Topic: Grumpy woman's rant...

[Aden Roller]

Well thanks for that lincsyokel2... as a cyclist I am now part of a group who do not believe in the Highway Code or the Road Traffic Act.  ???

Stereotyping is not the best brush to paint a perfect picture. 

[non-stick]

Well thanks for that lincsyokel2... as a cyclist I am now part of a group who do not believe in the Highway Code or the Road Traffic Act.  ???

Stereotyping is not the best brush to paint a perfect picture. 

Well we fit in with all the motorists that think laws are for others. I cycle on the path on a couple of roads round here because of the way drives cut the bends. Way too many near misses. I wonder how injuries to pedestrians caused by cyclists stacks up against cyclists injured by drivers.

I also ride a motorcycle, fully kitted out, and asked the police whilst on my bikesafe course what the rules on filtering were - they said as long as it's done sensibly it's fine. As someone said earlier it doesn't affect trqaffic flow. Mind you I'm talking of filtering in slow moving traffic not like the organ donors at 80+ mph on motorways

[lincsyokel2]

Well thanks for that lincsyokel2... as a cyclist I am now part of a group who do not believe in the Highway Code or the Road Traffic Act.  ???

Stereotyping is not the best brush to paint a perfect picture. 

Well we fit in with all the motorists that think laws are for others. I cycle on the path on a couple of roads round here because of the way drives cut the bends. Way too many near misses. I wonder how injuries to pedestrians caused by cyclists stacks up against cyclists injured by drivers.

One of the more interesting statistics the last government kept a lid on is the fact that although the seat belt laws may have been responsible for a drop in injusries to drivers in cars, research by a pair of swedish scientists showed that drivers who wear a seat belt drive slightly more dangerously (faster, brake later, take more risks) because they feel safer  with the belt on, and there had been a corresponding rise in the number of cyclists and pedestrians injured by cars.

I also ride a motorcycle, fully kitted out, and asked the police whilst on my bikesafe course what the rules on filtering were - they said as long as it's done sensibly it's fine. As someone said earlier it doesn't affect trqaffic flow. Mind you I'm talking of filtering in slow moving traffic not like the organ donors at 80+ mph on motorways

I ride a quad bike, i skipp up the middle in jams, duck in, then go. In doing so i do not contribute to the length of traffic queue, or any potential delays..

[Aden Roller]

Life full of rush isn't it.

How did people cope when nearly everyone walked?  ;)

Personally I think speed (or too much of it) is at fault in a large number of road accidents.

[manicscousers]

The care system sucks !!!!!!!!!!!!

[lincsyokel2]

Life full of rush isn't it.

How did people cope when nearly everyone walked?  ;)

Personally I think speed (or too much of it) is at fault in a large number of road accidents.

If speed was responsible for road accidents, every F1 Grand Prix woudl have 20 fatalities, considering they reach up to 220 MPH.

Even the governments own stats show speed is a contributing factor to only 20% of accidents.

The real cause of RTA's is poor driver skill, and lack of training and experience - people driving a vehicle beyond there abilities. Thats why an F1 driver can do 220 MPH safely.

Which is why Speed cameras, deployed under the pretence of 'road safety' are a con trick played on the public as a cover to generate revenue. Speed Cameras do not address the root cause of RTA's, and thefore do not improve road safety.  Theres is not one single scientific study anywhere in the world, that shows Speed cameras have had a major beneficial effect of Road Safety, not one, anywhere in the world, in the 15 years speed cameras have been deployed.  

The main reasons road deaths have fallen is due to better vehicle construction, better driver training and better road layour practices, and better road surfaces. In fact road deaths were falling all over europe long before speed cameras, and the introduction of speed cameras did not cause a faster fall, as you would expect if they had had an influence, in fact road deaths levelled out for the first few years of speed cameras, totally contrary to what  you would expect to see.

[Aden Roller]

If speed was responsible for road accidents, every F1 Grand Prix woudl have 20 fatalities, considering they reach up to 220 MPH.

Perhaps some of the slight differences between F1 Grand Prix and local roads might be:

• pedestrians including children of all ages
• the elderly - electric mobility scooters, wheelchair users and slow movers
• people with toddlers in or out of pushchairs / prams
• dogs
• partially sighted people with or without guide dogs
• cyclists - good & bad
• motor cyclists
• other motorists going in different directions
• road works

Although speed alone is not the cause of accidents there have been fewer serious injuries and no deaths in our local "Home Zone" where motorists are supposed to drive no faster than 20mph. Prior to that we had a number of children missing from school as they had been hit by cars unable to stop in time as well as two complete non-attenders who died.

The care system sucks !!!!!!!!!!!!

In West Sussex there are many who would agree with you.

[lincsyokel2]

Although speed alone is not the cause of accidents there have been fewer serious injuries and no deaths in our local "Home Zone" where motorists are supposed to drive no faster than 20mph. Prior to that we had a number of children missing from school as they had been hit by cars unable to stop in time as well as two complete non-attenders who died.

