Safe Speed Forums

No, not at all. But you implied you'd travel at 50-60-70-whatever in 30mph zones. Regardless of whether this is safe or not, 30mph is also safe in these conditions.



Not from my perspective, but I bet they thought they were.



Correct, therefore that must apply to every single road in the country, aside from Motorways. Why not just drive at an appropriate speed within the speed limit instead of 80? Then you won't have to complain about cameras (not you personally, in general!)

No, drop the use of “appropriate” here because it has no definable meaning
and is unhelpful. It is merely a short form of saying “OK in the perpetrator’s
opinion”, and it allows SafeSpeed to hide under it at every opportunity.

If we mean “any speed that the driver unilaterally decides suits him”, then
say that, instead of all this annoying talk of being “appropriate”!

_________________
I stole this .sig

I will ONLY travel at a speed that is safe, for the prevailing conditions. If it's a straight road, where I can see for miles, and I know the road in question, then I will travel at the maximum safe speed for that road (and my skill-set). It may happen that the safe speed exceeds the posted limit. Just because some LA twit thinks it should be a 20mph zone doesn't mean that I automatically lose all ability to think for myself.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

I think it's quite easily definable! i.e. appropriate = a speed that is safe. Or am I missing the point?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Big time – “safe enough” is contentious as well, so you can't hang one
definition on the other and pretend it’s all very nice. All drivers (you, me,
safespeed, the lot) believe they are “safe” until the moment they smash
someone in - it means jack shit, though!

_________________
I stole this .sig

I've never caused an accident. Does that mean I'm an unsafe driver then?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Really? Then how would you use words to distinguish between a speed that is dangerous fast but legal and a speed that is both safe and legal?

I drove some roads at the weekend where a sustained 20mph would have been absolutely murderous, yet NSL applied. Did it cause a problem? No of course not.

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

Nope, but it doesn't imply you're safe either!

Can't tell - it also depends how long you've been driving and how many
miles you have done and how hard you have tried. If you are unsafe, you
may eventually get caught out, I expect. On the other hand, you
may get through and die peacefully in your sleep at a ripe old age with
your grandchildren gathered around the bed! There are many ways to
abuse the words “safe” and “appropriate” to various ends. The idea is to
become “safer” which is easier to define because it is relative to the way
you were before.

_________________
I stole this .sig

I agree with the gist of this, so that makes two of us.
There are a lot of mealy mouthed, vague arguments being slung around with respect to the word 'appropriate'. If, with respect to your speed, you can tick both boxes:

Is it safe for the conditions? and
Is it within the posted limit?

Then it is appropriate. Fail one or the other then it is inappropriate with respect to either the rules of safe driving or the law both of which we are (inconveniently at times) obliged to follow as responsible drivers.

I have difficulty in agreeing with argument that, as a responsible driver, you can tick both boxes and fail to be safe in some other mode or domain.

The Germans, our datum driving society remember, have a far more rigidly structured and enforced set of driving rules than we do, and they manage OK.

No. It's a matter of absolute fact. A safe and appropriate speed is one where the speed itself contributes zero to system risk. This is a matter of definition, and is therefore axiomatically true. If it was later determined that a speed contributed to a crash then by definition that speed would be inappropriate.



So we shouldn't slow down in areas of danger unless a sign at the side of the road tells us to?

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

Rigpig, absolutely correct.

How is your average Joe going to work out whether their speed presents zero risk? Driving appropriately within the limit does not guarantee this, but under the vast majority of conditions it's going to deliver the approximate ideal far better than any speed higher than the limit.




Of course we should, this should be natural behaviour. Sadly for many, it isn't.

Again, and I'm open to education here, I believe (for safety's sake), that I only need to be able to tick the the first one - everything else falls into place if that first point is adhered to?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

You are sliiping back to your old ways. Any speed that is dangerously fast
is NOT legal! Unless you think you are allowed to inflict danger on people!

I think you are looking for words to mean -

1) dangerously fast and over the limit - obviously too fast
2) dangerously fast and not over the limit - stupidly too fast
3) over the limit - selfishly too fast!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Yet signs tell drivers that it is legal to do 30mph past schools at 3.32pm... Hmmmm, personally, I'd think that was not safe...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Is Vicky Pollard still here! My advice - go back to acedemia – you’ve got
the right lingo, anyway!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Everything else? Nah

We know that you can safely drive above the speed limit in a whole raft of circumstances, that is not in question.
We also know that there is another irritating requirement to drive within (or attempt to drive within) the speed limit.

The second one is bloody annoying and keeps vanishing like magic when the word 'appropriate' appears, but it is extant nonetheless.

So,

If you are driving safely for the conditions and
Are within the speed limit

Then a lot more drops into place.

BottyBurp, have standards slipped that much? Refer to clause 103 of the
HC, where the words "You MUST NOT exceed " are used, then get
back to me.

_________________
I stole this .sig

But Riggers, if you do that with the term 'appropriate', then we'll just have to use something else (another term) to describe a speed that is illegal yet perfectly safe.

So why bother?

We get along fine using 'appropriate' as the safety scale and legality as it's own scale. Safety and legality can and do vary independently, so we need separate terms.

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