"SAFESPEED" in the London Lite Today
Discussion
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
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.
CommanderJameson said:
You can't have it both ways. Either it's safe for drivers to select their speed according to the conditions, or it isn't.
Its safe for drivers to select their own speed up to the posted limit in force.
Any driver who can't keep within the limit whilst driving safely is failing the meet the basic requirements of a licence holder in the UK.
CommanderJameson said:
Your statement as written simply says "drive at the posted limit at all times in all conditions"
Errr - no it doesn't? Where on earth did that come from?
With regard to the accident rates on de-restricted motorways, maybe someone can remind us how those of the derestricted German Autobahn compare to the UK motorway network?
safespeed said:
Yep. Paint windscreens black. Fit dirty great big speedometers. That'll make sure that all drivers concentrate on what's REALLY important.
Are you proposing that drivers should be able to choose to drive at whatever speed they deem to be safe?
In a recent topic (www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=10&f=10&t=335836&h=0), you stated;
safespeed said:
I'm happy that 17 year old Kevin in his dodgy Nova is limited to 70mph by law.
Who would your "Safespeed" rule apply to?
Not Kevin, obviously.
safespeed said:
My choice of words in 'perfectly safe' wasn't good, so let me try that again.
- I think speedos and speed limits are both useful and beneficial.
- What we're talking about is relative importance of speedo and speed limit compared with responsible behaviour and judgement - as used and displayed by real drivers in the real world.
- I think speedos and speed limits are both useful and beneficial.
- What we're talking about is relative importance of speedo and speed limit compared with responsible behaviour and judgement - as used and displayed by real drivers in the real world.
If that is really the case why are there hundreds of pages arguing this subject?
Is this really just about the relative importance of speed limits? I thought Safespeed was about drivers choosing their own safe speed regardless of a posted limit? And the abolishment of automated speed limit enforcement? And from some of the posts here the abolishment of limits altogether?
I don't agree because (1) speed limits aren't just there for safety and (2) I don't think drivers are anywhere near skilled enough to choose their own speed.
But driver responsibility and judgement still come way higher priority than speed ever will, I thought this was taken for granted.
s2art said:
spnracing said:
Its safe for drivers to select their own speed up to the posted limit in force.
What? No matter what the conditions or circumstances? So in poor conditions with kids running around its safe for drivers to select any speed up to the limit? You are off your trolley.
What I meant to say is "Drivers should select their own safe speed up to the posted limit in force".
But either way - as it stands now, in poor conditions with kids running around its safe for drivers to select any speed up to the limit.
Thats the way it is? Why am I off my trolley?
If this argument is about arbitrary limits and whether 31mph is dangerous when 30mph isn't, its the way laws work.
There are plenty of examples of limits in law like what defines someone to be a paedophile, what defines a drunk driver, etc.
The fact is that you have draw the line somewhere. And of course speed limits aren't just there for safety reasons.
WildCat said:
A safe speed .. ist defined as the speed which suit the road condition at the time.
You mean "Safespeed"?
But that might be 120mph down a quiet long straight suburban road at 03:00 in the morning.
Not sure the residents would be too keen on that. So we'll stick with speed limits thank you very much.
Einion Yrth said:
I'm so pleased and gratified that you, from your superior position, can spare the time to make all my decisions for me.
I'm so pleased and gratified that you, from your superior position, decide to drive at whatever speed you choose despite how many residents/pedestrians you piss off in the process.
WildCat said:
Paulie once had poster called "speed kills" who claimed speed hump "put value" on his property.
Funny you mention that.
My local council have just put up signs on all the lamposts saying they are going to be installing speed bumps (cushion humps and speed tables) on our street.
They canvassed the residents back in November and 74.9% were in favour.
Einion Yrth said:
I'm so pleased and gratified that you, from your superior position, can spare the time to make all my decisions for me. Let me know when you've got the time to decide what I should consume for my lunch tomorrow won't you?
Einion Yrth said:
You, on the other hand, are smug, and somewhat hard of thinking as far as I can tell.
Its not my superior position, its the position the law dictates across the majority of the modern democratic world. Your own smug comments are also not welcome and clearly not thought through.
"I can't drive at whatever speed I choose and therefore someone has to choose my lunch for me too". Grow up.
herewego said:
What residents want is respect and consideration from all drivers in the form of calm driving at low speeds. Many drivers achieve this. Shame on the others.
Absolutely spot on.
Speed humps, speed cameras, speed traps, 20mph zones, traffic calming, and even speed limits themselves are all there because of the 'others'.
deeps said:
I think where these calmimg schemes get the go ahead, there will always be one or two particularly irrational car hating tree huggers in the village, who are such a minority that they have to shout louder than normal sensible people, and before we know it humps are appearing. Normal people can be caught unawares by these types!
You say you are having humps installed in your area spn?
Ho Ho. If I'm counted as an irrational car hating tree hugger then god help you if you come across a member of Brake.
In our case the council canvassed the whole area, I'll dig the results out and post them. It might make interesting reading for someone who thinks that speed humps appear because a "minority" shout the loudest.
WildCat said:
Wrrrrrongggg!
Speed humps are there because some councillor had some cash to use up before next fiscal budget allocation.
As I said I will dig out the council's correspondence and post it here.
I can't speak for Ambleside but in Greater London the council in question are simply responding to the demands of the residents. Even then they conducted a poll before continuing, the verdict was overwhelming.
Maybe things happen differently in Ambleside but down here its just democracy in action.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff