Safe Speed Forums

Surely an adult that allows a 4year old to run into the road unsupervised and cause an accident should be penalised?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

you do seem to have a habit of dodging certain questions when cornered Oliver, why is this?

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Your argument has obviously run out of credibility so I will say "wiedersprechen".

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

Why risk it, why not eliminate the causes of accidents, in preference to merely decreasing the chance of death?



Children should categorically not be allowed to "wander into the road". Are you a parent?



Please note that you can be both right, and dead.



Please tell me you are being deliberately obtuse, and are not actually so dense as to still not get it. It doesn't matter who's fault it is, you can be entirely blameless and still die, steadfastly defending your right of way all the way to the pearly gates. If a group is at risk from another one then the basic laws of survival dictate that they should take all reasonable steps to protect themselves.

If a child chases a ball into the road and gets hit and killed by a safe, observant, speed-limit-obeying saint of a driver, or a drunk, drugged, speeding, untaxed, uninsured driver they are still just as dead, regardless of blame. The child, and it's parents by proxy, could have prevented the death, and have much more to lose by not doing so.

Lets be clear, one last time, before I throw my hands up in despair and leave you to your delusioned ramblings. Nobody is saying that dead children deserved to die, or brought it on themselves, or any such monstrous thing. Got it so far? What is being said is that if children were taught, and observed, the green cross code, then they are better equipped to defend themselves against those who could hurt them. Understand? Please say you understand, I don't know how to dumb it down any more for you.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

What is being said is that if children were taught, and observed, the green cross code, then they are better equipped to defend themselves against those who could hurt them.

95% of accidents involve driver error. Drivers like to blame the weather, the road, faulty equipment, a girl in a mini skirt, safety cameras, anything.

The example of Home Zones, 20mph zones and the strict liability laws of Denmark and Germany, for instance, foster a caler, more considerate and safer road environment. These schemes have as their key addressing those drivers who speed. These are not deluded ramblings (ad hominem again), they're real-life examples of the potential that we can achieve in the UK, it's tremendously exciting.


Now, when presented with this example, I've been told only a five year old would support it and lies have been told about the research.

It seems apparent that this groups connection with road safety is tenuous, you oppose any and every measure taken to reduce deaths and injuries if a component of the schemes have as a factor addressing speeding traffic. You simply cannot bring yourself to support measure that make drivers slow down. Odin's dishonesty is a good example of this.


20mph zones work tremendously well. They save lives, but the obfuscation and dishonesty surrounding the subject on this forum reveals the rather unpleasant mindset behind this group's entire ethos. You want road safety, so long as you can still speed. Selfish, blinkered and arrogant, an arrogance that cannot be typified better than the claim made here that anyone who opposed speeding cars must have been brainwashed. Sheesh.

You've had a chance on being presented with alternative views to discuss them rationally and honestly.

You've blown it.

Well at least that's one question answered.

Oliver, you are not the first and won't be the last person who held differing viewpoints to the "set" here and be dismissed as a "whack".

Just be thankful that this group has absolutely no influence whatsoever to the Government and is normally dismissed by all the safety organisations

As I said before, it died with Paul Smith. Someone should do the decent thing and pull the plug, or rename it the Daily Mail Echo.

In a way I'd be more impressed if posters here were honest enough to say:

"I oppose 20mph zones because I enjoy speeding".

Some people do enjoy bullying, aggressive behaviour that scares and upsets other people. The feeling of power, invincibility and so on. It can make up for a lack of control in other areas of their sad lives, but here nobody has said that, they weasel away from acknowledging the obvious truth backed up by the research upthread that higher speeds make accidents more likely and injuries more serious. They claim all the research that contradicts their viewpoint is "biased" or "dishonest" without ever actually explaining why. They gang up and attack dissenters. The claim anyone who opposes speeding must be "brainwashed".

It's flim flam, Smith was a snake-oil salesman and although it's a relief his misguided campaign died with him, the attitudes displayed here make me despair.

You are not the voice of anyone outside this nodding dog forum.

You have not influenced road policy one iota.

You are not consulted when road safety is discussed, your findings are not replicated anywhere outside this site.

You have had zero impact on camera proliferation.

All forgiveable, but when you prove unable even to countenance the fact that the research upon you rely is laughably inept then you are, indeed, marginalised and deluded.

You were told even a five year old would not believe the Zero initiative was possible.



"I oppose 20mph zones because I enjoy thinking for myself"


To make you feel more at home I have decided to adopt your posting style for the following responses.



If you say you do so, then I believe you.



Speaking ill of the dead is rather rude.



Good, that means you are obviously worried we may prove to be right.



You have proof of this?



Much of the research Paul relied upon was produced by the TRL, I have no problem accepting at least some of it was inept.



You like attacking minorities do you? You do seem to have a problem with people that hold different beliefs from you. Are you willing to accept views on road safety from Jews, Muslims, Christians and atheists equally?

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

"I oppose 20mph zones because I enjoy thinking for myself"

You oppose 20mph zones?

What's your view of the evidence that supports their use since they reduce accidents and injuries?

Don't tell me, it's all lies and only the blessed few here are impervious to this mysterious brain washing process that afflicts everyone who disagrees with you.

If you oppose slower speeds despite their proven success then say why.

Given the option of being hit at A) 30 mph or B) 20 mph I would select B), however there is a third option: not being hit at all.

Surely it is better for driver and pedestrian alike not to hit each other.

Is a 20 mph limit going to reduce the number of incidents or just reduce the severity of them?

Could a 20 limit give pedestrians and other vulnerable road users an excuse to take risks?

If you get hit at 20 you might not die, but it's still going to hurt.

Is a 20 mph limit going to reduce the number of incidents or just reduce the severity of them?

Both, as I've made abundantly clear. I want more cyclists on the roads, it exerts a civilising influence and makes the roads safer- the more cyclists the safer the roads.

Possibly, but so should the driver that hits them if it can be shown that they weren't applying due attention or driving with due care.

So do you want fewer cars on the roads, then?

If so, that might suggest you would support measures that would make car use less attractive, regardless of whether they had any genuine safety benefit.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I have no problem with cyclists on the road as long as they obey the highway code, and that would include the 20 limit.

So do you want fewer cars on the roads, then?

Naturally, don't we all?

Half of all urban car journeys are less than 2 miles, people get into their car and drive to the corner shop for a pint of milk, madness.

This year, errrr, last year I visited Berlin and Amsterdam, both charming, cyclist-friendly cities that are so much more civilised and calm. It's happening here, the explosion in cycling in London has brought with it reduced accidents, widespread 20mph zones would do the same.

We're breeding a generation of car-reliant slugs, the roads are choked with people driving to the gym to sit on stationary exercise bikes.

Cycling reduces the danger of heart attacks you know? A cyclist doing 15 miles a day, easy peasy lemon squeezy, has a fitness rate of someone ten years younger.


Unless they're ten, I guess.

There is no offence of speeding on a bicycle.

As I understand it, that is the way the law currently stands. And rightly so, if it can be proved that the driver was at fault and could have avoided the impact, then the full force of the law should apply.

Weepy, do you know I think that is the second time I have agreed with you?

If they weren't applying due care surely the police would pick them up on that and they would be prosecuted anyway using existing laws?

Oliver, as already noted, nobody here opposes sensibly set speed limits, based on science, rather than emotion.

As you seem incapable of logical debate, relying instead on strawmen and ad hominem, I must seriously question whether you have any genuine interest in making the roads safer, or are just one of these bullies you describe, intent on imposing your beliefs on others in an increasingly strident and offensive fashion.

I personally, and I have faith that the vast majority here, care deeply about making the roads safer, not by focussing overly on an aspect that at the very most accounts for under 10% of road fatalities or serious injuries, or by inappropriately lowered limits that address what people should do, instead of influencing what they do do, but by finding ways to engineer safer roads for all, influencing road-user attitudes and improving road-user skills and awareness.

If you want to bring up specific points for debate then I would suggest you start new threads to do so, away from the meandering melee that this thread has become. If you just want to stridently insist on your views, ignoring or dismissing valid points to the contrary, with this continual back-biting and obtusity then I suggest you take it elsewhere, as I for one am done with you.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.