Safe Speed Forums

That depends if you have expanded the sphere of reference while I wasn't looking.

If it's still about the smaller road safety arguments, I don't see any real difficulty in remembering to ask the bigger contextual questions.

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

No, not at all, perhaps I'm missing your point.



There's no doubt we all agree that the overarching aim is improving road safety in the UK. Once we get away from that and down into the weeds, the whys and wherefors so to speak, we encounter belief issues.

Ahh, yes. I see what you mean. Not only beliefs, but seriously entrenched beliefs. And everyone has them, which is really quite strange because few have the expertise.

I think it's because we wouldn't trust ourselves to use the roads if we didn't convince ourselves that we knew how they worked. This is big with drivers because the real skills that keep us safe are invisible subconscious skills that are apparently outside our control.

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

Quite so. And, sorry to put it this way, but many feel comfortable dismissing what SS has to say because they do not consider you to be one of the experts.

That's the facade, anyway. But in the areas that matter the only folk that actually do that are the ones with a vested interest. It's by no means the 'problem' that some would like you to believe.

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

I came across this showing the history of the AA:

http://www.theaa.com/aboutaa/history.html

Interesting origins yet look at what they have become!

Far from regretting their early motive, they actually continue to embrace it:


Well I never!

That’s an interpretation, but I don’t think you’re quite right.

I’m absolutely happy to obey the law, so long as the law reflects the spirit of what is to be achieved – road safety. Unfortunately, because of the way the law is abused, it really can be perfectly safe to disobey the law in a great many cases. It doesn’t have to be this way, as earlier discussion has highlighted.

All road users must look out for/be considerate to each other; there has to be a balance of responsibility but this isn’t happening.
- Pedestrians cross the mouth of a motorway but fails – instead of using the underpass a few meters away. What is the response of the council? Erect a speed camera and drop the motorway speed limit!
- Pedestrians cross a dual carriageway with a narrow physical separation (~2 feet) instead of using the pedestrian lights a few meters away; the rail is short enough for pedestrians to climb over, but tall enough to create major difficulty. What is the response of the council? Erect a speed camera, leave the rail as it is!
Both theses are examples of camera installations local to me. The latter is outside a swimming pool where I see parents and their children climbing over the rail. I view this, with despair, from the gym facilities at the pool complex (Victoria Swimming Centre).

It didn't have to be quite right. It was a broad statement that just had to convey the gist of the point; the minutae are not vitally important however your words will do equally as well if you prefer. Whatever, the point remains unchanged.

Oh look:

And the RAC too: http://www.royalautomobileclub.co.uk/history.asp

contains:

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

When I took my 2nd bike test (the one I passed) I got a rollocking off the examiner for sticking to the speed limit when trying to turn right off an urban DC - the traffic in L3 was travelling at some 70mph (50mph limit) so he vocally pointed out to me that I was in MUCH more danger sticking to 50mph than I was just getting on with it. I didn't get any faults for the menueover though. This was in 2002.

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

Forgive me for pointing it out, but we're not in a place where drivers have to have a flag-bearer going ahead of them are they?

So, Paul,

Let's bring this question to it's simplest form, in order to fully understand where you are coming from.

Your words (the full text can be seen in an earlier post)-

I think the points broker is a brilliant idea too and I've added it to
my web site.

And, when referring to suggestions on how to evade conviction for speeding and thusbreaking the law-

One of a series of good ideas on:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/avoid.html

Removing all assumptions, please could you put these words into context?

So you're saying that you stuck to the speed limit, and he passed you? Well done.

Sounds like she was given a bit of sage advice on how to avoid getting into an unecessarily hazardous situation.
When I took my IAM test my examiner encouraged me to 'pinch a bit' in terms of speed when passing other vehicles on the motorway or dual carriageway. This was to ensure the maneouvre was completed expediently and thus avoid conflict with other vehicles. There were times when I was doing an indicated speed of 81-82 mph.

No, she was saying that the examiner would still have passed her even if she had exceeded the speed limit – just like POD pointed out earlier.

As you very well know I was researching all aspects of speed camera policy as a hobby. I've told you time and again. Now pack it in with the slur attempts. No one is interested.

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

Exactly.


There are some odd occasions when you would blip over to get out of danger.

Rule of thumb would be to consider whether or not an overtake would land uou into compromising the law. But .. I know our team use professional judgement in accordance with the road conditions. We call it "intelligent enforcement" meaning that we will recognise a genuine situation as opposed to an OTT idiot and we do nail this type as a priority consideration. Likewise - we have a little word with a muppet who cuts up a cyclist or horse rider .. or other car driver...

It's call "policing and serving the public good" A bit "old fashioned" .. but then we are up here

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

On the contrary. There are many people who are very interested.

Please explain how your use of the words "brilliant idea" and "good ideas" fit in to your research explanation. Surely you can see that it doesn't fit? Or do you not understand what I'm asking?

"Brilliant ideas" and "good ideas" represent your view of the suggestions, do they not? Where do they come into play with research?

Not a slur. Merely asking you to explain yourself.

You've asked about a million times, and you're not going to get an answer beyond what you've already been told, several times. Paul obviously started this site as a hobby/interest. Its quite clear to anybody with half a brain that the page you keep waffling on about was authored well before anybody became aware of the larger safety implications of current policy.

You clearly want Paul to ban you, so you can go back to C+ and receive warm applause for your valiant efforts.

You're welcome any time here, to discuss road safety. Why don't you turn the clock back a few weeks to when you were making contributions to the discussion, instead of trolling out the same old lines now that you clearly have run out of things to suggest?

You obviously can't find any real fault with most of the proposals on Safespeed, despite your best efforts.

Yup, and the contributions came to a point where there is a valid question that Mr Smith avoids. Is it a case of the emperor's new clothes?

I am trying to ask a valid question. Like it or not, tedious or not, Paul has not given an answer to this specific question that makes sense. Or do you think his answer does make sense?

Do you think that Paul's 'research' excuse tallies up with the words that he used? Do you really?

If he bans me for quoting his words and asking him to explain them, then so be it.

Far from running out of things to suggest, you know fair well that over on the dark side the suggestions continue to be raised. Mr Smith chooses which to answer.

All I want to know is the truth. Paul's comments that I have quoted and his explanation for them are obviously not the truth, as they don't match. If he admitted that he thought differently then all credit to him for being honest. But he isn't.