Safe Speed Forums

Does anyone else get the impression that this is one of those copy-and-paste exercises?

There's no coherent debate going on Smeggy, its just 'stuff' in no particular order or context being chucked against other 'stuff'.
Nobody is debating, its just a free-for-all pissing contest.

Would the factor still have been present if the driver, and/or all the other drivers involved, had been driving more slowly?
IF YES, Would the factor still have resulted in a crash?
IF YES, Would the crash still have been so severe?

It is obvious to almost everyone (with the exception of libertarian motorists with a soap box to drive) that higher speeds reduce the amount of time any driver has to respond to the unexpected and that higher speeds increase the force of any impact. The importance of reduced speeds to crash prevention and reducing crash severity is no mystery. In fact, the TRL study beloved of the ABD and its fellow-travellers, indirectly acknowledges the overriding importance of speed:

Lobby to reduce paperwork then- that's a singularly absurd excuse.

It would be a non-sequitur to suggest that car impact protection is not getting safer based on that!

I agree, that's why i made no such assertion, I said that motorbike deaths rose and skewed the figures.

Proof of all sub claims please!

In the links provided.

(Their preferred technique is for one or two writers to flood papers with pseudonymously penned letters to make it appear they have widespread public support.)

What a drama queen! You can comfortably travel at 20mph in third or fourth gear, you don't need to be in first or second to travel at 20mph.

Yes quite, that was my point, and without the personal slight, but thanks. The point is that I could go 20mph in 1st, and it would be very noisy, and antisocial towards residents, but I would not be speeding.

The point is that I could go 20mph in 1st, and it would be very noisy, and antisocial towards residents, but I would not be speeding.

You've got no choice in areas with speed bumps, especially those nasty thin ones.

Yup, would love them taken out and the area monitored by specs cameras. Bliss.

Me? I prefer trafpol.

There are several types of people like SPECS:

- those who want to see some enforcement, no matter how ineffective it is
- those committing other offences, such as driving under the influence
- those who don't bother registering their cars properly
- those who want to tear around estates anyway (so long as they don't whizz past both cameras – such cameras have to be a fair old distance part in order to get the accuracy).

Think about how many traffic police you would need to provide effective coverage.

Didn't they come up with a cheaper alternative to SPECS? (can't remember the product name)

Or even better still, people that didn't travel faster than about 20mph without the need for some sort of control/monitoring system.

Those who want to see lower limits in residential areas enforced without the need to place large lumps in the road.

Better still for me would be a system that doesn't let people make their car go faster than 20mph when in these areas.

Or even better still, people that didn't travel faster than about 20mph without the need for some sort of control/monitoring system.

If everybody did that tomorrow I'd be very happy, and we wouldn't have to spend all that money.

Not many, simply because the deterrent effect of the consequences of being caught for all the other sorts of dangerous and anti-social driving is enough to make people think twice, even if the chance of being caught is relatively low. As an added bonus, trafpol can also patrol the streets as normal - two birds....

How many is "not many"? 1,000? 10,000? I agree there needs to be more, but they need to work in complement to the cameras and not exclusively.

Don't forget, road fatalities and serious injuries are at their lowest ever

and this is a time of rising traffic.

Also , this is a system completely open to the effects of the "law of diminishing returns".