Xt500 Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 please notice the copy and pasters in this thread have yet to produce any real info on the stats they put forward as facts. The reason for that is they cant as they know nothing whatsoever about them other than face value. What they do instead is throw up smoke screens and insults. come on please back up your stats with some real info or please stop using empty pasted rubbish put forward as facts! ---------- Post added 26-01-2013 at 12:17 ---------- Well, one of us certainly does. I'll leave it up to everyone else posting on the thread to decide which. Thats a corker mate,truck drivers know little about driving cars Its a laugh a minute on here,nice one Dont suppose you would want to put your money where your mouth is would you? I thought not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Sorry I was looking for the "speaks in Dudley Moore voice" emoticon when I wrote that but, then again, you have to be of a certain age to understand that. RTM is understood here perfectly just as statistical significance is. But the answer is always going to be "we don't know what would have happened if we hadn't intervened" and no statistician/economist or anyone else working with guesses/estimates/finger licked into the wind figures can say anything different. So, I don't say they have worked or haven't, will continue to work in the future or won't. On balance, I reckon they curb our natural tendency to push the envelope on speed. Whether we need to be curbed, whether we can "drive to the conditions" and effectively make our own minds up and make good speed choices without a speed framework and occasional enforcement is open to debate. I know that since, in the last 3 weeks, I have found 6 illegal tyres on company cars where the cost of a new tyre is not an issue. Everywhere I go, I find broad ignorance as to what the function of a tyre's tread is and at what point its performance falls off a cliff like a stone purely because they have never been told AND have never asked/read to find out. If it's not ignorance on tread it's ignorance on tyre pressures which then affects performance of the tread which will cost the driver money. Drivers do not check tyre pressures regularly enough, a kick and visual check on its own means that a drop of one-third in tyre pressure is overlooked. And all this in winter. "Is your car ready for Winter?" Well, no, in many cases it isn't ready for Summer, either. Why do i allow myself to go off-topic? Well, the debate always splits down in two: there are those that are painted as holier-than-thou, know nothing, incompetent drivers and there are those that profess to know everything and can sort out their own speed because they can. The truth is that many/most cut corners and wouldn't know one end of a tyre pressure gauge or tread depth gauge from the other. The four corners of the car could be under-performing to a lesser or greater extent, the (potentially catastrophic) puncture could be around the next or last corner. In ignorance, they cannot make make informed speed choices cameras or not. I do wish we could get away from the stalest of debates on camera/scamera and move on to bigger and better things. How many will respond to this with a "tell me more" response? How many will go and read up and improve their performance and lower their costs? How many treat driving as a life-skill and every day as a school day? How many treat driving as a right rather than as a responsibility? I guess that most of us are somewhere in the middle. I have a tyre pressure gauge, I don't use it very often. I check the pressure if it feels odd, or if the warning light comes on. (Which seems to be after about a 15% drop). I don't own a depth gauge, but I do own eyes. I do sometimes borrow my Dads depth gauge though. I'm sure my at speed driving could be improved, I've driven on a track, and I'd like to do that more. I've repeated several times that it's the cynical placement of speed cameras that winds me up, maybe you don't think this happens though and that they are always placed in the best place to improve safety and not to catch people... Because the two are obviously not the same. And the other thing that annoys me is the recent trend of lowering limits and then enforcing the new limits aggressively, with little evidence that it is necessary or will help safety at all, that does appear to either be down to ignorance and stupidity or to be designed to make money. ---------- Post added 26-01-2013 at 12:21 ---------- please notice the copy and pasters in this thread have yet to produce any real info on the stats they put forward as facts. The reason for that is they cant as they know nothing whatsoever about them other than face value. What they do instead is throw up smoke screens and insults. come on please back up your stats with some real info or please stop using empty pasted rubbish put forward as facts! ---------- Post added 26-01-2013 at 12:17 ---------- Thats a corker mate,truck drivers know little about driving cars Its a laugh a minute on here,nice one Dont suppose you would want to put your money where your mouth is would you? I thought not! You thought... that would surprise me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Goole to Wolverhampton (and return) is nothing like 328 miles - unless you go well out of your way. A simple check gets me 101 miles one-way between these places. ---------- Post added 26-01-2013 at 13:23 ---------- please notice the copy and pasters in this thread have yet to produce any real info on the stats they put forward as facts. The reason for that is they cant as they know nothing whatsoever about them other than face value. What they do instead is throw up smoke screens and insults. come on please back up your stats with some real info or please stop using empty pasted rubbish put forward as facts! ---------- Post added 26-01-2013 at 12:17 ---------- Thats a corker mate,truck drivers know little about driving cars Its a laugh a minute on here,nice one Dont suppose you would want to put your money where your mouth is would you? I thought not! Talking about "real stats", can you explain your 328 return miles Goole-Wolverhampton? Where else of significance do you go? If you can't, don't be surprised at being rubbished from both sides of the argument. Is this mileage correct if you take a Walter Mitty route? ---------- Post added 26-01-2013 at 13:44 ---------- Cyclone, I don't subscribe to the notion that they are placed "cynically". But, if "cynical" is where the lie-of-the-land makes excessive or slightly over-the-top speed (judged by past events) a problem and the SCPs' aim IS casualty reduction, I have few (NOT no) issues with them. I hope to be able to obtain some money figures at some stage that will demonstrate how the cameras often do not even pay for themselves. Whether some on here will give them house room is another matter. Casualty reduction, limit reduction and enforcement, as I have said before, need not focus purely on illegal speeds. At junctions, SMIDSY is an ongoing and major contributory factor of crashes. Looking and not seeing (or taking a chance on emerging in front of) a car travelling at 60 has an outcome. Looking and not seeing (etc) at the same junction with a lower prevailing speed (legal or not) has a demonstrably better outcome. Casualty reduction is about better outcomes. I have driven for years at up to 60mph on the A61 and A57 (on every part of it) with no ill-effects. If only safe driving was only about driving in a straight-ish line with no-one allowed to turn, cross or emerge in front of you! How I am different is that I am not offended by the lowered limit - there are worse things to have a moan about and try to change. (EVERYONE should be required to read: http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/ whether or not they think they are at risks at junctions at any speed on the main road or when emerging from a side road). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 please notice the copy and pasters in this thread have yet to produce any real info on the stats they put forward as facts. What they do instead is throw up smoke screens and insults. Still waiting for your expert opinion on why the 30 mph limit in Renishaw is wrong, which is what this thread is about. But I see you're too busy avoiding that by posting insults: Or your just plain thick! Ha ha you really are looking stupid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gym_rat Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 I always wonder what other laws the speed brigade are happy to break on a daily basis and why they think their law breaking should be unpunished. It`s the law, you don`t get to pick and choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 A simple check gets me 101 miles one-way between these places. ---------- Post added 26-01-2013 at 13:23 ---------- Talking about "real stats", can you explain your 328 return miles Goole-Wolverhampton? Where else of significance do you go? If you can't, don't be surprised at being rubbished from both sides of the argument. Is this mileage correct if you take a Walter Mitty route? ---------- Post added 26-01-2013 at 13:44 ---------- Cyclone, I don't subscribe to the notion that they are placed "cynically". But, if "cynical" is where the lie-of-the-land makes excessive or slightly over-the-top speed (judged by past events) a problem and the SCPs' aim IS casualty reduction, I have few (NOT no) issues with them. I hope to be able to obtain some money figures at some stage that will demonstrate how the cameras often do not even pay for themselves. Whether some on here will give them house room is another matter. Casualty reduction, limit reduction and enforcement, as I have said before, need not focus purely on illegal speeds. At junctions, SMIDSY is an ongoing and major contributory factor of crashes. Looking and not seeing (or taking a chance on emerging in front of) a car travelling at 60 has an outcome. Looking and not seeing (etc) at the same junction with a lower prevailing speed (legal or not) has a demonstrably better outcome. Casualty reduction is about better outcomes. I have driven for years at up to 60mph on the A61 and A57 (on every part of it) with no ill-effects. If only safe driving was only about driving in a straight-ish line with no-one allowed to turn, cross or emerge in front of you! How I am different is that I am not offended by the lowered limit - there are worse things to have a moan about and try to change. (EVERYONE should be required to read: http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/ whether or not they think they are at risks at junctions at any speed on the main road or when emerging from a side road). The reason I am offended by the lowered speeds is that the reports done do NOT support changing the speed. The council is apparently acting to lower speed limits when their own reports say that it is not necessary. To ignore the report, lower the limit and then enforce it with the most aggressive type of camera suggests to me that safety is nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 A simple check gets me 101 miles one-way between these places. ---------- Post added 26-01-2013 at 13:23 ---------- Talking about "real stats", can you explain your 328 return miles Goole-Wolverhampton? Where else of significance do you go? If you can't, don't be surprised at being rubbished from both sides of the argument. Is this mileage correct if you take a Walter Mitty route? ---------- Post added 26-01-2013 at 13:44 ---------- Cyclone, I don't subscribe to the notion that they are placed "cynically". But, if "cynical" is where the lie-of-the-land makes excessive or slightly over-the-top speed (judged by past events) a problem and the SCPs' aim IS casualty reduction, I have few (NOT no) issues with them. I hope to be able to obtain some money figures at some stage that will demonstrate how the cameras often do not even pay for themselves. Whether some on here will give them house room is another matter. Casualty reduction, limit reduction and enforcement, as I have said before, need not focus purely on illegal speeds. At junctions, SMIDSY is an ongoing and major contributory factor of crashes. Looking and not seeing (or taking a chance on emerging in front of) a car travelling at 60 has an outcome. Looking and not seeing (etc) at the same junction with a lower prevailing speed (legal or not) has a demonstrably better outcome. Casualty reduction is about better outcomes. I have driven for years at up to 60mph on the A61 and A57 (on every part of it) with no ill-effects. If only safe driving was only about driving in a straight-ish line with no-one allowed to turn, cross or emerge in front of you! How I am different is that I am not offended by the lowered limit - there are worse things to have a moan about and try to change. (EVERYONE should be required to read: http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/ whether or not they think they are at risks at junctions at any speed on the main road or when emerging from a side road). i wondered how long it would take for someone to spout it was only 100 miles it isnt its more depending on where your going and what you do when you get there but more importantly you assume the driver walks to get the vehicle in the first place and then walks home.As this is a sheffield forum you would assume that theres also the travel to and from goole aswell wouldnt you? I guess not ---------- Post added 27-01-2013 at 13:44 ---------- Still waiting for your expert opinion on why the 30 mph limit in Renishaw is wrong, which is what this thread is about. But I see you're too busy avoiding that by posting insults: More smoke sceening Theres not much in your post related to the thread topic iether is there kettle......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EASTWOOD141 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 ok, I`ll ask - where did they hid in Renishaw? where did they hid? if you mean where did they hide, well if people knew that they wouldn't get caught speeding, derrrr! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gym_rat Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 where did they hid? if you mean where did they hide, well if people knew that they wouldn't get caught speeding, derrrr! no need for the smilie or the speeling lesson pal - you said they hide in Renishaw to catch drivers breaking the law, I lived in Renishaw and I know where the police stand and where they park the vans, what I`m asking is where did they hide as you insinuated? no need for a link to google street view, a description will suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EASTWOOD141 Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 no need for the smilie or the speeling lesson pal - you said they hide in Renishaw to catch drivers breaking the law, I lived in Renishaw and I know where the police stand and where they park the vans, what I`m asking is where did they hide as you insinuated? no need for a link to google street view, a description will suffice. You make me laugh. speeling lesson, you mean speeding lesson, ps, you need a spelling lesson, I can give a description of Renishaw, all the blokes wear half mast trousers and white socks and a lot of interbreeding goes on their, they say every village as an Idiot, could that be you by any chance, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.