Safe Speed Forums

Thanks for the spelling update, Max! I used the American spelling, partly because it's easier to remember!

Main Entry: baulk
chiefly British variant of BALK



Yes, but when doing so, be careful not to exhaust yourself. When the technology comes, I want to have some influence over how it works and what it does. If I just deny it absolutely, I look like a luddite.

_________________
I stole this .sig

You have the choice not to read it. People are stuck with noise and disruption from traffic.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Sorry, I can see now that you live in Nottingham, and so experience traffic hell every day of your life! Keep up the good work.

BTW: Do you ever visit the Trip to Jerusalem. What a great pub!

_________________
I stole this .sig

If your comment pisses me off, it is not victimless. I have to say it's the disturbance you make as you roar through this thread with your rant.

Does that give me the right to criminalise you?

Oh, according to you: it does!

BY the way:

For how long have you been campaigning for a by-pass?

Or the upgrading of alternative routes?



No, it doesn't.

I don't recall the BBC producer being charged with a criminal offense for screening the Springer Opera.

Nor the director for putting on the Sikh play in Birmingham.



No, they don't.

Criminal law punishes people who harm social order and society.

Civil law resolves disputes between individuals or parties to an explicit or implied personal contract and tries to redress loss.

So, if you think we've made some kind of deal that I won't use part of the national transport network in a way that pisses you off:

Feel free to sue me for the "damage" you've suffered.

I will counterclaim for, not only for being equally, if not more, pissed off, but the financial loss suffered directly and indirectly from you strangling the nation's infrastructure.

Is there anything I've missed?

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Oops, yes:

The democracy bit:

But I've covered that earlier!

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Yes, but your point is?

My point is that:

IE Many (most, all?) of the bad, stupid, aggressive, (or whatever) individuals already filter themselves from the system of getting a license before they engage in the activity of driving by simply never taking their test.

But that doesn't filter many (most, all?) of the bad, stupid, aggressive, (or whatever) individuals from the road system by preventing them engaging in the activity of driving.

IE We already have proof that filtering people from the system of getting a license before they engage in the activity of driving doesn't filter them from using the road system.

Therefore we already know that the proposal isn't going to work.

And that we need to look at some other system for getting real dangerous drivers off the roads (and, with any luck, real criminals off the streets at the same time, thus killing two birds with one stone).

I'll leave it to others, cleverer than I, to work our how that might be achieved.

And people wonder why my discourses get unecessarily tangled up and protracted!

Or am I missing something?

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Denying things absolutely didn't seem to do the anti-foxhunting, anti-gun, anti-"racism", anti-male feminist, ermm, what other examples are there, oh, yes, anti-roads, anti-car, etc lobbies.

In fact, thay all seem to have had much more influence over how things "work" than the wish-washy, mealy mouthed, decent, polite, considerate pro-roads and pro-car "lobbyists" who insist on gentlemanly debate and reasoned discourse in a vain attempt to have some influence over how luddism works.

I keep refering people to:

All the Way Down the Slippery Slope

Because I want to have some influence over how things work.

But people seem to want to just deny absolutely the parallels drawn.

Or, at best, just can't be bothered to read all the way down to the end of All the Way Down the Slippery Slope.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

But I can't filter it out until I've read it.

Also, whether I read it or not, it is attempting to curtail my rights and harm me, which pisses me off regardless.

And if I don't read it I can't take steps to counter it, which then allows the harm to be increased, which pisses me off even more.

However, you have the choice of living in a cul de sac, pedestrian precinct, car free zone, field in the middle of nowhere.

But, of course, if you did that you couldn't function in society:

So you chose to live on a road.

But you choose to complain about other people using it as part of the nations transport infrastructure.

In other words, you are quite happy for there to be roads and for them to be used for transport and to live on one.

Just as long as you can make it your own own personal private road for your own personal private use.

Or am I missing something?

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Unfortunately the time spent experiencing traffic hell everyday of my life in the vain attempt to keep the chancellors coffers filled and still have something left for my family and myself prevents me from enjoying the luxury of waiting for buses on the adjacent radial route into town, never mind walking to the tram on the next radial route that is swallowing up a fifth of a £Billion from those coffers as well as most of tha capacity on that road.

And they've more than halved capacity on the adjacent route, as a precursor to further "improving" this main road by completely closing much of it to cars.

Strange, what with that, and the cutting of bus services, that the tram should have so many people using it (though still nowhere near projections).

And as, on top of all that, they have blocked or closed many of the major routes in and around the centre, driving in isn't an option either.

So the Trip, along with much of the rest of the centre, is going to have to close down, or move, lock stock and barrel cave, to Meadowhall or somewhere.

Ah, well:

At least people living on these main access routes won't get pissed off any more by traffic actually daring to drive on roads.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

And breathe...................

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Yes, I'd second that. Nottingham is an excellent city for a pub crawl, in my experience. Add to that the Bell, the Lincolnshire Poacher, the Limelight, the Rose of England and the Vat & Fiddle (amongst others)

And, while I'm not by any means lending support to Nottingham's anti-car measures, I don't exactly see tumbleweed blowing in the streets of the city.

_________________
"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

Six seperate posts taking up nearly an entire page to respond to two individuals.....go figure. A little less verbosity perhaps?

For example...



All that to say what? That those with a criminal intent may/will drive vehicles regardless of any testing process, is that right?

If so, I agree. But let the judicial system deal with them accordingly.
Nonetheless, I have a hunch that there are many legally licenced drivers whose ego and/or temperament render them more likely than others to commit acts of aggressive, impatient or dangerous driving. Psychological profiling might be able to filter out these individuals before they got their licences. I also accept that this is an extremely contencious thing to say, and would almost certainly not be taken up for 'civil liverties' reasons.

Indeed, the traffic situation in your city is truly knackered up more than anywhere else, as far as I know. What is the answer?

_________________
I stole this .sig

But they haven't completely closed off all the roads yet.

At the moment you have the roads "accessible" to cars finding they can't actually go anywhere and having to find somewhere to turn round and get back out.

Soon the roads won't be accessible:

Then you'll start to see the tumbleweed.

I even saw a pro "improvements" quote recently that acknowledged a fact that was know years ago:

That street crime goes up (and so pedestrian traffic goes down) when you pedestrianise areas. You are less likely to be mugged or assaulted in a street where there are cars passing.

There's enough of that already, and worse, in Nottingham.

This will be the final nail in the coffin.

Or is it all really a very cunning plan to reduce the number of drive by shootings:

Ooh, look, we can't do a drive by down there:

It's a car free zone.

Don't want to get a ticket!

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

I'm pretty confident that 10% of drivers cause 60% of crashes and 20% of drivers cause 80% of crashes.

If we can identify the risky drivers we can make a massive difference. There's a wide range of risky behaviours, many of which are not illegal by nature. (I'm thinking of careless and inattentive driving which obviously can be illegal, however the important point is that they are not "illegal by intent".)

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

No, I took me one short post to respond.

It took six repetitions for it to sink in.

Not quite the same thing.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

And now we have to start repeating:


Until that sinks in.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Or haven't you read that bit yet?

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Tricky one!

I might read up some of those reports that say that bus lanes provide negligible benefit for bus commuters whilst knackering up the transport infrastructure for everyone else to such an extent that they cause massive disbenefits to the economy. Might be a few clues in those.

Or I might study some of the proposals for slowing down traffic with traffic "calming". Might be the odd nugget of useful information in them.

Then again:


So working out what the problem is isn't going to help.

_________________
http://www.itsyourduty.org.uk

Don't take me for an idiot you ignorant asshole. Your responses are invariably long, repetitive and ultimately don't make sense. Continuosuly repeating them is not going to make them 'sink-in' as you put it - they are utter bollocks whether you read them once or twenty times. And I'm not the first one to spot this trend am I? Those at Piston Heads did as well didn't they?
It all seems to be part of a trend with you..to get the last word (usually many of them in fact) in and 'win' the argument. This is something most people of adult age have grown out of when they were 10 years old or so.
Well life's too short for me to try and understand your meaningless ramblings so you win...well done. Grant yourself a prize.
Feel free to respond in whichever offensive and ignorant way you deem appropriate*, knock yourself out in fact - I'm sure you'll be breaking your typing fingers in your haste to come up with something deep and meaningful. It wll go unanswered because I can't be bothered with your drivel any longer.

*PS - Yes, know I'm being offensive and ignorant, but what the heck