Safe Speed Forums

Sanctimonious....? Perhaps the word you should have used up there was 'us', but you can never bring yourself to admit inadequacy.
.....

One rule for you, another etc....

Seems I wasn't far wrong with the 'H' word either..

Thanks. As it was nice and warm this morning there was no chance of black ice, if there had of been then i would have been driving well BELOW the speed limit.

I adjust my speed to the conditions, tomorrow on same stretch of road i may be doing 20mph or less - all depends on the hazards present at the time.

And doubtless if he'd been doing only 70 all would have been well? Or perhaps, sadly, he was travelling too fast for the conditions, and the speed limit was totally irrelevant?

If there was an oncoming car then the stretch of road was not clear.

Yes, BM thought he was safe as well. DS, on the other hand, took a bend to fast, and hit some diesel spilt by a bus. He crossed the line, and hit a truck. He was killed outright, and his passenger is paralysed for life. MG simply misjudged his speed and ended up dead inside a delivery van!

If only they had been as good at driving as you are, SCE, none of that would have happened. Drivers like BM, DS, MG etc. need limits, while skilled good drivers like you don't, do they?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Who knows? I didn't claim that was doubtless, you said that! But what we do know is that if he had been within the limit, we would have had more time to react, control and brake, he would have needed less distance to stop, and if he had not been able to stop, he would have hit the oncoming vehicle with less impact, and had a better chance.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Selective quoting bw? Bit cheap don't you think? how about responding to;-
Had he been travelling at the correct speed for the conditions he would have been travelling slow enough, to control the situation, but I submit that a number on a pole that doesn't know anything about ice of any colour can only, at best, be a broad indication of what might, generally, be a reasonable sort of speed 'around these parts'.

Do you mind quitting with the ad hominem stuff, like Mr. Big said? Let's get back on track here!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Just a lot of guff from him so far with no mention of how they intend to deal with the problems of nearby parallel routes requiring different pricing, or the inevitable arms race that will develop between the techy types designing the in car gadgets and the techy types publishing ways to defeat the things on the web.


Oh, it's a possibility, sure. And while it remains a possibility it's worth making sure it gets questioned, scrutinised and opposed every inch of the way. I'd hate complacent "Oh, it'll never get off the ground anyway" attitudes letting the power crazed pollies get their way over this.


Okay, how about this? There is already a very effective road pricing system in the fuel duty. 20K miles a year will cost me ten times as much in fuel duty as 2000. Choosing congested routes that have me sitting in traffic costs me more in fuel duty. Having a gas guzzler costs me more in fuel duty. Short of stealing fuel there is no way to avoid payment. The system can't go tits up and charge me the wrong amount. It's practically foolproof and cannot possibly be remotely as costly to run as a high tech system will inevitably be.

Now this raises another question. Personally I don't believe the government is collectively so stupid that this has escaped their notice. So why do they want a hugely expensive and complicated system that might be troubled by strategic use of bacofoil to replace a cheap, simple one that has a proven record of as close to 100% effectiveness as mankind is ever likely to get? Frankly I can't imagine an answer to that without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, aside from the not too original observation that charging via fuel duty is very low tech and doesn't involve all the computer systems and satellites and other sexy technology that the government is so enamoured with. If that's the real reason then I'll have to revise my estimate of their stupidity from "occasionally daft" all the way down to "outright f ckwittery".

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

No, the limit is the absolute maximum, not a reasonable sort of speed 'around these parts'. That is the way it is, not the way it might be.

_________________
I stole this .sig

It is the absolute maximum at which I can drive legally, that much is true, but it may very easily be either faster or slower than the speed at which I can I can drive safely, and quite frankly arriving safely and in good time is a damn sight more important to me than obeying an arbitrary number on a stick.

What about answering the question properly, Basingwerk? You are being given the opportunity to be respected for an opinion, so why not avail yourself of it?

Or is it that you know you've been caught on the "Hypocrite" hook and you know you can't get off?

One law for Basingwerk, and one for the rest of us, eh?

Just 'cos something may be technologically possible doesn't mean it is inevitable, or even desirable. If the benefits can't be "sold" to the public then it won't happen - remember the Poll Tax?


The problem is that the cash is also what will defeat the system.

I can't see a realtime tracking system being able to monitor all the traffic on our roads by picking up and plotting the movement of passive devices. The volume of data would be completely overwhelming. The only way I can see it working is if an active device in each vehicle monitors its position and meters it's own movement history, so that it can then periodically submit it by a sort of "self assessment" system. And just think how susceptible that would be to third party "tinkering".

So the answer is "no", it won't happen. The secure method is unworkable, and the workable method is insecure! And set against all this even a working system would not be accepted by the populace.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Indeed - but in 'Basingwerk-land', stealing (provided you only do it a 'little-bit' [which is open to any capricious interpretation of the great Basingwerk himself]) is actually okay.

