Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Sep 29, 2020 14:10

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 17:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
This topic was split from http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 157#132157 because the topic changed completely. :ss:




FPL wrote:
If you have so little faith in the British motorist then I can't see how advocating that drivers should be able to decide when it's safe to ignore speed limits is in anyway a good thing.


It's not that we think that drivers SHOULD be trusted to decide on a safe speed. We have absolutely no choice in the matter. Drivers MUST decide on safe and appropriate speeds. It's the essence of driving and road safety itself.

Road safety 'works' because we individually manage risk. At its very simplest we slow down before we hit things. And it must work amazingly well because only one death takes place for every 100 million miles driven.

That's no reason to be complaicent. We can improve. We must improve. But the route to improvement clearly means building on our strengths, and most certainly not ignoring them.

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


Last edited by SafeSpeed on Mon Apr 09, 2007 10:41, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 21:05 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 09:44
Posts: 32
SafeSpeed wrote:
It's not that we think that drivers SHOULD be trusted to decide on a safe speed. We have absolutely no choice in the matter. Drivers MUST decide on safe and appropriate speeds. It's the essence of driving and road safety itself.


That's still not quite my point. It's the complete contradiction by some Safe Speed members - though admittedly not by your good self - who have little faith that drivers can choose when or when not to snack behind the wheel, but have every faith that when they choose to exceed the speed limit, they will do so when it's entirely safe.

It was said earlier in the thread that it's not the individual act of one person exceeding the limit who believes that they are safe, but the cumulative effect of having 20 million drivers or however many all doing the same thing, some of whom are going to choose inappropriate moments to exceed the limit. Just like it's been claimed that some drivers will choose inappropriate moments to eat. So why isn't speed in excess of the limit "strongly discouraged" here?

As much as this site wishes to believe that stronger enforcement of limits leads people to believe that any speed within the speed limit is safe, it's nonsense. To think that anyone seriously considers that because they are allowed to do xmph, then it means they can't choose a lower speed if needed is rubbish.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 23:16 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Aah, now I see your slant FPL!

For a moment, reading your posts, I thought you were advocating common sense; as drivers have to sensibly manage their risks on the road, and for the most part successfully do so vis a vis speed limits, then why should we doubt their ability to do so when taking a snack.

Now it is clear that you're trying to use the fact that some of us think that eating at the wheel can sometimes be safe/is always unsafe, to 'divide and conquer'. Unfortunately for you, my friend, you'll be hugely unsuccessful; there is precious little evidence one way or another on the eating debate, but there is a wealth of evidence to unite our assertions that the 'speed kills' message is bunkum.

I think theres a bridge somewhere where billy-goats are crossing with impunity!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 23:21 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
FPL wrote:
That's still not quite my point. It's the complete contradiction by some Safe Speed members - though admittedly not by your good self - who have little faith that drivers can choose when or when not to snack behind the wheel, but have every faith that when they choose to exceed the speed limit, they will do so when it's entirely safe.

There is a major difference, though - to get anywhere in a car, you have to drive it at a certain velocity in a forward direction. Whether that speed is legal or illegal is simply a line in the sand. On the other hand, you don't have to eat anything while driving.

If you had to eat a few burgers to get anywhere, but any more than three per hundred miles was illegal as it was considered too distracting, then you might have a point :roll:

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 01:18 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4814
Location: Essex
Quote:
Whether that speed is legal or illegal is simply a line in the sand. On the other hand, you don't have to eat anything while driving.

Diabetics do have to sometimes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 04:58 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
FPL wrote:
As much as this site wishes to believe that stronger enforcement of limits leads people to believe that any speed within the speed limit is safe, it's nonsense.


Really? Even the bottom 25% of the quality scale? Even when speed limits are regularly lowered to the point that they are made into targets? Even when the official message 'speeding is dangerous' comes with the obvious counterpart 'not speeding is safer'.

You believe that 'not speeding is safer'? So in effect you're saying that you would rather trust city hall than your own judgement? And you don't think that has ANY EFFECT AT ALL on your judgement within the limit?

FPL wrote:
To think that anyone seriously considers that because they are allowed to do xmph, then it means they can't choose a lower speed if needed is rubbish.


I tell you what's rubbish... The idea that drivers can seemlessly and perfectly switch between setting speed for legal reasons and setting speed for safety reasons is rubbish. Even if most of us can do it perfectly most of the time, there are bound to be countless cases where the changeover is imperfect.

And anyway, no one should care about what people can do or should do. It what people do do that matters and how we can change it.

And anyway those are just two small side effects out of a list of 40 that we have recently published: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/sideeffects.pdf

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 19:47 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 09:44
Posts: 32
SafeSpeed wrote:
Really? Even the bottom 25% of the quality scale? Even when speed limits are regularly lowered to the point that they are made into targets? Even when the official message 'speeding is dangerous' comes with the obvious counterpart 'not speeding is safer'.


Yes, really. I've met some pretty dumb foke in my time but even they manage to grasp the concept that its ok to drive slower then the speed limit if needed.