But that wasnt caused by speed  - that was caused by lack of control of the vehicle by the driver.  The speed they were travellling at is immaterial, the person driving wasnt in control, thats the point you tackle, reducing the speed limit merely leaves an incompetant person driving a car at a slightly lower speed, but they are still incompetant and just as liable to cause an accident.

Speed does not kill. If speed killed, why can you travel at 600 MPH in a jumbo jet and live? This is not playing with words, this is an important distinction. If you want to improve road safety, you have to attack the causes of accidents, which is driver error, not speed.   A COMPETANT, WELL TRAINED driver doesnt need to have his speed dictated to him by law, he will always  drive at the appropriate, safe speed, whatever that is.  Thats the only reason you need speed limits, because some drivers are not competant enough to choose an appropriate speed for the situation.

This line of thinking is born out byt he fact the government are going to raise the speed limit on motorways to 80 mph, which has beeen the de facto in real life limit for 30 years. Modern cars i fact can be quite safely driven at 120 mph on the road layouts of motorways, but drivers ar enot traned well enough to handle this., but 80 is perfectly safe.  This is also born out by the  german autobahn sections where there is no speed limit at all, and the accident rate on those sections is no woprse than the rest of the roads in germany.

This really is the difference between curing the illness and just sticking a plaster on it and covering it up. Real road safety is only achieved by policies that do the former, and not by the latter.  

All the evidence points to the fact that the slogan 'Speed Kills', the cornerstone of goverment road safety policy for 30 years, is wrong, misleading, and they know it, but choose to ignore it and promote a 'road safety' policy that  they know doesnt really attack the problem but instead is a conventiant cover for revenue generation and target achievment  

Look at it sensibly - a law that manages to incriminate 55% of the population must be wrong, because no sensible person can propose that 55% of the population are criminals, clearly this is absurd. The law must be wrong, not 55% of the people. If 55% of the people had been convicted of fraud or assault, you would most certainly be forced to examine whats going on.

[BarriedaleNick]

"A COMPETANT, WELL TRAINED driver doesnt need to have his speed dictated to him by law, he will always  drive at the appropriate, safe speed, whatever that is."

So you do agree that certain speeds are unsafe and therefore, by definition, dangerous even for a COMPETANT, WELL TRAINED driver.  I thought you said speed was immaterial.

[Aden Roller]

"Speed does not kill. If speed killed, why can you travel at 600 MPH in a jumbo jet and live?"

Perhaps there are fewer cyclists and children in the way?  ::)

I think I will give up this game of semantics. I know I'd sooner be hit by a vehicle travelling at 15mph than 50 if I had the choice. Preferably not at all but no matter how careful I try to be I can't choose how people travel around me or my children.

The results of lack of vehicle control at high speed kills. I know several families who have first hand experience.  :(

[lincsyokel2]

"A COMPETANT, WELL TRAINED driver doesnt need to have his speed dictated to him by law, he will always  drive at the appropriate, safe speed, whatever that is."

So you do agree that certain speeds are unsafe and therefore, by definition, dangerous even for a COMPETANT, WELL TRAINED driver.  I thought you said speed was immaterial.

All speeds are safe, - shuttle crew survive 17,000 MPH on reentry (well all but one, and that was hardware failure). The only thing that makes speed unsafe is an incompetant driver, and they are unsafe at any speed.

If you think speed is relevant, explain why road deaths were falling all over europe before speed cameras were invented. Then explain why the graph evlled off when speed cameras were introduced? and then only started to fall again years later.

Why has not one single scientific study ever found speed to be the primary cause  of RTA's ? Why do the governments own statistics (ONS) show that speed was only a contributing factor in 20% of accidents, and that driver error was the main cause?

You are either pro road safety or you are not, and if you are you need to get the government propaganda used to justify speed cameras out your head and see the true problem, which is driver training.

Our money is being used to buy a product called 'Road Safety', and a tool to do it with, Speed cameras'.. If it were a fridge or a cooker, we could demand our money back under the Trades Descriptions Act. The tool weve been sold provably, by many sources of information and statistics, does not work. Its does not do what it says on the tin. It does not do 'Road safety',  proven by all the facts and statistics. We have been sold a duff tool, and if i were a drill id take it back to B&Q and demand my money back.

Do you want our tax pounds spent i nan effective way, or are you happy its being wasted on policies that provably dont work, and are a cover to justify taking more money off us ?

Personally, i demand value for money and road safety policy that works.

[lincsyokel2]

The results of lack of vehicle control

EXACTLY!!  BINGO, YOU GOTIT!!!

thats the primary cause. You can kill somone with a car at 3 mph IF YOU ARENT IN CONTROL!!!And the reason you arent in control is down to driver skill, training and experince!! Nothing to do with speed!!!  And so thats the issue you have to deal with!!! Not speed!!!


Again, i challenge you to show me one single scientific study that has shown speed is a major factor in RTA's. I challenge you to explian why the governments own figures only show 20% of RTA's have speed as a factor - if they know this, why arent they addressing the maijor reasons for that cause the other 80% of RTA's? Explain why the deployment of speed cameras has had no provable effect on the graph of RTA's per year europe wide.

Please address these issues if you think Im wrong, otherwise all you are doing is avoiding uncomfortable truths, and peddling incorrect government an dpolice propganda used to hide the truth that speed cameras are really about revenue generation. If you want to accept duff road safety and believe the crap they tell you , thats up to you, but i want real road safety that works, i have grandkids.

[tonybloke]

And people who can't use the self service tills. Honestly, it's not a chemistry exam ... they're really not hard to use, LOL

true, please carry on helping your local supermarket to out-source their till staff ( to the customers)

[tonybloke]

@LY2, speed doesn't kill = true
it's the sudden deceleration that kills.

human organs can (usually) survive a 70mph>0mph in an inch deceleration, but not 80mph>0mph, simple!!

feel free to experiment.

[BarriedaleNick]

All speeds are safe??

So why did you say "drive at the appropriate, safe speed" - surely that implies that some speeds are not safe.
I don't think it would be safe to drive at 600mph down my road but by your logic that would be OK.

[lewic]

Code: [Select]

please carry on helping your local supermarket to out-source their till staff ( to the customers)

Too right! If I am forced to use one and am not in a hurry I deliberately faff around cluelessly so an assistant is forced to come over and help. If more people did this then they might get rid of the wretched things.

I feel sorry for the elderly who may not be as savvy with new technology, who are being excluded from society as everything becomes computerised. Oh and what about those square magic-eye barcode things that are popping up everywhere? How long before you need a smartphone to access a doctor or buy food?

[grawrc]

Well the self-service tills at B&Q always seem to object to something so the human assistant is kept pretty busy! I don't bother any more. I just queue for the human and play games on my smart phone!  ;) :P

[tonybloke]

The results of lack of vehicle control

EXACTLY!!  BINGO, YOU GOTIT!!!

thats the primary cause. You can kill somone with a car at 3 mph IF YOU ARENT IN CONTROL!!!And the reason you arent in control is down to driver skill, training and experince!! Nothing to do with speed!!!  And so thats the issue you have to deal with!!! Not speed!!!


Again, i challenge you to show me one single scientific study that has shown speed is a major factor in RTA's. I challenge you to explian why the governments own figures only show 20% of RTA's have speed as a factor - if they know this, why arent they addressing the maijor reasons for that cause the other 80% of RTA's? Explain why the deployment of speed cameras has had no provable effect on the graph of RTA's per year europe wide.

Please address these issues if you think Im wrong, otherwise all you are doing is avoiding uncomfortable truths, and peddling incorrect government an dpolice propganda used to hide the truth that speed cameras are really about revenue generation. If you want to accept duff road safety and believe the crap they tell you , thats up to you, but i want real road safety that works, i have grandkids.

you seem to have an issue with speed cameras. don't you have a reliable speedometer in your vehicle?

[Aden Roller]

The results of lack of vehicle control

EXACTLY!!  BINGO, YOU GOTIT!!!

thats the primary cause. You can kill somone with a car at 3 mph IF YOU ARENT IN CONTROL!!!And the reason you arent in control is down to driver skill, training and experince!! Nothing to do with speed!!!  And so thats the issue you have to deal with!!! Not speed!!!


Again, i challenge you to show me one single scientific study that has shown speed is a major factor in RTA's. I challenge you to explian why the governments own figures only show 20% of RTA's have speed as a factor - if they know this, why arent they addressing the maijor reasons for that cause the other 80% of RTA's? Explain why the deployment of speed cameras has had no provable effect on the graph of RTA's per year europe wide.

Please address these issues if you think Im wrong, otherwise all you are doing is avoiding uncomfortable truths, and peddling incorrect government an dpolice propganda used to hide the truth that speed cameras are really about revenue generation. If you want to accept duff road safety and believe the crap they tell you , thats up to you, but i want real road safety that works, i have grandkids.

you seem to have an issue with speed cameras. don't you have a reliable speedometer in your vehicle?

You forget, tonybloke, that some people have no speed limits it's all a matter of how good they think they are at controlling their vehicles. Presumably there's no such thing as an accident either? Or... only incompetent road users have them?

Yeah right.  :P

Personally I'd vote for anyone able to impose and enforce a 20mph speed limit on roads where children play and walk/cycle to school. It works here and in some other countries around the world.

My personal belief is that purposely breaking a speed limit is selfish, arrogant and dangerous. It shows a lack of care/consideration for others. There's always a reason or an excuse for ignoring speed limits - these days it appears to be a matter of choice. It's a shame the victims of road traffic accidents caused by others who speed and loose control do not get the choice. 

[lincsyokel2]

All speeds are safe??

So why did you say "drive at the appropriate, safe speed" - surely that implies that some speeds are not safe.
I don't think it would be safe to drive at 600mph down my road but by your logic that would be OK.

Thats because  your road isnt suitable. You can drive round a Grabnd prix Track at 2209 MPH, because its  built for it.

Clearly, its not possible to control a vehicle at 600 mph on a domestic street. It may well be safe on a suitable track. SO there again, its not the speed, it the road and the driver.