Safe Speed Forums

Ideally yes, but I'm afraid that cannot be said about today's world. Why? Because speed limits are being dropped to significantly below to what a driver would ordinarily deem to be a safe speed for the conditions; hence they frequently have to use the limit as their guide. Frequently recurring instances of this results with drivers tending to automatically use the limit as their guide instead of their own judgement of a safe speed - their ability to judge becomes eroded; their ability to apply common sense diminishes. Such drivers will pose greater danger in conditions when the safe speed is below the limit!

Don't worry GF, you've never given a decent reply to any response given to you, I'm not expecting you to start now.

He says that he drives (and speeds), and he often avoids answering questions (even if he replies to them, so it's not that he doesn't have time). Although he's less offensive than most, and isn't what I'd call a troll, hoping for an in-depth debate is probably a bit much. IMHO; others may see it differently.

_________________
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)

Absolutely correct. In other words, cameras won't stop people going too fast on those roads, and so are useless on those roads, wouldn't you agree? On other roads, where the speed limit is set far below the usual maximum safe speed (which seems to be the aim of anti-car authorities these days), cameras criminalise people for driving safely (or "safely enough" if you want to be pedantic), and so are useless and arbitrary on those roads, wouldn't you agree?

The chance of a camera's threshold being set at the maximum safe speed for the conditions at the time are almost zero, wouldn't you agree? Going too fast is completely different to exceeding the speed limit, wouldn't you agree?

What would your answer to eyeopener be if he was talking about a road that was safe at 40mph in good conditions?

There are five questions in this post. If you're going to reply at all, please try answering at least some of them, otherwise it makes it look as though you can't, and wastes everyone's time. Ithankyou.

_________________
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)

So smeggy - what a driver deems to be a safe speed and what actually is, are, I'm afraid, usually completely different.

So how is a "safe speed" defined, then?

_________________
"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

At least, that's what you and other anti-car types would prefer to believe.

Ever heard of the 85th percentile?

_________________
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)

By that argument, you’d be quite happy for every motor vehicle to be preceded by a man carrying a red flag!

The point, “gatsos forever”, is that simply exceeding a number on a lollipop is not of itself dangerous. Obviously, the prevailing or changing circumstances and conditions may make even driving below the posted speed highly dangerous.

"Driving by numbers" engenders the very dangerous mindset which says "I'm driving within the speed limit so everything I do is safe.

I don't condone idiots such as the police helicopter pilot recently prosecuted for doing 110 mph past a 50 mph motorway restriction, nor chavs burning through a housing estate at 60 mph - but to put people who stray slightly over the limit (particularly where that limit has clearly been artificially reduced) into the same criminal category is simply wrong.

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

The Highways Authority had no problems with this road when it was designated NSL - there were a couple of serious accidents, due entirely to driver error - one a last minute decision to pull into a filling staion, and the driver who anchored up was hit from behind by a car driving too close.
Then a Czech minibus driver clipped the kerb, and bounced back into the path of an oncoming motorcycle - and the rider and passenger were killed.
Both vehicles were travelling at 40mph in long lines of slow moving traffic (NSL was 20 mph above travelling speed), on the FAR SIDE of the village you can see on the right - it's bypassed by the main road.
So the VILLAGER'S (who are bypassed remember) decided they should have a 40 mph limit - and got up a petition.
For some inexplicable reason, the Highways Authority, and the County Council gave in to their demands and re-engineered the road - providing protected lanes for turning traffic, islands, a solid median (rather than the hatched one) AND a 40 MPH limit. The limited area did not even include the stretch where the deaths occurred, or several of the SI accidents!
Other villages on the same route (about two miles on) did NOT get any reductions or engineering despite their demands, and the deaths of two pensioners in their car being shunted off the road by a drunk (and speeding) driver.

However after the engineering, mobile SPEED cameras appeared, HIDDEN at the side of the road despite rules saying they should be visible.

These were later swapped for fixed cameras and it became obvious that their positioning meant large numbers of visitors to the Lake District who dont see the cameras in the MIDDLE of the road (rather than the sides) get fined for blipping over the limit on the busy tourist route.
The Safety Camera Partnership's own figures (which they tried to hide even from an FoI request) revealed NONE of the accidents at this sight had SPEED as a factor - not even as a CONTRIBUTORY factor.
It is simply a cynical revenue raising exercise - 18 drivers a week on average, or £56,160 a year.
So GF- what a villager deems to be a safe speed and what actually is, are, I'm afraid, usually completely different, but the SCP are quite happy to take advantage and collect as much money as possible, while all the time trying to hide the statistics which show that speeding never was, and still isn't a factor in the accidents which have happened here.

The last SI "accident" involved a drunken pedestrian who threw himself in front of a car, which had slowed and tried to avoid being flagged down!

No wonder the speed limit (the law), the people behind it, and the SCP get (and deserve) no respect. All it does is cause tailbacks as the visitors make their way home - and causes a potential hazard when the queues tail back a mile or so along the road...
to here!



Standing traffic just around a bend - caused by a speed camera!

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

Again, I don't believe that 70-80% of drivers actually use an approriate/safe speed given the freedom to do so. Many are interested in simply going as fast as they can.

Why do you believe this? What is this opinion based upon. Every piece of research done by the DfT suggests this to be true.

It is certainly what I witness when driving around the country.

Clearly YOUR perception is at odds with the DfT who use well founded research on which to base that opinion.

At last we are seeing the reason for your strange views expressed in numerous posts!

My observation is that while most drivers choose an appropriate speed, it is observation and anticipation where most drivers fall down.

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

Again, I suspect your perception is offset.
Research regarding driver speed and risk shows that drivers at the 85th-90th percentile speed are the safest of all, thisis a good place to start.
Supporting arguments of extremely low 'fatality to all accident' ratio show that drivers in general are not going too fast (and that includes the nutters/illegal drivers). If drivers really were going too fast there would be a lot more fatalities.

They had no respect for the law.
They thought they were the world's experts on road safety.
I have respect for the law and safety.

So law first then saftey second?

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

You beat me to it...

Isn't this exactly indicative of what has happened to a lot of drivers? Because of all the punitive measures taken against car drivers, they're now in the mindset of "must obey the law, must obey the law" and safety is now not at the forefront of their minds?

Personally, my safety and that of others (that includes ALL road users) always takes precedence to the law.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Or perhaps they had no respect for stupid laws
Or maybe, they have lost faith in our own Govt 'experts', because they can see through the lies.

I have the utmost respect for sensible laws.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

By your 'logic' richard hammond is a safe driver (look at what speed he did). How about asking Ayrton Senna how safe he is - after all, a racing car driver drives very fast. Whoops! Sorry! You can't! He died in a HIGH-SPEED crash didn't he? but at least he was safer than me sticking to 30mph wasn't he?

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

Is this intelligent discussion from the pro-camera lobby? Shows how stupid you lot are if it is.
One group was deliberately pushing the envelope to the extreme end of the limit, indeed it was their purpose to; the other quite simply isn't.

Trouble is, what you call 'sensible' and what actually is sensible are poles apart -you can't say much about someone who considers speeding motorists to be better drivers than someone who sticks to the speed limt, can you?