Safe Speed Forums

No it's not, it is pure fact.

So much for "utter bollocks"!


Then despare not, I have never wanted for anything of the kind. I'll answer weepej on this misrepresented point.


Wrong! I don't blame minors for their failings; I reserve that for their guardians.
I am of the opinion that, in the name of road safety, parents of children who have been injured where the error was with the minor should be investigated to ensure they tried their best to ensure their dependents were well versed with road safety; those who didn't should face charges of negligence.

Anyone who sincerely has the mindset of zero-tolerance towards ‘speeding motorists’ for the sake of safety, must also accept, without question, the introduction a jaywalking law and its subsequent enforcement - with fines. Furthermore, these people should also accept that parents of children who are injured by non-speeding drivers (you know, the other 95% of accidents) should be hauled into the courts to face a conviction of negligence for failing to ensure their dependents are capable of using the roads without supervision. Now that would be even-handed; in fact if we adopted such policies, pedestrian KSI rates would dive overnight. Please think of the children!

Please note my sig.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I would have hoped knew what a strawman argument is by now.
Being a pedestrian myself, I don't want total segregation of road user groups; however, sometimes it is needed in areas of special vulnerability. Me, I'm happy with bringing back the Green Cross Code, having road safety as a part of the school curriculum, and accountability of guardians.

Being willing to blame or penalise car users for colliding with at-fault pedestrians in urban environments, without applying adequate pedestrian education, is a far greater heinous dereliction of responsibilities IMO.


Yeah, and roads were much more dangerously laid out (including fewer pedestrian barriers), cars were far less forgiving to occupants and far worse under braking (for stopping and for directional control), post crash care was worse...
The accident need not rise to previous levels, or at all, if 'fast roads' had the original limits replied.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

While I accept that cars are safer now and accident fatalities amongst car drivers and passengers have fallen, I would like you to prove that pedestrian fatalities were higher in the sixties and seventies.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Menawhile anybody that steps into the road and is run over should just be left there as a warning to others, and perhaps the driver of the vehicle that struck them given a reward?

There will always be pedestrians in the road, people in vehicles who have an issue with this need to deal with it and drive as they are legally olbiged to (i.e. carefully), not whine that there shouldn't be people in the road. Even if 99.9% of the population behaved "perfectly" according to the "roads are for cars, not people" brigade one would still have to watch of for peds when piloting a vehicle in the road, sorry 'bout that!

The other alternative is to can all roads in urban areas so people can move around freely, and your car is stored at a big hub outside the town, and the towns are linked by big pedestrian free motorways.

Plainly crazy.

People and cars will always need to interact in the public space that is the road network, the road is for sharing, not for monopolisation by a group of vehicle users.

If both at the limit and both approaching a hump back on icy road . then both could be equally at fault?

Lot would depend on reports submitted and balance of probabity as regards as civil claim. Police and CPS would need bomb proof evidence in a criminal case and if both legal on speed ,. and neither took account of the hump back and the ice . then both could be held as equally negligent :


I ask the awkward questions. Can you explain a lot more here? Not picking holes .. but it's for debate purpose???

Oh .. to weepy .. IG will be able to let rip on the legality with his understanding and calm nature He does not do "break the law" ,, but tries to build back the trust by stating the ruddy obvious and the "law is law" stance without creating an abyss . and I have to commend hin on that one.. even if I do know the guy as a kinsman to my wife and a serious pal in flesh to me personally

I do the emotional thing .. He does the cool collected one.

as you know


We are all qualified as drivers to use motorways. Slow vehicles are not allowed to do so .. or under police escort with advance notice of HEAVY LOAD CONVOY as and when.

Austria has three stretches of 100 mph and Italy has 90 mph stretches. No accident recorded on these upgraded sections. Likewise German destricts have fewer incidents. It should be remembered that these stretches are not the busiest .. which have limits ,. and ACCIDENTS arising from VOLUME and Numpty errors

I can provide the stats . or rather my wife can. They are . alas ,., in FOREIGN lingo . Sorry. You nave to rely on Wildy to translate in her own odd vernacular of the PITHY kind

I think you must be aware that we can back all we say with tangible links. Heck .. I have provided proof that an SCP preaches and marks to COAST



SAC support COAST .. I posted the proof yet again this morning I have other proofs too. I do not post something I cannot back with real world stuff.


Sorry to eat popcorn. But somehow it's satisfying to do so ..

We are saying that COAST helps determine the correct speed for condition. SAC and DIS appear to say this too Given so many have incidents which are drvier error and COAST error alike . we think we must be correct here.. as do those providing the SAC/DIS courses. Or are you disagreeing with the SCP on that one

We fight fire with fire by firing COAST back with the right attitude of embrace the ethic We accept the message as being correct .. but not the invite methods via PING perhaps. We would rather this be delivered to all each 5 years .. with costs offset by insurance reductions and other incentives.

Look .. we are ex BRAKE founder investors. We support all of BRAKE ,. but not the speed cam nonsense. In this respect .. we are with Claire. as it just does not deliver what we need out there in the harsh world of reality.




We also have a TrL report which suggests fatigue. drink.. drunk .. error .. stupid careless error cause chaos at any darned speed.

We need to motivate and UP the standards . nurture and encourage this.

How we do so .. now that's where the serious debate starts ..

:scratcchchin:

_________________
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.

It is, if you think wearing dark clothes at night, or failing to judge the speed of a vehicle when that vehicle is going way too fast should be included in your total of "at faults" for peds.

Well, let's go for that. To make up for the issue of not being able to cross the road then a pedestrian crossing on every corner, and spaced evenly along long roads.

Average speed for road users in a busy town? 2mph, maybe 3?

And to get to your car if it's parked on the other side of the street from your house you have to walk up to the crossing and then back down to your car.

Jaywalking laws in the UK, utter nuts.

Oh weepej..... Strawman, Strawman, Strawman! Seriously, that's a really stupid comment. Please give it a rest!


Of course, I don't disagree with any of that. Pedestrians need to cross roads, even road users do to get from/to their cars. Yes people who do not recognise that, or don't watch out for any other road user, should not be driving.


No, the real practical, pragmatic alternative, immature and repeated stawmans aside, is pedestrian education and parental responsibility - this is what I call for!


I fully and unreservedly agree!


Is the 'wearing dark cloths at night' really significant in this context? 2% for 0-16 year olds, 4% overall; Does that count for much?
'Failing to judge the speed' is a part of 'failing to judge the speed or path', and even the speed part of it will be a small factor, as I have already explained to you but you didn't acknowledge.
Oh, and there's 1.92 contributory factors per at-fault 0-16 year olds, 1.88% overall. Besides, failing to look properly on its own makes everything else insignificant.

Does your pointless nitpicking make you feel better?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Jaywalking laws in the US, utter law! BTDT

PS, I don't call for this, I never did so don't misrepresent me; I merely want an even-handed, two-pronged compromise, based on education and parental responsibility. I have said this so many times in this thread, why does it continue to get ignored for more idiotic misrepresentation?

My point was that people who call for zero-tolerance of speeding, in the name of safety, must also accept, among other policies, Jaywalking laws as being a far more effective pedestrian safety policy. Care to tell me the ratio of 'pedestrian casualties from drivers exceeding the speed limit' to 'pedestrian casualties where the pedestrian is at fault'? The comparison may surprise you.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I find it interesting that the pro-camera lobby are utterly anti any form of education to any other group on the roads other than motorists. If someone dares to suggest that a pedestrian should learn the green cross code, then it is the murdering motorist who is to blame. If a cyclist runs a red light whilst pissed up - how dare we suggest that perhaps the cyclist should have observed the red light and not been pissed.

Perhaps it's about time that everyone took responsibilty for their actions!!!!!

I think you know who I am talking to.

weepy .. understand where you stand and do not at all disrespect you. My comments are aimed more at furthering discussion here

I have one or two personal scars which were suffered at the hands of the rogue thugs on wheels all the same. This type would be an arrogant sh:censored: t so how they travelled .. all the same ,, and some of these sH:censored: ts choose bicycles. I am sorry if I am using naughty words I have typed in the smiley guy to help me out again here ..



Weepy . Vrenchen can answer you better than I can, At moment my lovely wife is feeding and soothing our new babies . I cannot breast feed them . She does to her,

But we have proof that Swiss/Germans.Austrians?>French will do for "j-walking" Swiss prosecuted 8 year olds for "causing an accident by stepping in front of traffic in 2005 and 2007 respectively." Wildy posted up the stories in original foreign language and then explained it.. albeit in Wildy speak" which still happens to be better than babble fish etc

But basically we are saying we all have to be responsible for what we do out there. I would not attempt to cross a road unless I was 110% sure I'd make it to the other side safely.

Likewise my own kids.


Yes .. but some cyclists have zero regard. I know this to be fact from own experience when push inot gas works. I was lucky . a fraction of a millimetre to an artery in my leg and Wildy would have been a widow. Pavement thug. I cannot regard in any other way than that. Arrogant turd would have been the same in a car too


My niece .. Krissi's daugher and Vrenchen's older sister was aged just 5 years old when a lycra clad oik caused her to leap out of his way. PAVEMENT. That child hit her head on the school's brick wall in her reflex action. She was concussed. She had a serious fear of helmet lycra clad for a while. We all had to work with this child to get her back on a bike and accept us in our cycling gear .

