Safe Speed Forums

Don't worry about PaulF - over time, he might get with the programme, but right now, I look at him as a loud mouthed tosser who is out of his depth here. Let's at least give him a chance to stop his idiotic outbursts - you never know.

_________________
I stole this .sig

What relevance does that have?
Just how is religious adherence to speed limits - particularly badly set ones - supposed to improve road safety? By what mechanism?

You still haven't answered my question on this thread

Not in some cases, but in your case, I am! It's great to read the screeches of a loud mouth who has been hit where it hurts most - in the pocket!

_________________
I stole this .sig

OK sorry Rigpig, my apologies to you too. I can be a bit prickly at times.

Let us just accept that we have differing views on some topics.

Best wishes and take care,
Dave.

Pot? Kettle? Black?

It seems that as soon as someone presents an argument which puts you out of your depth, you ignore it and change the subject.

Prove me wrong and answer my question on the other thread.

That's hardly realistic - even the (adjective? humble? useless? venerable?) Austion 1100 is more or less capable of trebling the 30mph speed limit.

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

My own opinion is that speed limit compliance can have some secondary beneficial effects which are apparent in certain circumstances, but definitely not in others.

I see no safety benefit whatsoever with conscious voluntary speed limit compliance on the motorway, or other NSL. In my view it is a restriction which gets in the way of COAST, and as long as the speed used is COAST compliant it should never seen as dangerous, intimidatory or aggressive.

However I believe there are benefits to active speed limit compliance in town situations. The benefits are not across the range and in my belief apply to the TIBMIN (thumb in bum mind in neutral) brigade of which Basingwerk speaks so often. These are the types who never consider their driving actions for one minute, they are much more interested in the purpose of the trip, whether it's late for the school run or work, whether they are working out what they need to get at the supermarket or from the building supplies. They drive to the end state, by which I mean they become aware of being in the hazard without having anticipated it or planning for it. They probably would not recall how they got there, because their mind has been elsewhere.
This type of driver will also drive in the NSL at 45 mph then into town through hazards still at 45mph!

My contention is that a ticket from a camera may very well encourage this user group to be more aware while driving, if only for the incentive of licence retention. This may encourage a concentration dividend along with a more appropriate speed for circumstances.

This possible benefit has to balance with the evident disadvantages to the COAST driver. But when vulnerable road user fatalities occur in town it's more likely that the motorist involved will have come from the TIBMIN group rather than COAST, (on the odd occasion when it's not the fault of an illegal driver or a drunken arse pedestrian) .

For me therefore an appropriate way of dealing with this may be to place covert mobile cameras (or VAS although it carries less of a threat) at positions where the COAST driver would never be likely to speed, but the TIBMIN driver will.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Trouble is, it's just as likely to make them pay more attention to their speedos, road signs with red circles aroud them and yellow boxes - and even less attention to actual hazards.
These people need educating - and that's what the government is failing in - and those who cannot/will not be educated should be removed from the roads.

cheers
Peter

That's a very important point isn't it? Anyone using inappropriate speed regularly must be a significant cause of danger - although speed limit compliance would mitigate the danger slightly, they will still frequently be using inappropriate speed in the areas of greatest danger.

The pedestrian impact data warns us what to expect from drivers who fail to reduce speed when necessary - even at 30mph, if they don't slow there's at least a 20% risk of death in collision with a pedestrian...

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

Yes you are probably right, but some percentage of raised attention (in a general sense) must be better than virtually none, as can be evidence in a fair percentage of the driving we see. Anything to make people think a bit more about their driving.

And, again you are right on the education aspect, but I can understand the attractiveness of a quick fix solution.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Education must be the ultimate goal, but it is fraught with practical difficulties and will be a long term solution . We can all guess the reason for the broader stroke options favoured by the authorities.

VAS for the areas of greatest danger should IMO be a priority.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

But at what cost?

Cheers
Peter

The $64,000 question!

I really don't know where the balance lies.

What I do know is that if there has to be remote enforcement, it could be much better than it is now.... but with significantly less kerrrching!!

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Fuck me backwards, that's the pot calling the kettle black if ever I heard it.
You have been out of your depth with me so far on at least two occasions that I can remember here, and with countless others as well due to the crap you spout.

As for chances to stop idiotic outbursts, you've had more chances to apply the same train of thought to yourself than what I've had hot dinners.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

I must say I agree with you about the concept of "taking the piss".

In some circumstances, driving at 110 mph on UK motorways may be safe, but I doubt whether IanH or In Gear (who, from their postings, are model traffic coppers of the kind we would all encourage) would ever exercise discretion to let people off at those levels. If you choose to drive at those speeds, and are caught, you only have yourself to blame.

There is a difference between exceeding limits for a short period of time, or by a small amount, and deliberately grossly disregarding them.

Above a certain level, which I accept is hard to define, then speeding is per se unacceptable.

It is a fact of life that the responsible and skilled must accept some small restriction of their liberties in the overall interest of safety.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

So much you said it twice
Thanks

The trouble with quick fix solutions is that all too often they don't fix anything, well not properly and not for long.

A proper education system for all road users, not just drivers, is what we need, and it could be a long haul so it's time we got started.

Just to avoid any possible confusion, my speed limit transgressions are almost entirely confined to NSL areas.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Oops, sorted now

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

IMHO 110 mph can be done safely on roads other than motorways, but I agree with you that IanH and In Gear (for example) would unfortunately have insufficient discretion to accommodate me. Pity about that, so if/when caught I expect I'll be in a spot of bother.



So what about cases where drivers exceed the NSL by a large margin but only for short distances/periods, in accordance with opportunities provided by the changing traffic conditions? To a considerable extent that is what I do, especially on motorways.



This depends on our individual view of life, and where lies the sensible balance between freedom for the enthusiastic high speed driver, and a satisfactory level of safety for himself and all around him.

I happen to believe that a suitably skilled, experienced and responsible driver should have a large measure of freedom, and that this will not present an undue risk to others. Bear in mind that whatever we do we are simply not going to achieve total safety at all times. IMHO we have already lost too much freedom and still not achieved the level of safety that I think we could have. In my view the balance is quite wrong.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

.

Now, now, now. Basingwerk, I am surprised by your "ad-hominem" attack on me personally.

I have only called you a thief because in other threads YOU have admitted to not returning property which belongs to other people (their biros). According to the law, that's theft and you ARE a thief. The fact that the odd biro yopu have addmitted taking and not returning might only be worth 10 pence is immaterial - you have admitted wilfully misappropriating other people's property.

As for calling you a troll: I have simply apssed what I, and many other people think to be 'fair comment'. You constantly spount the same rubbish over and over again and you rub your victims up the wrong way with smug, pious observations.

Now then, as for calling me a "loud mouthed tosser". I think you'll find I'm softly spoken - and as for being a 'tosser'. Well, I haven't had a go at a pancake race for years.

The truth of the matter, Basingwerk, is you don't like being found out or placed on the spot or backed into a corner where you have to say something other than a pile of shit. Your silence in these instances is deafening - yet up comes another diversionary tactic in personally abusing me (well attempting to, anyway).

All this outburst has done is painted more of a picture and shone more of a light on whaty your really are. A nasty little man, bereft of any reasonable alternative or any comment which comes across as "I understnad your viewpoint but disagree because......." And that is what makes you an 'ad-hominem troll'