Safe Speed Forums

Regardless of whatever posted speed limit you would have on that road, will you or will you not admit that the second situation is safer than the first?

Perhaps this is your idea of utopia..

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I know I'm never going to get an answer to my question from any of you "is the second situation safer than the first?" A simple Yes or NO would suffice and I'm sure class in a junior school would be able to answer it correctly but you wont so you just mention trolling as a smokescreen.

What is glaringly obvious to me is that you are not concerned with safety, you are just obsessed with speed and slowing everything down. Your diaphanous argument in favour of cameras as a genuine concern for road safety fools no-one except others like yourself.

I am concerned with safety and saving lives. I care for people. It's what I do for a living in fact. Amongst other things, I see the results of bad driving.

The only time I have ever heard someone mention speed at all, in nine years of working in rehab, was when I saw a young woman some years ago: She was disfigured due to a head-on collision on her motorbike. She had a prosthetic leg and her one arm hung uselessly down by her side. From what she said, her body was badly damaged and "not a pretty sight". She has no chance of meeting someone, settling down or starting a family - all the things most of us would want in our life.

I always ask what happened when I meet the victims of a RTA. She told me a biker was coming from the opposite direction too quickly on a bend and, as a result of his speed, he drifted on her side of the road. He was killed instantly - she has a life sentence 'We' try to put her back together again as best we can - both physically and mentally.

If he had been going slower he wouldn't have drifted onto her side of the road but before you say something like "you see - speed killed" we are talking about some 50 mph over the limit, not 10 or so. Obviously, if you go to extremes and use excessive speed in the wrong place/situation/circumstances you are going to run into problems. I don't think any one here has ever denied that. I should also mention that she said, in the same sentence, that it was bad judgement on his part. (I'll say!)

Most often these poor people I meet say "he didn't see me" or SMIDSY as we call it here. Bad judgement comes up a lot and in-car distractions are becoming disturbingly more common in rear end shunts None of these things have speed at the cause and yet they are far more important than speed itself and people like you irritatingly focus on that one aspect alone as a cure-all.

SS looks at everything! You, it would seem, are more content for someone to run into you or a child at 20 mph than for someone to use COAST and not hit anyone in the first place!

I don't want harm to come to anyone, not even you or Brunstrom but please, don't come on here and tell me I'm being troll-like when you very obviously have no understanding of what goes on in the real world or what the real reasons are for most RTA's or what the actual victims say.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Oh come on hjeg"2", weepej et al, please don't think anyone thinks you're anything other than trolls.

Do you honestly think anyone coming here for the first time would think anything else? For goodness sake, don't make me laugh any more, it hurts.

You only ever contribute to threads to say something inflammatory, then spam them with the same hackneyed old arguments for page after page, usually interspersed with quotes inside quotes inside quotes, guaranteed to draw in the casual reader...not.

I've yet to quite work out what pleasure there is to be had from being almost universally held in utter disrespect by everyone else in a forum. Is it a form of masochism?

If I go visit a forum, and I don't like the look at it (there's a hint in this sentence - see if you can spot it), I just go away again.

Still, at least you two can spell I suppose.

Ach! The girlies wear the trousers! You should know this by now!

But back to the helmet und elbow/knee pad.. there already some bother from CTC walilies about a road safety film in old fashioned sense.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

You lot can't resist it, whenever someone comes on here with a different opinion you call them a troll.

And why have you now started emphasising "2"? I never once got an answer out of Robin regarding that, so let me try with you: what's your reason for doing that? I should say that it doesn't bother me, but I just don't understand why you do it.

What is your definition of a troll?


This is rubbish, I'm not saying anything any more inflammatory than anyone else.

So anyone who you disagree with you hold with utter disrespect do you? So you can't simply accept that someone is just as intelligent as you but merely holds a different opinon?

So you mean if you go to a forum where you disagree with the majority opinion you don't bother pointing across your point of view?

Thank you.

Liebchen.. I do not regard you or seepagedly weepagely (I make the silly banter weepyj - it not meant "nasty senses" EVER My family .. even that Andreas arsonist argue for sake of argue type ever wanted bothers either. My family for record .. not that type.. honestly We only want to try to get all out there to show COAST courtesy as nice polite behaviour WORKS per all PEER reviews of Human behaviours ) as "trolls" . Spinny ist different. C+/Future could not control it either. We had an apology from them eventually as regards the daftness from the terminally stupid. (their OWN verdict und spinny if identified to Tony F or Brent M .. ist "persona non grata" Swiss who posted to C+ und ended up in bother have been invited to post again - no rancour from Future who realised who was the problems of the old site They are indeed chatting und even on acf too. They make the politically correct comments und we know all the gossips Farty hot air. Little "solids" to anal-yse


I am supposed to be a lady .. But some things are tbe Eliza Do0littles of stark reality (Oee-errrr Wothcha mayteeee!" Cor Blimey" ByGord .. she gottit!")







I would respectfully suggest und hope you not see this as "attack".. that you do not look for insult where none intended und just chat about the item which cause you reason to disagree. Voice without attacking posters or Paulie Smith's memory. He spoke common sense und for the average person too. His ideas do hold water whether peer reviewed or not... epsecially since the other lot has not been peer reviewed or checked for accuracy ,, und the records collated are proven as non-standardardised which makes it impossible to verify accurately anyway

The fact that they could indeed hold water ist sufficient for some to make ad hominem attack on his character too.


I do not hold you in this box.. but do chat to us in Cycling . exchange the odd recipe.. mount a :soap: in soap box or do a funny in Chat.. over summat warranting fun in the news.

Such small talk matter.. und it can build that bridge if you understand what I try to say here to you

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

What a crock...

Liebchen.. just meet a little along the road here.

He try to show that road conditions dictate behavour really. You say lolly dictate.. but cyclists try to justify red light jumping by "losing cadence rhythm und the energy".. with "no traffic .. it safe then to go"


It the same blinkin' argument as liebster deepsy point out to me in my usual stance on PH on red light jumpin; cyclist moans over the road there

(deepsy ist poster who talk sense by the way ..

But it not ever safe to go on "red". A car may go on green if safe to do so. They do expect other road users to obey the rules though as do INSURERS who do not PAY willy nilly und will use the SHOULD/OUGHT to reduce their costs in case of accident whatevers

Road condition suggest .. not safe.

You also have to consider the more vulnerable on shared paths or pavements. To whine about them or refer to "old trouts" whiihc annoyed Andreas.. ist really not being true to one's belief or own self

I think Tone und myself are merely asking you to be true to yourself und accept your own weaknesses. It not accusing you of anything .. but just asking you to be honest with yourself as no one person can claim "perfection" even though folk are very kind to me very often

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Speed Cameras are NOT safety cameras.

Sorry, but they are not.

It is as if someone was beaten up very badly in a town centre and the police wanted to check the "Crime" Cameras in the town centre only to be told: "Oh, sorry! No! These Crime cameras only photograph people who leave shops with stolen goods. They don't film crimes of violence against people."

And that is what speed cameras are. One trick ponies that do not deliver news but history! When they process the film they find a man had broken the speed limit a week ago. As my grandmother used to say when given old news that she already knew: "Yes! And had you heard that Queen Anne is dead, too?"

And this is my point. IF speed cameras were replaced with full colour CCTV cameras that were monitored by humans 24/7, then yes, there is an argument for having them. (They can be used to stop people speeding, people driving too slowly, someone stopping for a drugs deal, someone robbing a pedestrian, breaking into a car, someone jumping traffic lights, someone crashing because they had collapsed at the wheel, etc., etc.)

But as it is, speed cameras are not safety cameras.

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

I'm quite happy to admit that the second situation appears safer than the first. But that doesn't mean that it's safe, and besides, what you are basically saying is that we should trust the driver to (a) know what is a safe speed to drive at and (b) actually drive at that safe speed. I don't believe that the average driver knows the first let alone would do the second.

By the way, I think your pictures are good.

Hi Wildcat.

Are you asserting that I, as a cyclist, jump red lights?

I don't.

I see cyclists that do (and those that don't), but then I see car drivers that do too. In fact, most times the last vehicle through the light jumps it, sometimes a good time after it went red.

And frankly, if you're a pedestrain its the vehicle jumping the light that's going to KSI you, not the cyclist who dawdles through it.

Hmmm. You don't think that the fine (or prospect of one) alters behaviour?

You don't think that along a monitored road drivers don't slow down a bit?

I beg to differ because I know somebody who's on six points, and they simply do not aim to travel over the limit any more.

That ist good.





That does not seem to happen up North - even in the rush hour. we are more relaxed "yokels" up here.


We do still see the cyclists take scant notice of these lights though The chief of the select committee for promoting cycling was on radio discussing the "handbag wielding incident" und she admitted that probably ALL cyclists have jumped a red light at some point.. usually if they "get fed up of waiting when road ist empty"




If you are going to jump the lights.. it would be a bad idea to "dawdle" through it But I have not seen the type who refuse to stop reduce their speeds when I see them ride up to the lights. A hit at those speeds would KSI an elderly person (frail with tendency to brittlier bones) or a child (danger of head injury as small und skull bone more tender) just as much as the car would KSI this group of more vulnerable.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

Remember the dead biker that Blunderstorm used to prove that speed cameras worked? They didn't in his case, as he was caught on at least three speed cameras during the day that he died.

Guess what? The NIPs turned up after he was dead. So they did nothing to stop him, did they? But a CCTV system might have steered the police to where he was and the arrest might have changed his attitude. But we will never know, as the speed cameras failed to modify his behaviour.

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

Thank you.




I don't know why you need to qualify your reply with "appears" but okay.

I'm not trying to trick you, (like I could anyway). A yes would have been more honest. Your reply comes across like a definite maybe to me. Maybe I should have asked which is more unsafe?

There are no invisible children or parked cars, road furniture, etc. or nothing else around from which anyone could spring into the road. So it still seems like you're being furtive. However, maybe we have found some common ground..

So then, if indeed the second situation is safer than the first then de facto it is safer to go faster in the second situation is it not?

I'm just trying to deal with the facts. There's no need for numerical values but if it helps: 15 mph is safer in the second situation than 10 mph in the first?

Can I get a definate yes or no to that one?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

We HAVE to trust drivers to drive a safe speed, as they are in charge of the car. I think you are too hard on the average driver.

That quote shocked me. Giving a driving licence is a show of trust. Most people do drive at a safe speed. If they did not there would be total carnage on the road.

Saying you can’t trust drivers to drive at a safe speed is ridiculous, the very nature of driving means you have to trust the decision-making ability of the driver. Believe it or not most people do not want to crash.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

And had he been spotted by traffic police I imagine he would've done a runner.

There will always be those that totally go over the top, but I imagine 99% of persistant speeders modify their behaviour after a few fines and the threat of having their license revoked.

IG and Stephen and Ian are probably best equipped to answer. I knowIG has passed comment in the past over bikers being a particular headache and they usually abort pursuits when it gets silly on the basis that if they do live.. they can pick them up later on Assuming bikes are registered and the officers has some in-car /on bike/ aerial evidence to back charges per an IG post of the past

_________________
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.

The "Chelsea Tractor" is missing from the school run

What about all the "Smoke" coming out of the exhaust pipe ye gods think of "Global Warming" you will have the "Green Lobby" going ape s***

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

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

Spannernut

Why would you think that, since that is 99% of motorists, including yourself. If you try to deny that you have ever sped I will quote your admission from another thread.