SO do cyclists really look out for peds and horse riders given all the internet complaints?

No . thought not. I have the stitch scars still and my niece still shudders when she sees a mountain bike as ridden by a lycra clad thug,


Do not make out that cyclists are "cleaner than clean" as we live in the real world and know the truth of the matter here as in "all of society at large are made up of arrogant sh:censored: who do not give a fig for anyone out there at all. . so how they f:censored: ly travel.

By the way .. I have not used rude language. I typed the initials and then the icon in question




If you are prepared to ride at 20 mph .. you have a point. I have the evidence of whinges when plod clamped down in a park some time back. I can cite ped injuries atthe hand of cyclists across Europe .. courtesy of my wife

I can do 20 mph without much effort. I can ride at 30 and more mph for quite some miles now .. given a nice comfy bike which require no great effort on my part either.

Do not pull the "20 mph cyclist can never speed" on me -as I know this to not be the case weepy. Am not being nasty. You are stating the perceived falehood for a modern bike - and I can ride at decent speed for hours as seasoned rider. //as can all in this family -apart from my wife because of what happened . and nothiing could have saved her. Could have been anyone that day .. so which lane they chose.

_________________
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.

Motorways are motorways.

Rurals are rurals. My wife got accused of being anti-bib when she suggested to an idiot "bib" ,, who claimed it was "all wrong that they be prosecuted for killing a pensioner at 105 mph on a rural road .. cos it was police bizness . exempt.. trained to whatever level" Hell .. she even got the BRAKE TROLL thing at one point from that bunch of retards at the time.

We advocate safe speed for the road conditions. We admit this may be above the lolly at times ,. but not excessively /. and therein lies the difference of the truly safety led type and the arrogant who has scant regard for any other person .. as wrapped up around his or her own instutionalised complacency,

This same does apply to cyclists. Check IG's post per Pedoe of C+ mag re Bikeability.




No one can claim to know it all and Pedoe admitted it.

_________________
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.

Ah riiiight.

You see people wanting some vehicle drives/riders to be more careful and responsible and extrude this to them not wanting any form of road safety message for pedestrians...

All of them?



I don't and I'm really bored of you suggesting I do. I don't look at individual road users as seperate groups with characteristics unique to that group, it's the person that's the problem and I suspect bad cyclists are just as bad when they drive their cars or ride their motorbikes. I'm just as likely to have a word with someody who's being an idiot on a cycle than I am to somebody who being an idiot driving their car.

My God. I hope you don't use that kind of logic in your clinics. "There have been a lot of reports on the internet about 16 year old Asian males suffering from Vomita Noxius so this 16 year old Asian male must have Vomita Noxius so I don't need to examine him.



I must say that some of the worst pedestrian behaviour I have observed is by drivers who have just got out of their cars on narrow streets. Standing in the middle of the road whilst they unload their groceries and push-chairs (and even children), oblivious of the danger from passing traffic.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Steve, with as much respect as can be garnered, does it not strike you as strange that none of the recorded factors records any blame to the motorist whatsoever? You have selectively quoted a report that doesn't even mention speeding (implicated in 1100 deaths last year), drivers on mobiles (implicated in 25 deaths last year or drunk or drugged drivers (implicated in over 400 deaths last year).

Now, since anyone who uses the roads is aware that pavements are not thronged with lemming-like children anxiously waiting for a vehicle to appear under whose wheels they may throw themselves, can you see now how your 85% twaddle is dishonest, mendacious and pretty disgusting?

You've claimed that speeding is safe because pedestrians rarely get hit on motorways (staggeringly ignorant) and now you claim based on selective, partial reading of a single report that children are to blame for their own injuries.

that's pretty desperate mate.

No idea.

Perhaps you could summon up the courage to say what you actually mean rather than demand we do the guess work on your behalf.

For a start, name the people who have said they oppose road safety advice being given to any road user whatsoever.

When you realise you are unable to do so the debate can progress.

OK // apologies for suggesting you think cyclists are "cleaner than clean" and "greener than thee" etc etc etc.

Those cyclists will be just the same in cars etc. But you have to be very careful all the same when you tackle anyone. You do not know the person nor how road raged up they may be. See IG's thread in Cycling. Scary .. scary .. scary .. and sadly the case these days. I think sometimes better to call police and HOPE they do something about it.


But cyclists do not always consider horse riders or pedestrians. I was shoved into the gas works once by a cyclist when walking on a pavement. I needed stitches in my leg as a result. I was not a happy man as it ruddy well hurt at the 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.

Nice strawman! I notice you didn't address the actual point, unlike weepej who actually answered the question. Perhaps it is you, not I who needs a lesson in debating. First step would be to stop contradicting yourself.