Safe Speed Forums

Not all Trolls are stupid.

Neither are all Scamera stooges...

Time for careful consideration of motives.........

Are you questioning my motives? I certainly don't mind if you are - but let me give you a few clues:

I've never campaigned for anything else in my life.
I've never been a member of a political party or a pressure group.
Four years ago, if anyone had told me I would have become a campaigner I would have laughed in their face.
I've put in 5,000 unpaid hours on the Safe Speed campaign.
I'm £7,000 out of pocket on Safe Speed costs and expenses.
I deliberately gave up work to do Safe Speed full time and took a huge cut in income.
I work at it for at least 70 hours each week.
I don't really give a damn about politics.
I don't give a damn about fame or personal publicity, or more accurately I'd prefer to avoid publicity.
I have a clean driving licence.

The truth is that road safety policy is now so crap that there are 1,200 (estimated) needless deaths each year, not to mention the damage to peoples lives and the Police public relationship. And all because the thinking at the top is dangerously oversimplified.

Or perhaps you think I'm going through all that for the right to drive dangerously fast?

Or perhaps you think I'm revealing the truth and deserve further support, in which case, please see this page:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/join.html

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The terribly sad thing MM is that people will use tradgedy to try and force home their point even to the extent, as you poignantly observe, of distorting the facts to do so.

Some years ago two aircraft from the base at which i worked collided in mid-air killing 2 pilots, one got out safely. The local media had a feeding frenzy on the hazards of low-flying by the RAF, totally ignoring the fact that the collision happened at over 10,000 feet. Naturally the message that got through to the public was one of 'irrepsonsible airmen' not 'tragic accident during maneouvres'.

A few years later a breathing oxygen storage tank burst it's safety disc and vented oxygen in a cloud into the air. A passer by noticed the harmeless cloud and called the local paper who contacted the base and were told what it was. Somebody at the paper must have got out their 1963 edition of Boys Own Book of Science and discovered that liquid oxygen is component in rocket fuels; the leak was reported as a Rocket Fuel Disaster (I kid you not) at local airbase. Clearly the intention was to drum up a story out of nothing.

The net result is that I now take any facts and figures I see quoted with a large pinch of salt, my reasoning is, I believe, that if I can spot a bullshit story about something I AM familiar with, what bullshit am I being told about stuff I'm not so sure of? This now includes speed camera stats and, at times, peoples motives for wanting to exceed speed limits

So if I occaisionally pop up with an obtuse question, or observation about the way points have been presented by Paul and others please forgive me. It's the natural cycnic in me

Methinks that you protest too much !

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

You are darned-tootin it is !

Where have you ever seen me SPECIFICALLY refer to that slogan as FACT !

( Listen to the clatter as they search through the archives ! ).

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

May I refer you to....

"ERGO... the faster you go the greater chance you have of being destroyed by that speed when that kinetic energy is released.

SPEED KILLS.......and greater speed kills with greater efficiency !"

Well done Hornet.....Go to the top of the class !

NOW...... Read it again !

Have you read it again ?

You have....OK.....

You will see then that at every stage I have qualified the slogan !

I have NEVER accepted it at face value. That would just be silly !

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

Papaumau is a Troll.

Definitely time to stop feeding it.

I think that was me.

Where did you get the idea that I was suggesting that you were responsible for the "speed kills" dogma? I said that You may agree with the dogma, but AFAIK you are not responsible for it. Unless of course you do represent the government, partnerships, ACPO etc.

By the way, are you going to eat all of that billy goat? Kidding, kidding.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Ahhhhh Gatsobait.....

Yes it was you that quoted that the "Speed Kills" slogan is dogma !

I agree, I agree....OK !

( I am so sorry for the question mark above - I just couldn't be bothered looking back to see where it had come from...Happy now ? ).

A also agree that the phrase is a dogmatic bit of bait to catch the eye of the motorist, ( even if the only response is websites like this ! ). It DOES show that even the government can be a bigger troll than I am.

( I am getting a really good feeling at that "troll alert" tag in the margin: It makes me feel REALLY infamous ! )

Anyway...I digress...( I am bad for that BTW ).

Back to the point....

Although I agree that the "Speed Kills" slogan is nothing but dogmatic billpostering but as I am not sitting here behind a closed mind - like some - I DO see the truth buried in that phrase.

How many times have I got to say that "Speed" on it's own is an imaginary concept as it exists only in a vaccuum either on an open road or in space....Get the analogy ?

Speed kills when it is STOPPED involuntarily and the faster the speed the easier it is to kill either what is inside the vehicle or what is outside it - no matter how much armour you might be wearing !

To try to partition speed as a concept that is in the mind of a person of imagination and to separate it from what occurs in real life is simply STUPID !

If THAT is the basis for this website than the whole thing is being run on a lie !

Just stop and think about it for a second and you will see what I mean.

Oh yes...and BTW...Gatsobait....Have you been looking at a picture of me somewhere to make the crack about my face-fungus ?

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

Yes, so you've said before. I still don't see it's relevance in real life, or how it's appropriate to build a campaign around it. We might as well say that it's dangerous to work in tall buildings since jumping off the roof is very dangerous - "Tall Buildings Kill - Live In Bungalows". Or since electricity has been used as a means of execution - "Electricity Kills - Convert To Gas But Promise Not To Stick Your Head In The Oven". And sometimes trees fall over and kill people, so we should cut down all the trees - "Trees Kill". As for the kitchen knives to be found in every home...
Why? Having failed to make such seperations just now I've come up with 3 really daft safety campaigns.
I have thought about it, or I wouldn't be here. I do see what you mean, but I don't agree with the conclusion. As I have said before, RTAs are rare when compared to how much opportunity exists for each driver to collide with something every day, and those that do occur tend to be down to driver error. "Speed kills" therefore only deals with the aftereffects of something that is fairly rare to begin with, and does absolutely nothing to make it any rarer.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Papaumau and Hornet are right..


My anti speed cam credentials are well known to some on here. However in one context speed kills, or put it another way, there is more often than not, extra blood at 60 mph than at 30 mph, Thus " speed kills " stands up as a logical argument . I have always supported the adverts speed kill and Think. What I object so strongly to is when they convert an advertisers buy line into a fact and charge u £60.00 and three points. .


What is wrong, and the reason most are here, is...

when they say speed kills, They believe all the adverts they have paid for and then they go further and twist it to mean (almost) ALL speed kills, and is (almost) the SOLE cause of ALL accidents and its the ONLY issue in the word. Let's stop everyone speeding, we have the technology, it's self financing, heck we can make a profit, Where is the problem it costs us nothing , and we save lives.

The problem is Excessive Speed is such a minor causation factor in accidents. The council and the police and the DFT are so wrong and have been so badly misled by the Mad Mullah , Begg and all the other halfwits involved in this business, it will take a decade to put matters right..

In the meantime , back to addressing the real world.

Dear editor..

rgds
bill

Thanks Gatsobait.......



That is a perfect analogy of my speed in a vacuum argument !

OK...let's just stand on the roof of that building and jump off without a parachute shall we......

JUMP.....................whooshshshshshshsh....

All the time we are falling we are travelling at speed and accellerating towards terminal velocity - if the building is high enough of course.

While we are falling we are fine and as we have a long way to fall we have time to look around and enjoy the scenery....OK ?

Due to the effect of gravity we keep falling until we eventually find a hard thing that is capable of halting our downward momentum.

We are - in the space of a few microseconds - smashed into a red blob on the hard thing !

The point:

Speed - virtually any speed - on it's own and unrestricted is perfectly safe until the time comes when that speed must eventually be terminated.

At the point where the speed is reduced to bring the falling object back to the state of rest, ( inertialess ), it must be reduced in such a way as to decellerate at a rate that will not damage the falling object - vehicle or person. ( The missing parachute in the case of the jumper ).

Therefore, speed on it's own is a concept that is hanging in an unfinished state and it will not be finished until it is reduced to nil MPH.

( Strewth...this is hard work ! ).

Finally, to run a website on the "safespeed" slogan and to ignore the fact that speed must be terminated at some point is tantamount to saying that as long as everybody keeps going they are bound to be safe.

In real life they are not allowed - or indeed need to - travel at speed forever, so they must stop at some point.

It is HOW they terminate that speed that decides if they are dead or not.

One certain quality of this phenomenon is the fact that without speed as being one of the parts of the accident condition, the accident would be impossible to organise or to initiate without it.

This is a very fine examination of the "speed" segment of the accident !

NO SPEED....NO ACCIDENT !

Therefore speed does kill as, within the accident condition, it is the speed that is the major factor in the death. Not the slowness....the fastness !

M'lud....I rest my case !

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

'No speed, no accident'. What an amazing revelation! Would you like some kind of medal? It's impossible to have an accident if we have no speed, because we're all stationary!

No one is disputing this fact, Papaumau. Maybe it's time we moved onto issues of actual road safety.

_________________
-mike[F]
Caught in the rush of the crowd, lost in a wall of sound..

Papaumau


When you have been to as many RTAs as I have - you know exactly what causes the accident.


Now no-one on here is actually calling for abolition of speed limits, and the ones who come on here and state they want to see no speed limit have taken to task by myself and by the Mad Moggie Cat.

As youngster - enjoyed skiing with them - some of those guys were in Swiss National Winter Sports Team in their youth! Wildcat did tell her BiB pal on PH that you sure get to feel speed when you go down mountain on skis! You are in no doubt as to what will happen if you screw up!

Attended more accident scenes than you and Paul smit have made net postings on in my career. And more tragic scenes than he has written spreadsheets!

Now, I have been to accident scenes when people have died in high speed collisions. I have also been to sites involving deaths at low speed collisions - whereby weight of the vehicle, point of impact and size of victim have all contributed to the tragic outcome.

Heck - WildCat even survived a high speed crunch - which was a complete freak occurrence. We went through hell throughout that time - so we do not argue that excessive uncontrolled speed is dangerous.

But .... the scam partners should be encouraging drivers to drive applying what we call COAST


Concentration - on the road, all the time!
Observation - of speed limits, roads signs, road markings, hedgegrows....
Anticipation - of all hazards
Space - two second rule, speed awareness, speed limit.
Time - consideration to other road users, observing speed limit, patience..


This basically means that driving with COAST basically means you are more likely to comply with the speed limit in force anyway - and should you manage to blip over for whatever reason - you are better able to correct the speed, keep control of your vehicle and be aware of every hazard you see.

I apply this rule! All Class Ones apply this rule. Class Twos do! The rest of this family do - most especially the Mad Cats here! Basics of driving safely.

What we are getting as road safety information is ... reduction in speed limits, more cameras and less of us who are so well versed in delivering THAT LECTURE on aggregate and who can at least see the dangerous numpties and book them for you! We are also not seeing decent education regarding the Green Cross etc.


But the spin is obsessed with one aspect of driving - speed and they are compromising - by single-minded obsession - very badly all the other factors which contribute just as much - if not even more so at time - to the tragic outcomes!

Message of "do not speed and you will stay alive" on its own is dangerous.

Messae should be : Observe all rules of the road and you will stay alive!"

"Messae should be : Observe all rules of the road and you will stay alive!"

This is untrue. My grandmother was killed by a drink driver and my Grandfather who was driving at the time was not breaking any rules. In fact he was not wearing a seatbelt at the time (legal at the time) and was thrown from the vehicle otherwise he would have been killed also.

Why all the endless analysis? You can bat this back and forward for an eternity, it makes no odds. Speed limits are not the answer to improving road safety and the sooner focus is redirected the better.

The General

Condlolences General!

Perhaps I ought to rephrase:

"Observe and Obey all motoring LAWS and you stand much better chance of staying alive!"

Your grandfather was lucky in that particular instance. Seatbelts do contribute greatly to road safety.

Having said that - the WildCat deliberately removed hers when she saw that vehicle racing towards her. That did save her life - as, had she not taken cover, adopted a crash position - she would have been hit by the other driver. He was not wearing seatbelt - or it had got undone during his heart attack - and he went through his windscreen and through her rear. had she remained seated properly beltedd up - he would have hit her head at great speed!


But speed limits help keep the order on the roads. We cannot have "free for all". Sadly, there are too many who do not have judgement - and would not adopt speed suitable for conditions.

This why they should really be focusing on bigger picture and encourage the skill of driving using COAST, showing the "THINK!" adverts on Drink Driving, MSM, Green Cross, Seatbelts throughout prime time advertising slots.

But instead the message seems to be that 1-5mph over speed limit at camera site will result in fines, points or an expensive course!

In Gear & The General.......

I DO get your points and as a sensible chap I agree with most of them !

The point that I cannot get my head around is the "Safespeed" slogan that this site and a few other are wrapped around !

It sorta suggests that as long as you are a perfect driver and maybe even an advanced driver, as long as you apply COAST in your great driving and awareness ability you can break carefully worked out speed limits when it suits you and when you disagree with them and that driving at speed, ( or at the speed that YOU deem to be correct ), it is SAFE to do so !

I know that we can get stories from people who have been saved by not wearing seatbelts and about how they were only doing 20MPH and they finished up in hospital anyway, but how many stories have you as a copper about people that didn't go to hospital but instead went to the morgue when they had an accident at speeds above that which the bag of water that is a human-being were unable to rationalise away ?

Even after all of the statistics and the rationalisations that appear in forums like these to try to make it correct to travel at speed whenever you feel like it, I still am unable to accept that speed can be made safe just because you desire it to be that way.

That ambiguous slogan "SPEED KILLS" is so wide open for interpretation that it generates enough feeling in the "I am a good driver" mob to allow sites like this to flourish on this pretext.

I am sure that many many of those from the "I am a good driver" mob would be even better drivers if they removed the lead from their right boots most of the time.

_________________
Regards

Papaumau

http://www.rip-off.co.uk/index1.htm
http://www.network54.com/hide/forum/100558

Papaumau,

The rationale as I interpret it, is that at any specific time at any specific location and under any specific traffic / weather conditions (and of course in a specific type of vehicle) there is a "safe speed" at which a specific driver should not exceed. This speed varies wildly according to the influence of the specific factors I listed in the above sentence (and others), so a fixed posted speed limit is a dreadfully vague means of deciding what that "Safe speed" is.

The art of advanced driving incorporates valuable lessons to teach us how to judge that "safe speed" and thus reduce our accident risk, whereas the imposition of draconian enforcement tends to have the opposite effect.

If speed limits are too rigorously enforced, then the responsibility for setting speed becomes devolved away from the driver. More and more people feel that the posted speed limit IS the safe speed for the road, regardless of other factors, which is why excessive speed accidents are on the up, most of which actually take place within the posted speed limit.

Removing the lead from drivers right boots might indeed make them safer some of the time, but the evidence seems to suggest that it actually makes them less safe most of the time!

John, in my estimation this is a massive understatement of the contribution that "Safe Speed behaviour" is already making to road safety, even in inexperienced drivers.

Without safe speed behaviour (on some level) we would crash the first time we encountered stationary traffic. But there's so much more.

A few months ago we had a snowfall. A single carriageway main road near here usually flows at about 60 to 70mph. After the snowfall I observed 100% of dozens of drivers choosing a speed between about 30 and 35 mph. It wasn't some instruction from above - it was just right speed for the conditions and all sorts of drivers were seeking it out instinctively and accurately.

It is observable fact that more that at least 90% of drivers do not exceed a safe and appropriate speed almost all the time.

Clearly the tagets for enforcement should be the few that do exceed safe and appropriate speeds, and the target for engineering should be to inform drivers about the odd special place where specific hazards that are not well recognised lead "more than a few" to exceed safe thresholds.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety