Safe Speed Forums

Weepej


I alert you to my post in "News" over the drunk driver. Very fortunately his erratic driving happened to be seem by an off duty cop who called his on duty colleagues to nail him.

He drove in a 60 mph zone.

At .// 25 mph .. mounting the pavements [/quote]


Yep.. a slow driver is always "safest"


Might I remind you that a man died after an impact with a pavement cyclist at 25 mph?


Might I remind you that another died because he went through a red light? Yes I know the silly cow had allegedly used a mobile phone to text.. but his action was still dangerous - especially when you look at the road lay-out I would never consider jumping that in my Jag.. let alone on my nice road racer which is the cycling equivalent of my Jag . if you like /.. but I have a lot of bicycles ranging from my old trusty Raleigh given to me as a present when I passed the "Common Entrance" to the "Senior School" as a boy to my racy mean and lean machine


Might I remind you that a cyclist rode on a pavement on which I was walking a couple of years ago now. He pushed past me .. the pedestrian.. he shoved out at me too. He was a lout weaaring lycra. I fell into the gas works. I cut my leg. It was close to a major artery. Fortunately for me .. it was a "near miss" as I would be dead now to be blunt.

Yep.. "cyclists" are "squeaky clean and can never harm or hurt another as they do not go as fast as cars"


GROW UP AND BE REALISTIC!

Bicycles have changed drastically since I was a mere boy and teenager and student. These are tools of a sport.. just as much as tennis racket these days can deliver a service of over 100 mph. Borg's favoured wooden "spoons" could not cope.. why he retired really per an article in a German paper.

Golf clubs are another example. My first set of clubs demanded more skill from me than my latest acquisition

Likewise the modern bicycle. I do ride my first "grown up bike" - but she's heavy and I just cannot get from A to B as niftily on her.

I do know that I do not feel or put in as much [i]effort when riding my lovely racy near top of range roady as I do when riding my older bicycles .. and I guess the same holds true for the Jag v the Moggie


So do not delude yourself. Cyclists can harm another more vulnerable person and do so quite often per the real stats taken .. by colleagues in A&E and I gather yet another Oxford research is in progress on this and it will the "peer reviewed" as commissioned by said Uni.

Early signs indicate not what cyclists want to hear.. so maybe this will cease "peer reviewed" tunnel vision by psuedo-"academics"

I keeps me ears to the grapevine gossip . Report initial findings dues out in about 2 months' time

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

When have a ever said this? That you make up something I've never said and try to make out that I argue that drink driving is safe if done at low speeds is ridiculous extrapolation in the extreme.

However, I will say that driving at 25 mph whilst that drunk is infinitely preferable to driving at 60mph whilst that drunk.



Delude myself? Again I've never ever suggested that somebody on cycle is harmless. You're casting utterly ridiculous aspersions.

Don't sell yourself short weepej, you have convinced me that the speed kills doctrine has no factual basis whatsoever.

I'd like to post this again, as it got the tail end of a page which generally means its off the radar: -



Blind to it aren't they handy.

SafeSpeedv2, can't you see the utter hypocrisy in your words here?

Is purposeful speeding a blatent disregard for the law or not?

What's the difference between a cyclist who goes through a red light because he perceives it to be safe to do so and a car driver who breaks the speed limit because he perceives it to be safe to do so?

Anyone with two GCSE's and a budgerigar will be able to spot you for what you are. This helps your cause - how?




Fol-de-rol

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

[quote="MGBGT"

This helps your cause - how?

Fol-de-rol[/quote]

Of course it does! ---Ah! But what cause is it?

To try to confuse the issue by using the technique best described by the old English word "Bafflegab."

It wastes the time of other posters and it wastes valuable resources of the website.

In short, folks, typical trolling activity.

And that is, I feel, the cause.

It is quite possible that Weepej might be genuinely in favour of speed cameras (reasons of employment by speed camera partnership, etc.,) but that he is trolling this forum is beyond doubt, I feel.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

Well, if you can't see that then I really do despair of you. You are not comparing like with like.

Let's take a look at three examples:

1) T-junction - lights on main road at red, side road on green. Pedestrian crosses over main road, seeing the red lights and perceiving that there are no vehicles turning his way out of the secondary road. Cyclist ignores red light and hits pedestrian.

2) T-junction - lights on main road at red, side road on green. Motorist in side road sees the green and proceeds. Cyclist ignores red light and hits (or is hit by) motorist.

3) Motorist drives at 35 mph in a 30 zone at 3.00am with no-one about. Nothing happens.

Do you really see no difference between these scenarios?

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

Well, there goes your remaining credibility........ That's the daftest thing I've heard all year. You could have got away with it if it wasn't for the word 'infinitely'.

Gosh. Well spotted! I missed that fine quote.

But how can it be true?

Why, I am glad I asked myself that question:

It is because due to a natural law, cars driven by drunken drivers who drive at a constant speed of 25mph are rendered soft, bouncy and as fluffy as a kitten.

Whilst cars driven at a constant speed of 65mph driven by a drunken driver suddenly become infinite in mass (as in infinitely preferable) so can seriously f:censored:k you up, should it run into you.

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

[caveat]I'm tired, and *checks with Mrs M* I'm shortly off to bed [/caveat]

"Purposeful speeding"

Rather an inflammatory statement I'd expect from that weighty tome, The Dail Wail.

I am wholly confident that such actions are not within the remit of all SafeSpeed members during day-to-day driving. I am wholly confident that respected members of this community drive to the conditions, apply COAST techniques, and try at all times to move unobtrusively through traffic whilst causing no obstruction or frustration to other road users.

As I think I stated in a post on another thread, we may break speed limts in places. In other places we may not. It's called "driving to the prevailing conditions" which will include traffic, weather, road surface, visibility, and proximity of vulnerable road users. Visit the "Polls" sub-forum, and it will be seen that SafeSpeed members comfortably fulfill the initial syllable of the campaign moniker.

Purposeful Speeding????

No.

Driving safely in full cognisance of what is happening around me, which may include breaking a speed limit?

Yes.

Weepy, you're preaching to the wrong group of drivers pal. Try directing your attention to the likes of krooztelford or kroozmidlands and see if you can get any further there.

Goodnight.

_________________
Simon

£30 and 3 points.

_________________
Andrew.

Yokel, very good, cherry pick your situations why don't you.

It's you who is not comparing like with like.

How about: -

1) Motorist drives at 35 mph in a 30 zone at 3.00am with no-one about. Nothing happens.

2) Cyclist approaches red light, looks first, nothing coming, so rides through it, nothing happens

?

Ah, there you go, somebody honest enough to say what's actually going on. He perceives that cyclists can get away with it easier than car drivers.

Simple jealousy there I reckon.

I.e. purposeful speeding.

Speeding of course being the offence of breaking the speed limit.

What about cycling in full cognisance of what is happening around me, which may include jumping the red light or two (not that I do personally)?

Is thta right too?

Red light jumping is very dangerous as plenty discover. Red lights control busy junctions and cross roads. Each party will be expecting compliance with these lights - especially if on green signal for a while in a "green flow system" whereby each set do run at set intervals. There are quite a few of these in existence - even though we all meet the daft stop-start ones in the town centres themselves But even so.. these are pedestrian-orientated in reality and still have to be respected and they also serve to keep the speeds down in the actual centres - which is why you crawl along in "seemng congestion"

Blipping above the speed limit on a motorway or fast road (within normal tolerance margins) - that we can live with and we tend not to go after this type. We could if we wanted to be "nit picking" - but we tend to go after the obviously dangerous - the weavers/blatters/arrogant p155-takers - and we count jumping a red light one of these offences whether the person is on a bicycle or in a car. There is "deliberation" in the red light jumper. The blipper will be fluctuating and in reality the average speed will be compliant. In fact - SPECS for all its fear-inducing lore - does take this into account as this system measures the average speed along the monitored stretch and some will pass on at "over the limit and and the other at the speed limit or under.. so the "offence" of the "over at cam 1 - becomes "compensated in the average". The Gatso just hits at that second and can be up to the partnership.

Now it seems to me when I read cycling fora and letters to the rags that cyclists claim to want to be part of the traffic.

Fine. No problems - but that also means they have to be responsible out there as well.

But - they also want to use pavements and claim then to be "pedestrians on wheels".

Dark clothing (three mavrellous letters on this in CW and I will post them up later as I am going out on my bicycle soon as it's rather nice out there now! ), non -existent lighting - and the latter is a LEGAL requirement

Yet mention this arrogance on the part of a great and grwoing menace - and the person daring to mention it is "anti-cycling"

NO. PRO CYCLING AND PR0 SAFETY!

By the way - have yet to see cyclist obey a 20 mph speed limit (and we have some residentials on 20 mph and our hands are tied cos we cannot exactly do them for speeding - but have laid into some over a "reckless".

I suppose then a speed limit only apples to a car driver and not a cyclist.

But Cyclists! Be careful here in Durham . we can and do find the law to apply and refer to the CPS to establish there is a case.

We apply the law with the same discretion to all - fair and square. But we are not fools either in this region.

_________________
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.

Again, I see hundreds do it every day putting themselves or others in no danger whatsoever

Just like the one who went through a RED LIGHT and was killed BECAUSE THE CAR DRIVER WAS TEXTING AT THE TIME (I don,t condone in any way what she was doing) even though the lights were in her favour ON GREEN never mind the fact that this idiot decided to cross on RED as he had the simple mind thought that HE WAS OK to cross and IGNORE the red signal just like a lot of cyclists do on a daily basis

We see it all the time whenyou are in a car or lorry sat patiently waiting for the green light and along comes the cyclist who decides that he / she is colourblind and braindead amongst other things and throws safety out of the window and goes for it as far as I am concerned if they want to disregard safety and the law then they must take the consequences of their actions / inactions even if as in this case it proved to be fatal sad as it may be

If this driver had been driving correctly and seen said idiot on bike and swerved to avoid a collision and hit a pedestrian or a child on the pavement would that still be classed as putting nobody in danger by a buffoon like you.

Cyclists are "Road Users" just the same as are other vehicle drivers and as far as I am concerned they should be treated in the same manner as they do in London and have police issuing fixed penalties for transgressions of the law

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

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

Spannernut

More bluster.

Again, I see hundreds of people go through red lights on cycles every day without causing a danger to themselves or anybody else.

Oooo, I totally agree.

Strange you don't extend this concept to people in cars who break the law though.

A bit of hypocritical partisanship on your side perhaps?

I didn,t say anything about car drivers as well but as you say it is perfectly acceptable for idiots on bikes to jump red lights then I assume you say it is acceptable for other vehicles to do it as well "AS LONG AS THERE IS NO DANGER TO OTHERS"

A superb idea then we can have utter chaos just like the idiot (you) are saying is perfectly acceptable and OK

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

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

Spannernut