FAO Simon Mason

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 14:29:47 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

If you allow emotion into the discussion then one ends up with short
term superficial knee-jerk solutions. One has to get to the root
cause of the situation in order to arrive at a long-term sustainable
solution.

Right. And the root cause is that drivers habitually overestimate
their own skill, refuse to accept the risks they pose to others,
underestimate the extent to which risk applies to them, and are better
protected than those to whom they pose most danger.

To get to the root cause we need to find out why they behave like that.

This is bolstered by a cottage industry of idiots whose raison d'être
is perpetuating these misconceptions and fostering the myth that
driving too fast is not actually dangerous or antisocial.

You've left out any reference to fast driving being (relatively) safe under
appropriate conditions.

The solution would be a concerted effort on the part of Government to
bring home to drivers how dangerous driving is. But that would be a
vote loser in a country where a pedestrian is defined in the tabloid
press as "someone who has found a place to park the car".

Not necessarily, it needs to be handled properly through driver education
and training and won't happen overnight.

Simon Mason wrote:
"Matt B" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

"Matt B" wrote in message
...


You said it was actually the traffic calming /not/ the speed
limits when I asked you the direct question before.

Both calming and signs exist. The calming measures physically
enforce what the speed limit signs show.

Do you honestly think that? Do do think that the same calming
methods deliver exactly 50, 40, 30 or 20 mph speeds, dependent on
what number was written inside the speed limit circle?

Cameras can enforce speed limits of 30/40/50

If cameras enforce speed limits how come over 1.5 million convictions are
handed out each year?

On Sun, 17 May 2009 16:54:08 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

To get to the root cause we need to find out why they behave like that.

See below

This is bolstered by a cottage industry of idiots whose raison d'être
is perpetuating these misconceptions and fostering the myth that
driving too fast is not actually dangerous or antisocial.

You've left out any reference to fast driving being (relatively) safe under
appropriate conditions.

Safe for whom? Firing a gun is reasonably safe if you're the one
doing the firing. I happen to think that the leading cause of injury
death in children is not actually that safe, and the perception that
it is safe because drivers have airbags and steel cages is actually
pretty much the root of the problem. Motorcycling is objectively
dangerous, at least as it is practiced, but the motorcyclist tends to
be the one that dies. Driving is portrayed as safe, but the drivers
are only a proportion of those they place at risk. Risk and danger
are not intransitive.

Not necessarily, it needs to be handled properly through driver education
and training and won't happen overnight.

s/overnight/ever/ at least as long as the Daily Mail dictates policy.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Newsgroup may contain nuts.

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

Cameras can enforce speed limits of 30/40/50

If cameras enforce speed limits how come over 1.5 million convictions are
handed out each year?

Because that many drivers are stupid enough to ignore this enforcement of
course.

Funnily enough, I've not paid a speeding fine for 13 years.

Apart from my wife's, that is!

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 16:54:08 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

You've left out any reference to fast driving being (relatively)
safe under appropriate conditions.

Safe for whom?

Everyone.

Simon Mason wrote:

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

Cameras can enforce speed limits of 30/40/50

If cameras enforce speed limits how come over 1.5 million convictions
are handed out each year?

Because that many drivers are stupid enough to ignore this enforcement
of course.

Which proves the point really. Speed limits, even with camera
enforcement, do not deliver even speeds within the speed limit at one
specific location within their range, let alone safe speeds throughout.

Why not let's forget them now, and concentrate on the superior measures
which can and do deliver safe speeds across the board.

--
Matt B

On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:05:10 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

You've left out any reference to fast driving being (relatively)
safe under appropriate conditions.
Safe for whom?
Everyone.

Fail. Motor traffic is the leading cause of injury death in children
and accounts for around 3,000 deaths and ten times that number of
serious injuries annually. More people have been killed in road
traffic collisions since 1945 than in all the wars during the same
period. Compare that with the hysteria over the swine flu epidemic,
total death toll last time I checked was about 20 with around 5,000
confirmed cases worldwide. Sounds to me as if the "everyone" in
question turns out to be the standard driver's definition of
"everyone", meaning the driver himself.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Newsgroup may contain nuts.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 17:05:10 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

You've left out any reference to fast driving being (relatively)
safe under appropriate conditions.
Safe for whom?
Everyone.

Fail. Motor traffic is the leading cause of injury death in children
and accounts for around 3,000 deaths and ten times that number of
serious injuries annually. More people have been killed in road
traffic collisions since 1945 than in all the wars during the same
period. Compare that with the hysteria over the swine flu epidemic,
total death toll last time I checked was about 20 with around 5,000
confirmed cases worldwide. Sounds to me as if the "everyone" in
question turns out to be the standard driver's definition of
"everyone", meaning the driver himself.

Exactly the reaction I expected. As usual, you failed to read my post and
thus missed the words "under appropriate conditions".

Simon Mason wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

Cameras can enforce speed limits of 30/40/50

If cameras enforce speed limits how come over 1.5 million
convictions are handed out each year?

Because that many drivers are stupid enough to ignore this
enforcement of course.

Thus it's not enforced, merely punished when the transfressors are daft
enough to get caught.

Funnily enough, I've not paid a speeding fine for 13 years.

Are you now admitting to being the same as everyone else?

Apart from my wife's, that is!

Why should you have been punished for your wife's speeding?

"Simon Mason" wrote in
news

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...

Cameras can enforce speed limits of 30/40/50

If cameras enforce speed limits how come over 1.5 million convictions
are handed out each year?

Because that many drivers are stupid enough to ignore this enforcement
of course.

Funnily enough, I've not paid a speeding fine for 13 years.

Maybe the speed limits are set too low. People generally won't travel at a
speed they consider to be dangerous. It doen't make sense. There are many
speed limits I consider to be too low for the road. Conversely, I can
think of at least one nearby road where I think the limit should be reduced
from 60 to 50 or maybe even 40.

The problem is that the setting of speed limits is often at the whim of
local authorities who are not necessarily road safety experts. I agree
that speed limits are necesary and so is enforcement of those limits. But
it is important to start off with an appropriate limit for a particular
road. Where I used to live, the local Labour-controlled authority changed
the speed limits of all dual carriageways in the town from 60mph & 50mph to
a blanket 40mph irrespective of local conditions surrounding the roads. It
was obvious that no consideration had been given to each road individually
when allocating the new arbitrary limits.