Safe Speed Forums

There is a thread the refers to you in the Clubhouse, but it is discussing your posts and posting style, not you. There are many threads in the Clubhouse complementary to those in public forum.

hjeg2, I'm utterly fed up with you consistently moaning and bringing down the quality of this forum, and I can't wait for you to be banned. Go away, you're incredibly annoying.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Whilst I understand your sentiments, just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't automatically make them a moron. They are merely unenlightened, and that's our job, to help them see the light.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Id agree 100% with you on the first part. However, they cannot claim to be unenlightened any longer, they have seen compelling arguments from this side and yet they just continue to ignore sense.
How low do we have to go to ensure they can understand the subject matter correctly?
Weepej continues to bleat on about any speed faster than 0mph being "dangerous", but cannot qualify it with any real examples of the dangers of travelling at 1mph, yet he claims to have travelled at 60mph on a country road.
To me these are the statements of an imbecelic troll, not from a poster who wishes to find any kind of enlightenment.
This forum, this site, is far too tolerant of such blantant attempts to skew the campaign by trotting out claptrap such as the example above.
How many times has such activity been noted here? Dozens.
I dont think the so called "pro" lobby have any real grasp of the situation, if they did they wouldnt keep making themselves look so foolish by continuing to adhere to "speed kills"; that notion has been comprehensively destroyed by all right minded posters yet they persist in being wilfully vexatious and obtuse.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Obviously not compelling enough!
As low as we have to! The "Speed Kills" mantra is so firmly ingrained now, we have a much tougher job of getting people to see that it's not true - just goes to show how effective Govt spin is.
Again, we know that it's not "dangerous". We know risk has increased, but driving is about managing risk.
Again, no - not an imbecilic troll, just someone who hasn't seen through the Govt spin yet.
Just because people don't understand, doesn't mean we should be less tolerant of their views and ban them. I think people are only banned for trolling or ad hominem and I don't think weepej is guilty of either.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Whether the 'facts' contradict that opinion or not, the opinion is still valid. That's why it's called an 'opinion'.


Weepej. I haven't read this whole thread - I have better things to do with my life, but something you posted on the last page struck me.



My bold.

The fact that there may be hazards that cannot be seen is surely one of the considerations when selecting a safe speed? Surely the best course of action (short of not driving anywhere ever) is to reduce the risk as far as is practigable by, amongst other things, choosing an appropriate speed?

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

Bottyburp's last two posts say one helluvalot. There is generally too little patience for those on "the other side". It is just such a great shame that it only takes one impatient person - on either side - to turn what could have been a gem of a debate into a pi$$ing contest.

Sixy's point is also very sage. Occasionally, just occasionally, the safest speed may well be faster rather than slower. YThink of a situation where you've been able to see up a couple of alleys in youyr long rig, and confirmed they are clear, but that if you persist at, say, 10 mph, it is possible a dog or kid could make his way from garden to alley to road - and see the slow-moving wheel and go under it. A faster speed might be adjudged sufficient to be clear of the alley before any child would have time to leave a garden, get to the alley and to the road before the artic is clear.

This is NOT the same point Pete317 has made on another thread. Similar, but a judgement rather than statistical probability.

Or rather it is about others more than you. Bad language.. refererals to Paul in the manner I picked up Steve Charlton over. I think I did so politely. But his post was a bit of a give away as to who he really was... You know the sort of thing.. disrespectful to the deceased and posted to cause upset to his partner and those who had met the guy in the flesh and not on t'internet.

The thread is not "bitching about anyone" - but more as to how we can keep some folk from flaming. I know one of us has contacted regulars in the past to urge them to be a little more .. er .. tactful when thinking of a suitable reply.



Now my wife tried to explain what Deltaf was really getting at .. though perhaps as Wildy suggested a slight tweek in the wording and you may not have interpreted the post as you appear to have taken it all.

Basically a general comment that doubling a dose of medicine really can kill. Overdoses are fatal.. and we are overdosing on cameras to the extent we have criminals who just are not fazed by CCTV, talking cams which reprimand and a hard core who do not have that respect for policemen, teachers, parents or any other decent minded adult.


I have a lovely rant courtesy of the Bolton press and my two younger sisters Jazz and Ju-Ju.

It will be in Chat as soon as I get round to it Hjeg2 and weepej.. I honestly do not think either me or my wife have offended you and I doubt IG has either. He posts more or less what the law says.. but in a nice way I honestly think his and Ian's and Stephen's and cam op's contributions help change attitudes for the better out there given nowty drivers will look on here when copped.


Now the pair of you and the rest.. just draw some breath and let's just say that like my wife .. I disapprove of using hand held phones or large messy butties which ooze fillings when I am driving. Parking up to enjoy properly is much more civilised.


However, placing all faith in a camera is a It does not save lives, prevent, educate or minimise the behaviour. We do need our police.

















Now as for speeding above the limit.. sometimes you need to just get out of the way of a danger.. or diffuse it. Sometimes it is more appropriate to the safety of all.. as proved to be the case when Wildy was about to complete a very legal overtake of a convoy of caravans and return to lane with her safety gaap intact. The lead caravan started to increase his speed ( and was illegal). To complete safely given she was alrady nose ahead at the time.. she just gave a light press of her right foot and that Jag of hers was away and back in L1 with a safe margin - and easing back to legality within a second. To have dropped back and aborted would have meant slowing in L2 on a motorway to below 60 mph and was dangerous given the flow in L3 and coming up in normal flows behind her. She did not go that much over either. A very respectable 80 mph I was a couple of cars behind her and I had to do likewise because of this idiot

As did our own Speedfinder General who thought no one was watching him at the time.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

As a HGV driver (for a living) and a car driver & BAB (Born Again Biker)!

I totally agree with the statement about exceeding the limit to get out of a situation where through no fault of your own you have to exceed the limit FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY as it has happened to me on numerous occasions especially on the bike when I have been overtaking someone and they either haven,t seen me or they have taken the view of "Thou Shalt not Pass" and in those circumstances then it is a case of "Self Preservation" comes first and to hell with who caused it!

_________________
"There But For The Grace of God Go I"

"He Who Ain,t Made Mistakes Ain,t Made Anything"

Spannernut

Yup, I never described it as dangerous, that's spin on DeltaF's part.

Yes, driving is about "managing" risk (for some, and some enjoy actively seeking risk on public roads), but the risk is always there, no matter how good a driver you are, which is why I'd never describe travelling at any speed as "safe".

And you don't think people can be injured or killed by vehicles travelling at 1mph?

Weepej, you are convinced that driving at any speed is dangerous. So, do you drive?

I do not drive as my wonky eyesight makes me less-than-confident about my ability to really properly see what is happening. I doubt I am legally barred from driving. It's just I feel more comfortable not driving.

If you do drive, and your level of concern is so great, why not join me in not driving?

_________________
www.thatsnews.org.uk / www.thatsnews.blogspot.com / http://thatsmotoring.blogspot.com/

Come now, lets not get ourselves twisted up in a semantic debate. I'm sure we can all agree with weepej's point that there is risk associated with driving. After all, there is risk associated with everything we do as humans. There are dozens of people killed worldwide annually though mishaps whilst getting out of bed!

Thing is, we can't ban sleeping, since that has obvious benefit, as do beds. Getting up cannot be banned, since without that action nothing would be accomplished. Thus, we have to accept that getting out of bed is an acceptable risk, which must be borne for the benefit gained subsequently.

The real trick is getting the risk/benefit balance correct. Penalising hundreds of thousands of motorists who do not raise the risk levels appreciably through their actions is clearly not addressing the problem, so perhaps focusing on those who weepej accurately identifies as actively seeking risk on the public roads would do a hell of a lot more to redress the balance. Sadly the speed cameras are utterly ineffective in this task, so we need a different mechanism. Traffic police?

Bombus, what has changed since you sent me those PMs? You were nice to me in those and I haven't done anything different - all I did was point out an ad hominem. And in what way am I consistently moaning and bringing down the quality of this forum? Surely someone who says that someone else is stupid is doing that?



In what way? If you don't like me mentioning someone's ad hominem then shouldn't you tell them not to come out with the ad hominem in the first place?

21 pages of trolling and counter trolling, and another thread ruined before I even knew it was there. Oh joy.

Because it would make it that bit easier to keep to the speed limit and because it would stop people like you calling me a hypocrite when I suggest to anyone who has been caught accidentally breaking the speed limit to get one fitted.



It's possible that the real delay on this technology becoming widely introduced is on the government side.



But as I said before, there are a whole number of factors you need to take into consideration before saying that there has been no discernible benefit - you can't just say it like that as if it's a fact. And tell me, why are you so bothered about this but not about CCTV cameras?

_________________
Before you moan about middle-lane hoggers, check that you yourself are obeying all the rules of the road.

Sorry, no can do. Proposal rejected. Does not compute.

I regret to say I do er, err, in that respect - just on the odd occasion of course.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

What factors are those?

_________________
Simon

Not sure I ever called you a hypocrite but it's a 20-odd page thread and I can't be bothered trawling it just now! If I felt that breaking the speed limit was, in itself, as dangerous as I get the impression you do, I'd probably take particular care not to do it - accidentally or otherwise.



I'm afraid I CAN say it just like that too! It always amuses me that Scamera partnerships the length and breadth of the country can crow about "their" apparent success in reducing KSIs without taking any other factors into account but somehow anyone who dares have the temerity to suggest that they're NOT having the effect they claim isn't considering all the factors!

And who says I'm not bothered about CCTV anyway? It might be true to say that I'm not AS bothered about CCTV but I don't like it!

I meant in general and in the future.



You really don't need to use language like "dares to have the temerity"! Anyway, I'm not talking about Camera partnerships but the Four-year evaluation report and actually I shouldn't have said exactly what I said above but instead that there HAS been a discernible benefit - a 17% reduction in fatal and serious collisions at (fixed) camera sites after allowing for RTM and trend.