"SAFESPEED" in the London Lite Today
Discussion
telecat said:
Interesting!!! That came from the London today Message board that CommanderJameson and Myself contributed to earlier in the week. Link Here(Use the "Show All" Button).
[url]london|www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23383552-details/Top%20Gear's%20Clarkson%20branded%20'irresponsible'%20over%20speed/article.do?expand=true#StartComments[/url]
I did try to reply again but it "fell" off the front page and it wasn't posted. Again It's a good story with no facts to back it up. No mention of the limit or circumstances etc means it's pointless except to get a response.
[url]london|www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23383552-details/Top%20Gear's%20Clarkson%20branded%20'irresponsible'%20over%20speed/article.do?expand=true#StartComments[/url]
I did try to reply again but it "fell" off the front page and it wasn't posted. Again It's a good story with no facts to back it up. No mention of the limit or circumstances etc means it's pointless except to get a response.
You'll need to use http://tinyurl.com for that link, telecat, because the apostrophe in it breaks PH's linkifier.
The letter in the OP makes no mention of whose fault the accident was.
Had it been the mother pulling into the path of the other vehicle, then she may well have done so at 30 as well as 45. (Would also like to know how they know it was travelling at 45 when it hit her, and why they think had it been going at 30 it would not have done so).
Had it been the mother pulling into the path of the other vehicle, then she may well have done so at 30 as well as 45. (Would also like to know how they know it was travelling at 45 when it hit her, and why they think had it been going at 30 it would not have done so).
Was there someone in the car watching the speedo to prove the speed of impact? Was there someone in the car watching to see if perhaps the driver was fiddling with their radio / phone / whatever? Why did the car hit the other one? Did the victim pull out without looking?
I'm getting really fed up with knee jerk emotional responses and with the government and other blinkered fools rushing to create policy which addresses emotional "opinions".
I'm getting really fed up with knee jerk emotional responses and with the government and other blinkered fools rushing to create policy which addresses emotional "opinions".
vonhosen said:
black-k1 said:
vonhosen said:
I have not said that I advocate prosecuting to tight margins, but what we have to get away from is the "I'm a good driver, I'm safe, I can judge what speed is appropriate & will drive to what I think is appropriate irresepective of the limit" attitude.
As I said there is a higher risk in traveling at much higher speeds, so I only do it in certain circumstances. Circumstances that the public deem there is a tangible accepted benefit in me doing so, despite the higher risk. If they want to change their mind about that, fine I'll live with it & respect their wishes.
What we don't have though is a situation where the public have expressed that they find the extra risk of allowing everyone to choose what speed they think suitable, irrespective of the limit, as acceptable. (i.e. They haven't said that they want to abolish speed limits.)
As I said there is a higher risk in traveling at much higher speeds, so I only do it in certain circumstances. Circumstances that the public deem there is a tangible accepted benefit in me doing so, despite the higher risk. If they want to change their mind about that, fine I'll live with it & respect their wishes.
What we don't have though is a situation where the public have expressed that they find the extra risk of allowing everyone to choose what speed they think suitable, irrespective of the limit, as acceptable. (i.e. They haven't said that they want to abolish speed limits.)
If drivers were machines that processed data at a set rate then your statement about ‘there is a higher risk in traveling at much higher speeds’ would be correct because the increase in speed equates to increase in the data to be processed. Human beings are not machines and scientific evidence has shown that if you make drivers drive at a speed too slow for the conditions then there is actually more risk, not less risk (85th percentile!).
What we don’t know is if the limit in this case was set at a reasonable speed or was set to low.
I don’t advocate the removal of speed limits. In fact, I think they are essential but, in order to work they have to be respected and in order to be respected they have to be set at appropriate levels using scientific analysis not emotion and political spin.
I'm fine with your talk of setting appropriate limits, but it's our job to obey the limits set & challenge those who set them where we feel they are inappropriate. That doesn't mean we do so by wilfully disobeying them & driving to what we personally judge as the maximum safe speed achieveable without any regard for the set limit (& then expect to keep our licences).
I agree with what you say but we must also challenge the current “culture” where breaking speed limits is viewed as the root of all road going evil. The punishment for those who do break limits, especially where the appropriateness of the limit may reasonably be questioned, must not be disproportionate to the REAL risk posed. Additionally, equal effort must be put in, and seen to be put in, to catching and prosecuting perpetrators of other traffic offences that pose greater REAL risks to road users.
The letter in the original post mentioned only the speed and the speed limit. This type of simplistic presentation of what will have been an extremely complex circumstance must always be challenged, especially where such blinkered views are supporting a totally inappropriate road safety/policing policy.
Edited by black-k1 on Thursday 1st February 08:32
CommanderJameson said:
telecat said:
Interesting!!! That came from the London today Message board that CommanderJameson and Myself contributed to earlier in the week. Link Here(Use the "Show All" Button).
[url]london|www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23383552-details/Top%20Gear's%20Clarkson%20branded%20'irresponsible'%20over%20speed/article.do?expand=true#StartComments[/url]
I did try to reply again but it "fell" off the front page and it wasn't posted. Again It's a good story with no facts to back it up. No mention of the limit or circumstances etc means it's pointless except to get a response.
[url]london|www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23383552-details/Top%20Gear's%20Clarkson%20branded%20'irresponsible'%20over%20speed/article.do?expand=true#StartComments[/url]
I did try to reply again but it "fell" off the front page and it wasn't posted. Again It's a good story with no facts to back it up. No mention of the limit or circumstances etc means it's pointless except to get a response.
You'll need to use http://tinyurl.com for that link, telecat, because the apostrophe in it breaks PH's linkifier.
Cheers Commander Done!!!
London Lite Letters 31/1/07 said:
"SAFESPEED" campaigners seem to suggest that a driver should be able to choose a safe speed at which to drive which may or may not be under the speed limit. Presumably thats what the driver who smashed into my mother at 45mph in a 30mph zone decided to do. Mum was rendered bed bound for nearly six months, lost her independence, her health and her mobility. Get a grip and slow down, speeding ruins lives and terrorises other road users. - MD, Chiswick
I pity the poor old lady for having such a fool for a child.
Crashing into his mum at 29.9mph would have been fine obviously.
The letter is pure emotion and gives no facts at all. As others have said, was she pulling out of a junction and just not seen the car she should have given way to etc.? How fast was the car going?
Letter like this are a prime example of how the media is being brainwashed by the so called government (incompetents that the tax payer unfortunately pays for) and that speed kills.
The letter is pure emotion and gives no facts at all. As others have said, was she pulling out of a junction and just not seen the car she should have given way to etc.? How fast was the car going?
Letter like this are a prime example of how the media is being brainwashed by the so called government (incompetents that the tax payer unfortunately pays for) and that speed kills.
In response to VonHosen...
It could be the case that she pulled out in front of this guy too late for him to break at 30 or 45, going at 45 in same gear as 30 would mean this driver has a better throttle response and it may have given him more chance to accelerate around the obstacle. This might have happened and is why she isn't dead, at 30 he possibly couldn't have got enough response out of the vehicle to make a manoeuvre away from her and would have caused more damage.
Just throwing in another option to show that you can't say whether 45 made it more or less safe until you know all the facts
It could be the case that she pulled out in front of this guy too late for him to break at 30 or 45, going at 45 in same gear as 30 would mean this driver has a better throttle response and it may have given him more chance to accelerate around the obstacle. This might have happened and is why she isn't dead, at 30 he possibly couldn't have got enough response out of the vehicle to make a manoeuvre away from her and would have caused more damage.
Just throwing in another option to show that you can't say whether 45 made it more or less safe until you know all the facts
Does spnracing ever come back after starting a thread?
I'd like to know why she deliberately edited and misquoted the original post from the London Lite, to remove the words...
"because of a stupid arrogant speeder."
Perhaps she thought those words would make the post appear too emotionally biased, so simply edited the authors words to suit!! Tut tut spn.
I'd like to know why she deliberately edited and misquoted the original post from the London Lite, to remove the words...
"because of a stupid arrogant speeder."
Perhaps she thought those words would make the post appear too emotionally biased, so simply edited the authors words to suit!! Tut tut spn.
Claiming that the 45 was the be-all and end-all of that unfortunate incident is as silly as claiming that a much higher speed would have avoided the impact by placing the two parties in a different position. 45 in a 30 dangerous "because" there was a collision, so 75 would have been "safe" as there may have been no collision. It depends on the nature of the incident of course - but that says it all in both interpretations.
The simplistic identification with speed and the emotive approach of the writer indicates a propagandist. We only have their word about their mother. Ultimately there is no evidence a collision occurred at all.
The simplistic identification with speed and the emotive approach of the writer indicates a propagandist. We only have their word about their mother. Ultimately there is no evidence a collision occurred at all.
deeps said:
Does spnracing ever come back after starting a thread?
I'd like to know why she deliberately edited and misquoted the original post from the London Lite, to remove the words...
"because of a stupid arrogant speeder."
Perhaps she thought those words would make the post appear too emotionally biased, so simply edited the authors words to suit!! Tut tut spn.
I'd like to know why she deliberately edited and misquoted the original post from the London Lite, to remove the words...
"because of a stupid arrogant speeder."
Perhaps she thought those words would make the post appear too emotionally biased, so simply edited the authors words to suit!! Tut tut spn.
Wrong.
I typed the letter up exactly as it appeared in my copy of the London lite, I have it in front of me and I've just checked it again. The only thing I changed was the writers name to MD. I figured that if they wanted their name on PH they could have posted here direct.
The words 'because of a stupid arrogant speeder' appear in the 'thisislondon.co.uk' web site article but not in the London Lite newspaper version.
vonhosen said:
I have not said that I advocate prosecuting to tight margins, but what we have to get away from is the "I'm a good driver, I'm safe, I can judge what speed is appropriate & will drive to what I think is appropriate irresepective of the limit" attitude.
Agree 100%. Drivers choosing their own "Safespeed" is a recipe for disaster.
Anyway I started the thread not really because of the content of the letter but because it was one of the first mentions of "Safespeed" I've noticed in a mainstream newspaper.
Our local rag had a story about "Captain Gatso" a fortnight ago and how he claimed local residents had asked him to torch a speed camera. The response was somewhat predictable but rather than the 'speed kills' dogma several of the letters actually referred to the fact that the simple problem was getting out of junctions onto the road in question.
Possible if the cars were held at the speed limit, nigh on impossible in rush hour if they weren't.
chrispy porker said:
Surely the person who wrote to the paper in the first place is entitled to their opinion are they not?
Is that not what forums are all about? and before forums were invented letters to the paper ?
Is his or her opinion just as valid?
The right to express such an opinion is one thing, validity through being genuinely held is another, validity in terms of whether or not it deacribes a real rather than made up scenario is yet another, and validity in terms of a rational analysis (if we knew for a fact it happened and all the relevant but missing details) is quite another thing. Is that not what forums are all about? and before forums were invented letters to the paper ?
Is his or her opinion just as valid?
Presumably the accident took place on a road - shall we ban roads or, like a feckwit libdim in Bath, suggest they remain in a state of tank track disrepair so that cars have to drive more slowly along them?
Prevention of accidents and casualty reduction demands reason not emotion. Emotion is positively useless yet it's all the hard of thinking can muster, by definition.
chrispy porker said:
Its a letter to a local paper FFS not a PHD thesis. He can say what he likes surely?
No-one takes the letters to local papers seriously do they?
No-one takes the letters to local papers seriously do they?
I'd imagine the person writing the letter formed their opinion of it on a more detailed knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the collision than any of us as well.
vonhosen said:
chrispy porker said:
Its a letter to a local paper FFS not a PHD thesis. He can say what he likes surely?
No-one takes the letters to local papers seriously do they?
No-one takes the letters to local papers seriously do they?
I'd imagine the person writing the letter formed their opinion of it on a more detailed knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the collision than any of us as well.
Unless, of course, they just made it up.
*cynic*
Precisely.
And as the letter is intended to influence the views of others - including policy makers - for sure it should not be accepted without scrutiny but torn to shreds if necessary, on here and by way of reply. If the story is true, they had a tragic family crisis. All families get tragic crises. Get over it and move on.
However there is no proof an accident occurred anyway.
And as the letter is intended to influence the views of others - including policy makers - for sure it should not be accepted without scrutiny but torn to shreds if necessary, on here and by way of reply. If the story is true, they had a tragic family crisis. All families get tragic crises. Get over it and move on.
However there is no proof an accident occurred anyway.
vonhosen said:
chrispy porker said:
Its a letter to a local paper FFS not a PHD thesis. He can say what he likes surely?
No-one takes the letters to local papers seriously do they?
No-one takes the letters to local papers seriously do they?
I'd imagine the person writing the letter formed their opinion of it on a more detailed knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the collision than any of us as well.
When we say the guy who hit Wildy was around 80 mph .. we do not know that for certain / No one actually calibrated his speed. We know that he increased the speed because of several witness statements. We also know that each witness statement confirmed this speed increased.. but we had wide variations as to actual speed. 80 mph was apparently acertained because at the point of impact .. the needle had stuck around there.
I doubt if any speedo stuck in this case. Relatives, in any case - especially in a subjective and highly emotional state of mind would not be in a frame of mind to judge for certain. They are looking for blame and vengeance ... I do have personal experience of this when someone dies on me... cos "I let them.. did not prescribe the right drug .. did not place the person whose heart was failing because of a lurgy on the waiting list soon enough .. and so on. Tis the same thing .. assuming this is a true anecdote. If it is true .. doubt if he or she was an eyewitness in any case.
I once posted up a thread on this site which I entitled "Six of One.. Half Dozen of the Other" which involved some chap in a sports car.. pushing the envelop a bit in a 30 mph urban in one of the Manchester 'burbs. He was charged with dangerous driving.. as his speed was way in excess of 30 mph by his own admission. He was found not guilty of this offence. because the 15 year old girl he collided with staggered into his path after consuming two bottles of neat vodka at 11.30 pm on a weekday evening and the collsion occurred near the off-licence where she and her mates had purchased this booze ILLEGALLY
Her parents campaigned for a speed camera.. and supported by BRAKE and some Roadpeace cyclist in the area (who is always in the local press banging on about drivers polluting the planet
) Bury council used tax payers cash to erect one. Drivesafe Prats would not put one there as this road did not and has never jusitified a camera. However, they agreed to send out the NIPS to get the loot for themselves. In the meantime .. Bury Council sold off assets as they were in the red... and hiked up council taxes and cut services.. per the local press (archived and on line for all to read if they want to. 
) But over on safespeed's site.. I posted up each KSI reported in the Bolton paper over the past year. There were 14 in total - Only three were committed by legal drivers. These three happened to be novices and the accidents were more COAST error than "speeding" per the reports. the rest were unlicenced, unqualified, drunken and drug addicted "scum" for want of a better word to describe them
All highly dangerous ..with no respect for the road at all. We even had one who had been convicted and banned twice before for causing death by dangerous driving.. and he was seen by a police officer as he drove past the police station. The officer gave chase. People's cars were damaged as his mates hurled gas cylinders and step ladders at the pursuing police car. They legged it when he hit a tree... and he survived it. A pal of mine in Bolton General had to treat this person - recorded as an SI 
. We cannot choose not to.. He was given a suspended sentence.. and another meaningless driving ban. But then the jails are full .. unless you happen to be sad enough to want to eavesdrop on the lovesick mutterings of a 20 odd year old who happens to be a bit "Royal" Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff