Safe Speed Forums

a speed cam can't measure crap driving.

Speeding is crap driving. Really. I think it and a lot of people agree- it's agressive and anti-social.

In my opinion, Smith, in excusing and implicitly condoning such behaviour, had an odious pasttime.

He contributed significantly, by way of exposure in column inches and seconds and minutes of air time, to the belief that many drivers have that they are above the law, that the law is an ass, that the only consequences of driving too fast are unfair speeding tickets, that you can avoid the tickets by passing them to a dead person, by incorrectly registering your car, by altering the numberplate with black tape.



So it is back to his friends and family. If they honestly knew nothing about his work, then that's fine. If they knew his work but fought it or argued with him that is also fine. If, however, they knew of his work and looked the other way, or actively encouraged him or now seek to carry on his odious work, then I'm afraid there's no sympathy from me since they too have contributed to the state of our drivers today.


Now's the chance to move the campaign forward, distance it from the less circumspect aspects of the old campaign and admit the gaping flaws in logic and scientific rigour.

Damn, and I thought you were sincere when you started posting earlier. But this is just another anti-Paul Smith rantathon isnt it? One with the luxury of the chap in question being unable to defend his position in person. Well done, what a brave internet warrior you are.

You wish.

_________________
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)

Like clockwork, now that his arguments have failed he runs back to the classic lie, with a few more added in to boot!

Lies, grossly insensitive lies, from start to finish.

SteveCharlton/Callaghan/Charlatan/Whatever, its nice and easy to level criticism at someone who has passed on and is thus unable to defend themselves isn't it? Some might also say it is cowardly in the extreme. Did you intentionally wait until our friend passed away before coming to his forum to start the libel?

Odious? Hah, physician, heal thyself!

In view of this offensive libel I've now put "SteveCharlton" on "final warning" status.

_________________
"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

Do you really, honestly believe that a sign can dictate such importance? Say a speed limit that has been 40mph for decades and decades is reduced to 30mph. Are you really saying that driving at 40mph is OK for 60 years but "crap driving" the day after the limit is introduced? Crap driving is crap driving, you don't need to look to see what the speed limit sign says before you decide.

Anyone who has such a simplistic view of driving makes me wonder if they drive at all, or, if they do, whether they're any good at it. Do you actually like cameras just because they make life unpleasant for motorists (because, after all, every motorist speeds)? If so, why don't you just admit that instead of making ridiculous sweeping statements about all speeding being "crap driving"? If your crusade is so worthwhile then why not just tell the truth about its aims?

Everyone here knows that going too fast is dangerous. But that's not the same as speeding. Anyone who thinks that they're in any way analagous needs to do some more research.


Paul Smith genuinely wanted safer roads, even for cyclists, and even for those who were thoroughly ungrateful and arguably didn't deserve it. He genuinely believed that the emphasis on speeding was making things worse, and I happen to agree. He produced many web pages to support his views, and no valid rebuttal has ever been put forward. All the nonsense about "odiousness" is based on a simplistic, incorrect, bullshit assumption that slow is good and the speed limit is in some way sacred. Take that away and the whole thing comes crashing down. It's all based on a fundamental falsehood. But why let silly things like facts get in the way, eh?

I would suggest that those who are "odious" are the ones who put their vendetta against Paul Smith and motorists above real road safety. The stark reality is that we care about road deaths and are trying to bring them down with original thinking; you prioritise your pathetic vendettas instead. Very sad. People are dying as a direct result of speed camera policy, you know that, and you are actively trying to ensure that it continues. Callous or what? Bizarre as well: you or your loved ones could be next. You must have to really distort things in your mind to be able to carry on with this nonsense. Why don't you hang up your boots now that Paul Smith has passed away? Don't you think you've done enough damage? Either start campaigning for proper, scientific road safety, or, if pride prevents an admission of having been wrong, do something else that actually benefits society.


And there goes the point in trying to reason with you. You lot just can't help yourselves can you? You have to mention the same, tired, giveaway things as a diversion, because you can't come up with rebuttals to any of the important stuff. Another one to be ignored. We haven't had such an obvious Cycling+ person for quite some time.

_________________
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)

When you say "the public" who do you mean?

Magnificent post, Bombus.

What! I thought I fell into that category!

This is one of the biggest myths propagated by the 'speed kills' brigade. For example, if someone runs out from in front of a parked van as you're passing it, you probably won't have time to get your foot onto the brake - even if you're doing less than 20mph Going slowly cannot magically affect the timing of events, so how can it give you more time to react? Granted, you need less time to react at a lower speed, but whether or not you have time to react depends purely on circumstance and, in any case, the difference in time needed between 20mph and 30mph amounts to around 1/4 second - slightly more than the blink of an eye.
People slow down when and where there's danger, and because the danger exists - driving slowly does not remove the danger, or even lessen it. That's what makes this myth so dangerous - people should be told to be even more vigilant where there's danger, not that the danger magically disappears just because they're driving slowly.



Another myth. Of course they would not have done had they been traveling more slowly - but because they would have been somewhere else at the time Traveling faster would have the same effect.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Excellent post. I mentioned a similar thing - quality of life - to Paul Smith, and his response was "bollocks".


PS: For Smeggy, I will be coming back to that thread discussing the statistics when I can be bothered.

Not necessarily.

Driving at 40mph (or 45-50 as many would in a 40 zone) might have been a totally inappropriate speed for the area, regardless of what the limit was set at.

So, yes, people driving at the limit (or above it with a nod to the limit) may well have been driving badly down that road for 60 years.

A speed limit is the maximum speed, not the speed you should drive at.

...If we're talking about utterly unavoidable collisions then if you lined up 100 people and drove into each of them at 30mph, then another 100 and drive into each of them at 20mph which test scenario do you think would result in a busier time at A&E/undertakers?

What's more, if you go at 30 (which we know means 35 or so) then the area of of unavoidable collision in front of the vehicle extends further.

Some people.

Some people actually speed up, "I'm coming through first, get out of my way".

And many more do not slow down enough.

That's the most absurd thing I've ever read.

We're not judging the entire road safey issue on the location of one particular vehicle here...

Since when were pedestrian collisions unavoidable?

Should we reduce all roads where there can be pedestrians in them to 20mph? If not then where do we draw the line and why?


There is no way I can believe that. If you really do believe it then I believe you are applying an element of your own thought process.


If true (and I don’t have reason to believe that is given the rather low pedestrian injury to fatality ratio [let alone near misses]), then it would seem to me to be a result of the failure of our road safety policy.


That's correct - he wasn't.

However, I'm surprised you didn't pick up on the more obvious fallacy. I've seen several other people use the 'they would have been somewhere else if faster/slower' claim, it always makes me cringe. It doesn't work because then you have to consider everyone else in the system who was missed who could now be hit.

Sorry Pete but that argument doesn't work!

Not only did you miss the point completely, but you choose to state the obvious with some ridiculous scenario which has no bearing on real-life



It's all relative, isn't it. Sure, you need less space at a lower speed, but in the extremely unlikely event of someone running out unseen in front of you, it's even more extremely unlikely that you're going to be at the exact position at the exact time for this space to make any difference whatsoever. For perspective, the total stopping distance from 30mph is less than the minimum eyesight test distance for reading a numberplate. If you can't see a pedestrian in the road from at least that distance away, then you're either legally blind or just ain't looking. The distance between two streetlights is normally 60 metres - which is more than enough to stop without fuss from much higher speeds.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

Er, that's what I was picking up on, which is why I said it was absurd, just a bit too obtuse in my description obviously!

Its the same argument as "but I was only parked there for three minutes" ignoring the fact that that's what everybody else says.

I don't think I missed it at all; you seemed to be suggesting it didn't matter what speed you were going at if somebody steps out in front of you.

If we were made of very thin glass it probably wouldn't, which is the scenario you seemed to be suggesting.