Safe Speed Forums

Bin Ich aber auch bequemer auf Deutsch, wie nett fuer uns beider. Macht nich welche Sprache aber, sind noch ein punktloses Ärgernis.

Genau!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Perhaps I should let this one die away quietly...but...

There are many problems with your arguments, and to counter them all separately would involve the exchange of another 50 or so posts. Like most over simplified arguments, if the fundamental underlying statement is proved false, then like a house of cards the rest falls to pieces, or at least demands the much more detailed analysis that you state is not required.



This is simply not true -

At very slow speed there is significant danger especially to pedestrians and cyclists who view very slow moving traffic as being an open invitation to use the road as a pavement. This is demonstrated in official figures by a much higher accident rate for buses than other vehicle types, and most of these accidents happen at very low speed (<10mph) http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pedrisk.html

At very high speeds, which in motor vehicle terms would be in excess of 150mph, we would expect that with the suggested "infinite danger" that drivers would perhaps get killed every few times they did it. Except that the German Autobahns and PC Mark Milton demonstrate that 150 mph+ doesn't result in inevitable death.

So high speed is not !infinite danger", and very low speed is certainly not "little or no danger". As many studies have confirmed, a major contribution towards accidents (bigger than excess speed even) is inattention. I don't know about you, but I mentally switch off when not being stimulated, and unreasonably low speed limits is a certain way of achieving this mental state.

I really don't know why I bother. You're a complete waste of time aren't you?

As you very well know those examples of dangerous speeds failed to meet your hoplessly inadequate definition of 'too fast'. I invited you to have another go, but no. All you can manage is an attempt to twist, turn and deflect.

That's it mate. I've had enough. If you want ANY more replies from me, you will have to debate the subject with honesty, accuracy and integrity.

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

Give it your best shot – you might do better than SafeSpeed.



No-one has ever been knocked over by a car that was stopped, or not even there at the time!



I don’t have to explain this, but I’ll go through the motions (once again) for the others. When accidents happen at slow speeds, they are in different conditions to accidents at high speeds, that is why you see what you have brought up (again). We have been down this alley a 100 times and it leads nowhere. We can only make comparisons between similar conditions, similar areas, similar types of road traffic.

With all due respect, this is getting like a discussion with people with no memory, where I have to lay out the entire context every time I say anything at all! Of course it’s not more dangerous on the motorway than it is in town. Please, for the last time, let’s not keep comparing apples and pears. The speed limits vary to account for these details.

_________________
I stole this .sig

They don't vary enough, and they can't vary to suit road conditions and differing driver abilities, for these reasons they can at best be a useful guideline, as a set in stone limit they are worse than useless for the reasons Paul outlines, and you ignore, above.

Don’t be a sore. I can see how you overlooked that my definition of “MUCH too fast” supersedes my definition of “simply too fast”. The basic idea is that “too fast” is a book keeping offence, but much too fast is dangerous. It was a trap, I admit, but it had integrity, I think?

Listen, some of this is in jest. As you know, it is my way of generating momentum. I can see the writing on the wall with Speed Cameras – sadly I wouldn’t be surprised if they started to come down. If they do, then we’ll have to rely on you being right. It pains me to say it, but I just hope to God that you are right, in fact, because otherwise, we are knackered.

_________________
I stole this .sig

In places and times when they should be firm, people still use them as guidelines, and there is no way to elevate some limits within the current system. Also, drivers imagine that they are the sole concern of speed limits, when actually walkers and residents also have safety (and other) rights.

Limits represent a political compromise between the absolute highest speed the majority of drivers could reasonably expect to safely go in an area, and the wishes of other stakeholders. Other safety and warning signs should be obeyed for highly localised hazards.

Once the bargain is struck, all the stakeholders expect the rest to get with the programme. Frustrating as it sometimes seems, this is a part of the democratic approach we adopt here. In some ways, perhaps limit setting could be improved? But limits must remain hard limits.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I made minor error that got out of hand. I can see now that it is my fault that SafeSpeed got the wrong idea, but I stress that I did not mean to deflect him.

I wrote

When I said 'over and above the limit', I think I meant 'taking precedence over the limit', and not 'where the limit ends'. If you read it in that sense, the whole of what I say is clearer.

But I can see that it is easy, with the phrase I used, to take the second interpretation - that you can only be MUCH too fast if you are over the limit, and that is why SafeSpeed seized on it. But that is not what I meant, nor what I think now.

So, there you go, SafeSpeed. Now you know the rest of the story.

_________________
I stole this .sig

OK, that's cool. Thanks for the explanation. I'll have a look at it again later. (Right now I have more urgent stuff to deal with.)

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

But not the same bl**dy event!
Why can't you bring yourself to think outside the narrow boundaries imposed by your prejudices?
If you're going to continue with your misrepresentations and convoluted non-arguments, then you're going to get no further response from me.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

This last statement is true, however, very slow speed is not the same as stopped.

It might seem intuitive that slower = safer, but it's not obviously the case in all circumstances. People can be knocked over (and killed) by a vehicle travelling at 1mph.

<edit to include item released this evening on the BBC news website>

This BBC report suggests that 8 people were killed and 1000 injured by invalid scooters last year - invalid scooters have a top speed of about 8mph, some lower than that.

If something that slow can cause that many deaths & injuries, then there is hardly "little or no risk", especially as I can't imagine that there are all that many of them around compared with, say, cars.

Equally no car has ever knocked over a pedestrian who wasnt there.....what lack of grip of such a complex subject you have......

I remember in history (many moons ago) when we were learning that when the 'Rocket' train was introduced, many people couldn't contemplate the 12mph speed that the train could do. Now we have cars that can do 200mph+, we have the aurora hypersonic aircraft that travels at mach 6.

Such speeds were inconcievable until recent years yet there is a progression through evolution, whether physically or by engineering that dictates that speed can be safely increased as human beings adapt to it. 200mph+ in 50 years time will be perceived the equivalent of what 50mph is now.

Like speed limits however, Governments find it difficult to move with the times.

That said, it can go backwards and horribly wrong, i mean you yourself Basingwerk, whichever one you are, if i remember rightly, develop programmes for super computers in the molecular science industry, yet we have 7000 people a year dying (the ones that we know about) through hospital aquired infections, funny old world aint it.