Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Sep 21, 2020 17:08

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 298 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 13:19 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
President Gas wrote:
1. A liar, 2. A menace on the roads


You forgot to call me a scoundrel!

President Gas wrote:
Do you actually believe that driving in exess of 70 on a motorway is dangerous, or are you against it simply because it's against the law, or both?


I don't think there is anybody who could deny that driving in excess of 70 on a motorway is dangerous. A lot of people have been killed at much less than that, so I guess it _must_ be dangerous to some extent. The problem is political as well. Mixing traffic at 65 or 70 with traffic at 120 is not a good idea.

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 14:40 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
basingwerk wrote:
I don't think there is anybody who could deny that driving in excess of 70 on a motorway is dangerous.


Dangerous? An element of danger maybe, but then there is an element of danger in living in a house full of flammible objects, using a kitchen knife, climbing stairs......

The Italians seem to think that 140km/h is a reasonable limit on 3-lane motorways, and they have fewer accidents and fatalities on motorways than we do.......


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 14:46 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
President Gas wrote:
You know full well, that the issue here is one of acceptability. You may feel that your such a wonderful person for driving within the speed limit. However, I can easily counter that position by simply saying "What's wrong with you you speed freak? If you reduced your speed by 10mph then if there was an accident then people would have more chance to survive."

And if you did reduce your speed by that, I could say it again, and again, and again. See, I don't think you are a bad person for doing this. You have made the decision the risk is low compared to the benefits of driving at 70 in a 70. Others, though, want the speed limit lowered as they say it's dangerous. Are you dangerous, Basingwerk, when your driving at around 70 in a 70?

Do you actually believe that driving in exess of 70 on a motorway is dangerous, or are you against it simply because it's against the law, or both?


Apparently he doesn't know anymore. Brilliant counter-argument, Gas.

Seems Basingwerk has his thumb in his bum again. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:48 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
r11co wrote:
Dangerous? An element of danger maybe, but then there is an element of danger in living in a house full of flammable objects, using a kitchen knife, climbing stairs......


Yes, my friend in A&E is always telling me how the number of people who have fallen over their flamethrowers as they come down stairs in the morning holding a bag of kitchen knives is on the increase!

r11co wrote:
The Italians seem to think that 140km/h is a reasonable limit on 3-lane motorways, and they have fewer accidents and fatalities on motorways than we do.......


It would be miraculous if all countries, with many diverse political systems, cultures and road types and conditions, all set their speed limits the same, wouldn't it? Yet that is what you expect? Where did you find the 140 limit, which is not right? It is 130.

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:57 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
r11co wrote:
Do you actually believe that driving in exess of 70 on a motorway is dangerous, or are you against it simply because it's against the law, or both?
Apparently he doesn't know anymore. Brilliant counter-argument, Gas. Seems Basingwerk has his thumb in his bum again. :lol:[/quote]

I reserve the expression 'thumb in his bum, mind in neutral' for chumps who have failed to see a huge yellow box perched on a great pole at the side of the road surrounded by signs and warnings! Why do you stick up for these buffoons, r11co – surely people like that should be on the bus? Unless, perchance, you are one yourself?

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 17:21 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:05
Posts: 1044
Location: Hillingdon
basingwerk wrote:
Yes, my friend in A&E is always telling me how the number of people who have fallen over their flamethrowers as they come down stairs in the morning holding a bag of kitchen knives is on the increase!


Ask this "friend" to tell you all about the levels of RTA injuries/deaths since the introduction of speed cameras... People DO get injured/killed in accidents at home, flippantly dismissing these risks in an attempt to divert attention away from the point being made just isn't going to work. As r11co said, there's an element of danger in everything we do, driving is just one such activity where risk is present. And using these risks to support a pro-camera argument, whilst appearing to be completely blase about similar risks elsewhere in life, gives the impression that you're obsessed with speed enforcement to the point where you aren't seeing the bigger picture. What good does it do saving 1 life on the roads through oppressive levels of enforcement, if the energies and resources needed to save that one life could have been used elsewhere to save 2, or 10, or 100? How much to install and maintain a single speed camera? How much to provide another nurse for the local A&E department?

And don't give me that tired old "but the speeders pay for the cameras" argument - where did the money come from to install the first cameras, before they started generating any fines? And where would the money come from to relocate the existing cameras or install new ones if, suddenly, everyone stuck to the limits in the vicinity of the cameras and the SCP revenue stream dried up? Despite what the government and SCPs say, I find it difficult to believe that, if everyone stopped speeding, the cameras would no longer be required.


Here's a suggestion to the government - promise to scrap the SCPs and automated enforcement systems, in return for which we'll pay an extra 1p in income tax, the revenue this generates to be used solely to fund extra front-line medical and police personnel. Think how many lives THAT would save each year...



Quote:
It would be miraculous if all countries, with many diverse political systems, cultures and road types and conditions, all set their speed limits the same, wouldn't it? Yet that is what you expect?


Why not? After all, even in this small island of ours there are plenty of examples of the same limit being applied to roads of considerably varying condition and type, and in areas where the local cultures and attitudes are different - driving around the London/SE England area is a noticeably different experience to driving around Northumberland, say.


Quote:
Where did you find the 140 limit, which is not right? It is 130.


True, but even using this lower figure, you're still looking at a legal limit higher than that on UK motorways...


Quote:
I reserve the expression 'thumb in his bum, mind in neutral' for chumps who have failed to see a huge yellow box perched on a great pole at the side of the road surrounded by signs and warnings!


Shame, because it seems SO much more appropriate for people who drive along completely oblivious to every other road user, concentrating on nothing more than sticking to the speed limit, not realising the problems they're causing everyone else as they drift from lane to lane without looking or indicating, pulling out from side roads straight into the path of oncoming traffic, cutting people up on roundabouts because they had no idea what exit they needed until they were almost past it... In comparison, someone failing to spot a medium sized dayglo yellow box which is still tucked away behind a road sign, large tree, bus stop, or which is virtually unnoticeable inamongst the plethora of similarly dayglo yellow road signs and business advertising signs (ever tried spotting a gatso next to a Jet service station???), but who is nevertheless paying very close attention to the behaviour of other road users, really doesn't seem like the kind of driver who deserves to be labelled this way.

Sure, there are some drivers who wouldn't spot a camera even if it slapped them across the face whilst yelling "I'm a speed camera, look at me!", but there are plenty of cameras located in such a way that the only way to spot them is to deliberately go looking for them, and that means spending less time looking for things that, if missed, will cause an accident. Knowing that a camera is there does NOT stop an accident from occurring, knowing that the vehicle in front of you has suddenly slowed/stopped, or that a pedestrian has just walked in front of your vehicle, CAN stop an accident.

So really Basingwerk old bean, are you suggesting that every driver who doesn't notice a camera is driving around thumb in bum, mind in neutral, or could you concede that there are valid reasons why a driver who's mind is clearly engaged in gear and whos thumbs are nowhere near their (or anyone elses) backsides, might still miss seeing a camera? Especially if we're talking about cameras in general, which includes sneakily placed talivans which (at least in my neck of the woods) are ANYTHING but clearly visible...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 17:41 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
Twister wrote:
promise to scrap the SCPs in return for which we'll pay an extra 1p in income tax…


I'd keep quiet about that idea if I were you. We don't like tax at all, unless someone else is paying it.

Basingwerk wrote:
I reserve the expression 'thumb in his bum, mind in neutral' for chumps who have failed to see a huge yellow box perched ..


So really Basingwerk old bean, are you suggesting that every driver who doesn't notice a camera is driving around thumb in bum, mind in neutral, … [/quote]

Are they on mogadon! First, they can't see a big yellow box mounted right in front of the road on a fat pole with signs all around, with the position noted in advance and plastered all over the place, including the Internet, and special road markings around the site! Second they are breaking the speed limit for the area anyway, by some margin for instrument error and a little thrown in for good luck. The only thing I can suggest is that, through long force of habit, they are so used to driving around with the pedal nailed down that all this ‘new’ camera stuff is just too much for them. Well, the era of monitoring is not going to end just because of this grumbling. Why is everyone on this site anti-camera? Can’t you see the benefits of patient, slow, chilled out driving? You are all living on your nerves. You should save that extra 1p in income tax that you were offering to Gordon, and spend it on a few hours on a private race track, where you can have your fun without interfering with traffic.

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 18:44 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
basingwerk wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
it's the law and its enforcement that is out of step - miles out of step actually - with the normal responsible behaviour of a majority of citizens.


What should the law say?


Surely you're aware of my answer to this? I think the law is fine. I think people should broadly stick to speed limits. But I think enforcing speed limits to an obsessive degree is dangerous. See:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speeding.html

It's not the law that's wrong - it's enforcement practice and the resultant priorities.

_________________
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: Tue Sep 28, 2004 19:14 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
basingwerk wrote:
I don't think there is anybody who could deny that driving in excess of 70 on a motorway is dangerous.


All travel is dangerous. At least it is compared with staying in bed.

The point here, of course, is to try to determine if 71mph is more dangerous than 69mph. If one takes a purely mechanistic view of the world, it is obvious that 71mph is more dangerous than 69mph simply because there is more kinetic energy in the system.

But road safety is not even remotely a mechanical system. We don't get crashes when the system breaks mechanically. We do get crashes when people make mistakes. If we give people good information and good training, if we give them responsibility for their own safety then they will perform better and make fewer mistakes.

If we take away responsibility and give them false and distorted messages we should expect them to make more mistakes.

The difference between 69mph and 71mph becomes completely irrelevant - instead we should be concerned with attitudes and responsibilities.

_________________
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: Wed Sep 29, 2004 08:28 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 17:46
Posts: 823
Location: Saltburn, N. Yorks
I think basingwerk is Icelandic for 'Brunstrom'! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 09:01 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
SafeSpeed wrote:
BW wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
it's the law and its enforcement that is out of step
What should the law say?
I think the law is fine ...


It is just the enforcement, then.

SafeSpeed wrote:
I think people should broadly stick to speed limits


So should the law and the highway code say "drivers MUST drive less that the absolute top limit", or say that "drivers MUST BROADLY drive less that the absolute top limit". Please explain the wording you suggest.

SafeSpeed wrote:
The difference between 69mph and 71mph becomes completely irrelevant - instead we should be concerned with attitudes and responsibilities.


And the differance between 35 µg /100ml and 35.5 µg /100ml is irrelevant, except to a judge, to whom it is very different indeed! Speed limits are hard limits.

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 09:18 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
basingwerk wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
I think people should broadly stick to speed limits


So should the law and the highway code say "drivers MUST drive less that the absolute top limit", or say that "drivers MUST BROADLY drive less that the absolute top limit". Please explain the wording you suggest.


I have to give a two part answer.

The most urgent and important thing is to leave the Highway Code as it is and simply return to the road safety policies (and enforcement practice) we had 15 years ago.

But I think we should in time rewrite much of the Highway Code with a new style of emphasis. I don't think there's much room for doubt that the key to road safety is culture, but none of the text in the Highway Code deliberately reflects the fact. Nothing in the Highway Code is designed to enhance the safety culture as such - instead it is intended to define a series of behaviours. My all new Highway Code would be much more about defining and encouraging a series of attitudes.

basingwerk wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
The difference between 69mph and 71mph becomes completely irrelevant - instead we should be concerned with attitudes and responsibilities.


And the differance between 35 µg /100ml and 35.5 µg /100ml is irrelevant, except to a judge, to whom it is very different indeed! Speed limits are hard limits.


Hard limits are not serving us well. Time for a rethink. We should start by enforcing limits with discretion and intelligence.

_________________
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: Wed Sep 29, 2004 09:26 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Oscar wrote:
I think basingwerk is Icelandic for 'Brunstrom'! :lol:


I'd like to put that very differently...

Just who on Earth are you Basingwerk? Surely you have something to do with the current road safety establishment? I know this has been asked and answered before, but I just can't make sense of it.

Please let's have a comprehensive answer.

_________________
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: Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:48 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 14:16
Posts: 109
bw

Quote:
I don't think there is anybody who could deny that driving in excess of 70 on a motorway is dangerous.


I see. Could you clarify a point for me please? Is it dangerous because that is the speed you are driving at or dangerous because you are exceeding the limit?

You didn't answer my other question. Do you consider driving at 70 on a motorway safe, given optimum conditions?


Quote:
Why do you stick up for these buffoons


Ah yes, the standard attack. I am merely trying to establish your own attitude to speed, speed limits and levels of acceptable risk. Not when your are on this board but when you are actually out on the road.

So do you drive at around 70 in a 70 in good conditions?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 11:58 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
basingwerk wrote:

r11co wrote:
The Italians seem to think that 140km/h is a reasonable limit on 3-lane motorways, and they have fewer accidents and fatalities on motorways than we do.......


Where did you find the 140 limit, which is not right? It is 130.


Italian Highway Code Updated January 2003 (Translated)

Read section D and weep Basingwerk. Evidence that a country's legislature can recognise the meaning of 'safe speed for the conditions'. Seems that the elected representatives of 5 million people disagree with you.

(and I was wrong - it's 150 km/h!!)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:58 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
r11co wrote:
Read section D and weep Basingwerk


I'll contact Prime Minister Berlusconi immediately!

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 13:29 
Offline
Banned
Banned

Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 12:47
Posts: 2291
President Gas wrote:
Quote:
I don't think there is anybody who could deny that driving in excess of 70 on a motorway is dangerous


I see. Could you clarify a point for me please? Is it dangerous because that is the speed you are driving at or dangerous because you are exceeding the limit?


This is a critical difference. It is, in very general terms, dangerous to drive at high speed, even if you are the only user of the road. This is because you are less able to slow down or stop or steer away when hazards occur, in terms of reaction time and distance travelled while actually shedding speed. In this case, driving in excess of 70 on a motorway is dangerous because 70 is a high speed.

Additionally, when other road users are sharing the road, another aspect is introduced. Specifically, lane sharing depends on synchronised acquisition and release of lane resources. Synchronisation is made much more difficult by mixed traffic at largely disparate speeds. This aspect is related (via the politics of driving) to the law, inasmuch as the driving community has settled on the 70 limit, which in turn creates standard lane speed expectations for synchronised acquisition and release of lane resources. It is far from perfect, like a data bus, but it seems to serve that purpose. A similar condition exists for town driving, where the focus is more on the synchronised acquisition and release of other road resources, such as lanes at junctions, roundabouts and traffic lights and so on. Again, synchronisation would be more difficult by mixed traffic at dissimilar speeds, and no realistic user-expectation could be set. This means that a compromise is in the offing, and much of the material on this site is uncompromising, including some of my own, hence the friction.

For example, the roads are not for fun, but for getting about on quickly and safely, but I sense that some posters here are sports car drivers put out by restrictions. To bad for them, but serious drivers don’t want speed kids attached to their bumpers!

_________________
I stole this .sig


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 15:04 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
basingwerk wrote:
It is, in very general terms, dangerous to drive at high speed, even if you are the only user of the road. This is because you are less able to slow down or stop or steer away when hazards occur, in terms of reaction time and distance travelled while actually shedding speed.


:?: :?:

Surely if you are the only road user, and assuming the road is perfectly maintained, weather conditions and visibility are perfect and roadside fencing has been properly maintained so that nothing/no-one strays on the road, your vehicle has been correctly maintained and you are a competent and alert driver (just accept for a minute that such a thing exists and stop patronisingly assuming the driver is an idiot) then there is little or no inherent danger at all??

You choose to quantify a factor other than speed (ie. 'the only user of the road') then ignore its or any other factor's relative impact on the overall safety of the scenario, again equating the whole safety scale to mph.

Travelling at speed in excess of 80 or even 90 mp/h (150 km/h even :lol: ) is negligibly more dangerous in the above scenario as there will be no hazards to stop for or steer round. Speed per se is not dangerous, only excess speed for the prevailing conditions.

Are you starting to understand this yet??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 15:17 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 14:16
Posts: 109
BW

OK, so as you think that 70 is a high speed, could you tell me what a low speed is (for a motorway).

And could you please answer my other question?? Do you drive around-about 70mph in a 70 zone, given optimum conditions?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 15:44 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
disenchanted wrote:
Pete317 wrote:
I sometimes wonder if it's the case that some people regard driving inattentively as 'normal', if they give it much thought at all. To such people, the sort of arguments we present on this site may well appear to be nonsense, because the concepts we espouse are completely alien to them.

Something I've been thinking for a while now is, how much would road safety have improved, if we'd had an "Inattentiveness Kills!" campaign over the last ten years, instead of the one dimensional "Speed Kills!" mantra that we actually got?

Kaz



This is basically what we do when we stop people in our patch - sure - we hit those driving at inappropriate speed - but we target just as many defectives, erratics, and do the routine document checks ....

Funny - by lecturing the inattentive on COAST - patch has lowest accident rate in UK. Cannot be co-incidence that prioritising and policing properly appears to have better results than too many speed cams.

Will venture as far as agreeing that they can be useful tool in certain blackspot areas - but over reliance does not appear to work. Better to have SIDs, etc to alert to danger - and this backed up by a scam if found to be absolutely necessary.

Lancs have right idea with their Speed Course - but they were pitching at the wrong catchment. It will be interesting to find out whether or not they are applying their revised rules of "warning letter up to "10% + 4" and course offered to those up "10% + 6" as alternative to points.... and it will be even more interesting to compare the KSI figures from more "reasonable" approach to the absolutely draconian approach. :roll:

As I understand from colleagues - this course is more about hazard perception than speeding.... and their "Driver Improvement" (most Forces operate this now) - is one of the best in country from what I gather again from colleagues. This is offered to those involved in minor crunches to which police were called and both drivers - regardless of fault - are usually invited to help them learn and understand how accidents can occur.



That is the RIGHT way forward... but ....costs money ..... :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 298 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 15  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.966s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]