Anti-motorist?

KTM690
Posts: 152
Joined: 1 Feb 2011, 8:16pm

Re: Anti-motorist?

Post by KTM690 »

meic wrote:I turn right plenty of times when I am walking and it never hurt anybody.

The speeding may not be the proven cause of an accident but it increases the harm done, which is actually a good enough reason on its own to restrict it.

The limits can not be totally enforced but it would be easy enough to get the majority to obey them. As can be shown around any existing cameras. That effect could easily be duplicated over 90% or more of the roads.


The majority do obey them - or nearly obey them. Generally they are disobeyed when it is safe to do so.

Speeding often occurs on roads from which non motorists are excluded - motorways, or on roads where cyclists are few (most of them outside urban areas). the urban areas tend to be congested to the point where movement isn't possible, let alone speeding.

Whats percieved to be speeding by a slower user may not be in excess of the limit anyway.

Things do appear to be moving faster when your virtually standing still. 20mph on a dual carriageway still leaves a 50mph speed difference on the car legally overtaking you. Will still feel as tho they are speeding tho!

quote meic:

"The speeding may not be the proven cause of an accident but it increases the harm done, which is actually a good enough reason on its own to restrict it."

Not in law. According to law (sec 122 of the road traffic regulation act) the highways authority must secure the expeditious, secure and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and provide adequate parking.

Before introducing a speed limit it ha to be shown that it is needed and any loss of expediency for any traffic must be balanced up against the arguments for reducing the speed limit.

Theoretically it could be shown that the best way to meet this duty on a particualr stretch of road would be (instead of reducing speed limit) to seperate motor traffic from cycle/pedestrian by prohibiting cyclists pedestrians from the road and making themhave shared use of the pavement. The dft guidelines of less than 17mph can be met by imposing a 15mph speed limit on cyclists. This is possible with the law we have.

Actually it could be beneficial by allowing the motorists speed limit to be safely increased in the absence of other users.
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Anti-motorist?

Post by meic »

There is too much wrong with that post for me to put in the effort of correcting it all.

If you split it up into individual points they can be demolished individually before moving on to the next then I might reply.
As it stands the amount of work is too great, I am here for fun not hard work.

Suffice to say that post is mostly garbage with some irrelevant points thrown in for padding.
Yma o Hyd
KTM690
Posts: 152
Joined: 1 Feb 2011, 8:16pm

Re: Anti-motorist?

Post by KTM690 »

meic wrote:There is too much wrong with that post for me to put in the effort of correcting it all.

If you split it up into individual points they can be demolished individually before moving on to the next then I might reply.
As it stands the amount of work is too great, I am here for fun not hard work.

Suffice to say that post is mostly garbage with some irrelevant points thrown in for padding.


truth hurts - deal with it
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Anti-motorist?

Post by meic »

I think that as your style of discussion is based on trading meaningless drivel/spin and I prefer to debate facts with reasoned argument but not in such volume and at such a low level.
Then I will be putting you on my ignore list.

"The truth hurts... deal with it" I will show that to my thirteen year old son, it will amuse him.

PS. That is the first time I have had to use the Foe function.
Yma o Hyd
Mike Sales
Posts: 7898
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Anti-motorist?

Post by Mike Sales »

Drivers who think there is a war on motorists are delusional.
The whole of our built environment has been changed to accomodate them.
We fight wars to deliver their oil.
They have killed more people since WWII than were killed in that war.
Throughout the "troubles" in NI the death toll on the roads (in NI) was about twice that from paramiltary action.
Motorists claim ownership of the public highway, which was mostly built before cars were invented.
If more vulnerable road users feel the public highway is too unsafe to use, then that is just too bad.
They believe that they should be able to drive as fast as they feel safe, whether or not those around them feel safe.
Because they are dangerous they want to force us to wear foam hats.
They see nothing wrong in making the atmosphere in our cities unhealthy to breathe.
They believe that they should be able to use the highway, which is provided for movement, to leave their vehicles for free, when not in use.
Since the current state of the roads is fine by them, it follows that a moments recklessness which kills should not be properly punished.
I could go on.
The clinical term is "paranoia", defined as delusions of persecution and/or grandeur.

Note. The above generalisations apply, as stated in my first line, to those drivers who think there is a war on motorists.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8212
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Anti-motorist?

Post by hubgearfreak »

meic wrote: it increases the harm done, which is actually a good enough reason on its own to restrict it.
you're understating the case here meic. KE = MxVxV so the damage done in an accident is a function of the square of velocity

KTM690 wrote:Generally they are disobeyed when it is safe to do so.
when it is judged safe by the diver of the car for the occupants of the car to do so. there's a blatantly big difference, but perhaps still too small and subtle for you to distinguish :roll:

KTM690 wrote:Actually it could be beneficial by allowing the motorists speed limit to be safely increased in the absence of other users.
again, KE = MxVxV so the damage done in an accident is a function of the square of velocity. the laws of physics remains true whether the innocent party being hit by a speeding loon is a cyclist or another motorist
SilverBadge
Posts: 577
Joined: 12 May 2009, 11:28pm

Re: Anti-motorist?

Post by SilverBadge »

hubgearfreak wrote:
KTM690 wrote:I believe he stated that the "war on the motorist" was at an end.
This does imply that there's been an anti - motorist agenda.


war on the motorist. don't make me laugh. it's like saying that expecting shoplifters not to shoplift, and very occasionally catching a very few to hand them out a fixed penalty of £50 is a war on shoplifters.

to me, it implies that the splineless turd wants easy popularty points with mail reading plebs


What is the collective noun for turds? :roll:

'Road Safety Minister Mike Penning said at the weekend that this cut - which specifically ends central funding for fixed speed cameras - was "another example of this government delivering on its pledge to end the war on the motorist".'
User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8212
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Anti-motorist?

Post by hubgearfreak »

SilverBadge wrote:What is the collective noun for turds? :roll:


for the last 9 months - a cabinet of turds 8)
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Anti-motorist?

Post by kwackers »

I'd love that people were allowed to decide what a safe speed was and speed limits removed. We could remove speedo's from vehicles for a kickoff thus removing speed as a common pre-occupation for most motorists.

Sadly experience has shown that most people are not only incapable but vastly overestimate what a safe speed would be. The psychology of driving means people drive at a speed THEY feel safe at and not what OTHERS are safe at, and of course some drive faster than even they feel safe just to experience the rush.

If people are incapable of exercising judgement then the option should be removed which is the current status quo.
And then we have the issue that most people seem to think that speed limits are there to set a speed to drive in ALL conditions, in which case I suspect quite a few could do with being lowered such that they are genuinely safe in ALL conditions.

As for the war on motorists, how many have died in this war? Those that have seemed to be killed pretty much by 'friendly fire' whereas large numbers of innocent bystanders have also been killed. Seems fundamentally to be a war on 'non-motorists'.
KTM690
Posts: 152
Joined: 1 Feb 2011, 8:16pm

Re: Anti-motorist?

Post by KTM690 »

kwackers wrote:
As for the war on motorists, how many have died in this war? Those that have seemed to be killed pretty much by 'friendly fire' whereas large numbers of innocent bystanders have also been killed. Seems fundamentally to be a war on 'non-motorists'.


Only a 115 cyclists last year.

And 500 pedestrians.

Not all of those would be entirely the fault of drivers.

Think how many miles were covered in that time by all users.

Acceptable loss.
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Anti-motorist?

Post by Steady rider »

For Victoria road deaths reduced from 777 in 1989 to 396 in 1992. In Decemer 1989, 22.8% of vehicles were exceeding the speed threshold limit, by 1993 3.8% were. Vehicles colisions reduced from 52182 in 1989 to 41330 in 1993. The percentage killed over the drink drive limit was reducing, 38% in 1988, 32% in 1989, 29% in 1991, 30% in 1992.


Borrowed from the helmet section.

The UK should use mobile speed detection equipment and hide where possible, that way the speed limits would be more likely to be complied with in all locations.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Anti-motorist?

Post by kwackers »

KTM690 wrote:
kwackers wrote:
As for the war on motorists, how many have died in this war? Those that have seemed to be killed pretty much by 'friendly fire' whereas large numbers of innocent bystanders have also been killed. Seems fundamentally to be a war on 'non-motorists'.


Only a 115 cyclists last year.

And 500 pedestrians.

Not all of those would be entirely the fault of drivers.

Think how many miles were covered in that time by all users.

Acceptable loss.

I'm less convinced. Given the average standard of driving then even where you could lay the blame at another party the simple fact is with a bit of common sense and less agression the numbers killed could be less and ditto the injuries.
Car is king in this country, we're a nation of petrol heads. It'll change, even if it takes diminishing resources to do it.

As for "acceptable losses" we can apply that to bicycle helmets too. :wink:
snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Anti-motorist?

Post by snibgo »

I didn't think last year's numbers were out yet.

In 2009, reported fatalities were 500 pedestrians and 104 pedal cyclists. Total fatalities: 2222. (RCGB09 table 2.)
User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8212
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Anti-motorist?

Post by hubgearfreak »

KTM690 wrote:Acceptable loss.


really?

a better standard of driving (caused by a sterner police and courts) could slash that.
if it's your son, wife, brother that gets killed for want of the motorist involved taking care - i'm sure you'll change your mind
Edwards
Posts: 5982
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Anti-motorist?

Post by Edwards »

[quote="KTM690"]Acceptable loss[/quote


Do you say that to the relatives of the organ donors you knew.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar
Post Reply