Safe Speed Forums

You see this attitude is what hampers you. You feel you are in some way morally superior, and want to admonish us for our transgressions.

Speed limits don't stop anyone driving too fast. Speed cameras do not stop anyone driving too fast.

I have no problem with speed limits that are appropriately set, for the purpose of balancing safety with expediency. The problem is with limits that are set without safety in mind, where the scale does not need tipping towards safety, and with no evidence whatsoever that they would make the road safer even if were/did. I also disapprove of the way the limits are enforced, not because I have received penalty points, I haven't, never have, but because its not making the roads demonstrably safer, and is diverting resources from policies that would make the roads safer.

A touch of empathy could go a long way weepej; I don't think you are unreasonable, or necessarily a troll, but there is no point in debating with someone if you have a closed mind, and no intention of trying to see things from both sides. I am sure it is this lack of understanding that causes you to cast such aspersions as those above on the characters of people with a genuine interest in making the roads safer.

"Us", who is "Us"? People that have joined the Safe Speed campaign?

You're getting a bit paranoid there methinks RobinXe!

All I want to see is people chilling out and slowing down a bit, generally.

Edit: I've reread my words and I realise why you thought this, I sincerely meant people in general who support the campaign to scrap speed cameras, not Safe Speed club house members or forum members (not all of whom do so, even the ones that say they support the campaign).

Tell you what, weepy.

As a SafeSpeed member, I'm going to cordially invite you to sit in the passenger seat whilst I take us both on a drive along some agreeable Shropshire roads (of which there are lots).

I may break some speed limits in places; in other places I may not.

Upon completion, I will ask you to answer - honestly, hand on heart - if, during the drive, you ever felt that us or other road users were threatened.

A weekend would be best for me.

Cheers.

_________________
Simon

Oh, but Weepej, you DO care where they are, or you would not have said what you did.

You really can't make a statement of belief and then, when someone challenges you on it, claim that you somehow do not have ownership of your own remarks or beliefs.

Either you believe something or you don't.

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

SigmaMotion, what about the Ketley speed camera, the one by the closed-down school on the old A5? The one where the Camera Partnership DOES do people for 33mph, as it happened to someone while I was in their car.

And the Bennett's Bank one, just inside Wellington, which is where I reported the for parking his entire "safety" partnership van on the pavement, totally blocking it. His colleague would not even investigate it as she said "none of her colleagues would do such a thing."

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

weepej,

1) Before overpopulation makes it physically impossible to continue as they are now, how do you explain the fact that Germany, despite areas with no speed 'limit', has a better safety track record than the U.S.A., where the non-metropolitan speed 'limits' are between 55MpH and 80MpH?

2) How much longer can I drive without using my speedometer before I:
hurt anyone?
hit anything?
get pulled over and cited for speeding?

3) Should fate give me the finger, what are the odds that having/using a speedometer would have kept fate in check?

How much of this website's non-forum material have you read? I'll hazard a guess that you haven't read
this one?

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

The point is the cameras have failed to do what you and others claim they are there for.

On my way to the library today I passed a fixed set of speed cameras. Just a spitting distance from these by a crossing there are many beautiful flowers and a police message asking for witnesses.

Exactly what good has that speed camera done weepej? I'll take a picture and show you if you like or don't believe me?

I suspect if the driver had used good judgement he/she may have thought "I wonder if that kid is going to walk in front of me?" but instead another life is lost and parents/brothers/sisters/friends will be beside themselves with grief.

weepej - It wasn't speed that killed, it was stupidity - perhaps on both sides; the driver and pedestrian.

I'll bet dollars to dimes if me or any other SS member had been that driver no-one would have been killed or even hurt!

_________________
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.

So why are you here? In four months & 667 posts do you really think you've changed anyone's mind - on a forum where you're clearly swimming against the tide - one iota?

All you've done is give us members a chance to sharpen up our responses to the same old blinkers-on 'speed kills' dribbling in time for the next troll.

That's not an unreasonable wish. The problem is that current policy focuses on forcing everybody to slow down all the time, often for no reason at all. I live in Suffolk and we have been "blessed" with 30 limits in all villages. That would be a wonderful thing if their definition of a village only meant places with houses and people, sadly it includes long stretches with hedges and fields both sides. We have a blanket 50mph limit on the A140 (in Norfolk it has normal limits). This is perfectly reasonable on some stretches, but the A140 is an old Roman road and so is very straight. It is mostly wide with good visiblity so why does it have to have such a low limit along the whole length?

The policy should focus on the handful of idiots who do not want to slow down for anything, rather than forcing the majority to have to worry about comparing numbers on a stick to numbers on a dial in fear of their licenses.

Why am I here? Because here you can find constituants of the Safe Speed tenent to challenge.

I don't really care if I've not changed any posters mind, I think the audience is more important in the grand scheme, i.e. the lurkers, the floating voters if you like.

Hi Sigma, thanks for the offer, but I must kindly decline.

Again I ask, so its OK to cycle through red lights when its perceived by the person doing it to be "safe", or cycle on the pavement in the same situation?

Each time I see the title of this thread I think of Julio Iglesias and Wille Nelson...

To all the trolls I've known before
Who travelled in our forum door
I'm sad they came along
I dedicate this song
To all the trolls I've known before

Well, its 14 pages long and, like the known universe, expanding into time most people didn't know they had. Got to lighten the mood some way

_________________
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.

Well on P10, I did a sort of "wish you were here " to them - showing then lots of arched bridges - sort of hoped it might work and they'd toddle off there to form a community and argue amongst them selves - but no -it didn't work . (just realised most of them are near the Severn)

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

So it wasn't just me who thought of that song?! I have to admit I hadn't thought of such great lyrics, though!

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

^ that demands a

Quality.

_________________
Simon

Well I am not sure that you are convincing anyone, of any of your points, since, I am pleased to say, that Safe Speed is gaining more and more supporters daily.
I am sorry that you fail to grasp that Safe Speed is for Road Safety. We thoroughly encourage all proper Road Safety Policies.
We would never agree with any cyclist breaking the Law. As a cyclist as well, I am appalled by the blatant disregard for the Law which (sadly) a number of cyclist seem to show these days - but this is off topic here.

One of our many goals and aims, is to encourage all drivers, to observe very carefully all potential hazards that could become dangerous, and choose a 'Safe Speed' appropriate for those conditions, or changing conditions, in other words use their sight and their brain to 'judge safely'.
For example when red lights do not work, drivers, instinctively lift OFF the throttle and chose a 'Safe Speed'. Drivers look out, and cross the junction safely. this is so successful, that some Councils are now deliberately removing red traffic lights, as it works better without them.
You have implied that you do not think that drivers can choose a 'Safe Speed', well what makes them slow down for any hazard then?
If you run along a road side, and you come to a junction and you just carried on running across the road, surely your own survival instinct will tell you that you may die?
You see Common Sense does (happily) still exist in most of us. I agree to greater and lesser amounts, but mostly people have to drive an extremely long way before their probability of chances runs out and they have an accident. The government statistics prove this.
Do you disagree with this too?

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

Oh the irony. I suspect most of the people on here just won't see it.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Would you mind explaining why you think that?

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

The more I read this thread, the more I am disappointed with the general public. The argument from the pro-camera lobby appears to boil down to:
"We need to be told how fast to drive, because we are far too stupid to make that decision off our own backs. Besides I need to sue someone when it goes pear shaped!"

Personally, I'd prefer to just drive sensibly, and risk manage my own driving, and not have some politically correct imbecile tell me about how the fact that I am driving near a school is going to cause a child in Somalia to explode!

Simple fact is, if you need a speed limit to tell you how fast to drive, you are way too dangerous to drive, hand in your driving licence at the next opportunity. If however you are able to note that a child is walking unattended on the pavement looking at a football on the other side of the road, perhaps 30mph would be a murderous speed, then you may keep your licence.

For some reason I know that our friends will interpret this to mean that I endorse breaking the law, well I for one would rather be caught breaking the law for speeding at 5mph than kill a child when 5mph below the speed limit. The moral high ground is not -"I don't speed!" that is utter garbage, the moral high ground is "I can risk manage my driving!", a skill which I suspect that the camera supporters completely lack!

Blind to it aren't they handy.

SafeSpeedv2, can't you see the utter hypocrisy in your words here?

Is purposeful speeding a blatent disregard for the law or not?

What's the difference between a cyclist who goes through a red light because he perceives it to be safe to do so and a car driver who breaks the speed limit because he perceives it to be safe to do so?