So there you have it - you can steal fuel to get around and you'll be able to do so quite safely PROVIDED that you don't exceed the speed limit.

They never have 'blanket fog' or snow blizzards in 'Basingwerk-land'; as good weather is compulsory, you will always be safe on rural stretches of road without a posted speed limit, provided you never exceed 60 mph.

But at 61 mph all sorts of things like diesel slicks appear, as though God himself had ordained such dangers to slow us all down.

Take your own medicine, BW.

Hi Gatsobait,

I don't really have that much of a problem with BW as such....

Just that I'd read enough drivel spouted about obeying the law without exception. We don't, as you know, live in a black and white land... In truth, the reality of where 'goodness' endas and 'badness' begins comes in multiple variations and shades of grey from diamond white through to the darkest black.

Basingwerk's problem (and annoyance) is he constantly spouts 30 is ok, 31 makes anyone a slob and should be persecuted. The rest of us, as you know, live in the real world. In the real world, there isn't a "1 speed suits all" for every road and every scenario.

So what we have is a compromise. Driving a car at ANY speed can be dangerous, as we all know... And I'm not going to re-invent or re-word Paul's excellent work on this web-site - the reasonable amongst us know this instinctively anyway.

Now then, I got a chink in one of BW's most recent posts about an "accident" last year. Could it be that the other party was driving well in excess of an appropriate speed (which may also have been in excess of the posted speed limit) which has brought this on??

I drew another analogy with football crowds and hooligans who blight the national game. I asked BW to tell us whether he feels all football fans are hooligans? If he's not been involved in some tragedy, in a level-headed fashion, he might be able to say "NO". Then again, if for example he were to say "yes", it could be that he had lost / suffered due to riotous behaviour from the said football fans...

Is Deliah Smith (Norwiich City) a 'football hooligan' (as an example)???? No, of course she isn't!

The problem with the way the law is being enforced is that ALL cases of speeding are being lumped together... The bloke doing 48 or 49 in a 30 (where the speed probably is 'too much') still gets the same FPN as the bloke doing 35 or so in a 30, downhill, sunny day, no-where near a school, etc, etc.

We have to get things in proportion. I personally support the use of fixed cameras at red lights.... I would far prefer somone to pass me at 7 or 8 mph over the limit rather than come through a red light 7 or 8 tenths of a second late!

I also support the use of stealth VIDEO cameras (whether they be in a marked / unmarked police car or a tally-van) where all of the contents of the video can be taken ito consideration. If someone drives along the road at 15 or 20 mph (or more) over the posted limit, no prosecution unless the video shows that doing so, in the view of most reasonable people, was dangerous - eg tailgating, not allowing for other road users, etc, etc, etc.

"Speeding" is an easy nick. Defining what is and isn't dangerous is difficult. But I think IF the laws were left as they are or possibly modified to encompass "agravated speeding", where a video could be shown to a court if contested or necessary to show the sort of behaviour regular SafeSpeeders don't want to see or suffer, then the law would regain its lost respect.

Criminalising all of us punishes the wrong people and lets the real culprits get away with literally murder in some instances. The time for a rethink in enforcement is way, way overdue.

I didn't realise I could be so "Boulshy". But when someone tries to steal money off of me, citing crap and insulting my intelligence - well I am really surprised at just how 'out of character' my behaviour has been and can become.

Think about it, chaps.... And as for BW: When he tones down his arguments and stance, then I will do likewise.

People familiar with my tricks will recognise that this is where I do my disappearing trick! The bottom line is that there are only two groups of people who are not hypocrites!

Some are in the first group – the outlaws who do not even try to live by the principles of morality. The other group is so saintly they never give in to base instincts – they don’t really exist, do they?

So, by this definition, people who try to live by the principles of morality are hypocrites and the rest are wastrels. Three cheers for hypocricy!!!

_________________
I stole this .sig

It is all very nice to pretend on your test that you obey the limit, then when you have been granted your license, to switch around and say that the limit is an optional extra that doesn’t apply any more. And then, when reminded of your duplicity, you call me names (oleaginous sanctimonious kleptomaniac, remember?)

But I’m in a good mood, and it’s all just fun, so it doesn’t really matter. But there is a serious part of this – we should all try to at least pay lip service to these limits to help the boneheads who are too thick to get the message, and operate from force of habit. Like poor BM (who, like you, thought he could drive safely home for his supper at 80 mph). I can’t remember whether he burned to death or bled to death.

_________________
I stole this .sig

You really are just quite an unpleasant individual, aren't you, Basingwerk?

You refer to ordinary people as slobs and boneheads and have insults aplenty for anyone who drives a car.

Respected debate? No just chuck in a few smug, snide comments, why don't you!?

It is one of the lowest forms of contemptable human behaviour to poke fun at other people's genuine misfortune and sadness

Do NOT feed the troll