Safe Speed Forums

Oh Sixy, I'm disappointed in you!
I use mine all year round...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Mate, if you saw how much diesel gets dumped on the roundabouts round here by the lorreis going in and out of the estate you'd think twice!

That said, I now have heated grips and insoles... so....

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Besides, I'm a girl, I'm allowed to be soft!

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

BB - you really are quite touchy. What I said about opinions was just a statement of fact, not an attempt to grant permission. I suspect that goes for iagw too.

Other than your preference for "natural" congestion and your dislike of immigrants, I don't know much about you, so can only guess about what you might do. Perhaps you habitually buy vegetables from Tesco or another powerful supermarket, who use their buying power to squeeze their suppliers, who then need to employ ridiculously cheap labour. Maybe you don't - you might grow all your own veg for all I know. Perhaps you have voted repeatedly for one of the many governments that have attacked trades unions and therefore undermined conditions for British workers (of whatever colour or origin). I really don't know - but if you're not prepared even to think about the labour market, how can you have a credible opinion about the desirability or otherwise of immigrant labour?

Sixy - I didn't mean to suggest for a minute that you are, or anyone on this thread is, a particularly irresponsible car user. I do understand that there are major incentives to use the car and that using it less can involve difficulty, inconvenience or sacrifice. The bigger picture, though, is that car dependency and car dominance are circular problems - the more cars are used and the more influence their users have over planning and policy, the more they will become necessary.

Safespeed hasn't proved anything about speed cameras. Outside the membership it is chiefly known for: peddling junk science (Paul Smith famously declared he "didn't have time" to get his findings peer-reviewed): for being a motorists' lobby group thinly disguised as a road safety organisation; and for the kind of ruthless individualism and lack of self-awareness displayed in BB's last post. I am simply asking someone to demonstrate that this is not true by acknowledging that congestion is caused by cars and proposing to do something about it as a campaigning organisation by advocating reduced car use (even within the limited sense likely to appeal to reasonable but habitual motorists).

I'm happy to declare my agenda - I would like to see car use drastically reduced. But I'm only asking you to back a moderate but significant reduction. State your case if you disagree...

Well, I think that makes your intentions on here very clear and underlines the total futility of attempting to have any kind of constructive discussion with you.

_________________
"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

A constructive discussion is exactly what I'm trying to have. Will you only debate with people who already agree with you? Is this thread about congestion or not? I see there are already (a few) reasonable people on here who would like, in principle, to reduce their car use, but find it difficult. What is the problem with my attempting to have a discussion with them?

Let me ask you Claus - have you actually reviewed Safespeed's information or have you got that soundbite from somewhere? As far as I'm concerned we are a road safety lobby group campaigning for the scrapping of a 'road safety' policy that has FAILED. A group that has dared to question commonly accepted ideas and put forward some original thinking. There's no point campaigning against congestion because by and large the levels of congestion distcussed in the report are confined to the South East. It is NOT a serious countrywide problem YET.

Unfortunately now the man himself has passed to a better place but I for one still strongly believe in what Paul Smith stood for.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I would argue that congestion is a problem in most urban areas at peak hours.

I have read a lot of the Safespeed website and have been familiar with their position on speed cameras for a long time. I have heard Paul Smith on several occasions and have never heard him put forward an argument supported by reliable data, or even plausible theory. I have yet to find any data supporting any of Safespeed's major positions, where Safespeed's analysis of which has been submitted for peer review, let alone published in a peer-reviewed journal. Am I wrong about this? If there is such a paper I look forward to reading it.

I believe you'll find that most of us welcome intelligent debate. I do however suggest that in making one of your opening posts an 'attack' on someone's beliefs (whether you are right or wrong) you perhaps announced your arrival in a confrontational manner
And noting your comments about peer review, I reckon that some will believe you to be here on another agenda, but we'll shall we.
However, if we can now wipe the slate clean and start again then I'm up for a reasonable chat about congestion.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

I'm not at all touchy - you lambasted me for daring to voice an opinion - one that you don't happen to share and I respect that.


I don't see how artificial congestion can be preferred?

And I don't buy anything from Tesco's or any other supermarket - my wife does all that...

Are you a Union Rep? You sound as if you might be?
I can't think of a recent Govt that has attacked trades unions?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

I'm not at all touchy - you lambasted me for daring to voice an opinion - one that you don't happen to share and I respect that.


I don't see how artificial congestion can be preferred?

And to be fair, I shouldn't have said I don't like immigrants. I meant I don't like Immigration on the scale we have it.

And I don't buy anything from Tesco's or any other supermarket - my wife does all that...

Are you a Union Rep? You sound as if you might be?
I can't think of a recent Govt that has attacked trades unions?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

That's as hurtful as it is wrong.

Not specifically aimed at you but I'm bothered by the thought that people may think that SS is a place whereby if you post here with a pro-camera stance or opposing viewpoint you are going to get abused or ridiculed.

