drifted then surely you aren't aware of the speed you have drifted up to, until you speedo check.

And the fact that you didn't make a concious decision to accelerate through the limit is irrelevant. You drove through the limit, which you have stated is an aggressive act.
Unless you are suggesting that it is only an offence if you meant to do it?

So you believe that choosing to do something safely and considerately is inherently aggressive? Sorry but I don't see how you can possibly reconcile this one either. Please can you explain you definition of aggression because it doesn’t seem to apply to the dictionary definition.

Perhaps the setting of an unreasonably low limit, then enforcing it, could be seen as a hostile act against motorists - an act of aggression - no?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Paul, Vortex Ring conditions can develop at any stage of flight when RoD>500fpm and TAS<30kts. It results in potentially violent (and damaging) rotor buffet, difficulty in control and an increasing RoD that is only exacerbated if opposed with collective. The conditions are bordered on pretty much every type of approach.

As for the analogy to pilots it is just fine, thank you very much weepej, since it admirably shows that the abilities of the operator have everything to do with the safety, at any speed, and the value of speed itself has nothing. Ergo, speed in itself is not dangerous.

I thank you.