Speeding Does Not Cause Accidents
Discussion
singlecoil said:
No-one has ever asserted that staying within the speed limit means automatic safety. So why keep insisting that they have? The discussion can't proceed while you persist with that .
Have they not?Just to quote a couple...
vonhosen said:
An appropriate speed around other road users is already defined.
A safe speed for the conditions up to but not beyond the posted limit.
A safe speed for the conditions up to but not beyond the posted limit.
emmaT2014 said:
The balance is struck; its sits at or close to the speed limits and not beyond them.
OTBC said:
That's not what the research I linked to says. People would love to be able to cycle, but idiots using public roads as their very own racetrack has a massive disincentive affect. Can you try to avoid personal insults?
What, like comparing people who think numerous speed limits in this country are too low to paedophiles? AA999 said:
singlecoil said:
No-one has ever asserted that staying within the speed limit means automatic safety. So why keep insisting that they have? The discussion can't proceed while you persist with that .
Have they not?Just to quote a couple...
vonhosen said:
An appropriate speed around other road users is already defined.
A safe speed for the conditions up to but not beyond the posted limit.
A safe speed for the conditions up to but not beyond the posted limit.
emmaT2014 said:
The balance is struck; its sits at or close to the speed limits and not beyond them.
Neither of them says that driving below the speed limits is automatically safe, your straw man is still full of straw.
bodhi said:
What, like comparing people who think numerous speed limits in this country are too low to paedophiles?
Which roads shared by children do you break the speed limit on? People who choose to externalise the danger of their journey and impose the risk on others kill a lot more children than paedophiles do. Of course if you don't do that then I'm confused why you think the term applies to you..singlecoil said:
Neither of those quotes proves your point, you will have to do a lot better than that.
Neither of them says that driving below the speed limits is automatically safe, your straw man is still full of straw.
I notice from previous threads you take a position of being intentionally obtuse, and now even when you are shown to have an empty accusation against my posts that you still attempt to reply with fashionable retorts that do you no favour.Neither of them says that driving below the speed limits is automatically safe, your straw man is still full of straw.
I know you will again reply to this with yet another tiresome attempt at a witty retort, but that's just your style isn't it?
Actually surprised there was no picture to accompany your last effort, I wait in hope that you come up with something extremely funny in a few minutes.
: boring :
OTBC said:
It's true that zones that are not enforced are less effective, demonstrating brilliantly that drivers disobey the law unless they are penalised.
Except..tfa said:
Speeds fell at 21 out of 23 sites surveyed, with a maximum fall of 5.9mph.
“A typical pattern was speeds falling from the high 20s to the low 20mph,” the report added.
“A typical pattern was speeds falling from the high 20s to the low 20mph,” the report added.
.:ian:. said:
OTBC said:
It's true that zones that are not enforced are less effective, demonstrating brilliantly that drivers disobey the law unless they are penalised.
Except..tfa said:
Speeds fell at 21 out of 23 sites surveyed, with a maximum fall of 5.9mph.
“A typical pattern was speeds falling from the high 20s to the low 20mph,” the report added.
“A typical pattern was speeds falling from the high 20s to the low 20mph,” the report added.
AA999 said:
singlecoil said:
Neither of those quotes proves your point, you will have to do a lot better than that.
Neither of them says that driving below the speed limits is automatically safe, your straw man is still full of straw.
I notice from previous threads you take a position of being intentionally obtuse, and now even when you are shown to have an empty accusation against my posts that you still attempt to reply with fashionable retorts that do you no favour.Neither of them says that driving below the speed limits is automatically safe, your straw man is still full of straw.
I know you will again reply to this with yet another tiresome attempt at a witty retort, but that's just your style isn't it?
Actually surprised there was no picture to accompany your last effort, I wait in hope that you come up with something extremely funny in a few minutes.
: boring :
singlecoil said:
Little bit of Ad Hom to spice up your straw. Still tastes like straw to me. I can understand your irritation at having the rug pulled so easily from under the feet of your argument, and your attempts to divert from the weakness of your arguments are obvious and childish (was it you that mentioned playgrounds earlier?).
Yeah keep it going mr coil, your efforts are increasingly amusing. More fashionable quotes from others I notice.
Still no picture?
Your name was on a thread a while ago titled "most irritating members on PH" (or words to that effect).....was it not?
There just by chance?
As you continue to highlight to everyone your arrogance and the reason you appeared on that thread in the first place.
singlecoil said:
(was it you that mentioned playgrounds earlier?)
Indeed it was, and you found yourself running back there. Like I said in my previous post, I know you'll just keep coming back for more, as your reputation for the personality that you are won't allow you to acknowledge that your original straw man assertion was misplaced.
AA999 said:
Indeed it was, and you found yourself running back there.
Like I said in my previous post, I know you'll just keep coming back for more, as your reputation for the personality that you are won't allow you to acknowledge that your original straw man assertion was misplaced.
Mate, you are wasting your time, SC derails all the threads he goes on with this crap. I thought your point was a fair one. I guess it takes someone a bit special to manage to derail threads at the rate he manages to. Like I said in my previous post, I know you'll just keep coming back for more, as your reputation for the personality that you are won't allow you to acknowledge that your original straw man assertion was misplaced.
OTBC said:
Mill Wheel said:
...and yet all too often the reaction to counter collisions OF ANY CAUSE is to cut speed limits.
A good example of this were the accidents used by SCPs to justify speed cameras, where even a driver having a heart attack at the wheel and driving off the road to end up upside down in a ditch was used to qualify a site forspeed enforcement revenue collection!
Where exactly are you claiming that a camera was sited after a driver had a heart attack?A good example of this were the accidents used by SCPs to justify speed cameras, where even a driver having a heart attack at the wheel and driving off the road to end up upside down in a ditch was used to qualify a site for
The drivers name was Mr Gaskell. His car overturned into a ditch after he first collided with the kerb on the opposite side of the road, and two workers on a building site close by held up the vehicle until the fire brigade turned up, saving him and his wife from drowning.
It was in the Westmorland Gazette.
Accidents at the camera site at Ings went UP following the introduction of speed cameras... including a drunk pedestrian walking home from the pub, who decided to lie down in the road where he was struck by a vehicle!
singlecoil said:
AA999 said:
singlecoil said:
No-one has ever asserted that staying within the speed limit means automatic safety. So why keep insisting that they have? The discussion can't proceed while you persist with that .
Have they not?Just to quote a couple...
vonhosen said:
An appropriate speed around other road users is already defined.
A safe speed for the conditions up to but not beyond the posted limit.
A safe speed for the conditions up to but not beyond the posted limit.
emmaT2014 said:
The balance is struck; its sits at or close to the speed limits and not beyond them.
Neither of them says that driving below the speed limits is automatically safe, your straw man is still full of straw.
AA999 said:
singlecoil said:
No-one has ever asserted that staying within the speed limit means automatic safety. So why keep insisting that they have? The discussion can't proceed while you persist with that .
Have they not?Just to quote a couple...
vonhosen said:
An appropriate speed around other road users is already defined.
A safe speed for the conditions up to but not beyond the posted limit.
A safe speed for the conditions up to but not beyond the posted limit.
emmaT2014 said:
The balance is struck; its sits at or close to the speed limits and not beyond them.
My statement doesn't say that staying below the speed limit means you'll be safe, it essentially says that firstly you are expected to travel at a safe speed for the conditions at all times & then following that where you consider it safe in the conditions to go beyond the speed limit you may not.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff