Safe Speed Forums

All that my fellow citizens have done is choose (effectively) between two parties. Unbiased surveys show that people are fed up with cameras. They're still there. The government (this one in particular) does what it pleases and it doesn't give a monkey's about the interests of the people.

For me, an act of aggression is self-evident straight away. I don't need to check the rulebook or the signs first. Are you telling me it's not the same for you? Honestly?

Also, an act of aggression surely requires an "aggressee" as well as an aggressor. Since it's possible to exceed the speed limit when you're miles from the nearest car, I don't see how it can be an aggressive act in itself. Compare that to, say, someone who tries to stop people overtaking them. Would you agree that that was aggressive, more so than speeding? (Many self-professed "anti-speeding" types actually seem to support and exhibit such behaviour, which to me shows how little they really care about safety, non-aggression and defensive driving. It shows that they only care about controlling others. At least one such person has posted in this thread.)


To be honest, while some cyclists do things which irritate me, and some have a chip on their shoulder about motorists, I don't think that cycling on the pavement is always the product of an aggressive or "bad" mindset (although unlike speeding it can often cause accidents in the "right" circumstances). If the cyclist can see that no-one is on or near the stretch of pavement that they're on, I really couldn't care less. There are even times when it makes more sense than cycling on the road.

_________________
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)

I don’t think I can agree with that. One can drive aggressively when alone, for example when trying to go round a corner very fast with the right foot firmly planted. Perhaps in that case the driver’s aggression is instead directed towards the road, their own car or themselves?

Thankyou! Exactly what I believe! I argued that one once here; got shot down in flames.

Cyclists' harmoniously mix with pedestrians, without incident, all over Europe! No laws against it and no problem. They are educated and understand their environment more than we do.

Go to Copenhagen, go to Amsterdam, go to ? ? ? ...

I put it down to the city mentality over here, (most noticeably, London).

Cyclists hate the motorist, motorists hate the cyclists, car drivers, (once they get their fat lazy ass out of the car and become a pedestrian), continue to hate the cyclist.

The average motorist stopped using his bike, (the bike he had to use at age 16), when he got his first car at 17 and has never looked back since.

And so the mutual contempt goes on, ad nauseam…


(Just a generalisation and personal observation BTW)

_________________
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.

But in that case it would surely only be aggressive because someone might come along and suffer as a result. If there was no chance of someone else being hurt (e.g. the driver was alone on a track) then would it still be an aggressive act? What if the driver was playing a computer game on their own?

The definitions here imply the existence of an "aggressed against party". Having considered what you said I would still contend that such a party needs to exist (or have the potential to come along) to meet the definition, but I'm quite happy to agree to disagree.

What do others think?

_________________
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 they flooded the streets with traffic cops we'd have constant "why aren't they out catching real criminals" threads on here, which you do get already, but the frequency would increase for sure.

We've got more police than ever before. We just need to get them out from behind their desks.

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

That's a needless slur. The Safe Speed campaign demands that Traffic Policing is restored to its 'former glory'.

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

Don't talk crap. The information is all right here on the website for anybody to review anytime they want to. If you think anything is missing I am sure that Paul would be only too happy to help you. Nobody has ever come here and posted a sensible argument against Paul's work.

Those claims are entirely false.

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

Oh right, so why doesn't he just send it off to some organisation to review it then? You know, put it all together into one easy-to-read document? (You see, I'm not actually talking crap.)



Well someone else posted "most of the website is out of date". Also, on Wikipedia:

"Other TRL studies (e.g. 421 and 511) have directly examined the relationship between speed and accidents, finding a strong association. Most importantly, a study of over 300 roads and encompassing several hundred thousand observations clearly showed that the faster the average speed of traffic on a given type of road, the more accidents there are; also, injury accidents rise rapidly as average speed increases, if all else remains constant."



Except that you are not exactly an un-biased judge of what is "sensible".

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

Wikpedia is not a 100% reliable source of information on this subject. Most of the work on the SafeSpeed page was carried out and edited by Guy Chapman who hardly has an unbiased opinion.

Mr. Chapman has since become rather influential on Wikipedia, so his editorial independence is very much in question.

I don't think so. As long as they only concentrated on speeding in proportion with the accidents it actually causes, I'd be quite happy, and I think other members would be as well. With the possible exception of safe speeding, and maybe parking on unnecessary, anti-driver yellow lines, members here do actually try to stay within the law, believe it or not.

It's high time something was done to punish the uninsured, the unlicensed, the drink/drug-drivers, the people who don't bother to indicate, the lane-hoggers, the inconsiderate, the dangerously self-righteous, the people who pull out in front of other people (because they haven't seen them), the people who pull out in front of other people (even though they have seen them), the people who attempt to kill overtakers by speeding up, the people who go too fast (which is not the same as speeding), the people who go far too slowly, the tailgaters, the people in unroadworthy cars, etc, etc. Few people would disagree with that, and few people would disagree that traffic police are required for such things.

Ideally we'd have a "spike" of traffic police at first, just to let such people know that they can no longer get away with their behaviour (as long as they don't speed). Once that message had got through, we'd need fewer officers on the road, but still far more than we have now.

As Paul said, we don't need to employ any more officers, we just need to get them out from behind their desks. The amount of unnecessary form-filling is absolutely staggering. I saw a programme about it once which has to be seen to be believed. Who is in a position where they can reduce such red tape, and why the hell haven't they done it? A 5-year-old could do it. Surely no-one, even the useless lot currently in power, actually wants the current situation to continue.


I wouldn't.

_________________
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)

There's no need to update 'most of the web site' because the conclusions remain entirely corect. If later evidence influeneced any conclusion, I'd update it in a heartbeat.



Those two reports are actually false. See what happened when I wrote to TRL about them:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trl.html

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

Surely not our Wackypedia.

I argued this issue with Spindrift (or the like) a while back and proved that Guy Chapman got his basic facts just plain wrong!

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

Sorry I seem to have blundered into the wrong thread - I was looking for an update on Med Hughes! Instead I find two magnetically opposed viewpoints being debated fiercely on Christmas day which after backing up several pages seem to have nothing to do with Med Hughes!

I was wondering if Med Hughes police driver gets double time for ferrying him around at Christmas?

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

You are right to bring this up. I can see you unsuccessfully tried to get the thread back on topic several times.

I'll later do a split of the 'camera effectiveness' stuff unless anyone has an objection.

Done!

The posts have been split into here and here.

Let the debate continue!

Said before - Med should have known better. If you are the bloke speaking out for cams and playing the speed card - then you cannot afford to be copped doing it yourself and at a huge margin. Especially on a road which is well monitored and always was before the cams


We happen to find being out there on the road works better for us. Oh .. we seem to cop more for traffic offences other than speeding a tadge above the limit.. for which we find professional judgement and common sense work just fine for us.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

Is there a smiley for hole-digging?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

So now it's OK for a motorcyclist to die? Only motorcyclists or does that hold for car drivers too?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus