Safe Speed Forums

Then you'd have no objection if they sentenced your mother to death for accidentally sticking a postage stamp on upside down then?

He is observing the opinion of more than 75% of the population... hence he does not need qualification as such... only a ballot box.

You REALLY need to answer the questions.

* 70 mph is a deadly speed (so's 30mph for that matter).
* We trust drivers to slow way below the speed limit when necessary
* Road safety entirely depends on this behaviour.
* We're eroding and undermining the trust and the behaviour
* More folk are dying as a result

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Unfortunately my mother passed away 10 years ago, but if she were alaive then no I would not

Quite. And perhaps when driving an Allegro, one should go much slower than 70mph. This is the idea - people should know (or be taught) how and when to drive safely, and that includes the use of speed.


That is what is being campaigned for - improvements in road safety, not just closed minded money making.


People are not robots, people are not morons, however treating them like that will only make them act like that. For example, it's easy nowadays to find yourself subconciously applying the thought process while driving: "Check speed, yes i'm under the limit, I must be driving safely. OK then, what shall I do now, clean the fingerprints off that CD? Call someone on the phone? Hey look at that new shop over there.. etc"


Causing poor driving at 70mph is much worse than spending the effort encouraging safe driving at 80mph.


--

Fred,

I have not read the whole of the thread, so I apologise if this has been covered but..

All we want to do here is reduce the number of KSI's on our roads, which are starting to increase, where they used to reduce. It seems that the current Govt think that by simply reducing speeds they can reduce the KSI figure but it has been proven (by Govt figures and stats) that this is not working - we want a change to something that does work.

Why is that such an issue to you? We want to reduce the number of people killed or injured on the roads – the Govt is clearly not interested so someone has to do it, what do you have against that?

You've got it the wrong way round. You're the one who made the statement, so it's up to you to justify it - not me.

I'm now more than satisfied that we're dealing with a troll here - either that or a very sick individual.

Precicely...

What does it mean when I can set my cruise control to the "National Maximum Speed" and travel for hundreds of miles, even change motorways without having to even concider slowing down...

What it means is that people will simply learn to assume that they can travel at the speed limit at all times without regard for any outside factors.. This will inevitably lead to less safety.

Peter - there is no need to insult me by calling me a troll!

Fred

I am not against it, I am just against people breaking the law by speeding.

No it wont, it will just mean that people will learn that they cant EXCEED the limit
Fred

There are two parallel threads here... the protest, which is about improving road safety by more appropriate siting of enforcement cameras... and the one about speed limits...

Most people here also don't want to break the law... that's why they are campaining to change the law...

Finally... I am intregued, you say that you believe that 70 is quite fast enough for any car, are you yourself failing to take into account the circumstances???

What car do you drive?? If you, for example... drive and Austin Allegro, are you failing to take into account that there are more capable vehicles which under ideal conditions can.. for example stop from 70Mph faster than your vehicle can stop from 30?... Are you perhaps guilty of failing to excercise the judgement that you would seek to take restrict others from exercising?

And lots of people used to be against the idea of women being allowed to vote, too.

Laws can be wrong, and they can be changed to make the world better for everyone. If you still believe all laws are sacred and unchallengeable, we all of course accept your view. But don't ask us for help when you want to protest against a new law about not being able to grow and eat your own vegetables.



March

Those weren't 'questions'. I've emboldened the questions I wanted answering.

See these pages:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/tiger.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/why.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/conspiracy.html

I could not be more serious about this.

You really need to study the material and understand the arguments in more detail. I appreciate that thousands of hours of effort gives me an 'unfair' advantage.

Take an hour to study the materials suggested and try to keep an open mind. We have got road safety wrong to deadly effect. The loss of fatality rate trend now accounts for 8,000 unexplaned deaths. (April 2005 estimate)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Paul

I'll take a look at these

Thanks

Fred

Sounds fair, so if the law was changed to 80 mph or was derestricted you would be happy yes?

When is this going to happen? After 12 years of speed cameras, speeding behaviour is unchanged and 'excessive speed' crashes are up.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety