West Yorks SCP - PR at it's finest.
Discussion
I sent this:
Do you honestly believe that the rigid adherence to an
arbitrary limit is "safe"? If so, can you explain to me, and the public
at large, which is safer.
1.. Travelling at 36mph (the speed which you accept numerous
people are caught travelling) on a clear sunny day in a 30 limit but
whilst paying attention to the hazards.
2. Travelling at 29mph in a 30 limit, in thick fog.
Anyone care to guess at the eloquence, time, thought and effort which goes into the reply? And how well they convince me?
Do you honestly believe that the rigid adherence to an
arbitrary limit is "safe"? If so, can you explain to me, and the public
at large, which is safer.
1.. Travelling at 36mph (the speed which you accept numerous
people are caught travelling) on a clear sunny day in a 30 limit but
whilst paying attention to the hazards.
2. Travelling at 29mph in a 30 limit, in thick fog.
Anyone care to guess at the eloquence, time, thought and effort which goes into the reply? And how well they convince me?
erm,
something like this..............
FACT speed kills. 150,000 people are injured every year, Camera have ben proved to dramatically reduce speed at camera sites. <weasel word, weasel word, weasel word etc etc etc>
Doesn't answer the questions, but if you look up the letters that are written after their cheif safety PR persons, you'll find that they all relate to marketting, not road safety. Hence the bull s**h.
If you point this out to him, I have it on good authority that he'll ban your Email from contacting him.
something like this..............
FACT speed kills. 150,000 people are injured every year, Camera have ben proved to dramatically reduce speed at camera sites. <weasel word, weasel word, weasel word etc etc etc>
Doesn't answer the questions, but if you look up the letters that are written after their cheif safety PR persons, you'll find that they all relate to marketting, not road safety. Hence the bull s**h.
If you point this out to him, I have it on good authority that he'll ban your Email from contacting him.
Edited by bryan35 on Friday 15th December 11:19
That is far more entertaining than my reply..
I just got (cut and pasted)
"It is the respopnsibility of every driver to drive legally, safely and sensibly"
I guess they don't want to answer it and look stupid... Well, even more stupid than they already do.
I am tempted to reply and ask again, this time pointing out I assumed they will suggest driving at 29mph as their banner at the top of the page says "...slow down, be a safe driver...".
I just got (cut and pasted)
"It is the respopnsibility of every driver to drive legally, safely and sensibly"
I guess they don't want to answer it and look stupid... Well, even more stupid than they already do.
I am tempted to reply and ask again, this time pointing out I assumed they will suggest driving at 29mph as their banner at the top of the page says "...slow down, be a safe driver...".
jasandjules said:
That is far more entertaining than my reply..
I just got (cut and pasted)
"It is the respopnsibility of every driver to drive legally, safely and sensibly"
I guess they don't want to answer it and look stupid... Well, even more stupid than they already do.
I am tempted to reply and ask again, this time pointing out I assumed they will suggest driving at 29mph as their banner at the top of the page says "...slow down, be a safe driver...".
I just got (cut and pasted)
"It is the respopnsibility of every driver to drive legally, safely and sensibly"
I guess they don't want to answer it and look stupid... Well, even more stupid than they already do.
I am tempted to reply and ask again, this time pointing out I assumed they will suggest driving at 29mph as their banner at the top of the page says "...slow down, be a safe driver...".
The response you received was 100% correct, and 66.7% relevant to your question. But what would we expect?
If speed limits were set at a sensible level then the answer would be 100% relevant. As they're not, and increasingly set at levels that are based on politics rather than safety, we can't expect any more.
But what would you do in the situation where there are:
- increasingly vocal and rights-obsessed pedestrians who think they own the streets
- more and more cyclists, some incompetent and some cycling-club "we'll ride 5 abreast if we want to" types
- increasing numbers of houses being built right next to busy main roads and motorways?
Should our speed limits be changed to accommodate these factors? If everyone was considerate then there would be no need to tell people to watch out for pedestrians and bikes, and to slow down near houses at night. But they're not because society is (it seems to me) increasingly inconsiderate and "sod you" when it comes to thinking of others' needs.
So all bad and inconsiderate driving is addressed by the single blunt instrument of speed limits. But what tools do authorities have to enforce considerateness? And in their absence, the approach seems to be to limit the effect of inconsiderateness. Anything else would after all be classed as nanny-state or divisive/non-inclusive. Can driving alone be singled out as a task for which people need to be assessed for considerateness? Or do driving laws have to take account of trends in wider society?
Not trying to preach, just working through some thoughts. What do you think?
I’ve never seen cyclists ride 5 abreast, in fact 2 abreast is very rare. Cycling is a good way to travel and should be encouraged.
I’ve never seen a rights-obsessed pedestrian, in fact I think all of them are far too meek.
I know some bad speed limits but only outside of residential areas. If everyone was, as you say, considerate then we wouldn’t need speed limits, but they’re not. Driving within the speed limit is part of considerateness, so enforcing the limit achieves that aim. Unfortunately it’s poorly enforced. I would have liked to enforce it against the person who passed me walking beside my residential road last night, who was probably exceeding 70. I would have banned him on the spot, as I’m sure would the lady walking her dog and the person reversing out of their driveway.
It’s only drivers that I see showing increasing lack of consideration on the roads. Pedestrians and cyclists by and large are being frightened off the road. Of course you can’t kill them if you’ve frightened them off the road. I think that may be some peoples idea of road safety.
I’ve never seen a rights-obsessed pedestrian, in fact I think all of them are far too meek.
I know some bad speed limits but only outside of residential areas. If everyone was, as you say, considerate then we wouldn’t need speed limits, but they’re not. Driving within the speed limit is part of considerateness, so enforcing the limit achieves that aim. Unfortunately it’s poorly enforced. I would have liked to enforce it against the person who passed me walking beside my residential road last night, who was probably exceeding 70. I would have banned him on the spot, as I’m sure would the lady walking her dog and the person reversing out of their driveway.
It’s only drivers that I see showing increasing lack of consideration on the roads. Pedestrians and cyclists by and large are being frightened off the road. Of course you can’t kill them if you’ve frightened them off the road. I think that may be some peoples idea of road safety.
herewego said:
I’ve never seen cyclists ride 5 abreast, in fact 2 abreast is very rare. Cycling is a good way to travel and should be encouraged.
I’ve never seen a rights-obsessed pedestrian, in fact I think all of them are far too meek.
I’ve never seen a rights-obsessed pedestrian, in fact I think all of them are far too meek.
You haven't lived herewego! I see cyclists trying to occupy the whole lane frequently, usually those that don lycra and think they're teaching the world a lesson by riding 2 or 3 abreast. They don't seem to realise they're the ones that are going to get hurt!
As for pedestrians, they're generally more sensible untill they get drunk, then they treat roads like a magical pathway home. No offence of jay walking in this country unfortunately.
herewego said:
I know some bad speed limits but only outside of residential areas. If everyone was, as you say, considerate then we wouldn’t need speed limits, but they’re not. Driving within the speed limit is part of considerateness, so enforcing the limit achieves that aim.
Do you think so? Why then are so many drivers being caught daily if the aim of "considerateness" and driving within the limit is being achieved? Doesn't stack up that one! In reality the greatest thing being achieved is the erosion of police/public relations.
herewego said:
Unfortunately it’s poorly enforced. I would have liked to enforce it against the person who passed me walking beside my residential road last night, who was probably exceeding 70. I would have banned him on the spot, as I’m sure would the lady walking her dog and the person reversing out of their driveway.
It’s only drivers that I see showing increasing lack of consideration on the roads.
It’s only drivers that I see showing increasing lack of consideration on the roads.
But you weren't there in your camera van last night were you? Funny how the SCP's are only concerned for residents safety during periods when they know they will catch the most drivers isn't it?
herewego said:
Pedestrians and cyclists by and large are being frightened off the road. Of course you can’t kill them if you’ve frightened them off the road. I think that may be some peoples idea of road safety.
Peter Ward said:
So all bad and inconsiderate driving is addressed by the single blunt instrument of speed limits. But what tools do authorities have to enforce considerateness? And in their absence, the approach seems to be to limit the effect of inconsiderateness. Anything else would after all be classed as nanny-state or divisive/non-inclusive. Can driving alone be singled out as a task for which people need to be assessed for considerateness? Or do driving laws have to take account of trends in wider society?
Not trying to preach, just working through some thoughts. What do you think?
Not trying to preach, just working through some thoughts. What do you think?
I understand where you're coming from Peter, but the trouble is the blunt instrument of speed limits and their enforcement doesn't in reality address bad and inconsiderate driving, but rather punishes safe driving, as we all know.
IMO, the main tool needed is sensible plod, but as you say in their absence we now have one track minded SCP's. It's all very well for them to preach that they "limit the effect of inconsiderateness", but when their very own actions are by definition inconsiderate, the effect has to be they will alienate more than they win for sure.
All I would like to see personally are driving laws that are enforced sensibly, as JJ well highlights the present lunacy, and a halt to the mass persecution of easy pickings.
"It is the respopnsibility of every driver to drive legally, safely and sensibly"
Totaly agree. People who moan are people who speed.
Try going everywhere on foot for a week. You'll soon be pleased with the amazing progress one can make travelling at the legal speed limit!
You clearly have no concept of safety - Q2. "Travelling at 29mph in a 30 limit, in thick fog." You think this is safe?
I'm glad the limits are as they are. They help protect me and the people I love from muppets like you!
Steptoe
PS Clean licence for 22yrs.
steptoe said:
"- Q2. "Travelling at 29mph in a 30 limit, in thick fog." You think this is safe?
.
I think that's the point.We all know it isn't yet you can merrily go past a Gatso like this and nothing will happen.Do you think the speed limits are the most important safety factor in driving today?
Steptoe, you clearly have no ability to read the inference into the rather loaded question I posted them.
If they had the brains, they would have replied that BOTH are equally dangerous (continuing the speed kills lie that is) to protect themselves. But sadly I suspect they employ tamarins, and thus the random keyboard thumping got me the reply I posted.
Oh, I have never gotten an NIP, nor any points my license.
If they had the brains, they would have replied that BOTH are equally dangerous (continuing the speed kills lie that is) to protect themselves. But sadly I suspect they employ tamarins, and thus the random keyboard thumping got me the reply I posted.
Oh, I have never gotten an NIP, nor any points my license.
steptoe said:
"It is the respopnsibility of every driver to drive legally, safely and sensibly"
Totaly agree. People who moan are people who speed.
Try going everywhere on foot for a week. You'll soon be pleased with the amazing progress one can make travelling at the legal speed limit!
You clearly have no concept of safety - Q2. "Travelling at 29mph in a 30 limit, in thick fog." You think this is safe?
I'm glad the limits are as they are. They help protect me and the people I love from muppets like you!
Steptoe
PS Clean licence for 22yrs.
Haaaa-rrrolllddddd!
Steptoe, sorry, maybe you appear to know so little about driving because you knock around Oildrum Lane with that horse and cart but your answer is really ill thought through. Why do you assume Jas is a muppet? What has he done wrong so as to deserve such playground name-calling? If ever there was a post that demonstrates what I was taught about exams at school, it is this - READ AND UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION PROPERLY BEFORE REPLYING! I mean, "People who moan are people who speed". What utter toffee is this?
You filfy dirty grubby old mahhhn! (just my joke)
Andy Zarse
PS Clean licence for 25 years (and therefore a better driver than Steptoe)
steptoe said:
"It is the respopnsibility of every driver to drive legally, safely and sensibly"
Totaly agree. People who moan are people who speed.
Try going everywhere on foot for a week. You'll soon be pleased with the amazing progress one can make travelling at the legal speed limit!
You clearly have no concept of safety - Q2. "Travelling at 29mph in a 30 limit, in thick fog." You think this is safe?
I'm glad the limits are as they are. They help protect me and the people I love from muppets like you!
Steptoe
PS Clean licence for 22yrs.
Eh up son!
Try walking at half your usual speed and then draw a parallel to those places where the speed limit has been set too low as a knee-jerk reaction to accidents that have nothing to do with speed; or nothing to do with any accidents for that matter.
Think Motorways (collisions in fog and the 70's fuel crisis). Causes bunching of traffic and obedience makes me stay closer to muppets in adjacent lanes for longer!
A610 J26 M1 - towards Matlock, near me (dual carriageway - NSL limit reduced to 50/40 due to rush-hour queueing and people doing U-Turns across centre to avoid queues, suicide off bridge, children jaywalking (no footpaths or houses)
A6144(formerley M) off the M60 Manchester ring road - M/way NSL -> 50mph for no other reason than it was the average speed of the traffic (or thereabouts)
A50 Meir tunnel - DC: 40mph speed limit on brand new road (a few years ago) - Why...?
Anyone else care to submit any bad speed limits?
You are incorrect to assume that we think all speed limits are wrong. The howlers stand out to anybody who gives a sh!t. Do you?
Edited by alphadog on Tuesday 19th December 16:39
I passed a camera van in Bradford this afternoon. It was in a 30 zone, which many people speed along. It was clearly marked, parked at the side of the road and totaly unobstructed.
If I were to speed good observation would prevent me from being caught in the act, yet I'm sure that there will be many people moaning when they recieve their NIP from speeding past that van today.
There has to be speed limits and they have to be set at some level, whilst I appreciate that some limits are daft we must adhere to those limits - It's the law! We cannot as individuals choose which laws we adhere to. Do you really believe that every driver on the road is capable of deciding what is a safe speed?
My real point is that most of the people that have a problem are those that have already been caught offending.
If those people were as observant as they would like to think and that they can spot potential hazards then they should have spotted the van, the camera or the car.
Speed if you like but be prepared to suffer the consequences.
Steptoe.
If I were to speed good observation would prevent me from being caught in the act, yet I'm sure that there will be many people moaning when they recieve their NIP from speeding past that van today.
There has to be speed limits and they have to be set at some level, whilst I appreciate that some limits are daft we must adhere to those limits - It's the law! We cannot as individuals choose which laws we adhere to. Do you really believe that every driver on the road is capable of deciding what is a safe speed?
My real point is that most of the people that have a problem are those that have already been caught offending.
If those people were as observant as they would like to think and that they can spot potential hazards then they should have spotted the van, the camera or the car.
Speed if you like but be prepared to suffer the consequences.
Steptoe.
steptoe said:
There has to be speed limits and they have to be set at some level, whilst I appreciate that some limits are daft we must adhere to those limits - It's the law! We cannot as individuals choose which laws we adhere to. Do you really believe that every driver on the road is capable of deciding what is a safe speed?
No I don't believe every driver on the road is capable of deciding what is a safe speed. I think that most of us are capable of making acceptably accurate judgements on what is a safe speed. We rely on people having this capability to keep the roads safe. If we didn't trust that people have this capability we would have to set the speed limits at a speed that it is always safe to travel at. 10 mph or even slower probably.
If we are trusted to judge what is a safe speed below the speed limit, why can't we be trusted to judge what is a safe speed above the speed limit?
SamHH said:
steptoe said:
There has to be speed limits and they have to be set at some level, whilst I appreciate that some limits are daft we must adhere to those limits - It's the law! We cannot as individuals choose which laws we adhere to. Do you really believe that every driver on the road is capable of deciding what is a safe speed?
No I don't believe every driver on the road is capable of deciding what is a safe speed. I think that most of us are capable of making acceptably accurate judgements on what is a safe speed. We rely on people having this capability to keep the roads safe. If we didn't trust that people have this capability we would have to set the speed limits at a speed that it is always safe to travel at. 10 mph or even slower probably.
If we are trusted to judge what is a safe speed below the speed limit, why can't we be trusted to judge what is a safe speed above the speed limit?
Because our current system only recognises one standard of driver & sets the parameters for it. There is no tiered licencing system for you to demonstrate higher skill levels outside of the performane parameters set for you. You are expetced to drive safely with due regard for the circumstances within the performance parameters allowed (as you demonstrated you could do with your DSA test) but not outside them.
But we are already judged to be competant drivers hence being allowed to drive in the first place. It's the incompetant ones who cause the accidents, not the speed they drive at or the speed we drive at. Maybe standards should be raised and a carrot would help. The stick's helping nobody apart from those people in the minting department.
Boosted.
Boosted.
Boosted LS1 said:
But we are already judged to be competant drivers hence being allowed to drive in the first place.
Only licenced & certified as competent to drive within the rules of the road & parameters as set. If you drive outside that then the licence can be withdrawn.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 19th December 19:44
vonhosen said:
Boosted LS1 said:
But we are already judged to be competant drivers hence being allowed to drive in the first place.
Only licenced & certified as competent to drive within the rules of the road & parameters as set. If you drive outside that then the licence can be withdrawn.
Thanks mum, I've got me vest on and will be in for supper by 9.
turbobloke said:
vonhosen said:
Boosted LS1 said:
But we are already judged to be competant drivers hence being allowed to drive in the first place.
Only licenced & certified as competent to drive within the rules of the road & parameters as set. If you drive outside that then the licence can be withdrawn.
Thanks mum, I've got me vest on and will be in for supper by 9.
Don't forget your scarf, hat & gloves, it's chilly.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff