Safe Speed Forums

This kind of comment is quite offensive as well as being most unhelpful. These forums are for debates about road safety not for mutual back scratching. Whist many of us might not agree with OP he presents cogent arguments which deserve the courtesy of a considered reply.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

They call him SteveGarrod the contradictory:
First he says:


Then:


Apart from the fact that you haven't offered any empirical evidence, you seem to be saying that speeding is fine, except when it's not. Please make up your mind.

1/

The empirical evidence is my own, and that referred to in the BCR.

2/

I did not say speeding was fine, please don't put words in my mouth. I said 31mph would not attract a fpn. This was disputed, by means of an unverifiable anecdote. It was then claimed, with no evidence despite it being asked for four times, that the only speeders who annoy are boy racers or car thieves.

The residents clamouring for lower speeds do not add a caveat 'But we only mean stolen cars or a loose, undefined categorisation of speeders'.

So because automated enforcement would not issue an fpn, the offence is not anti-social.

So speeding is only anti-social beyond a certain threshold? Is that now your assertion?



Since your evidence is conflicts with the governments own figures, it is hardly empirical. I know you will ask me to provide evidence, just search they workforyou.com. Answers to written questions with reference to speed cameras all conflict with any evidence you offer. The partnerships no longer use the 30% myth because it is just that - a myth.

Before we continue this hideously familiar argument, I would like stevegarrod to answer these questions:

1. Do you believe that exceeding the speed limit is inherently dangerous?
2. When you talk about "speeding" and "excessive speed", are you referring to exceeding the speed limit or driving too fast for the conditions?
3. Do you believe that exceeding the speed limit and driving too fast for the conditions are same thing?

_________________
David

I'm tempted to leave this post as it stands, perhaps this will suffice:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empirical

'Empirical' means one's own, personal experience.

Lots of behaviour that is anti-social does not attract a fpn. Someone driving at the limit , 29, 30, 31 mph in a 30 mph limit where there are pedestrians , parked cars or by a school, would be anti-social.

I see, so you are retracting this statement now are you?


Please present something approaching a coherent argument, by the way, you may wish to answer pdavids questions, I am sure you will try to avoid them though.

I'm not sure where your confusion arises from. As simply as I can make it:

1/

31 mph would not attract a fpn

2/

31mph on a crowded road where pedestrians and schoolchildren are would be anti-social. It probably would not 'ruin lives' -that wasn't an argument proposed by me.

If you care to then explain which part puzzles you and we can go over it again.

Steve when in a hole stop digging:


So you didn't say this then?

Please make up your mind.

Yes, it is annoying, if repeated often enough then yes, it would ruin lives.

The basis for this claim is my own direct experience and this:

Thames Valley Police approached psychologists at the University of Reading and asked them to analyse the British Crime Survey - which considers the concerns of more than 17,000 people across the UK.

Speeding traffic was rated as a significantly greater problem than all other antisocial behaviours, with 43% of the population regarded speeding traffic as a 'very' or 'fairly big' problem in their area.

Furthermore, the perception of speeding traffic as the antisocial behaviour of most concern was held by both men and women - young, middle aged, and old.

The study's authors, Dr Damian Poulter and Professor Frank McKenna from the University of Reading's Psychology department, replicated the findings in a second survey, which also found that 85% of respondents felt travelling immediately above the speed limit on residential roads was unacceptable behaviour.

http://www.reading.ac.uk/about/newsande ... PR3936.asp

As is often stated here, just because a resident percieves a vehicle to be speeding, it doesn't mean it is speeding.

For example, the residents on a road close to my office are continuously complaining about speeding cars, the SCP put a patrol on the road every day for a week and issued zero fines. The residents continued to complain, a speed measuring device was put in, which showed average speed to be 24mph on the (30mph) stretch in question.

The fact that people complain, does not make it fact.

I would be one of those 43%, speeding traffic is a problem in my area, but it is not by those who sometimes creep over the limit (especially those on non-residential roads), it is by those who show a blatant disregard for it by blasting past my local shops at 50mph+. I've had to jump out of the way of one of these f***ing chavs (seriously, he drove straight at me, well above the 30mph speed limit, soon after wheel-spinning out of a junction). These are the 'speeders' who get noticed, partly because of their overwhelmingly excessive speed, partly because of their wheel-spinning, partly because of the pointless exhaust they insist on using.

This is not splitting hairs!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

So, you would have no problem with someone driving at the exat limit of 30mph , in the dark, outside a school, on an icy road? That would be too fast in my opinion, legal ownership of the driver making zero difference.

You change the goal posts to suit your argument, people annoyed by people driving too fast, whether above or below the posted limit, and do not generally make judgements of how you define a 'chav' or on the legal ownership of the car. It makes no odds to me or them, that's why it's not even mentioned in the BCR posted above, no distinction is pertinent or relevant.

I would have no problem with safety cameras forcing drivers to reduce their speed. Safety cameras play an effective role in encouraging drivers to stay within the stated speed limit. Independent research shows that where cameras have been introduced the numbers of killed or seriously injured have fallen by 35%, and the number of vehicles speeding has fallen by 67%. RTTM is allowed for (and has been since the fifties) and even after allowing for RTTM worthwhile benefits are recorded.

"Wheel-spinning' need not accompany speeds regarded as excessive by anyone trying to cross the road.

In general of course I do have a problem (but if the pedestrians are physically segregated, it is single lane with a physical a central reservation, it is at 4:00 am and the road is long and clear without possible hazards…..)


It is relevant as far as drivers are concerned, especially those on non-residential roads (another differentiation you conveniently forget). The well meaning motorist has been tarred with the boyracer/joydier brush. Due to this the well meaning motorist is being penalised because of the poor behaviour of the boyracer and joyriders.


But it will be seen as annoying and intimidating and possibly even threatening to residents nearby. Now do you get it?



Now who’s changing the goal posts.

They play no part in encouraging boyracers and joyriders (and those improperly registered) to keep anywhere near within the limit, yet these are the most irritating, annoying, threatening and above all: dangerous driver group of all.


No it hasn’t. Did we even have speed camera sites in the fifties?
In fact it still isn’t; yes it has been quantified but the SCPs are still quoting effectiveness of their cameras without the adjustment of the known RTTM


Except the benefits were only 20% of what is originally, and that’s before one allows for the possibly greater effect of ‘bias on selection’ – the additional measures placed at camera sites (in this case urban ones).


Please stay on topic or start a new thread.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

http://www.reading.ac.uk/about/newsande ... PR3936.asp

Can you find the question base for the survey.
I looked, and asked, and am none the wiser.
Before quoting information that such a survey gleans it is instructive to look at the question/s that the results are based on.
Only, if the survey questions were (for instance):

Which do you find more antisocial:
1. Driving very fast in a noisy car and killing children
2. Playing the national anthem in your house with the windows and doors shut
3. Mowing the playing field grass when it is too high

Then it is no surprise at the result.
And I could not get a look at the survey base questions.....

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

The answers to the survey are pretty convincing, there is no evidence that the stupid answers you've posited were, in fact, the ones asked, and the results were replicated across age ranges.

I note the scrutiny you apply to surveys that dont reflect the mindset here is not replicated for Steves bogus 74% claim or for the transparently fake copper who posts here.

Double standards, anyone....

stevegarrod writes:

This can't be allowed without proof or retraction. It's libelous.

Re: Bad cyclists
Postby In Gear on Sat Dec 27, 2008 12:06








I have no idea who anyone is here, the arguments presented ought to stand or fall on their own merits.


I am merely positing that it is unlikely that a real, serving police officer would be so profoundly ignorant about the law.

Cyclists cannot have points added to their driving licence even if they cycle past Her Majesty firing laser death rays at the corgis whilst drunk, on fire, cycling the wrong way up a one-way street with no lights, brakes, clothes or eyesight.



If you disagree then feel free to explain why in gear is right.

I agree that all road users who break the law should be punished in the manner laid down by parliament.

But you cannot put points on the driving licence of someone who, quite legally, does not possess a driving licence.

The concept would punish cyclists who are also motorists more severely than cyclists who are not also motorists.

stevegarrod writes:

Right or wrong on opinion is not the same as claiming a regular poster on SAFESPEED is posing as a police officer which in itself is a criminal offence.
Safespeed v2 should watch you.

Statement of fact.
Demeaning in the eyes of his peers, damaging to reputation LIBEL.
I would suggest that you p.m. In Gear with your outrageous claim then either come back, edit your posts and apologise or better still GO AWAY!!!