Safe Speed Forums

I'm a realist that bases my opinion on experience, you dream and base your "experience" on what you read.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

If you carefully read my posts you'll find that I think old people should freeze to death, yes.

Muppet.

really, I haven't read what you say about old people but that doesn't suprise me

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Oh, I'm so sorry to tell you that someone must have hacked into your account and wrote:



i.e. a few more reasons than cyclists. Whoever it was forgot to mention sharp bends, roundabouts, and rutted roads.
But he got more right than you did. Any luck with the "big brother" state stuff, or are you getting a bit tired now?

your posts go round in the same circle as my dog chasing his tail so I do turn away and miss some of them occasionaly , knowing that they are usually the same as the one just before but remind me what you think of those old people again.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Oh, I could think of one person we could do without! Oh, come on, I'm only pulling your leg!

I don't think we're a million miles apart. If only you'd give up with this idea that we're supposed to love
speed cameras. Come on, it's just too preposterous.

That's right. On roads where there is strictly limited interaction with vulnerable road users then accidents involving vulnerable road users will be limited. To suggest that this demonstrates that higher speeds AMONG vulnerable road users would be safe is a blatant misunderstanding of how motorways work. If cyclists and pedestrians were allowed on motorways anyone rash enough to do so would be at risk of a collision. Simple!

This campaign cites the low collision rates on motorways as somehow proof that speeding is safe.

A clearly fallacious claim, based on a probable willful misinterpretation.

Big Brother monitored everyone, safety cameras monitor only the law breakers, me and other law abiding drivers have nothing to fear and nothing to worry about.

That this campaign relies so heavily on such a silly assertion would worry me, were I in charge.

If only you'd give up with this idea that we're supposed to love
speed cameras. Come on, it's just too preposterous.

Would you like to show me where I said anything like that?

It kind of weakens your argument if, instead of addressing the issues I've raised, you make up arguments I've never put forward...

So Oliver, what exactly do you mean by the word "speeding"?



"This campaign cites the low collision rates on motorways as somehow proof that speeding is safe."

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

You've obviously ignored " the question on other "needless" deaths!

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

There are two kinds of speeding, exceeding the posted limit and unnecessarily fast speeds within the limit.

The first is a fixed limit, arguing about the fairness or otherwise of the limit is like saying it's not under-age cos the girl's 15 years and 364 days old or it's not theft cos it's less than a fiver.

Doing 30, in a 30 zone at school chuccking out time would fall into the second category, so I support 20mph zones around all schools and the urban areas mentioned upthread.

The danger posed by speeding drivers is externalised, by which I mean the risk is assumed not by the driver but by those who share road space with him. For instance, a cyclist jumping a red light is suicidal, a motorist jumping a red light is homicidal. Yes, speeders often kill themselves, but they're more likely to kill someone else.

It seems you are unable to distinguish between the cause of something, and an aggravating factor. Let me try to make it very simple for you, though you must forgive me if its still too complex, as I am not a primary school teacher:

Things that cause accidents are things like pulling out into traffic without sufficient lookout, or driving whilst so drunk you are unable to stop the car from veering into oncoming traffic. Aggravating factors are things that affect the severity of the consequence of the cause, ie the accident (setting aside the semantic debate about calling them accidents, for the sake of simplicity), such as the speed, which can make the accident worse than it might otherwise have been, or lack of insurance, which has negative financial implications. These factors do not cause the accident, and would cease to be factors at all if the causes of accidents were eliminated.

You bemoan the lawlessness of the driving population, and yet advocate the replacement of human police officers on traffic duties with automatons. I think you are somewhat confused. Perhaps if you remember that we have two ears and only one mouth (or two eyes and one keyboard) and try to learn a little more before pitching your oar in then you might be surprised at the sense the SS campaign advocates.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

You've chosen to come to a forum for a website who's opinions are quite clearly contrary to yours, you can't very well cry foul when the majority of people there disagree with you, grow up.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

You bemoan the lawlessness of the driving population, and yet advocate the replacement of human police officers on traffic duties with automatons.


I


SAID


NO

SUCH


THING.

What is it with the comprehensibility issue of some posters here, I said I support MORE trafpol.

You sir, are a liar.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Whose.

I'm happy to engage in debate.

I don't think calling me a dog, old lady or nazi is proper grown-up debate. The relentless misrepresentation is amusing too.

"unnecessarily fast speeds within the limit."

Explain please oliver

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

You sir, are a liar.

I would suggest comparing efforts to encourage recycling with genocidal mass murder is an indication of a troubled soul, feel free to explain why you disagree?

The limit is just that, an upper limit, NOT A TARGET.

In other words, to repeat myself yet again for your benefit, doing 30 in a 30 zone is by no means appropriate in every circumstance.

so is doing 30 in a 30MPH zone, "speeding"?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.