Safe Speed Forums

Yes, but it is only heavy economic damage that I want to inflict on wrong-doers, not injuries, so any placement should be accompanied by appropriate signage and road narrowing that only a few morons would ignore.

I prefer very stout and heavy iron or concrete obstacles which cause high damage even to lorries and vans in any collision, for purposes of deterrent. Stout oak trees are even better for that, but they take a long time to grow. Puny wooden or plastic posts cause too little damage to the cars, and represent no deterrent.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Yes, but when drivers see speed limits reduced to 30mph or 40mph from what was a NSL coupled with the introduction of a cashcam, along with the fact that very rarely were there any accidents on that stretch of road, is it any wonder that drivers lose respect for the limit?
Who is the "we"? In my experience, the limits are set by people with no common sense or hardly any driving experience.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

I don't. I moan about the unnecessary screwing up of perfectly acceptable road systems.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

ndp wrote:
And of course, everyone has a different idea of acceptable risk - so we need to define what speed creates unacceptable risk so everyone knows where they stand.
Who is the "we"? In my experience, the limits are set by people with no common sense or hardly any driving experience.


Royal "WE" - or something we (the reader) don't know ?

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Hmm, thats an interesting yet typically misanthropic viewpoint there Bas. Should we extend this sentiment to all areas of life and come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who falls victim to their own stupidity or carelessness or momentary misfortune?
We could refuse to send mountain rescue teams out to recover stranded individuals or groups as a deterrent against failure to check the weather or to pack suitable clothing and provisions. And be similarly dogmatic over the deployment of the coastguard to boot.
In fact, we could withold any service, emergency, NHS, etc etc from folks who failed to look out for themselves and cause others misery into the bargain.
Don't get me wrong, I've got no sympathy for fuckwits and would bill each and every one of them for the misuse of recovery/emergency/support services each time they use them. But abandoning them or leaving them to impale themselves on their own scimitars; thats not the way 21st century societies are supposed to work is it?

Yes – as a good, general principle to maximise the benefit, systems should penalise those who abuse them.



Those people have not abused the system, so they should not have a penalty. But you have reminded me to make no more contributions to the RNLI – there are far too many of those jet skiers causing noise pollution at the seaside, and they might stay at home if they knew that no-one would bother to help them.



Please don’t, Rigpig! I’m licking my lips in anticipation of that!



No, it’s not. I’m a catholic, so I should not have these wicked thoughts. But when I see those bums speeding through narrow village streets, I often wish they’d come a cropper against a sturdy iron bollard! Shit - that’s 5 Hail Mary’s for that!

_________________
I stole this .sig

You have either lost it completely or you are just trolling. Either way it's ugly. It's also absolutely barking...

'Heavy economic damage' indeed! Around one in ten crashes involve injury. I cannot imagine any design of 'obstacle' that would cause damage but never injury.

And even if I could, there would be a very significant danger that people would become desensitized to 'damage', and so become less concerned about crashes. I cannot imagine a much more scary driving experience than sharing road space with thousands of 'battle scarred' vehicles - you would just know that some of the drivers were past caring.

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

Keep thinking, SafeSpeed … if anyone can come up with the best obstacle to progress, it’s you!

(Oh, 5 more Hail Marys )

_________________
I stole this .sig

BW, how on earth can you say that trying to promote safer roads is being an obstacle to progress???

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Do you want to be banned for ad hominem and trolling?

Why not make a positive contribution instead? I know that it's within your power.

If you can use evidence and analysis to prove that I'm 'an obstacle to (worthwhile / positive) progress', I promise to change my position - so if you believe what you say, that should be incentive enough.

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

My wife, who lived in the area for 10+ years, would describe this as "Hackney driving", in which the goals are to:

a. never, ever, give way to anyone.
b. run red lights as often, and as blatantly, as possible.
c. park as close to your destination as possible, and if that mean double-parking on a busy road, blocking someone in, or creating a lengthy tailback, so much the better.
d. take pride in your efforts at improving energy efficiency by driving around with some/all of your lights switched off or non operational.
e. strive to be an utterly obnoxious road user hated by all who encounter you.

It's beyond me how some otherwise intelligent people can believe that you can make a road safer by making it more dangerous.

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

Please, have a heart ... it was just a bit of fun.



OK - what is your response to my demonstration that there is (at the very least) a statistical link between ‘free travelling speed’ and ‘crash deltaV’?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Also it's impossible to imagine any design of 'obstacle' that would only be crashed into by people exceeding the speed limit.

Unless the berk's saying that anyone who crashes into an obstacle is by definition driving too fast.

It's not far off the moral equivalent of saying "cars are crappy, throw rocks at them" that our friend on C+ used as a sig.

If we're really interested in saving lives, then roads need to be as forgiving of errors as possible.

_________________
"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

Your're pretty smart for a poodle - can you wag your tail, too?

_________________
I stole this .sig

I can piss on Gatso posts as well

<poodle looks under bridge, starts barking loudly>

_________________
"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

A convenient dodge, but your page as I linked contains no references to TRL595 beyond the data posted on that page. It appears therefore all of your analysis, and all evidence on which it is based is on that page - and therefore it doesn't matter either way whether or not I have read TRL595.

And that is a no, before you try and dodge the question again.

The topic is *your* analysis - not that of TRL595 (which you claim to have rubbished anyway). Your page makes no mention of either inflows nor of the nature of works or traffic management within the works - neither does it make any reference to anything specifice within TRL595 (beyond what you have cut-and-pasted into the page). So have you taken these factors into account or not?

Society.

You might not have heard of the concept.

Under what context - you cannot define the risk set by speed as in every case the risk is different - think about it -
Motorway --freezing fog, visibility 50 yards - high density traffic
Motorway ---late at night - occasional HGV -

Define a set speed ( to allow for both cases ) as you require.
In both cases the APPROPRIATE speed to optimise risk is very different.

You are proposing a universal set speed to cater for all

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

Fun I can live with.



<boggle> A statistical link? REALLY? Where?

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