Quote:
You believe that 'not speeding is safer'? So in effect you're saying that you would rather trust city hall than your own judgement? And you don't think that has ANY EFFECT AT ALL on your judgement within the limit?


I believe in respect for limits, sure, because there are too many selfish and irresponsible motorists that the laws are needed to curtail driver behavoir.

safespeed wrote:
I tell you what's rubbish... The idea that drivers can seemlessly and perfectly switch between setting speed for legal reasons and setting speed for safety reasons is rubbish.


It's not that difficult surely? All that's needed is to select a speed that is safe, and legal. Or to put it another way, the speed you should drive at is the maximum safe speed for the conditions or the speed limit, which ever is the lower.

Quote:
Even if most of us can do it perfectly most of the time, there are bound to be countless cases where the changeover is imperfect.


There is less problems then the amount of people who given the Safe Speed way would think "Great, less enforcement/more tolerance, I can drive as fast as I want without concern for other more vulnerable road users"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 19:50 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
FPL wrote:
Yes, really. I've met some pretty dumb foke in my time...


You just completely lost my interest.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 19:53 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
Roger wrote:
Quote:
Whether that speed is legal or illegal is simply a line in the sand. On the other hand, you don't have to eat anything while driving.

Diabetics do have to sometimes.


They have to eat whilst driving? There is absolutely no other alternative?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 19:56 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 09:44
Posts: 32
SafeSpeed wrote:
FPL wrote:
Yes, really. I've met some pretty dumb foke in my time...


You just completely lost my interest.


I'm sorry if that came accross as a personal attack, it genuinely wasn't meant like that but reading it back it did.

What I meant to say was "I've met some awful drivers but they aren't under the impression that you can't drive at a speed below the limit where needed"

Sorry once again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 20:13 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
FPL wrote:
Yes, really. I've met some pretty dumb foke in my time...


Did you ask them all how they felt about speed limits and safe driving? Personally I tend to avoid discussing complex topics with imbeciles, it tends to get embarrassing for all involved.

Oh, by the way, its spelt folk. Boy do I love irony!

Quote:
There is less problems then the amount of people who given the Safe Speed way would think "Great, less enforcement/more tolerance, I can drive as fast as I want without concern for other more vulnerable road users"


Only thats not the SS way of thinking, despite what the BRAKE fanatics would have you believe. Bludgeoning people with ham-fisted policies and legislation will not bring them around to a way of thinking, merely breed resistance and resentment. The only way to effect real change in people's driving attitudes is education.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 20:21 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 09:44
Posts: 32
RobinXe wrote:
FPL wrote:
Yes, really. I've met some pretty dumb foke in my time...


Did you ask them all how they felt about speed limits and safe driving? Personally I tend to avoid discussing complex topics with imbeciles, it tends to get embarrassing for all involved.

Oh, by the way, its spelt folk. Boy do I love irony!


:oops: Bloomin' homophone! I'm suprised I didn't pick it up on my reply post there you go.

Of course I'm speaking generally about "speaking to people", it's an observation, so fair play I shouldn't claim it to be fact.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 20:25 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 09:44
Posts: 32
RobinXe wrote:
Oh, by the way, its spelt folk. Boy do I love irony!


But hang on, if you are implying I'm dumb(I don't mind) then it kind of proves my point doesn't it? :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 21:01 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 18:41
Posts: 893
FPL wrote:
Yes, really. I've met some pretty dumb foke in my time but even they manage to grasp the concept that its ok to drive slower then the speed limit if needed.

You obviously didn't talk to the lady I helped pull out of a ditch last month! There was some crud on the road and she'd spun out. Very soon after accepting my offer of help, and as I was attaching my towrope to her car's recovery eye, she uttered the classic, "I don't understand it, I wasn't speeding or anything!" FWIW, I got the impression that she wanted to sue the Highways Agency for the damage to her car because the road hadn't been kept in a fit condition to allow her to travel at the speed limit in safety! :roll:

BTW, the tone of your post:
Quote:
... its(sic) ok(sic) to drive slower then(sic) the speed limit if needed.
suggests to me that you consider it only acceptable to driver slower than the speed limit when it's unsafe to drive at the speed limit. If that's not treating the speed limit as a target, I don't know what is!

_________________
Will


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 21:28 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 09:44
Posts: 32
Quote:
BTW, the tone of your post:
Quote:
... its(sic) ok(sic) to drive slower then(sic) the speed limit if needed.
suggests to me that you consider it only acceptable to driver slower than the speed limit when it's unsafe to drive at the speed limit. If that's not treating the speed limit as a target, I don't know what is!


I think your over-analysing what I wrote.

Personally, I also don't think (sic) is necessary when it's clear the writing is contained in my quote. I wouldn't recieve the same treatment if I was a Safe Speed supporter.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 22:24 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4814
Location: Essex
Rigpig wrote:
Roger wrote:
Quote:
Whether that speed is legal or illegal is simply a line in the sand. On the other hand, you don't have to eat anything while driving.

Diabetics do have to sometimes.


They have to eat whilst driving? There is absolutely no other alternative?


There is much background I could provide here having been married to a diabetic for 26 years. If there is adequate interest I will gladly do so - elsewhere on the group.

To answer the specific question, if, for whatever reason, sugar levels start to drop below the optimal zone, judgement can rapidly become impaired. It is important, as soon as possible, to address this by taking in sugary food or drink. If driving the importance/urgency is redoubled. If in a "no stop" zone, the answer is a resounding YES.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 22:46 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 18:41
Posts: 893
FPL wrote:
Personally, I also don't think (sic) is necessary when it's clear the writing is contained in my quote. I wouldn't recieve the same treatment if I was a Safe Speed supporter.

Perhaps you should check my previous posts before making that statement - I can be pretty caustic towards anyone who I perceive to be spouting bullsh*t or bigotry no matter whether they do or do not support SafeSpeed in general. In particular, you might like to check out my responses to anti-caravan and anti-4x4 posts - if only because most of those came from SafeSpeed regulars! That said, I probably did overdo it in my earlier post - and I apologise.

FPL wrote:
I think your over-analysing what I wrote.

I don't. Call it a Freudian slip if you will, but "if needed" only makes sense if you believe that travelling below the speed limit is justified only in exceptional circumstances. If you considered travelling below the speed limit were generally acceptable, you would have written, "...but even they manage to grasp the concept that it's OK to drive slower than the speed limit." without qualification.

Speedophilia (the obsession with speed limits and their enforcement) is insidious. People don't realise that it's making them treat speed limits as targets and to put compliance with those limits before their personal safety. IMO, you make a fine example to illustrate the point.

_________________
Will


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 22:59 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
FPL wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
Oh, by the way, its spelt folk. Boy do I love irony!


But hang on, if you are implying I'm dumb(I don't mind) then it kind of proves my point doesn't it? :)


I'm not implying that at all mate, I don't know you nearly well enough yet. I just found abundant amusement in a blatant spelling error whilst you were accusing others of being dumb. Its ironic, not humiliating.

Quote:
I wouldn't recieve (sic) the same treatment if I was a Safe Speed supporter.


:P :lol:

I shouldn't take it personally mate. I hope you understand that we get a lot of new folks here, many of whom have been brainwashed by the 'speed kills' dogma (exacerbated if they have lost a loved one and blame it, rightly or wrongly, on speed) and are often keen to 'troll' or 'catch us out' with specious arguments, so our default stance with new posters who disagree can sometimes come across as somewhat guarded. Others may feel that we are a haven for those who wish to wriggle out of 'fair cops' or push for laws to allow them to drive recklessly, and we have to educate them as well.

I can see from your posts that you appear to have faith in the current system as a good way to reduce road casualties. You also seem to be willing to take new points on board however, as evidenced by the last post on page 1. 'Theres hope for you yet' so to speak! :D

I hope you stick around and give us the chance to persuade you that introducing strict rules and obsessing about how people should act is not the route to safer roads. The only way we can achieve our goals of the safest roads possible (as balanced with our society's need for their use) is by addressing how road users do act, and how to alter that through education and persuasion as a means of willing attitude adjustment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:26 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 09:44
Posts: 32
RobinXe wrote:
I shouldn't take it personally mate. I hope you understand that we get a lot of new folks here, many of whom have been brainwashed by the 'speed kills' dogma (exacerbated if they have lost a loved one and blame it, rightly or wrongly, on speed) and are often keen to 'troll' or 'catch us out' with specious arguments, so our default stance with new posters who disagree can sometimes come across as somewhat guarded. Others may feel that we are a haven for those who wish to wriggle out of 'fair cops' or push for laws to allow them to drive recklessly, and we have to educate them as well.


It's okay, I have a rather thicker skin than that but picking up on spelling, grammer or syntax errors is a sure way of driving anyone away who doesn't agree with you. It would be even handed if you(a general you) picked up on everyone, but curiously it only seems to be those who disagree. I know my spelling isn't the best, but I post on other non-motoring forums and nobody has ever had a problem before. Please don't think I'm just targetting you, I'm just making a general point that if you want more alternative voices to get a broader range of opinion and strenghten your argument then it's advisable that members don't unfairly target the spelling of newcomers. Most of whom don't want to spend hours checking every word of every sentance for any errors. Excessive "correction posts" by other members could verge on the ad hominem, espcially if the errors are minor and don't detract from the meaning or readability of the post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 10:33 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 09:59
Posts: 3544
Location: Shropshire
FPL wrote:
Most of whom don't want to spend hours checking every word of every sentance for any errors. Excessive "correction posts" by other members could verge on the ad hominem, espcially if the errors are minor and don't detract from the meaning or readability of the post.


Agreed, but when you are making a post that questions the intelligence (or similar) of other people, here or in general, it is extremely advisable to double check what you have written for obvious spelling and grammatical errors. Otherwise, the irony will inevitably come back and bite you on the bum :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 85 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.374s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]