Safe Speed Forums

No they don't - people get shot all the time!

That mindset helps perpetuate the myth that because a law is made outlawing something, then automatically we are now all safe. A bit like speeding laws, really...

But you're right about making that claim. If someone does something stupid/reckless/dangerous and it causes an accident, then they are to blame.

Everyone (as has been mentioned before on this thread) should take responsibility for their own actions.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Also people get killed or injured in motor vehicle related accidents all the time.
But the laws for gun ownership and use and for car ownership and use are designed to protect us, and work upon the principle that guns and cars are dangerous and the operator bears the greatest burden of responsibility for ensuring the safety of others.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

I beg to differ. A gun/car/pedestrian are perfectly safe.

If you, in whatever capacity (ped, gunman, driver), do not behave appropriately, problems occur... (Apart from mechanical failures)

So is it laws that protect or should we be better educated in how to use guns, cars, pavements?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

You're avin' a larf now! (or going for the "longest thread" record)!

Just one question...

If I buy a chainsaw and cut my leg off with it, is it the chainsaw retailer's fault for selling me it or is the chainsaw manufacturer's fault for making such a dangerous piece of equipment in the first place? I mean, CLEARLY, it can't be MY fault because the chainsaw has much greater potential for causing danger than little ole' me so OBVIOUSLY the thing with the greatest potential to cause danger (or those selling it / manufacturing it) have a greater duty of care than I do!

Look, I don't think this is getting anywhere so, in the absence of a credible response, I'll lay off now. Life's too short. But seriously, just for the record, PLEASE:
1. get over this "he who has the biggest machine is solely to blame" thing!

and

2. If you really want to believe that we owe all our roads today (except motorways) to pedestrians and cyclists, then fair enough but understand that as a motorist, you have to PAY money to the government in order to use the roads. Whether they spend your particular £ on roads or on fighting George & Tony's wars is irrelevant. The point is, they MIGHT spend the money that a motorist gives them in order to use the roads on the roads or they might not. They WON'T spend any of the money pedestrians & cyclists give them in order to use the roads on the roads because pedestrians and cyclists DON'T HAVE TO GIVE THEM ANY MONEY TO USE THE ROADS!

Now of course I'm not suggesting that this is wrong or that it should change but surely you can see how the motorist feels they might just have a teensy weensy little claim to the temprary use of 20' of tarmac now and again?

What is the point of this thread!!!!!!!?????????

Dondare......what is your point????

It started off a normal thread until someone jumped in and started taking the P$ss.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Who said laws protect??? I don't think they do. I think they are a deterrent, not a cure-all, and a means by which to prosecute if they are flouted. Did the hanging penalty 'protect' us from crime? It didn't stop Ruth Eliss. Next...

Does an oil tanker have to give way to a canoe? Does a Boeing have to avoid a Cessna? Does a mouse give way to a cat? etc. etc.

PS. I know that's not you in the bubble wrap Sixy cuz I saw you on the rouges gallery and if I were 25 years younger I'd ask you for a date

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Yeah, I got a photo of you getting freaky...



pop pop

I'm a bit late jumping in on this thread but I'm not convinced you're right about that. Perhaps I'm speaking just for myself but - anyway - my view is that drivers do not consider braking distances in terms of either distance or speed and time. In normal road driving, I don't think we assess braking points by reference to being a given distance from a hazard or by being a given time from a hazard. I think we choose a braking point (and, extrapolating from that a speed) which we know is earler than the latest braking point at which we can, with maximum braking effort, avoid crashing into the hazard. We then modulate our actual braking effort by reference to the effect we perceive of the braking effect of the pedal input. If we appear to be losing speed too slowly, we braker more firmly and contrariwise.

That braking point varies from driver to driver and, for any driver, from time to time. I may choose to (relatively) late brake up to a roundabout for some reason (or just for the hell of it) but, unless I'm behaving irresponsibly, I will always start braking before my absolute latest braking point.

I absolutely agree about not planning to use maximum braking in normal driving.

But let's say we're on a track and driving pretty quick. There are no braking point boards out. Somehow we pick pretty accurate braking points even though we don't know the circuit very well. We might allow a margin for error, but it's pretty small. Somehow we do make an accurate judgement.

On the road things are similar. We choose conservative braking points and allow a decent margin for errors and surprises.

In order to make the judgement we must use some criterion or criteria. Obviously speed affects braking points, but we seem to adapt very easily. Having 'studied myself' in such circumstances over a number of years, I'm 'pretty certain' that my judgements are time based.

Interestingly after a long high speed run my ability to estimate lower speeds in miles per hour is badly affected (this is where 50 feels like 30 when you come off a motorway), BUT my ability to select a braking point isn't affected at all. This observation is a substantial contributor to the Safe Speed arguments - we must be managing 'speed' in two completely different ways, or our braking judgements would be affected in exactly the same way as our mph judgements.

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

People really just use what feels right, which I believe is far short to what is actually needed. If we're honest, most of us would probably rear-end a vehicle in front if they suddenly and unexpectedly dropped the anchors for no reason. The reason there aren't more rear end collisions is because we all tend to look ahead and at the surrounds so that if there is an unexpected hazard you brake at the same time, or earlier than he does, to avoid the dreaded panic stop

When I look at how some people drive I could swear they're looking no further than their nose. Speaking for myself, I know if someone absolutely nailed their car to the floor for no reason I'd probably hit them, but I'd hope to scrub enough speed off for it to be just a small dink as apposed to an airbager.

I think most of us follow too closely, but no so close that it's threatening to the guy in front. When we overtake a vehicle, especially on a single track road, at the point just before you pull out to go past you are most likely too close to the vehicle in front and of course you would have your foot on the accelerator, not hovering over the brake. You expect the driver in front not to deliberately brake for no reason at this point.

Talking of what feels right, I believe if a survey was done asking pedestrians to look at cars passing by which we know to be doing five mph over the limit they wouldn't notice, or mind, so long as it didn't feel excessive. As a pedestrian myself, I simply look at traffic passing by and make a judgement about the traffic and whether it seems excessive for the road or conditions. It's only the pro-camera brigade which are obsessed with the numerical value, not the average driver or pedestrian.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Takes longer to drive from Barnet to London during the rush hour than it does to cycle it. Motorists driving into London are the ones wasting their time.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

News flash. There is a country OUTSIDE london...

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

You should see how long this thread is on C+

If you cut your own leg off then some lawer would try to get you to sue the supplier (for not ensuring that you were competent to use it, perhaps) or the manufacture (for nor having sufficient built-in safeguards) and you might even win. But what would happen if you bought a chainsaw and then accidently cut off someone else's leg? The lawyer would be on your case.

and

Even pedestrians and cyclists pay tax. (Some of which gets spent on roads, and some on invading oily Iraq.)

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

And a lot of it has even worse problems with traffic congestion. It's quicker by bike (and for short journey on foot) in any town or city for much of the day.

_________________
Occasionally slightly trollish.

Actually the chainsaw's a bad example because you need a licence to buy the more powerful ones...

HOWEVER. If you were minding your own business, working with a chainsaw and some idiot came along and intentionally put their arm on the blade then it wouldn't be the chainsaw operator's fault, would it?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Depends where you buy it. You can buy some pretty powerful ones quite freely in the US and there is no personal import restriction other than duty/VAT.

I always find it a little strange that I can buy a chainsaw and use it, but I need a licence to hire one.

I know why, but as I say, on the face of it, it is strange

I know that we have to see licences before we can sell replacement chains...

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

A bit like a car then?

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