Safe Speed Forums

Having read some of his posts I am pleased that he has been suspended although I didn,t agree with his statements nor do I agree with some other statements from other members, that is what democracy is about and simply means that you have the right to your views as long as they are not slanderous or derogatory to the person concerned.

The two statements I took umbrage to were, about referring to the late Paul Smith as Smith (a minor point I know) and the lie about the ABD but a little respect and courtesy is definitely not wrong in this case especially when Paul has done a lot over the years for this site and sadly isn,t here to defend himself so we have to defend him on behalf of Paul and his wife Claire.

As the regional organiser for Cheshire ABD I will accept any criticism of the ABD from any quarter as long as it is justified and can be verified but I will not accept blanket lies about the organisation I represent.

The ABD albeit a different organisation to "Safespeed" has the aims which are to try and get a fairer system for drivers from the govnmt. which is the same (in principle) as Safespeed.

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

I'm, "scared" of the apparent message that absolutely everywhere should be NSL (or no speed limit whatsoever).

Not because I believe speed control will ever go away, but because it seems to encourage a"two fingers up" to speeding laws attitude which is only going to make crash rates go up, and bolster the minds of those that really DO drive at stupid speeds that what they are doing is OK and acceptable.

Very dangerous IMO.

I'd go so far to say that if you wanted to find a cause for any rise in crash rates then this is the attitude you should be researching; so you can see I think this attitude has a very real effect on the real world.

Safe Speed's core message is that everybody should be trusted to drive at what speed they feel comfortable with all the time, that there should be no speed limits.

To me this anti speed control message is very much like the anti gun control message, and its very clear that in the USA implementing liberal gun control results in MUCH MORE death and murder. The people who illicit arguments (and spin) to retain a libitarian approach to guns are the result of this.

And finally creating and nurturing opposition to 20mph limits in residential areas is practically vindictive IMO.

As soon as you start having faith in another road user that's when it all starts to unravel.

A lot of the time the attitude I see from people driving vehicles/cycles is that it doesn't matter if a ped steps out in the road as I'll be OK, it was their fault (with the car drivers being physically protected from the results, so another level removed), and the ped shouldn't have stepped out anyway.

I bet anybody who's ever struck somebody is always much more careful for a long time after the event, if not forever, I'd just like to see this type of attitude prevalant in people BEFORE people get hit.



Probably not, but the people I see stepping out into the road on a regular basis are not children, indeed I've seen much older people walk off the pavement, and you seem to be asserting they WERE taught the green cross code at school...

The highlighted part is wholly incorrect. The value and necessity of speed limits have been described in the campaign manifesto.


There is no such message coming from the campaign.


Not all residential areas should qualify for 20 limits.

Which is exactly why we need a return of the focus of responsibly to all road users, not just motorists. What we currently have is effort directed to only one group, this has been the case for many, many years. Combine that with needless drop in limits and you see how some become complacent when crossing.

Living in Portsmouth, I can honestly say I have seen a marked change of people's crossing styles. I recently saw several families just randomly cross into what is still a fairly major road (dropped to 20 of course) without looking, not even using the crossing furniture around them, just randomly running into the road - really! They surely had a lot of faith in other road users!

I feel an ad hominen coming on....

It seems to me that you are simply unable to grasp the concepts being discussed here.
I can say that with true conviction based on what youve stated in the past, and from the above quotation.
Why? Well, heres a heads up for you, you may find the truth a little shocking, disturbing, it may even shake your belief but i doubt itll even register with you such is your ignorance;

Guns dont fire themselves-people do. Its PEOPLE that are the problem not guns, bows and arrows, spikes, pikes or sharpened sticks and similarly not SPEED.
PEOPLE and their attitudes are the single biggest contributor to most problems.
Start at the root cause of the problem not the perhiphery, tinkering away trying to fix your computer with a bucket of water for example. Do you get it now? Or are you going to remain ignorant and blinkered for eternity?

Debating with an idiot will always end up with you being dragged down to their level, no matter how hard you try not to be.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Smeggy has picked up on the three points I was going to address very nicely. I would augment the message of 20 mph speed limits, particularly if rigorously enforced, as being most dangerous in the bigger picture, for several reasons.

1) Rigorous enforcement of a speed limit that is almost impossible to adhere to on a cruising basis in some vehicles without having eyes glued to the speedo will encourage drivers to concentrate on the wrong things.

2) The lower speed limit will give more bunching by risk compensation and render crossing the road even more difficult

3) Although no reason for it is embedded in the DfT's own statistics, there is a significantly greater concentration of accidents in 20 limits than 30 limits.

4) Complacency can set in with drivers, riders and pedestrians.

5) The differential speed between an emergency vehicle and the normal traffic will be much greater - far more dangerous for pedestrians in conjunction with the above.

There are several others, and my urge of caution at adopting 20 limits is based exclusively on overall road safety, including pedestrians. Pedestrians may have a feel-good about slower traffic. This in itself can be good, but it also can be very bad if it engenders even the slightest addition of complacency.

Interesting analogy.

Sure the US is a violent socioty, but it always has been (and despite this, most parts of the US are safer than the UK. US citizens are increacingly reluctant to travel to the UK which is seen as a dangerous violent place to be).

Canada and Swiserland have private gun ownership as high as (or even higher) than in the US but gun crime is almost unheard of in both countries.

Increasing levels of Gun controll in the UK has been a (ineffective) responce to a deteriorating socioty.

Increasing imposition and enforcement of speed limits (and other petty rules) is an (ineffective) reponse to deteriorating driving standards.

Crime involving Handguns and semi/automatic guns were rare before private ownership of these classes of gun were banned. It has Exploded since the ban!! Not only has the policy failed. It might well have made things worse. Bit like speed cams really. Are we beginning to see a pattern here??

Both are (ineffective) attempts by the government to mitigate the consequences of deeper rooted issues that the government has all but given up on trying to do anything about.

Pathetic really.

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"

I'm not certain that this isn't for the most part the other way around.

Dusty, sorry, but that's absolute twonk.

You see, bagging speed limits up as "petty rules" says a lot IMO.

Yup, people's attitude toward speed.

How do you know this!?!

You think if everybody carried a hand gun guns wouldn't get used FAR more often?

I can think of situations where I would've pulled a gun out had ownership been common, and possibly used it, I see situations every day where had the people been carrying guns there would have been some shooting instead of just some angry words.

Simply carrying a weapon will absolutely increase your chances of using it.

As I read it: he said enforcement of the limit, not the limit itself.

Erm, how about police officers still being shot by robbers brandishing sawn-offs and handguns....both of which have been classed as prohibited weapons for some time now?
How about the kids (yes, real children) of inner cities such as Brixton, Peckham, Liverpool, etc who won't leave the house without a Mac 10 stuffed inside their jackets because they are on their way to a drug deal?


And thats the very reason why you will more than likely never be granted the right to hold a firearm.


Pure supposition.


Utter tosh.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Nope, "imposition and enforcement of speed limits (and other petty rules) " means Dusty sees speed limits as petty rules, unless he's written it down wrong.

Hmm.

If we had no gun control laws at all you don't think useage would be through the roof?

Granted I wasn't complete with my response, but yours was also selective. I read 'increasing imposition' as "ever stringent limits".
He could well have meant otherwise (but I doubt it).

And to you too - and especially Claire and Paul's father.

_________________
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.

So you do believe in gun control then?

If not how are you going to stop me getting hold of a firearm?