Safe Speed Forums

Fred...

We want to know... what do you drive?

A maestro - but what relavance is that?

Fred, reading your posts has caused me to reflect on some of the words of the twentieth century's greatest philosophers, Bertrand Russell.

First:

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."

You have no concept why we campaign, it is not so that we, or others can race around the roads at whatever speed we desire, but that we want the true killer factors to be addressed by the Road Safety policy, in a manner that addresses these factors. Speeding is a contributory factor in 3-5% of serious accidents, lets have a policy that focusses on all factors; training, tiredness, drink & drugs concentration and yes speed (appropriate not just speeding).

You will never understand because your mind is closed to the truth, quite possibly because your wges are paid by the scamerati.

Second quote from Russell:

"Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths"

The evidence is there for examination, it would take little for the people who set road safety policy to reveiw and examine all the evidence and then to publish their findings. Any such reveiw must in the interest of justice include representation from believers of both sides. I understand Paul is willing to test his research, the offer to do so has never been accepted from the puppet masters in the scamerati.

Third and final quote:

"The reasonable man expects to fit in with the world, the unreasonable man expects the world to fit in with him. Thus all progress comes from unreasonable men."

With out the unreasonable we would have no progress, with out the likes of Mandela we would still have apartied, without the likes of Michael Collins the irish catholic would still be oppressed and without the likes of David Kelly the truth would have remained secret regarding the 45 minute lie.

Change comes when enough of the unreasonable get to gether and say enough is enough it is time for change. When enough of the people get together and say to the Government, " we want safer roads not rhetoric, spin and ineffectual policies" we will see a return to real police who can deal with bad driving of whatever type.

What qualifies me to hold the views that we need to change? Well apart from my having stood over more people under the sheet by the side of the road in a previous professional capacity and investigated the causes of accidents, watching my sister die under the wheels of a van travelling at 5 mph, losing a good friend who drank himself into a stupor and gambled on the fact that there would be no chance of him being caught as "there are no police about anymore anyway". What qualifies you to hold the views you hold?

Lets get one thing clear I am not a "Speedophile", I do not want un-restricted speeds I want what I think we all should want and that is a return to having some of the safest roads in the world, and we will not get that with current policy.

One final thought from Mr Russell:

" Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric"

_________________
Former Military Police Officer and accident investigator

It is of great relavance,... simply that it indicates that you have correctly assesed that 70mph is perfectly fast enough. What you seem to have failed to realise, is that the vehicle you drive is one of the factors that you use to reach that conclusion.

I put it to you that if you were driving a more capable car, then you would reach the in-escapable conclusion that you could safely drive faster, were the limit changed.

So if I buy a ferrari I can correctly assess that it is safe for me to drive at 150mph

Excellent post by Patch - thank you - Fred please respond.

I would also like a response to my question (repeated below) , thanks, Paul

Well... under some limited circumstances, it may be.... There are many factors which govern what is reasonable... I would not propose having a limit of 150mph... although there are unlimited roads in some places/countries... and people are able to determine when it is safe to travel at such speeds...

What I would say, is that (in my estimation) more than 90% of people have vehicles which could safely travel at 90mph under common road conditions... So I would find it reasonable to propose that some roads have limits which would reflect that.

The effect of this would be to make a greater distinction between urban roads, where there may be pedestrians, or junctions etc... and motorways... encouraging more people to travel on the motorways... which are naturally far safer.

Hey Fred!

We had best reincacerate all those women recently released because some eminent 'Government, Type-Approved Dickhead' said they had murdered their own babies must have been right, according to his 'cot-death theory'! Can't you grasp the notion that speed cameras may actually CAUSE accidents because they divert attention from the road ahead?

I can just picture your Avatar depicting; "We are the Borg... Resistance is frigging futile!"

Do you not understand the difference between good, bad and stupid law or do you just meekly comply with every directive given you without question? If so then pay me an amount each month, let's say around £125 and if I decide to raise it each year by increments exceeding inflation, let's say by 15% roughly, and call it Council Tax, you would pay me without question... huh?

The 'Safety Camera Partnerships' are unelected, unaccountable and undemocratic - they simply fuel their own existence.

Their answer to everything is simply to reduce speed to a walking pace.

But you knew that already

I'm suprised they don't insist that a man walks in front of each car waving a red flag.

judging by your comments, i would conclude that you would not be safe to drive any vehicle at that speed. not because of the vehicle but purely down to your own incapability to drive at such a speed. some drivers can easily handle a faster car than others. it is all down to training and experience as well as the design of the vehicle. in this day and age, most cars can cope quite happily with 90MPH but the drivers can only cope with 50MPH. the point being, the speed limit is exactly that. a limit. not a target or suggested speed. those of us who can drive at 90MPH should be able to do so providing granny takes her old metro into the inside lane out of the way. preferably off the motorway altogether so i dont get stuck behind her in my truck.
incidentally, if anyone wants to challenge my observations, i am a professional driver and my private vehicle is a sports car. i have done extra training eg skid pan etc so i do know what i am talking about. second hand information is no substitute for personal experience from 'being there'

_________________
Richie

SSAFA supporter
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126025031585

Why are people wasting all this time arguing with a man who thinks the death penalty would be appropriate punishment for his own mother should she stick a stamp on a letter upside-down?

Clearly this is someone posting for reaction alone, and is applying no logic to his words.

_________________
Carl Prescott

Oh, and the M4 had another serious accident this morning - lorry through the central reservation. Bet the scammers could have stopped that happening

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."

judging by your comments, i would conclude that you would not be safe to drive any vehicle at that speed. not because of the vehicle but purely down to your own incapability to drive at such a speed. some drivers can easily handle a faster car than others. it is all down to training and experience as well as the design of the vehicle. in this day and age, most cars can cope quite happily with 90MPH but the drivers can only cope with 50MPH. the point being, the speed limit is exactly that. a limit. not a target or suggested speed. those of us who can drive at 90MPH should be able to do so providing granny takes her old metro into the inside lane out of the way. preferably off the motorway altogether so i dont get stuck behind her in my truck.
incidentally, if anyone wants to challenge my observations, i am a professional driver and my private vehicle is a sports car. i have done extra training eg skid pan etc so i do know what i am talking about. second hand information is no substitute for personal experience from 'being there'[/quote]



Trouble is it seems everyone thinks that they are perfect drivers - I am not disputing that you may well be a good driver capable of being in safe control of your car at 90, but what about the 17 year on the motorway for the first time. You simply cannot allow everyone to 'judge' what speed they think is safe for them. How do you decide who is safe to do it and who is not?
Fred

What about the idoits who have a car perfectly capable of 90mph but they are not - everyone has the same driving licence, you cant have one rule for one and one for another

No they dont cause accidents because if you are driving at 70mph or below then your not looking at them. Its only when you want to break the law that you have to keep checking your speedo and looking out ofr cameras

You have just demonstrated exactly why we want more traffic police and less scameras. Would you like us to provide you with another argument for you to run around in circles like a headless chicken?

No I would not - agreed many drivers are capable of driving at higher speeds but there has to be a cut off point and 70mph is fast enough

You haveny answered my questions - how do you decide?
I have always said I am not against more traffic police. But you have to have a speed limit which should be enforced more rigourously - 70 mph is enough

So you've never been flashed by a scamera when you weren't exceeding the limit? It's happened to me-with tachograph evidence to back me up saying I was travelling at 10mph UNDER the limit..
Do you really think that the scamera partnerships won't attempt to prosecute in these instances? They've tried time and time again-thus proving they don't give a shit whether they are right or not.

Most people will subconciously check the scamera in their rear view mirror to check it hasn't gone off-rather than observe the hazard ahead.
Where's the danger in that? You tell me.

Why exactly should it be enforced more rigorously? It was only introduced during the fuel crisis of the 70's as a means of conserving fuel. Now people like yourself unquestioningly champion it.

The ability to drive at whatever speed you happen to drive at should really be your own choice-and if you aren't going to get penalised for it by a TRAFFIC OFFICER then he agrees with you. Those that are unsafe to drive at the speed they do are also the ones that pile up when they slam on the brakes when they see a scamera-hence not getting flashed for it.