From what I have seen, when this has happened, it's only because they:

Are, by definition, a Troll.
Refuse to answer a direct question. (that always gets my back up)
Flatly deny or rubbish any evidence put forward by the painstaking research done by dear Paul.

(Have I missed any?)


As we all know, Paul, time and time again, put forth rational arguments on every aspect of road safety. I can only imagine how frustrating it must have been for him to answer to people who fall into any of these categories. If these same people were in a court of law accused of a felony they should rather have people like us, who listen to evidence, than some of their own kind.

But Paul was always a gentleman, as well as a scholar, and I'm sure that ethos will continue. After all, we want people to come on here and put forward their case and who knows - if you're right then we will learn from you and we can all make progress.

There have been pro-cams on here who have vociferously argued their side and we've just had to agree to disagree. They left with dignity but I'm sure they're always welcome to come back. To understand is to forgive - and it works both ways of course. Opposing views are allowed but please, that was quite an offensive post IMHO.

_________________
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.

CONGESTION THEN:

Is mass car ownership a sign of progress? Economic progress perhaps, but is sitting in a town centre traffic jam caused only by the sheer volume of vehicles trying to get through a sign of progress?
Car ownership and use do IMHO make us lazy. When I lived miles away from the nearest supermarket, the weekly shop was planned like a military operation simply because it was such a pain in the arse to go back and get stuff that was forgotten. I now live less than 5 minutes drive from Tescos and our personal planning in this area has become really shoddy simply because forgotten things can be nipped for (sometimes multiple unecessary journeys) quite readily. So I know that, as a family, we make numerous journeys that we wouldn't have had to make had we planned things better, simply because we can.

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

There are plenty of people here who are happy to have a constructive discussion - but if you come on here issuing egregious insults towards those who are unable to answer back it is unlikely to endear you to the forum members and suggests that your basic motivation is to pick a fight.

We are discussing congestion here - unless you have some kind of grudge against the late Paul Smith there is no need to start harping on about "junk science" etc.

_________________
"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

Thanks Peter and sorry for going off track. I'm still complelled to say this however, so sorry again...

Paul has proved very much about speed cameras! It's not our fault the Government are in denial or have a hiden adenda.

I have countless friends who are outside the membership and they are as passionate as me about scameras.

"junk science"! I'd like to know which bit you have read which you consider "junk"?

"peer review"! It's come up many times before. He's had arguably the largest peer review audience there is, via this media!

"thinly disguised as a road safety organisation"? There's nothing thin about it and it has a wide range of members from all walks of life. I work in the NHS, in Rehab. I see the results of our failed road policies. Do you???

I want safer roads and better driving whether you believe me or not.

I'll stop there.

_________________
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.

The traditional scientific channels are frowned upon, because they are slower than the chains of hell.

But some of Safespeed's theories are worthy of a good looking at, in my opinion, but I'm not qualified to do the work, I'm sorry to say. If I were high up in this outfit, I'd suggest the a small grant (say £2000) should be made to an unbiased expect in the field, with the goal of investigating a small set of Safespeed's theories, and subjecting them to rigorous statistical analysis. You wouldn't get much for that money, but it's a lot more than nothing.

If the work yields encouraging answers, fine and dandy, and if not, we'll all go home and put our thinking caps on.

Why?

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

Would you also like to see motorcycle use drastically reduced?

_________________
"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

But why exacerbate the existing problem with uncontrolled immigration?

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

In my experience you don't really encounter any congestion on the 2 minute drive to the chippy (hell, I confess I did that exact trip earlier today as it was absolutely pissing it down, I couldn't face the uphill walk home and I would have had cold chips by the time I did anyway)



By the time me and my GF are actually done with work, we're far far too knackered to even consider a shopping run, that's a weekend job. Not that it matters too much as we live about a minutes drive from the bypass, and the shop is in the opposite direction on said bypass from the route to/from our work.



They need a special shampoo because if you wash them with anything stronger (such as dog or human shampoo) it ends up killing them. I forget the reasons why (something to do with the oils on their skin I think).

And yeah, if we didn't have a car we would have been screwed and would quite likely have had a seriously ill or dead cat. Lucky we have a car then eh?

I haven't actually found any local places yet, well there's a CostCutter down the road which is also handy in emergencies, but much more expensive than Tesco. I'm also aware of a farmers shop in Caerphilly, but that's about 4 times the distance of that to Tesco. They do lovely bacon though.

Also, sorry but I have to LOL at the cycle trailer suggestion. With the hills around here a trailer full of shopping would probably overtake me on the downhills.



I've never said they were suitable for all businesses, clearly if you still have your "live" technical documentation stored in paper format then it's not going to be suitable for you. You'd first need to move that documentation into electronic format and then use an electronic revision control system, or at the very least keep the whole thing centralised on an intranet web server.

Also, most of the flexitime arrangements I've seen generally have clauses relating to keeping your phone on during normal office hours and that the company can override it in certain cases such as meetings, hopefully they'll be polite enough to give you sufficient notice though.