OT: P**l Sm*th

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/news/x_050419_vacuous-speed-argument_uk.htm

Quoted message said:

A critique of the numpty Sm*th, formerly a troll of this parish.

I generally agree with that article but...

They fail to deal with the issue of *why* we have to make people obey speed
limits. We have to do this because people are generally unable or unwilling
to drive at a speed that is appropriate to the conditions. Targeted speed
limits (like 30 limits in towns and villages) can help this, but IMO blanket
limits (like the NSL, or "we've had alot of accidents here so we've reduced
the limit" 50 limits don't). In these cases the limits only serve to
partially address the symptom of the problem (i.e. people driving too fast),
and not the root of the problem (i.e. dirvers are often too incompetant to
drive at an appropriate speed).

We need drivers to be encouraged to think for themselves, and to drive at an
appropriate speed by themselves. Blanket limits are only going to damage the
credibility of limits where they are useful, and dodge the reality that
drivers generally need to think for themselves when choosing their speed.
After all, speed limits can never take into account the worst case scenario
without unnecessarily impeding people in more usual (or better still)
scenarios.

Just zis Guy said:

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/news/x_050419_vacuous-speed-argument_uk.htm

A critique of the numpty Sm*th, formerly a troll of this parish.

There was a critical letter of him in today's Express too :-))

No I don't buy the rag, it was in the tea stop on this afternoon's ride.

John B

Just zis Guy said:

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/news/x_050419_vacuous-speed-argument_uk.htm

A critique of the numpty Sm*th, formerly a troll of this parish.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

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

Did you see the drivel he was spouting about the introduction of cameras
on the M4 ?

But Paul Smith from safety campaign group Safespeed claimed the scheme
would fail: "They absolutely will not work to improve road safety.

"Apart from the distraction and panic braking effects we also have to
worry about moving drivers outside their 'zone of optimal performance'."

Presumably if drivers move out of their 'zone of optimal perfomance'
when they slow down their driving improves the faster they go ?!?!?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/england/4439123.stm
--
regards

Bill

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/news/x_050419_vacuous-speed-argument_uk.htm

A critique of the numpty Sm*th, formerly a troll of this parish.

Hey, no need to be polite! This is P*** S*****.

Quoted message said:

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

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

Quoted message said:

We need drivers to be encouraged to think for themselves, and to drive
at an appropriate speed by themselves. Blanket limits are only going
to damage the credibility of limits where they are useful, and dodge
the reality that drivers generally need to think for themselves when
choosing their speed. After all, speed limits can never take into
account the worst case scenario without unnecessarily impeding people
in more usual (or better still) scenarios.

You don't get it. The blanket speed limits DO require drivers to think for
themselves. 30 in many built up areas is often way too fast - too many
narrow roads, poor sightlines and kids chasing footballs into the road etc.
On country lanes we have a 60 limit on blind corners, with peds walking on
the road, escaped sheep etc as well as tight bends, s-bends, mud all over
the road.

All the blanket limit does is put a ceiling on drivers [censored] poor judgement.

Also, we're talking population level types of risk, so what's perfectly
safe for you isn't when all the other drivers start doing it. This is why
speed limits are so "low".

Nathaniel Porter said:

(i.e. dirvers are often too incompetant to
drive at an appropriate speed).

And how is that the fault of the speed limit?

Quoted message said:

We need drivers to be encouraged to think for themselves

Better enforced penalties for infringement would be a good way to
encourage them. Get all the uninsured/banned drivers off the road and
the road would suddenly become a much safer place.

d.

in message <[email hidden]>, Nathaniel Porter

(') said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/news/x_050419_vacuous-speed-argument_uk.htm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A critique of the numpty Sm*th, formerly a troll of this parish.

I generally agree with that article but...

They fail to deal with the issue of *why* we have to make people obey
speed limits. We have to do this because people are generally unable
or unwilling to drive at a speed that is appropriate to the
conditions. Targeted speed limits (like 30 limits in towns and
villages) can help this, but IMO blanket limits (like the NSL, or
"we've had alot of accidents here so we've reduced the limit" 50
limits don't). In these cases the limits only serve to partially
address the symptom of the problem (i.e. people driving too fast), and
not the root of the problem (i.e. dirvers are often too incompetant to
drive at an appropriate speed).

More to the point would be mandatory speed limiters on all motor
vehicles except emergency service vehicles, set at the NSL, with
mandatory confiscation of the vehicle if the controller is tampered
with. 'Twouldn't solve the problem of idiots who drive too fast in
difficult conditions, but would stop the problem of people driving at
silly speeds.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"This young man has not the faintest idea how socialists think and does
not begin to understand the mentality of the party he has been elected
to lead. He is quite simply a liberal"
-- Ken Coates MEP (Lab) of Tony Blair

Just zis Guy said:

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/news/x_050419_vacuous-speed-argument_uk.htm

Quoted message said:

A critique of the numpty Sm*th, formerly a troll of this parish.

Guy

So you accept the views of one group with an agenda but you dismiss those of
another with a different agenda?

Interesting.

Simon Brooke said:

More to the point would be mandatory speed limiters on all motor
vehicles except emergency service vehicles, set at the NSL, with
mandatory confiscation of the vehicle if the controller is tampered
with. 'Twouldn't solve the problem of idiots who drive too fast in
difficult conditions, but would stop the problem of people driving at
silly speeds.

It would also stop people driving at the NSL in those parts of Europe which
have on higher than the UK...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
They came for Eamonn Holmes; I think I'm right in saying that I
applauded.

Simon Brooke said:

More to the point would be mandatory speed limiters on all motor
vehicles except emergency service vehicles, set at the NSL, with
mandatory confiscation of the vehicle if the controller is tampered
with. 'Twouldn't solve the problem of idiots who drive too fast in
difficult conditions, but would stop the problem of people driving at
silly speeds.

As a question, what would you do if the death toll did not fall?

If, as is mentioned in several RTA reports, that many many accidents occur
well within the speed limit how will fitting speed limiters solve this?

It's fixing the wrong problem. Want to make the roads safer - deal
with/train/arrest the object controlling the vehicle.

dwb said:

If, as is mentioned in several RTA reports, that many many accidents occur
well within the speed limit how will fitting speed limiters solve this?

Oh, what marvellous logic. Since rubbish-collection in Hackney won't
solve the problem of violent crime in New York city, there is evidently
no need for rubbish-collection in Hackney?

R.

Richard said:

dwb said:

If, as is mentioned in several RTA reports, that many many accidents
occur well within the speed limit how will fitting speed limiters
solve this?

Oh, what marvellous logic. Since rubbish-collection in Hackney won't
solve the problem of violent crime in New York city, there is
evidently no need for rubbish-collection in Hackney?

Your logic's left a bit to be desired too. In fact, I'm trying to work out
how what you've written is even vaguely relevant.

I read, just yesterday, a government report into motorcycle accidents. IN
this it states that the vast majority of injury causing accidents occured
under the posted speed limit.

Can you, in simple words as I'm obviously stupid and have problems with
logic, explain how fitting a speed limiter will stop these accidents?

As opposed to training the driver/rider instead?

Quoted message said:

Can you, in simple words as I'm obviously stupid and have problems
with logic, explain how fitting a speed limiter will stop these
accidents?

Yes, you are stupid. Fitting a speed limiter will only stop those
accidents that are a result of going above the speed limit, and will reduce
the severity of accidents where the car would otherwise have been going
above the speed limit.

Quoted message said:

As opposed to training the driver/rider instead?

We could still have both speed limiters _and_ driving tests. And other
stuff too. It's great.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:56:09 +0100, Bill Scarab

billscarab@junk_hotmail.com said:

Paul Smith from safety campaign group Safespeed claimed the scheme
would fail: "They absolutely will not work to improve road safety.
"Apart from the distraction and panic braking effects we also have to
worry about moving drivers outside their 'zone of optimal performance'."

Of course. The significant safety improvements on the M25 following
the introduction of (camera-enforced) VSLs are pure coincidence.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Bill Scarab said:

Did you see the drivel he was spouting about the introduction of
cameras on the M4 ?

But Paul Smith from safety campaign group Safespeed claimed the scheme
would fail: "They absolutely will not work to improve road safety.

"Apart from the distraction and panic braking effects we also have to
worry about moving drivers outside their 'zone of optimal
performance'."

I drove along much of the Wiltshire section of the M4 last Sunday. Here is
the number of speed cameras I saw: 0

Have they actually been installed yet, or did they just put up the signs?

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Kinder surprise! What's the surprise? Your children are now dead.

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:03:12 +0100, "dwb" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

So you accept the views of one group with an agenda but you dismiss those of
another with a different agenda?

The article I cited is a critique of one example of Smith's egregious
idiocy, and I posted it for people to look at. That does not mean I
accept it uncritically, in its entirety, or in fact at all. We are
grown-ups, we are free to make our own judgments, and that includes
assessing to what extent a particular article is driven by any agenda.

As it happens the reason I don't accept Smith's agenda is that it is
provably wrong in a number of important respects, most notably his
steadfast refusal to accept that the laws of physics apply to motor
vehicles.

I too have an agenda. I am very open about it.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/why-speeding

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

dwb said:

Richard said:

dwb said:

If, as is mentioned in several RTA reports, that many many accidents
occur well within the speed limit how will fitting speed limiters
solve this?

Oh, what marvellous logic. Since rubbish-collection in Hackney won't
solve the problem of violent crime in New York city, there is
evidently no need for rubbish-collection in Hackney?

Your logic's left a bit to be desired too. In fact, I'm trying to work out
how what you've written is even vaguely relevant.

It's a parody of your question.

I'll put it even plainer, then.

Someone has suggested Solution A to Problem A'.

You have asked how Solution A can be applied to Problem B'. The answer
is, of course, that it won't affect Problem B'. By repeatedly harping
on the fact that Solution A won't affect Problem B', you presumably hope
to discredit Solution A generally.

R.

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

Can you, in simple words as I'm obviously stupid and have problems
with logic, explain how fitting a speed limiter will stop these
accidents?

Yes, you are stupid. Fitting a speed limiter will only stop those
accidents that are a result of going above the speed limit, and will
reduce the severity of accidents where the car would otherwise have
been going above the speed limit.

Right. So they won't make the blindest bit of difference for the majority of
accidents.

Strikes me as a waste of money then.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As opposed to training the driver/rider instead?

We could still have both speed limiters _and_ driving tests. And
other stuff too. It's great.

In an ideal world yes - in a limited world, would you prefer ineffectual
(but easy to implment) speed limiters, or would you prefer a solution to the
actual problem?

Dave Larrington said:

I drove along much of the Wiltshire section of the M4 last Sunday.
Here is the number of speed cameras I saw: 0

Have they actually been installed yet, or did they just put up the
signs?

They don't operate on the weekends.

Ergo, accidents obviously never occur on weekends.