Safe Speed Forums

It always comes back to speeding becasue there are too many morons who have no respect for speed limits or the safety of the public - all those so-called safety groups that are extremely thinly disguised pro-speed organisations and have hate campaigns against anyone who has any concern at all for public safety. Plus, so-called 'programmes' like 'top gear' with (cretin) clarkson, (moron) may and (theres nothing wrong with speeding - whoops - Ive just crashed AGAIN) hammond promoting selfish & dangerous activities. anyone who is against public safety is too thick to be allowed to drive.

... and start using you collective brain cell.

Are you here to debate ... ?

all you speed feaks - GROW UP and start using you collective brain cell.

I am a motorist, but with at least one BIG difference to the majority of motirists - I RESPECT the law and public safety - I KNOW that the faster someone drives the bigger danger they are, unlike the moronic pro-speed, top gear loving idiots who seems to think (if they are capable of thought) that speed limits don't apply to them. don't forget, that prat of a racing car dirver, lewis hamilton, got himself banned for deliberately ignoring speed limits in France. all you speed feaks - GROW UP and start using you collective brain cell.

I am a motorist, but with at least one BIG difference to the majority of motirists - I RESPECT the law and public safety - I KNOW that the faster someone drives the bigger danger they are, unlike the moronic pro-speed, top gear loving idiots who seems to think (if they are capable of thought) that speed limits don't apply to them. don't forget, that prat of a racing car dirver, lewis hamilton, got himself banned for deliberately ignoring speed limits in France. all you speed feaks - GROW UP and start using you collective brain cell.

:? Is there any need for that at all?

Jon

Yes there was a need for that - unfortunately, there are too many motorists (and campaign groups) with no respect for speed limits or public safety - all they are interested in is getting cheap thrills by breaking the law and endangering innocent people at the same time. Until these morons start taking responsibility for their actions/emands, there will always, unfortunately be a need.

What is it about this campaign that makes you think that all it is interested in is 'cheap thrills by breaking the law etc etc etc'?

Me an idiot? I've been looking through some of the insane rantings by the road-lobby morons .......

what any right-minded person (obviously NOT anyone connected with the road lobby)

By the way - have any of you read what George Monbiot wrote about your founder? Very intersting indeed........

OK, can you link to any of these, er, rantings so we can all share what you've been reading then?

All these people turn, as a final resort, to a man by the name of Paul Smith, who runs a campaign called Safe Speed. He’s quoted everywhere whenever there is a speeding story in the news. He claims to have found, through statistical analysis, that “speed cameras make our roads more dangerous.”(17)

In 2005, he challenged me to a radio debate. I accepted, and floored him with a simple question. Has he published his analysis in a peer-reviewed journal?(18) A peer-reviewed journal subjects new scientific claims to expert scrutiny. Without peer-review, those of us who aren’t experts can’t tell whether they are a work of genius or total hogwash. No, he hadn’t. In fact he had been asked by the leading journal in the field (Accident Analysis and Prevention) to submit his work for review, but he hadn’t taken up the offer as he didn’t “have time”. (He went on to boast that he had spent 10,000 hours compiling his website.) But he said he would seek to publish a peer-reviewed paper within six months.

I rang him on Friday to ask how he was getting on. “I never did see peer review as a particular need,” he answered. “I mean for heaven’s sake, there’s so much peer-reviewed crap out there that it’s just not a modus operandi for us.”(19) So just what is the status of his evidence? Beside the statements on his website, Smith lists “source, justification and links”. His central claim is as follows: “We simply don’t believe that a significant proportion of accidents are caused by exceeding the speed limit.”(20) If he cannot demonstrate that this is true, his entire case collapses. Its source, justification and links? He cites this and only this. “Pure opinion, based on considerable driving experience.”

www.monbiot.com

my support of public safety