Discussion
Chaps,
I think that Paul Smith of SafeSpeed is under financial pressure.
This site is a great talk forum but SafeSpeed has the intellectual horsepower. My view is that his work, and PePiPoo's (which is a fantastic source of well informed legal advice on 'speeding' matters) are vital to the fight against the present ill-informed speed enforcement policies.
I am a member on PePipoo and on SafeSpeed and I would encourage all members here to support both those sites.
Chaps - Paul Smith and Mika on PePiPoo have proved their commitment in a much bigger way than any one of us. It's time for us to show them they're not alone. Let's get serious about it.
Ted - I hope this doesn't offend you. I don't know how you're funded but I hope you will agree that SafeSpeed is too important to be lost.
Tim
I think that Paul Smith of SafeSpeed is under financial pressure.
This site is a great talk forum but SafeSpeed has the intellectual horsepower. My view is that his work, and PePiPoo's (which is a fantastic source of well informed legal advice on 'speeding' matters) are vital to the fight against the present ill-informed speed enforcement policies.
I am a member on PePipoo and on SafeSpeed and I would encourage all members here to support both those sites.
Chaps - Paul Smith and Mika on PePiPoo have proved their commitment in a much bigger way than any one of us. It's time for us to show them they're not alone. Let's get serious about it.
Ted - I hope this doesn't offend you. I don't know how you're funded but I hope you will agree that SafeSpeed is too important to be lost.
Tim
Support PePipoo, excellent, but not SafeSpeed. The following drivel appears on their Claims Page, way OTT
"!Why allow the speed limit to be exceeded when it
is safe to do so?
3.01 Time is saved. The savings are significant. A
conservative calculation using 3 minutes
additional delay per journey adds up to around
1,500 80 year lifetimes each year in the UK. In
order to *possibly* save a handful of whole lives
we risk wasting 1500 in dribs and drabs? to follow
mail
3.02 Enables "perfect" driving. Since perfect
driving can be characterized as "maximum safe
progress", and since I seek to perfect my driving,
it pains me to obey speed limits when I know that
the optimum safe speed is far in excess of the
limit. I want the right to use the skills I am proud of
to the full. to follow mail
3.03 Encourages pride in driving through trust. If
you want people to be responsible you have to
give them some responsibility first. mail
3.04 Avoids the frustration caused by being
slowed pointlessly to follow mail
3.05 The right to exceed the speed limit could be
used to incentivize advanced driver training. It is
obvious that people wish to travel quickly, and in
some cases it is possible to do so safely. We
could use that desire to encourage further
(optional) training and at the same time ensure
that drivers using higher speeds had appropriate
training. mail
3.06 Avoids the dangerous soporific effects of
unnecessarily slow speeds. Higher speeds raise
driver alertness. to follow mail
3.07 "If I can do so without endangering others it is
my right to determine my own speed." to follow
mail
3.08 If a given journey is accomplished in a
shorter time, then the time exposed to risk on the
road is reduced. This is a fascinating idea. We
think it must be true that some of the risk involved
in driving a car is "time based" and this specific
portion of the risk must be reduced by higher
speeds. We would be very interested to hear any
further information on the idea. mail
3.09 There is no reason not to allow the speed
limit to be exceeded when it is safe to do so. I
suppose some might argue about "who decides
it's safe", but that's a different problem. mail
3.10 Drivers allowed to use higher speeds learn to
look further ahead and become safer at all speeds.
The need to observe further ahead increases with
speed. Advanced drivers always scan the road to
the limit of visibility. Restricted divers may not
acquire this skill at all, and if they do will acquire it
more slowly. mail "
"!Why allow the speed limit to be exceeded when it
is safe to do so?
3.01 Time is saved. The savings are significant. A
conservative calculation using 3 minutes
additional delay per journey adds up to around
1,500 80 year lifetimes each year in the UK. In
order to *possibly* save a handful of whole lives
we risk wasting 1500 in dribs and drabs? to follow
3.02 Enables "perfect" driving. Since perfect
driving can be characterized as "maximum safe
progress", and since I seek to perfect my driving,
it pains me to obey speed limits when I know that
the optimum safe speed is far in excess of the
limit. I want the right to use the skills I am proud of
to the full. to follow mail
3.03 Encourages pride in driving through trust. If
you want people to be responsible you have to
give them some responsibility first. mail
3.04 Avoids the frustration caused by being
slowed pointlessly to follow mail
3.05 The right to exceed the speed limit could be
used to incentivize advanced driver training. It is
obvious that people wish to travel quickly, and in
some cases it is possible to do so safely. We
could use that desire to encourage further
(optional) training and at the same time ensure
that drivers using higher speeds had appropriate
training. mail
3.06 Avoids the dangerous soporific effects of
unnecessarily slow speeds. Higher speeds raise
driver alertness. to follow mail
3.07 "If I can do so without endangering others it is
my right to determine my own speed." to follow
3.08 If a given journey is accomplished in a
shorter time, then the time exposed to risk on the
road is reduced. This is a fascinating idea. We
think it must be true that some of the risk involved
in driving a car is "time based" and this specific
portion of the risk must be reduced by higher
speeds. We would be very interested to hear any
further information on the idea. mail
3.09 There is no reason not to allow the speed
limit to be exceeded when it is safe to do so. I
suppose some might argue about "who decides
it's safe", but that's a different problem. mail
3.10 Drivers allowed to use higher speeds learn to
look further ahead and become safer at all speeds.
The need to observe further ahead increases with
speed. Advanced drivers always scan the road to
the limit of visibility. Restricted divers may not
acquire this skill at all, and if they do will acquire it
more slowly. mail "
xylophone said:
Support PePipoo, excellent, but not SafeSpeed. The following drivel appears on their Claims Page, way OTT
"!Why allow the speed limit to be exceeded when it
is safe to do so?
3.01 Time is saved. The savings are significant. A
conservative calculation using 3 minutes
additional delay per journey adds up to around
1,500 80 year lifetimes each year in the UK. In
order to *possibly* save a handful of whole lives
we risk wasting 1500 in dribs and drabs? to follow
3.02 Enables "perfect" driving. Since perfect
driving can be characterized as "maximum safe
progress", and since I seek to perfect my driving,
it pains me to obey speed limits when I know that
the optimum safe speed is far in excess of the
limit. I want the right to use the skills I am proud of
to the full. to follow mail
3.03 Encourages pride in driving through trust. If
you want people to be responsible you have to
give them some responsibility first. mail
3.04 Avoids the frustration caused by being
slowed pointlessly to follow mail
3.05 The right to exceed the speed limit could be
used to incentivize advanced driver training. It is
obvious that people wish to travel quickly, and in
some cases it is possible to do so safely. We
could use that desire to encourage further
(optional) training and at the same time ensure
that drivers using higher speeds had appropriate
training. mail
3.06 Avoids the dangerous soporific effects of
unnecessarily slow speeds. Higher speeds raise
driver alertness. to follow mail
3.07 "If I can do so without endangering others it is
my right to determine my own speed." to follow
3.08 If a given journey is accomplished in a
shorter time, then the time exposed to risk on the
road is reduced. This is a fascinating idea. We
think it must be true that some of the risk involved
in driving a car is "time based" and this specific
portion of the risk must be reduced by higher
speeds. We would be very interested to hear any
further information on the idea. mail
3.09 There is no reason not to allow the speed
limit to be exceeded when it is safe to do so. I
suppose some might argue about "who decides
it's safe", but that's a different problem. mail
3.10 Drivers allowed to use higher speeds learn to
look further ahead and become safer at all speeds.
The need to observe further ahead increases with
speed. Advanced drivers always scan the road to
the limit of visibility. Restricted divers may not
acquire this skill at all, and if they do will acquire it
more slowly. mail "
You don't HAVE to agree with everything on SafeSpeed. You've picked a snippet you disagree with. What about the other 99.9%?
xylophone said:
Support PePipoo, excellent, but not SafeSpeed. The following drivel appears on their Claims Page, way OTT
"Why allow the speed limit to be exceeded when it is safe to do so?
3.01 Time is saved. The savings are significant. A conservative calculation using 3 minutes additional delay per journey adds up to around 1,500 80 year lifetimes each year in the UK. In order to *possibly* save a handful of whole lives we risk wasting 1500 in dribs and drabs?.....
Clearly your time is too valuable to waste previewing and reformatting. But you don't consider that the time wasted by everyone else trying to read your post as of value.
Our local trams are justified by the enormous financial benefits from time savings. Which seem to be based on savings of seconds, not minutes, per person, per day. Time savings justify trains doing 186mph.
So, let me in on the secret - why is there no value in someone being able to spend a day driving at 60mph, rather than 30mph, on suitable roads? But if there is some economic benefit to that - how many lives would it fund the saving of?
xylophone said:
Support PePipoo, excellent, but not SafeSpeed. The following drivel appears on their Claims Page, way OTT
"!Why allow the speed limit to be exceeded when it
is safe to do so?
3.01 Time is saved. The savings are significant. A
You have quoted from the "claims section", which is no more or less than an argument database. We don't assert that those claims are true. They are simply offered for discussion.
It's also a very old part of the site and has not been significantly updated since 2001. I have revamp plans, but there's nowhere enough time to do everything I'd like to do.
I have carried out many thousands of hours of work on the subject since then.
Observer makes a good point. I have read most of the SafeSpeed website, but when I alighted on the Claims Page, which took my breath away, it made think that if this guy can write that sort of stuff, is he to be trusted on anything that relates seriously to road safety? I appreciate his reply here, which I accept, and all I would suggest to him is that if he does not wish to alienate drivers with, let me call them, more traditional views, he should dump the Claims Page.
xylophone said:
Observer makes a good point. I have read most of the SafeSpeed website, but when I alighted on the Claims Page, which took my breath away, it made think that if this guy can write that sort of stuff, is he to be trusted on anything that relates seriously to road safety? I appreciate his reply here, which I accept, and all I would suggest to him is that if he does not wish to alienate drivers with, let me call them, more traditional views, he should dump the Claims Page.
You might be right, but let me explain how and why that stuff has been important. The Safe Speed thing has been one hell of a journey and one hell of a learning experience. The claims section came very early on and provided absolutely essential clues and direction about where to look for data, facts and especially false assumptions and errors.
To find anything out in a complex subject like road safety one has to dare to ask zillions of questions. Some blindly obvious and some hopelessly obscure.
For the first couple of years I didn't have a story to tell, just a pile of observations. I put the lot on the web site to promote discussion and to help others to ask yet more questions.
After a couple of years the information gathered was starting to interlock into clear patterns and I realised I was doing a jigsaw puzzle. These days just about everything fits in somewhere in a complex patterns of interlocking facts and observations.
It was about 18 months ago I realised I had an important story to tell. The trigger that made me give up work to do it full time was when I realised that the loss of trend in the fatality rate had no likely explanation other than "bad road safety policy". That loss of trend now accounts for over 7,000 lives lost on British roads who would still be alive if the earlier trends had continued.
I suppose it was like changing gear. Earlier I'd been picking and sifting. Now I still pick and sift, but I do an awful lot of "communicating" too. It's far more than full time work. I do about 80 hours a week, but I only get through half the stuff on my to do list in a typical week.
Going back to the claims, about 10 (?) of those statements have gone on to reveal some fundamental truth or another, and I'm not very inclined to go back and delete the foundations of some of my work. If I wasn't so busy, I'd revamp the claims section and make certain clarifications.
The bottom line here is that the website has a lot of important historical and "tiered development" materials. It isn't the right medium to try to communicate the overall results - a 350,000 word web site is actually bloody hard to read. You grasshopper around and you just don't know what you've read and what you've missed.
The right vehicle for the Safe Speed story is a book. You could dip into it like the web site, but you could also read it from cover to cover. I have a professional editor on board and I'm seeking a publisher. I'm presently in discussions with a couple of promising publishers.
So the bottomline is I'm really still at the early stages of getting the information out there. At the moment it's mainly visited by individuals with some special interest. The book will be pretty mainstream.
I hope that provides a better picture of what the information is and why it's there - even why I need it to stay there.
Nevertheless I will take your comments on board and try to ensure that others are less likely to misundertand the objectives of what they're reading.
I fully support your work Paul, as you know. But I'd like to make an observation on the SafeSpeed name.
From time to time the subject of road safety and speed restrictions crops up in conversation. I find it is fairly common for people to dismiss the ABD as a bunch of extremists who think they have a god-given right to drive as fast as they want. This is even among keen motorists who know a little about the ABD. I think they are generally seen as being quite a long way from representing the views of the general public. Which is a shame because of course that is not the ABD position at all, and in fact their position is entirely reasonable.
The SafeSpeed name in my mind has similar connotations. It suggests that you are not about safety, you are about speeding (safely). My guess is that you would get a warmer initial reception if the name focussed on the goals of improving road safety. Just something to think about while you are choosing a name for your book!
From time to time the subject of road safety and speed restrictions crops up in conversation. I find it is fairly common for people to dismiss the ABD as a bunch of extremists who think they have a god-given right to drive as fast as they want. This is even among keen motorists who know a little about the ABD. I think they are generally seen as being quite a long way from representing the views of the general public. Which is a shame because of course that is not the ABD position at all, and in fact their position is entirely reasonable.
The SafeSpeed name in my mind has similar connotations. It suggests that you are not about safety, you are about speeding (safely). My guess is that you would get a warmer initial reception if the name focussed on the goals of improving road safety. Just something to think about while you are choosing a name for your book!
GreenV8S said:
I fully support your work Paul, as you know. But I'd like to make an observation on the SafeSpeed name.
The book certainly won't have "Safe Speed" in the title.
But I'll defend to the death the quality and the effect of the name for the campaign. It is about "speed and Safety" and especially about appropriate speed as defined by the "safe speed rule".
If there's an element of controvesy, then that's no bad thing. But most important of all is the assertion that speed is not automatically dangerous. Speed is only dangerous when it's misused.
Any one who understands so little of the campaign that they assume we're claiming that it's always "safe to speed" is of little interest to me.
Road safety absolutely depends on the drivers selecting "safe speeds" and it seems that many folk need a stern reminder.
SafeSpeed said:
Any one who understands so little of the campaign that they assume we're claiming that it's always "safe to speed" is of little interest to me.
But they have to be of interest - so many of the people against sensible speed regulations will just cherry pick bits of info that support their ends. So if someone in office reads from the website name that you are pro-speeding, they may not even bother to read the rest and assume the worst.
Need to aim at the lowest common denominator, not those of us who are already convinced
roryalsop said:
Any one who understands so little of the campaign that they assume we're claiming that it's always "safe to speed" is of little interest to me.
But they have to be of interest - so many of the people against sensible speed regulations will just cherry pick bits of info that support their ends. So if someone in office reads from the website name that you are pro-speeding, they may not even bother to read the rest and assume the worst.
Need to aim at the lowest common denominator, not those of us who are already convinced
Actually public opinion is of little importance to me. I have to convince opinion formers, politicians and so on. Making information available to "on side" members of the public adds to the voices that the politicians and opinion formers hear. It's not an objective to convince "the man in the street".
I think thousands of hours of work can't be ignored because of a name.
I think safespeed is very appropriate infact, since speed is not implying fast, slow, or moderate speed, it's simply speed.
Safe Speed says to me that very thing, what is a safe speed.
Either way, the work is very much appreciated.
Lets just hope that someone in a suitable position with a big voice in government looks past what the title "could" imply, and actually comes away enlightened from it.
Then again, pigs might fly...!
Dave
I think safespeed is very appropriate infact, since speed is not implying fast, slow, or moderate speed, it's simply speed.
Safe Speed says to me that very thing, what is a safe speed.
Either way, the work is very much appreciated.
Lets just hope that someone in a suitable position with a big voice in government looks past what the title "could" imply, and actually comes away enlightened from it.
Then again, pigs might fly...!
Dave
roryalsop said:But the lowest common denominator can't read and just regurgitates sound bites. Also, doesn't everyone believe in "Safe Speed". It's just the speed they argue about - "Twenty's Plenty".
Any one who understands so little of the campaign that they assume we're claiming that it's always "safe to speed" is of little interest to me.
Need to aim at the lowest common denominator, not those of us who are already convinced
ca092003 said:
......Nevertheless I will take your comments on board and try to ensure that others are less likely to misundertand the objectives of what they're reading.
Why are you not keen -
safespeed said:
......to ensure that others are less likely to misundertand the objectives of what they're reading.
safespeed said:
safespeed said:
......Nevertheless I will take your comments on board and try to ensure that others are less likely to misundertand the objectives of what they're reading.
Why not cut and paste this post onto the page?
I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
I think he means to cut and paste your explanation onto that page, as the "pinch of salt" that readers should take when reading the rest of it.
That's how I interpret it anyway, could be wrong...
safespeed said:
If I wasn't so busy, I'd revamp the claims section and make certain clarifications.....
safespeed said:
......Nevertheless I will take your comments on board and try to ensure that others are less likely to misundertand the objectives of what they're reading.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff