Safe Speed Forums

That's quite a "clever" ripost, but bears little relation to what I believe or what I expect Paul Ripley believes.

I'd invite him along to give his opinion, but apparently he's retired to Canada and dropped out of circulation. I was told he emigrated because he didn't like what had happened to roads policing and driving standards in the UK.

It's only in the last few years that it's become obvious that things were going wrong with UK road safety. Earlier, advice to obey all traffic laws wouldn't have been perceived as potentially having a downside.

Anyway the bottom line is:

* I don't believe that Paul Ripley would have knowingly given out bad advice, let alone dangerous advice, for any reason - let alone a "PC" reason.

* I don't believe that any "expert" driver would consider exceeding the speed limit in good and suitable conditions a safety violation.

* I do believe that anyone with road driving expertise who actually asks the question will realise that blind, rigid or slavish adherence to the speed limit increases road danger. I don't believe that anywhere near enough people have actually asked the question so far.

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

Hi there Jolly Inked Up Rogered One!

Long time no see! (or is it )

Oh dear - you are gonna be a bit cross with us again!


Well - I have this valid tome on my bookshelf (well - you know me of old when you were fully Inked Up! - the golf playing petrolheaded mad doc )

Think if you read Paul Ripley from cover to cover - you find it is more COAST advice than anything else

Quote from intro: "So you need to drive at sensible speed - but how do you judge what is sensible and safe? Clearly by looking and assessing what is happening on the road - observation and planning " COAST! In Gear has spelled this out somewhere on here - and so has WildCat over on PH and so have our other guys elsewhere!!

On page 23 in 'Expert Driving' : "View traffic as a flow....as you see with army of ants....Despite their large numbers the ants flow freely because of their mutual understanding and purpose" (85th percentile????)

He advises one to move with the flow!!!

Page 41 (COA bits of COAST) : where he talks of self training to focus on long, middle and short views ahead.

Page 50 - COAST in more depth

On safety and legality bit of COAST - we have:

"Safety is the first pre-requisite of all driving plans - if manoeuvre becomes unsafe - abort. And if it may get illegal - abort" -- and his example is NOT BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT but what if you note that your overtake will bring you into double white violation before you can return into lane!

On page 70-71 he says on subject of breaking speed limits:

"In today's society and on our overcrowded roads, driving very quickly on public roads is becoming rather more irresponsible!" He stresses that is having regard for safety and lives and" that you do not have to drive absurdly fast to enjoy your driving!"

So - we have same message in this worthy book as we do from the Paulie here - SAFE SPEED!

We are not talking of OTT speeding in our fight against the current daft policy, but argument with current enforcement is that it penalises minor arbritrary transgressions - the ones which trafpols would deal with via caution - or even ignore because it was safe and marginally over the posted!

So Evil Inked Up Jolly Rogered One - have another read - and this time read the whole book instead of just the bits you think you like!

Oooer - he will now say I am ill-mannered too! (My cousin-in-law only quoted the HC at you - you know! Mind you - she has sharper claws than my wife - WildCat! )

So let me get this straight. Paul Ripley advised drivers to observe speed limits in the dim and distant past when this was actually good advice. He has now retracted this advice, as it is dangerous to follow on today's roads, and left for Canada. Is that a fair summary of the situation ?

Let's see: on one hand we have Ripley saying "Always obey the speed limit." On the other hand we have Smith saying "Obeying the speed limit is dangerous."

That doesn't appear to be the same message at all...



Petrolheads ( I best not use the S-word in case you throw another tantrum ) always seem very keen on quoting the HC, until the part about obeying the speed limit gets quoted back at them.

You know very well it isn't. I'm not interested in playing word-twisting games.

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

You know very well you've been caught out again, and, as usual, you're retreating behind a smokescreen of indignant bluster.

You and Paul Ripley fundamentally disagree on whether drivers should obey speed limits. One of you has to be wrong, and, to be frank, it isn't Mr Ripley.

Oh Jolly Inked Up Rogered one!

Paulie here does not advocate dangerous speeding nor is he calling for abolition of speed limits. That is clear in his statement policy. He is stating the obvious: we are spending far much time looking at speed as sole cause of accidents without addressing the other issues concerning road safety. Furthermore, people are being prosecuted for trivial blips which are not necessarily dangerous. And 1-4mph above posted is not going to change outcome that much.

As for that advert - my wife reckons it should carry another message other than "Think! Slow Down!" On the lines of " If Only he had thought COAST" and even "Think! Learn how to use ABS properly and Think! Learn how to control wheel lock and use cadence braking! Part of COAST!

Paul Ripley does not say "Always obey the speed limit" because if we did - then literal application might mean we drive too fast for the conditions.


Paul Ripley does not say "Always obey the speed limit" He knows as well as we all do that sometimes the blip over achieves the SAFETY FIRST idea - if you are in overtake maneouvre and the numpty decides to accelerate sharply when you "at point of no return and abort at this stage would be too dangerous" That was mentioned in one of his old columns in "Telegraph's" motoring section - do not have cutting as it was ages ago! He says "safety is first consideration" at all times. In fact - he preaches COAST on almost every page of his book! "Concentration, observation, application (we use "anticipation") and patience (= space and time)"

He does say that driving absurdly fast is unnecessary. Sure - each member of this family has really opened up the motors on the derestricted A-bahn in Germany at times - our road safety nerd (not a Paul Smith motorist's champion, "rebel" and hero - our nerd plays for the other team ! ) usually drives 130-160 mph on them; I tend to be more cautious - 120-130 mph and the wife drives like the road safety nerd! And we will drive at limited 81mph on the other A-bahn/a-routes. Occasionally we will hit 80mph on a UK motorway if in L3 and we get the accelerating numpty who shoots up from 60mph to 70mph during the overtake and we want to get past - back left to L1 and down to 70mph asap! That is where blip over is actually much safer. (And this is family which boasts one 'active' trafpol trainer - and one ex- retired one who delivered the courses at National Police Driving Schools throughout his career ) We tend to go along with their advice

But Paulie Ripley went to Canada - because that is country which abandoned the scamera - because it simply did not work. I have cousins who live there (my side of this family - Ontario) One of the youngsters works in their traffic division - and it is a bit like In Gear's patch - they are out and about on patrol - and do use laser guns etc to verify speeds - just like his chaps. And guess what - their roads are now much safer --and they prosecute OTT driving, catch the insurance dodgers and the careless/dangerous drivers -- and not the just over blips which is what is happening over here with Gatso settings!








You generalise - you did not like "Sicko" actually typing the current copy HC at you, nor does it seem you appreciate my typing great wadges of Paul Ripley's book.

Indeed, if you take look-see at PH -= you will find that they discuss aspects of HC and try to get actual meaning of the more ambiguous rules (MUST as opposed to SHOULD NOT) - one being obligatory and the other advisory common sense. In fact - sensible debate with BiBs and the ultimate enemy - the bloke who places the scams around here! You would learn a lot from there just by lurking! (And I will bet Steve C , our local scam merchant lurks on here too! )

Tantrum?

As for my objection to words which imply a certain connotation -

1. They cause offence - and if someone can get NIPped for allegedly hurting the feelings of a talivan twit by a hand gesture of some kind - then we petrolheads can object to words which are intended by person bandying them around to cause offence and suggest they are capable and guilty of crime of darker and much more dangerous nature. It hurts our feelings

2. Another sweeping generalisation :Many petrolheads do drive according to the rules - but are basically honest: they acknowledge they are not robots and may break a posted limit on odd occasions - and that one occasion these days can happen near the talivan twit who parks up, concealed, near speed limit change. This is illegal practice in Germany and Switzerland (latter only gives you 3mph across the speed range anyway).

3. Wife and I foster children. Owing to circumstances - we had to put this site out of bounds to our kids for a while - because of this particular word being used in connection with the petrolheads looking after this case - and case is ward of court -legally in our care and very much a much loved part of our family until it reaches 16 years. And if this young person then decides on higher education - then the person continues to belong to our family!

I know I play around with your nick - just teasing you along a bit! Hope it does not offend you! I do not intend it that way - just having some fun with you! Was disappointed when you said you were going to disappear into sunset on your Inked Up push bike!

But Paul also states that obeying the speed limit is more dangerous than disregarding the speed limit. He claims this is because of the extra speedo checks, and because slower drivers tend to let their attention wander ( amongst other things). This is where he and I disagree.

Obeying the speed limit does not imply always driving at the speed limit. It means not exceeding the speed limit.

Well, it hurt my feelings when you accused me of being a dangerous driver because I choose not to exceed the speed limit, but I didn't feel the need to make a song and dance about it. And before jumping to conclusions about the term "speedophile", perhaps you should look at the "official" definition ( supplied by Paul's arch-enemy, Guy Chapman ):

A speedophile is a particular type of driver. Not an ordinary driver who occasionally speeds, but the kind who actively campaigns against speed enforcement. A speedophile refuses to accept legal constraints on speed, and refuses to consider obeying the limit as a "solution" to the "problem" of speed enforcement. Paul Smith is a speedophile. He exerts considerable energy trying to persuade people that the exponential decay in the drop in traffic fatalities visible since the 1970s is evidence that speed cameras are now responsibile for a third of road deaths.
Are you a speedophile? Only you can tell. I have yet to come across a campaigner against speed cameras who is not; most members of the Association of British Drivers I have encountered do a very good job of pretending to be speedophiles; Jeremy Clarkson is surely one.
© 2004, Guy Chapman

Thanks mate - I am now gonna be unpopular with my eldest sons and daughter - as now will have to put site out of bounds again!




My London-based A&E cousin-in-law (HBW) is doing some research on this - and he will be publishing his results later this year. He will no doubt send his stuff to our host as well Both HBW and the guys from our own A&E are hearing some odd comments - which we cannot decide if it is psychological defensive denial setting in - or whether or neot they really drove into whatever through a speedo gawp. One thing is certain -Lancs A&E flow of RTA customers has increased despite the draconian tolerances there - and it cannot be coincidence that this is occurring since proliferation of scams in the county.

All members of this family (and we are unusual because of size and fact we are all IAM/RoSPA trained and were in press many, many years ago because of this achievement! ) admit that we will glance at the b2 on the dash more frequently in scam county than anywhere else. Even In Gear does it when he takes his brood to Blackpool and he is Class 1 BiB trained! There is a danger of missing a hazard if you do this when faaced with a forest of Gatsos - and you are on some roads in Lancs! Hence - you can argue there is certain logic to saying that the pre-occupation with enforcing speed limit to zero tolerance levels is a dangerous practice as it does indeed focus attention away from road in front and on the dash instead.

There is also evidence that if you are driving at fast speed - you do concentrate on the road in front all the more. You have to. You know thaat slightest error can cost - hard!

The Swiss half of this family are very enthusiastic about their alpine sports - and competed. They say your levels of concentration at fast downhill skiing and speed skating is even deeper than the twiddly dancy things and ice hockey (and they can do that too! )

Liken it to a busy day at work. If you have a slack period - yiou are climbing the walls. If you are busy and have pile of work to do - you concentrate on plan to get through the stacked up mountain in the in-tray. You concentrate and work faster. This reaction occurs when driving at reasonable BUT SAFE rate of knots.



As explained - there are occasions when you need to break the limit to return to safety.

I am now cross about this! OK - so it is opposite to "SPEEDOPHOBE" which is how I would define you and the muesli muncher you quote here.

However, this word unfortunately sounds and is used in similar context to another sound-alike word. We also had "in-bred" - also unfortunate given a particular circumstance in the household.

I have now had to get someone to my home and place this site out of bounds in "kitten corner." I will be unpopular with my 16 and 14 year olds over this.

Since I have placed the site out of bounds on home front again I will spell out to you why I object to this word (which is used is similar fashion to that other one so much by your kind! )

As said - foster children. One is 11. Been with us 2 years and we have responsibility now until child reaches school leaving age at least. Child was abused - very badly. This youngster used to visibly shake and have embarrassing accident whenever any male in this family appeared.
Monster (no other word will do) who did this to it was related to it (keeping gender neuter) - and did not get full sentence due in law either Thus - have little time for soft saps of judges either.

Child lives with family of absolutely enthusiastic "petrolheads" - and words of this nature serve only to open up wounds whenever this child reads these sites. (Er - we are making great progress in making this child pro-car Nice little petrolhead in the making here ) Moreover - we would not wish this child to mis-understand the word either.

And this muesli muncher is hardly a linguistic expert is he! My wife and her family speak several languages fluently - and they can dream up a less disturbing term than this one! He would do better to refrain from
making up words which can be compared with a sound-alike word.
WidCat had this argument on PH with a BiB over Easter. The BiB compared speeder to the kiddy fiddler not realising "he was doing harm" and that speeders think same way. NOPE! Different kind of crime - and in reality - it is non application of COAST which makes any speed, or mis-use of speed dangerous. This other crime - which this particular term makes a word-play on - gives lasting life sentence. And before you come back at me over RTA death - we lost one in artic accident, one in plane crash and nearly lost WildCat in freak crash. Pain of loss and grief does ease over time (and I base that on personal experience) - but pain of abuse never does! (and I base that on observation and professional knowledge) WildCat got her claws stuck in and The BiB concerned does avoid this - and Wildy and BiB have moved on to friendly banter now

You say RTAs are down since scams appeared. I say B******T. Because I know what appears in A&E locally, that Lancs have not seen significant drop in the county's hospitals' RTA customers, nor have the other medics in the family. We saw figures decrease, and then remain static and even increase in some areas - since scams appeared
HBW and some of oure other A&E guys are a little concerend over way the figures are recorded and collated as well. And I do know from my own work - that I record things in different fashion - and my death rate appears better (like I do not manage to "kill" as many as I used to ) (Of course - I try to keep them alive - am professional )

Case in point - SteveC of Cumbrian prats responded to a WildCat post on PH - she only pointed out where he actually sites the scams ) Anyway, she pointed out that both of can pre-empt where he places them anyway - and that his chaps zap anything that moves. Must do - as we get zapped every day and are always 100% legal

He responded with self-congratulatory remark that his enforcement is bringing this about. WildCat cut him down - by remarking that we have always driven applying COAST and the fact that we have business heads as well - mean we can size up where the fleece spots are (and they are never blackspots - which we can also spot )

I come across many people - different walks of life - and significant number are opposed to speed cams. They are not petrolheads - but normal guys and gals - your ordinary drivers - who see things exactly as they are and are not taken in by the muesli munchers.

Got to go for now - got to see my patients!

C-Ya!

I can't make up my mind whether you genuinely think you've got it all worked out, or if you're just trying to score cheap points.

Either way, you're still completely wrong.



I doubt very much that I disagee fundamentally with Paul Ripley. Since he's apparently not available for comment, I don't supose we'll find out will we?

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

But he's committed a lot of his views on safe driving to paper. And while you can claim that he is just pandering to political correctness, his writings suggest that he was of the view that drivers should behave legally and not exceed the speed limit.

Let's do a deal. I'll refrain from using the S-word, if you refrain from using the term "muesli muncher", OK ? Of course, I'll have find some other way of referring to drivers who think they are above the law, just as you'll have to find a way to insult people who happen to enjoy a sport you don't approve of

So, if you and your wife can spot the cameras, can slow down in time, and not get fined, why on earth do you hate them so much ?

I wouldn't disagree with that advice really. The whole point of the Safe Speed campaign is to ensure that speed limit compliance is returned to its proper position in the heirarchy of driver responsibilities. Might I remind you that Safe Speed has never campaigned to have speed limits raised or abolished?

Speed limit compliance has been inflated far beyond its rightful or useful position to the level of dangerous distraction. Virtually every accident is preceded by an opportuinty to avoid, and if the driver is looking at his speedo at that critical moment the opportunity to avoid might be lost. It follows that speedo checks are almost always a lower priority than the road ahead.

So for me it isn't about speed limits - it's about enforcement methods and the priorities they imply.

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

The word being searched for here is "Tachophobia".

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

Ha! Just spotted this! Arch enemy? Guy Chapman?

No mate. Guy Chapman isn't even on the radar.

Brunstrom perhaps?

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

You could as Paulie suggests - use Tachophile - but word does not sound as sordid -- does it!

No deal! The S-word is not at all the same as muesli-muncher - and you know it! . The S-word as you are well aware has certain connotations of a most insulting kind and is inflammatory. Muesli muncher, on the other hand has no such connotation, cannot be taken with such connotation and is as such as - a very harmless term. It is nowhere near as insulting as the S-word which your kind use, and you do not use it with idea of lover or appreciator of speed ( as Francophile means someone who appreciates all things French), you mean it in its most sordid sense! That is the insult! And given what I have under my care - and given that your sort pay lip service to "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!" - that is more insulting than any one member of this family can find words for. It certainly proves to me that you have no regard whatsoever for the child you claim to protect from a speeding motorist! People against scams may indeed have some untoward episode in their lives - and such a term can be be more psychologically damaging than you think! And if you find the term "muesli muncher" insulting - then you really do prove yourself to be absurd. There is no sordid connotation with that term at all! Heck - I even call myself a muesli muncher on occasion . Muesli muncher (aka health freak) is something I picked up from the Swiss side of the family who laugh at themselves.

And what do you mean by "sport I do not approve of"? I ride a push bike on oocasion. In my madder moments - I even ride a horse! I work out at the gym. I play golf, rugby and ski. I enjoy amateur photography too


I admit to being a petrolhead who enjoys cars and driving.




~We hate these scameras because they do not save lives, do not improve driving standards, do not catch the truly dangerous driver, the drunk, drugged, impaired (as in fatigued, terminally ill - call that last one BIAS - BIG ******** TIME!!!! IF YOU********WANT), nor the numpty who drives the defective car who has never heard if applying POWER before he sets off.

We hate these cameras because they fail to catch the fly-by-nights, criminals and joyriders. Unfortunately - they know where they are, and really care not if they ping them - as they regard a ping in same cavalier attitude as they do driving whilst unlicenced to do so. We would really like to see these people locked up - but muesli munching politically correct saps of mags and judges do not live on same planet as we do! Unless - you are honest law abiding tax payer - whose only crime is to drive car 1-5mph above a posted limit, pay up four times for this- in which case you are treated with contempt! And people like you use the S-word to them!

We hate these cameras because they unfairly penalise the just over blip - in other words the safe driver who has been zapped in safe overtake (circumstances as outlined in previous posting), who has drifted over due to camber in crown of road, road gradient or polish,or because speedo is not 100% accurate (and this can happen in areas of zero tolerance such as Lancashire)

We hate these cameras because as doctor - can be called to emergency at any time. The paperwork involved from a ping is unbelievable - and we have one neurosurgeon in Lancs pinged at 34mph en route back to hospital to save a life! NHS also wastes significant amount of budget explaining emergencies (ambulances and doctors) to these darned prats. That money is someone's HIV medication, chemotherapy, hip replacement, heart transplant - need I continue?

We hate these cameras because we know the authorities are LYING to you all. How do I know? Well - I know for fact that my death rate is static - yet way I record my death rates - and they show as LOWER- make me look like SUPERDOC and I am not! My death rate has not changed. My medications have - but they are too expensive to actually prescribe - HECK! I have to look like Noo Labia is delivering! You life depends on your post code! The A&E people, the cousin oncologist,the cousin heart surgeon, the cousin nervous disease specaialst, the sister GP, the sister paediatrician, the brother in obstetrics all report the same as I do - the way we record our deaths, successes and treatments, beds etc - all point to efficiency - and it is simply not so! And the prats figures will fololow same pattern as ours! So we simply do not believe anything this government publish. (And we all know what a ******** fiasco the postal vote around here has been! Need any more proof Jolly Inked Up Rogered One

We hate these cameras because a driving licence can depend on a post code. There is no standard: Some prats make money from Speed courses (and target wrong type - just over blippers) and others do not.

We hate cameras because these prats as outlined above self-congratulate with no real reason. SteveC's talivan twits are not reason why we drive safely and legally. We do so because road conditions dictate that course of driving plan. Because we are actually quite good drivers, apply COAST, and are always evaluating the skill in same way as we evaluate our professional skills. Self praise is shallow, complacent and hollow and thus dangerous. We are none of these.

We hate scams because these self-righteous prats tell series of lies to justify themselves.

Cumbrian Steve claims 26% drop in KSIs. So official figures read 2001- 49; 2002 -49, 2003 -54. Not a rise then!

Cambs website claimed that on 20 March 2000-2003 - 188 roads occurred at certain spot A14. We travel on that road and past that spot to anniversary bash on that day each year and have done so for considerable time: we have never ever been held up in accident on that day on that road, nor were any of the doctors present at the bash recalled to any hospital in the area. That death rate would be state of absolute emergency and all hands would be recalled to deal with it! In other words - yet another lie!

That is why we have such a dislike of scams, scammers and all they stand for!

I love England - but am considering taking up post abroad!

I'd always thought of Guy as the Lipstadt to your Irving, or the
Bond to your Blofeld, battling your pompous obfuscation and
self-serving rhetoric with logic, reason, and a sense of humour.

But that's just my take on the situation.



I'm pretty sure Brunstrom feels the same way about you as
NASA feel about the Flat Earth Society.

Or there's petrolhead, leadfoot, cameraphobe, criminal, Max Power subscriber, Clarkson-worshipper, Mansell-wannabe...


I realise you find the word speedophile a bit politically incorrect, which is why I offered you the deal. If you don't want a deal, it's fine by me: I'll keep on using where I see fit. I'm not actually bothered by the term "muesli muncher" - I've been called much worse in my time - so feel free to keep on using to describe anyone who thinks drivers should have to obey the law like anybody else.

Somewhere you can break speed limits with impunity ?

You reckon?

Seen this: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/brunstrom4.html ?

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

Another member of this family - doctor in Brunstromia specialises in nervous system disorders plus a colleague of hers who deals with drug related disorders protested vociferously to our dear weird Welsh guy - about the "heroin is not very dangerous" and "provide it free to addicts on the NHS" comments.

They are no longer on his Christmas and Birthday card list - and they are now not on the "polite reply to correspondence list" either!

But as we know only too well - Dick likes his own voice and likes to believe in his ominiscience. But is Master of S. F. A. Especially on health, drugs and road safety for all!

Bit like Jolly Inked Up Rogered one - really!

Hey Jolls - you're not Dick are you?