Safe Speed Forums

Just shows the sort of morons who are in the pro-speed lobby - brainless swearing; shows you have no answer.
I'll repeat the question:
What is wrong with enforcing speed limits in North Wales?
(replies accepted from people with the intelligence NOT to swear)

Not averse to chucking a little invective around yourself are you?


http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 443#165443

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

And the other 99% of us?
Who is pro-speed anyway? You'll find we're pro-safety (which in our opinion also means anti-camera). Didn't I say that to you already?

It is rather telling that a greater ratio of those people who are pro-camera use offensive language than those who aren't.


Nothing, so long as the limit isn't set needlessly low.

You can talk. Anyone who goes onto your forum and tells the truth about road safety is immediately subjected to every insult under the sun. You've had more real answers here than one would ever get there. You all know really that we're talking perfect sense, and that's what gets under your skin so much. How about being big enough to admit that you were wrong?

What is your reason for being here? Why won't you enter into a proper discussion with anyone? Are you just trying to waste our time and callously take advantage of recent events? What do you think that says about you?

_________________
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)

Hi - welcome to Safe Speed.
We try here to discuss the aspect of all car control, and we welcome all people's points of view. Paul has made clear that all people's opinion are welcomed and to be discussed openly and with respect.
May I step in here a little ...
We are all happy to discuss each aspect that you may care to discuss. But may we please do this slowly and with clarity.
Each point can be interesting and we can all learn.
There are many aspects to speeding and the website is crammed full of many statistics to help explain points, the physiological, the physics and driver techniques and driver ability. Many areas have clear conclusions and there have been great support from various professors that Paul submitted his work to, and they found Paul's work to be impressive and very clear and acceptable in it's conclusions. I do hope that we may guide you to these areas.
Our aim is always for Safety, it is a great shame that perhaps you have missed this vital point about the Safe Speed Campaign.

Perhaps you may not agree with us about our thoughts, but I hope that we may too respect your processes too, and your conclusions.
However please discuss them with us and we shall be only too happy to engage with you.

For your reference I am Paul's partner and am very concerned about the drop in driving standards by the average driver, and the conclusions that the Government is making.
After all safety cannot be measured in miles per hour.
So let's *talk* - what are your conclusions (so far) and how did you get there ? - please.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Sorry about the language there-I forgot SS doesn't have a 'Sweary Mary' switched on. Edited it earlier.

It's interesting to note that my language there teased out the standard 'You've sworn therefore I'm right' response that's trotted out by everyone in the wrong desperately scrabbling for something to be righteous about.


A debate rather than a slanging match would be nice now Is it possible to have one with a C+ troll or are we forever condemned to being shouted down with falsehoods,irrelevancies and preconcieved ideas while being ignored? I'd be interested to learn how you've arrived at your point of view too.

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.

Oh dear, broke the rule you laid down in the same sentence...

Accusing somebody of being a troll, and what's more aligning them with a group that you assume other people in this group are hostile to is proper ad hominen, trolling itself even.

Now slanging matches are NOT allowed in these forums. We welcome debate. Please refer to 'Slanging matches' as has clearly been stated by Paul.

So, what would you like to discuss ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Pro-speed - people who think they should be able to drive faster than the speed limit
Pro-safety - people who support measures taken to stop peole speeding - this includes the use of cameras
Why are you an expert on what is a safe speed for each road?
Why do I consider safe speed to be extremist?:
Links to websites selling speed camera detectors - the only reason people use these is to get away with speeding
Use of words such as 'scam' to describe speed cameras
Hate campaign against speed cameras - these cameras reduce casulties; why are you against that?
Insults against the chief Constable of North Wales - a person who wants to make the roads safe
Insults against the road safety partnerships - grouops of people who want to make the roads safe
Claiming motorists who are caught speeding are being persecuted - would you say people who break into houses and get caught are being persecuted?

I think his post above is pretty indicative that reasoned debate isn't ever going to happen-nor is any logical analysis of any of the SS arguments. Everything he's posted so far smacks of 'LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU'.

It's quite telling that he's accusing me of being pro speeding yet has no idea about any of us here.I drive an off-roader which is a nightmare to drive above 70mph-the fastest I'm comfortable at in it is 65 and during the day I'm doing 56mph in a truck. I don't personally break speed limits but I'm still vehemently opposed to scameras-for most of the reasons that SS states.

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.

My bold. Prove me wrong.

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.

To add to the above response:

Pro-speed - people who think they should be able to drive faster than the speed limit
Incorrect. If limits were be set properly then there would be no problem. The importance of speed limits are made clear in the campaign manifesto (among other campaign pages).

Pro-safety - people who support measures taken to stop peole speeding - this includes the use of cameras
Actually it doesn’t. Cameras have been (at least partly) responsible for the decline in trafpol activity (that’s right, the SS campaign support the use of trafpol). Cameras only detect a technical infringement and can prosecute those registered legally. Trafpol detect and immediately put a stop to all manner of poor or dangerous driving, regardless of whether the driver can be traced. Our reliance on cameras have made our roads more dangerous – as supported by the loss of the national fatality trend. Cameras also force errant behaviour from otherwise completely safe drivers.

Why are you an expert on what is a safe speed for each road?
We all are otherwise we would all simply remain at the speed limit regardless of the conditions – now that’s dangerous!

Use of words such as 'scam' to describe speed cameras
This is a very apt description. The camera partnerships deliberately grossly over-exaggerate the effectiveness of their speed cameras; they always conveniently exclude the very significant effects of RTTM, long-term trend and ‘Bias on Selection’ from their claims.
It has been proven that for the average urban camera site, with a basline drop of a 55% drop of KSI at the sites, 45% of that is due to RTTM and long-term trend. Bias on selection is likely to account for most of the, if not more than, the remaining 10%!

Hate campaign against speed cameras - these cameras reduce casulties; why are you against that?
Because we believe they don’t, definitely not by the amounts claimed, almost certainly not at all, very possibly making the situation worse.

Insults against the chief Constable of North Wales - a person who wants to make the roads safe
Insults against the road safety partnerships - grouops of people who want to make the roads safe
Those supporting the campaign want to make the roads safe for all road users (we are calling for more trafpol afterall) – so why do you feel the need to insult us?

Claiming motorists who are caught speeding are being persecuted - would you say people who break into houses and get caught are being persecuted?
Only one of these has the intent to deprive others, the other does not.

Why would I use scam...

Well hants put up camera routes without checking the signs
Then they failed to check them every 6 months
Then they failed to check them every time the enforced
Then they failed to rectify any of them when a 100 page report came in showing the defects
When they lost the court case they refused to refund 1000's of tickets
When people put in court costs they have had no reply in 3 months
the chief constable said they had suspended enforcement, but the parked a van there again.
3 months after losing the court case the signs have not been rectified.
link

Also it is easier to type scammers than "safety camera partnerships"
and its not got a lot to do with safety.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

I totally disagree, if the speed limits were set higher many people would still drive at the limit plus a bit.

Hmmm, with a lot of caveats.

Oh, who cares. If you want insults against The North Wales Mullah try THIS site.
As for speeding: who cares ?. I've not been apprehended for speeding for over 30 years, and since I drive a van I'm not likely to be. Although I do keep a photcopy of the highway code speed limits page. Since the police don't know the difference between car-derived and non-car derived.
Scam ?
Ahh, so when one safety camera partnership was found to have bought 3 plasma screen televisons for its offices, that was an entertainment cost ?
Indeed, going through their books was a very lucrative source of humour at one time, before they got dispossed of the money and had to plead for cash.
Got a satnav, with safety camera POIs', very entertaining. Totally pointless, since most roadspeeds are set by lorries. And they can only do 40 on a sc road.
I didn't say anything about people caught driving higher than the set limit being persecuted (I think you'll find it's a criminal offence now as well). But I do think that serving police officers who are similarly apprehended should also be prosecuted. Such is rarely the case however.
In any case, since even the DfT says that 5% of accidents feature speed in excess of limit, it follows that speed cameras will only ever stop 5% of accidents. Maybe.
I hear that the police may well start prosecuting people whose cars fall to bits after going over speed humps for destruction and use faults ! (the ones in rushden are concrete edged....I suspect a councillor has a cat-replacement workshop somewhere)

Every time you drive at 30mph you are almost breaking the law. Have you ever almost burgled a house, or almost mugged someone, or almost robbed a bank?

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

IMO only 1 caveat: appropriately set limits, or their use of discretion where the limits are set inappropriately low.


Only the nutters would travel at speeds significantly beyond that appropriate; the great majority of drivers would choose a safe speed.
If the camera trigger threshold were set to catch the nutters (or those approaching them) then the situation wouldn't be so bad (assuming cameras didn't replace trafpol - which they do)

I see this all the time where I live. There are loads of single track roads with a 60MPH limit on them. I can't remember the last time I saw someone doing ANYTHING LIKE 60 on one! OK, I see some people driving faster than what I BELIEVE to be an appropriate speed, but that's not the argument here.

Serious quation...
Would they? Really? How can you be so sure of this?
What factors would they choose to consider in their evaluation; would they include the effect they are having on those outside of their vehicle?
Can we prove any of this?

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.