Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

In article , Jeff York
says...
Conor wrote:

My problem with Paul is that despite clear evidence to the contrary, he
will fudge whatever figures he has to to suite what is needed to get
him on TV/Radio/in the papers.

Such as?

TBH, we did it all to death a couple of years ago when he posted his
****e in here.


--
Conor

I'm really a nice guy. If I had friends, they would tell you.

Earn commission on online purchases, £2.50 just for signing up:
http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/Conor/ref/index.htm

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

Knight Of The Road wrote:

If the road is good for 60 or 70, then you won't be penalised for driving at
60 or 70.

You will if someone puts up a number on a pole followed by a yellow box.
Don't tell me you agree that all speed limits are set correctly and
for the right reasons, oh dear.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

Brimstone wrote:
Silk wrote:
Knight Of The Road wrote:
"SteveH" wrote


automated revenue cameras
--




You are at liberty to opt out...


How am I able to opt of having to drive at 30mph past a speed camera
on a road good for 60mph?

Two oprtions:-
1) Comply with the speed limit.
2) Give up driving completely.


3) Burn the speed camera.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:01:28 +0100, Silk wrote:


How am I able to opt of having to drive at 30mph past a speed camera
on a road good for 60mph?

Two oprtions:-
1) Comply with the speed limit.
2) Give up driving completely.


3) Burn the speed camera.

http://tinyurl.com/ylupd6

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

"Silk" wrote in message
...
Knight Of The Road wrote:

If the road is good for 60 or 70, then you won't be penalised for driving
at 60 or 70.

You will if someone puts up a number on a pole followed by a yellow box.
Don't tell me you agree that all speed limits are set correctly and for
the right reasons, oh dear.

Quite

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Silk wrote:

Brimstone wrote:
Silk wrote:
Knight Of The Road wrote:
"SteveH" wrote


automated revenue cameras
--




You are at liberty to opt out...


How am I able to opt of having to drive at 30mph past a speed camera
on a road good for 60mph?

Two oprtions:-
1) Comply with the speed limit.
2) Give up driving completely.


3) Burn the speed camera.

or

3) Burn the politicians.

Which would offer additional benefits.
--

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

On 2006-10-23, Earl Purple wrote:

Most gridlock (or starvation to be more technical) occurs where there
are two signals in close succession, such that the space between the
signals is filled quickly by one side and then the other side will have
nowhere to go. Actually this is commonly the situation at Henlys Corner
for the A406 Westbound. In the last couple of weeks they have been
resurfacing and there is currently no box junction and the approach has
become a lot emptier as a result.

Going on to the Edinburgh Bypass (A720) somewhere near Hermiston Gate
was the closest to that I've seen. A roundabout with traffic lights,
and a heavy stream of traffic at 6 o'clock (me) and 3 o'clock.

Every cycle, the traffic from 6 o'clock would stream onto the roundabout
until a red appeared on the roundabout, then stop, queued all the way
round the roundabout across my entrance. To move at all necessitated
pushing out on the red as soon as a gap appeared (and before the traffic
to the right started moving).

--
David Taylor

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

On 2006-10-22, Knight Of The Road wrote:

"Jerry" wrote

- How am I to opt out of driving at 40 on a road good for 60, or even 70
mph?

If the road is good for 60 or 70, then you won't be penalised for driving at
60 or 70.

Is there no road in Britain good for 71mph?

--
David Taylor

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

Brimstone wrote:

[...]

Two oprtions:-
1) Comply with the speed limit.
2) Give up driving completely.

Three options:
3) Don't elect nasty control freak ******* to anything.




A

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

David Taylor wrote:

[...]

Is there no road in Britain good for 71mph?

Not sure, know of several good for 72mph though.

There is no connection between posted limits and appropriate speeds.




A

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Alistair J Murray wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

[...]

Two oprtions:-
1) Comply with the speed limit.
2) Give up driving completely.

Three options:
3) Don't elect nasty control freak ******* to anything.

If it was the case that it was only our elected representatives (I use the
term loosely) who were responsible for such things you might have a point.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

In article , alexNOOOOOO!!!!!!!
@drzoidberg.co.uk says...
I'd be interested to know what he would propose that could prevent someone
blocking a box junction.


All the landmines that charities have dug up.
Just re-engineer them to use RFID tags.
And if the same tag is stationary over the field for more than 2
minutes.
Boom, Kablamie
--
Carl Robson
Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Alistair J Murray wrote:
David Taylor wrote:

[...]

Is there no road in Britain good for 71mph?

Not sure, know of several good for 72mph though.

There is no connection between posted limits and appropriate speeds.

There is generally some correlation, except that 3-lane dual
carriageways with grade-separated junctions are usually safer than
country lanes to drive fast, yet often carry a lower speed limit (50
compared to 60).

From a mathematical point of view, let us say that we know that 150mph
is too fast and that 30mph (on a motorway in good conditions) is too
slow and that the safe range is somewhere in between. There is probably
a curve somewhere that marks how "safe" a speed is. At some point there
is a threshold below which we don't want to go, so we could say that
one particular speed where that threshold is crossed should be the
"speed limit" although the actual safest speed (the "target") is likely
to be somewhere lower (it is highly unlikely that 70mph is the safest
speed and then 71mph is unsafe).

Of course, what the actual safest speed and threshold are will be
variable, based on the conditions of the road at the time.

One day we may have the technology to have signs that can post variable
speeds based on the road conditions.

As Paul Smith wuuld say, a good driver shouldn't need them. A good
driver will be able to judge from the conditions of the road what the
safe speed is. Unfortunately, the roads are not full of good drivers
and people need guidance.

A sign displaying two speeds might be the most ideal. One would be a
posted "target" speed that is considered the optimal safe speed for the
conditions. The other would be an absolute limit, beyond which you know
you will get fined if caught.

It might be that in a certain road condition, the target speed is set
at say 65mph and the absolute limit at 80mph. Anyone doing 81mph should
not claim to be "unlucky" because they are 16mph over what has been
given as the target "safe" speed.

Of course at the moment this is all speculative as we don't have such
technology.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Brimstone wrote:
Alistair J Murray wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

[...]

Two oprtions:-
1) Comply with the speed limit.
2) Give up driving completely.

Three options:
3) Don't elect nasty control freak ******* to anything.

If it was the case that it was only our elected representatives (I use the
term loosely) who were responsible for such things you might have a point.

If there were an option to vote in one government to run the roads and
one to run the rest of the economy then bring the Tories back just for
their roads policy, at least for how it was in the 1990s when they were
actually in the process of making the A406 into a decent
grade-separated dual-carriageway and didn't quite get the chance to
finish the job.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Alistair J Murray wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

[...]

Two oprtions:-
1) Comply with the speed limit.
2) Give up driving completely.

Three options:
3) Don't elect nasty control freak ******* to anything.

If it was the case that it was only our elected representatives (I
use the term loosely) who were responsible for such things you might
have a point.

If there were an option to vote in one government to run the roads and
one to run the rest of the economy then bring the Tories back just for
their roads policy, at least for how it was in the 1990s when they
were actually in the process of making the A406 into a decent
grade-separated dual-carriageway and didn't quite get the chance to
finish the job.

The M25 was built to relieve traffic from the A406 (the North Circular). Why
does it need to be a grade seperated urban motorway (in all but name)?

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:55:27 +0100 someone who may be Alistair J
Murray wrote this:-

There is no connection between posted limits and appropriate speeds.

Every day the police and others have to deal with people who have
worked out an "appropriate speed" and then crashed.

Note also that a speed limit is a maximum speed, not a target speed
or a minimum speed. Believe it or not motor vehicles have controls
that allow the operator to proceed at a lower speed than the limit
as well.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:55:27 +0100 someone who may be Alistair J
Murray wrote this:-

There is no connection between posted limits and appropriate speeds.

Every day the police and others have to deal with people who have
worked out an "appropriate speed" and then crashed.

Note also that a speed limit is a maximum speed, not a target speed
or a minimum speed. Believe it or not motor vehicles have controls
that allow the operator to proceed at a lower speed than the limit
as well.

Bravo, well said, apart from a minor point.

How does travelling at a slow speed cause someone to crash?

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

Brimstone wrote:
David Hansen wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:55:27 +0100 someone who may be Alistair J
Murray wrote this:-


There is no connection between posted limits and appropriate speeds.

Every day the police and others have to deal with people who have
worked out an "appropriate speed" and then crashed.

Note also that a speed limit is a maximum speed, not a target speed
or a minimum speed. Believe it or not motor vehicles have controls
that allow the operator to proceed at a lower speed than the limit
as well.


Bravo, well said, apart from a minor point.

How does travelling at a slow speed cause someone to crash?

Same as any other way, they hit an object in front of them.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Brimstone ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

How does travelling at a slow speed cause someone to crash?

Do 10mph on a free-flowing motorway and just watch.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving OffenceCameras
 

Earl Purple wrote:
Alistair J Murray wrote:
David Taylor wrote:

[...]

Is there no road in Britain good for 71mph?
Not sure, know of several good for 72mph though.

There is no connection between posted limits and appropriate speeds.

There is generally some correlation, except that 3-lane dual
carriageways with grade-separated junctions are usually safer than
country lanes to drive fast, yet often carry a lower speed limit (50
compared to 60).

From a mathematical point of view, let us say that we know that 150mph
is too fast and that 30mph (on a motorway in good conditions) is too
slow and that the safe range is somewhere in between. There is probably
a curve somewhere that marks how "safe" a speed is. At some point there
is a threshold below which we don't want to go, so we could say that
one particular speed where that threshold is crossed should be the
"speed limit" although the actual safest speed (the "target") is likely
to be somewhere lower (it is highly unlikely that 70mph is the safest
speed and then 71mph is unsafe).

Of course, what the actual safest speed and threshold are will be
variable, based on the conditions of the road at the time.

One day we may have the technology to have signs that can post variable
speeds based on the road conditions.

As Paul Smith wuuld say, a good driver shouldn't need them. A good
driver will be able to judge from the conditions of the road what the
safe speed is. Unfortunately, the roads are not full of good drivers
and people need guidance.

A sign displaying two speeds might be the most ideal. One would be a
posted "target" speed that is considered the optimal safe speed for the
conditions. The other would be an absolute limit, beyond which you know
you will get fined if caught.

It might be that in a certain road condition, the target speed is set
at say 65mph and the absolute limit at 80mph. Anyone doing 81mph should
not claim to be "unlucky" because they are 16mph over what has been
given as the target "safe" speed.

Of course at the moment this is all speculative as we don't have such
technology.


That's good news then. Even with the aid of suitable technology I feel
that what you are trying to do is too complicated and many of the
resultant speed limits will still end up being wrong. I appreciate that
you're gearing this to variable road conditions, but there are also wide
variations in the quality of various vehicle/driver combinations.

In built up areas we need not have much of a problem; 30 or 40 mph
limits are reasonably appropriate for the majority of situations, and I
think they should be respected.

Outside of towns and villages, open road situations, NSL areas - get rid
of limits and let us have it clearly understood that drivers are
responsible for adopting safe speeds. If that responsibility were to be
given to them we might find that it works quite well. At any rate I
would like to see this tried out as an experiment on selected parts of
our road network. No doubt some will fear that such areas would be a
magnet for the speed freaks, or whatever you like to call them, but I
think this could be overcome.

What we really need are thinking drivers, capable drivers, safe reliable
drivers - not speed limited drivers who are switched off from the
driving task.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

David Hansen wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:55:27 +0100 someone who may be Alistair J
Murray wrote this:-

There is no connection between posted limits and appropriate speeds.

Every day the police and others have to deal with people who have
worked out an "appropriate speed" and then crashed.

And those which just read a number on a stick instead then crashed.

--

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:54:08 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:55:27 +0100 someone who may be Alistair J
Murray wrote this:-

There is no connection between posted limits and appropriate speeds.

Every day the police and others have to deal with people who have
worked out an "appropriate speed" and then crashed.

Note also that a speed limit is a maximum speed, not a target speed
or a minimum speed. Believe it or not motor vehicles have controls
that allow the operator to proceed at a lower speed than the limit
as well.

So... Drivers are not capable of assessing an appropriate speed - and
speed limits may well be higher than the appropriate speed?

We're all doomed, or what?

--

Ian D

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

On 2006-10-24, David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:55:27 +0100 someone who may be Alistair J
Murray wrote this:-

There is no connection between posted limits and appropriate speeds.

Every day the police and others have to deal with people who have
worked out an "appropriate speed" and then crashed.

Note also that a speed limit is a maximum speed, not a target speed
or a minimum speed. Believe it or not motor vehicles have controls
that allow the operator to proceed at a lower speed than the limit
as well.

Precisely. The appropriate speed bears no relation to the speed limit.
It may be higher, or lower, than the posted limit.

You seemed to spectacularly miss the point there...

--
David Taylor

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

TripleS wrote:

That's good news then. Even with the aid of suitable technology I feel
that what you are trying to do is too complicated and many of the
resultant speed limits will still end up being wrong. I appreciate that
you're gearing this to variable road conditions, but there are also wide
variations in the quality of various vehicle/driver combinations.

Well yes, there may still be lower limits for some classes of drivers
but one might assume that lorry drivers are better trained anyway.

The aim was to (1) assess a speed based on conditions and (2) have a
clear gap between a target speed and an absolute maximum speed.
Automatic controls on the cars to put some kind of limiting device
(with an override if available) would enable drivers to watch the road
rather than the speedometers as well.

In built up areas we need not have much of a problem; 30 or 40 mph
limits are reasonably appropriate for the majority of situations, and I
think they should be respected.

I don't think they are though. I think that sometimes 20mph, 25mph and
35mph are appropriate speeds, and sometimes it may vary according to
conditions, for example on a high street it may be that 25mph is the
limit during busy times but 35mph is safe late at night when pretty
much everything is closed and there are far fewer vehicles on the road.

Outside of towns and villages, open road situations, NSL areas - get rid
of limits and let us have it clearly understood that drivers are
responsible for adopting safe speeds. If that responsibility were to be
given to them we might find that it works quite well.

I guess for the little windy country roads that is pretty much what
happens as nobody in reality can surely think 60mph is a safe speed on
them. I find it laughable that these roads carry a higher speed limit
than, say, the North Circular (which has a maximum speed of 50mph)
which is near motorway standard in sections (albeit that it has far
more frequent junctions than a motorway).

At any rate I would like to see this tried out as an experiment on selected parts of
our road network. No doubt some will fear that such areas would be a
magnet for the speed freaks, or whatever you like to call them, but I
think this could be overcome.

On some sections of motorway maybe. I do think it will encourage those
who want to speed to go there. I have had this temptation to go to
Germany so I can legally go fast on the autobahns, and I'm sure there
are quite a few who have made a special effort to enjoy that experience
too. Not sure exactly how safely they were driving.

What we really need are thinking drivers, capable drivers, safe reliable
drivers - not speed limited drivers who are switched off from the driving task.

With the automatic controls I have suggested the drivers can
concentrate on doing just that.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Brimstone wrote:

Bravo, well said, apart from a minor point.

How does travelling at a slow speed cause someone to crash?

Two ways:

1. If you drive slowly you will be causing more drivers to want to
overtake you. Overtaking is a dangerous manoeuvre. Even if it's on a
motorway which has 3 lanes and you are on the inside lane, you will be
causing other drivers approaching behind you to change lanes to
overtake you. Once again a potentially dangerous manoeuvre. Safer if
you were going faster thus causing fewer overtakes.

2. If you are driving slowly your journey will take longer. The longer
your journey, the more time you have to lose concentration.
Concentrating intensely can be enduring. And it's no use saying to just
take breaks, because as your journey will take longer, it's likely
there won't be enough time for breaks.

So two reasons why driving slower can be more dangerous.

I would like to see the speed limit on some (if not many) NSL
single-carriageways reduced to 50mph but increased to the same limit
for HGVs too. You'll no longer get "stuck" behind an HGV because
they'll be going at the same speed that you would be anyway. Yes, your
journey would take longer at the times there would be no HGV anyway,
but it would actually be shorter on the times when there is. Fewer
overtakes, fewer accidents.

(Of course, having a 50mph limit doesn't mean you have to drive at
exactly that speed. On a bend, for example, you would slow down).

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Bravo, well said, apart from a minor point.

How does travelling at a slow speed cause someone to crash?

Two ways:

1. If you drive slowly you will be causing more drivers to want to
overtake you. Overtaking is a dangerous manoeuvre. Even if it's on a
motorway which has 3 lanes and you are on the inside lane, you will be
causing other drivers approaching behind you to change lanes to
overtake you. Once again a potentially dangerous manoeuvre. Safer if
you were going faster thus causing fewer overtakes.

2. If you are driving slowly your journey will take longer. The longer
your journey, the more time you have to lose concentration.
Concentrating intensely can be enduring. And it's no use saying to
just take breaks, because as your journey will take longer, it's
likely there won't be enough time for breaks.

So two reasons why driving slower can be more dangerous.

Good answer to a different question. Nothing was said about "dangerous".

Care to try again?

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Brimstone wrote:
Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Bravo, well said, apart from a minor point.

How does travelling at a slow speed cause someone to crash?

Two ways:

1. If you drive slowly you will be causing more drivers to want to
overtake you. Overtaking is a dangerous manoeuvre. Even if it's on a
motorway which has 3 lanes and you are on the inside lane, you will be
causing other drivers approaching behind you to change lanes to
overtake you. Once again a potentially dangerous manoeuvre. Safer if
you were going faster thus causing fewer overtakes.

2. If you are driving slowly your journey will take longer. The longer
your journey, the more time you have to lose concentration.
Concentrating intensely can be enduring. And it's no use saying to
just take breaks, because as your journey will take longer, it's
likely there won't be enough time for breaks.

So two reasons why driving slower can be more dangerous.

Good answer to a different question. Nothing was said about "dangerous".

Care to try again?

The more dangerous the driving, either yours or other reacting to you,
the more chances of a crash happening. Obvious, isn't it?

You drive at 25mph on NSL single carriageway, drivers behind get
frustrated, they overtake you, one of them misjudges, crash. Wouldn't
have happened if you'd driven at a sensible speed.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Bravo, well said, apart from a minor point.

How does travelling at a slow speed cause someone to crash?

Two ways:

1. If you drive slowly you will be causing more drivers to want to
overtake you. Overtaking is a dangerous manoeuvre. Even if it's on a
motorway which has 3 lanes and you are on the inside lane, you will
be causing other drivers approaching behind you to change lanes to
overtake you. Once again a potentially dangerous manoeuvre. Safer if
you were going faster thus causing fewer overtakes.

2. If you are driving slowly your journey will take longer. The
longer your journey, the more time you have to lose concentration.
Concentrating intensely can be enduring. And it's no use saying to
just take breaks, because as your journey will take longer, it's
likely there won't be enough time for breaks.

So two reasons why driving slower can be more dangerous.

Good answer to a different question. Nothing was said about
"dangerous".

Care to try again?

The more dangerous the driving, either yours or other reacting to you,
the more chances of a crash happening. Obvious, isn't it?

You drive at 25mph on NSL single carriageway, drivers behind get
frustrated, they overtake you, one of them misjudges, crash. Wouldn't
have happened if you'd driven at a sensible speed.

Nor was anything said about other vehicles crashing. Care to try once more?

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Brimstone wrote:

Nor was anything said about other vehicles crashing. Care to try once more?

anyone more of this nonsense and you'll be marked as a troll if you're
not already

Your point was this:

How does travelling at a slow speed cause someone to crash?

and I've answered that. Does the "someone" have to be the same person
that was travelling at the slow speed? I've answered that too in point
2 (saying they will be on the road longer and are therefore likely to
lose concentration).

So you drive slowly, your journey takes 3 hours instead of 2, after 3
hours your concentration has lapsed, you don't pay full attention,
crash.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Nor was anything said about other vehicles crashing. Care to try
once more?

anyone more of this nonsense and you'll be marked as a troll if you're
not already

Your point was this:

How does travelling at a slow speed cause someone to crash?

and I've answered that. Does the "someone" have to be the same person
that was travelling at the slow speed? I've answered that too in point
2 (saying they will be on the road longer and are therefore likely to
lose concentration).

So you drive slowly, your journey takes 3 hours instead of 2, after 3
hours your concentration has lapsed, you don't pay full attention,
crash.

That depends on the indivual and whilst true for some isn't true for all.
But it's not the speed that's the cause of the crash, it's the failure to
concentrate.

We know that attempting to take a bend at too high a speed will cause the
vehicle to want to continue in a straight line and collide with the
countryside. What similar forces or action will cause a car travelling
slowly to crash?

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Brimstone wrote:


That depends on the indivual and whilst true for some isn't true for all.
But it's not the speed that's the cause of the crash, it's the failure to
concentrate.

We know that attempting to take a bend at too high a speed will cause the
vehicle to want to continue in a straight line and collide with the
countryside. What similar forces or action will cause a car travelling
slowly to crash?

No, it will mean it is harder for the driver to control, so when the
driver crashes it will be because he was unable to control the path of
the car.

Of course, driving at a slower speed would make it easier to control,
but the analogy is the same.

The only time speed would directly cause a crash is if you drive into
the back of a vehicle going slower than yourself.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

"Earl Purple" wrote in message
ups.com...

Brimstone wrote:


That depends on the indivual and whilst true for some isn't true for all.
But it's not the speed that's the cause of the crash, it's the failure to
concentrate.

We know that attempting to take a bend at too high a speed will cause the
vehicle to want to continue in a straight line and collide with the
countryside. What similar forces or action will cause a car travelling
slowly to crash?

No, it will mean it is harder for the driver to control, so when the
driver crashes it will be because he was unable to control the path of
the car.

Which may or may not be true but is beside the point since the end reuslt is
the same.


Of course, driving at a slower speed would make it easier to control,
but the analogy is the same.

The only time speed would directly cause a crash is if you drive into
the back of a vehicle going slower than yourself.

Right so after all that you agree that traveliing at a slow speed does not,
in itself, cause someone to crash the car they're driving.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Brimstone wrote:

Right so after all that you agree that traveliing at a slow speed does not,
in itself, cause someone to crash the car they're driving.

No, the only speed that will guarantee that you can't crash into
anything is remaining stationary.

Even at a slow speed you can hit something.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Right so after all that you agree that traveliing at a slow speed
does not, in itself, cause someone to crash the car they're driving.

No, the only speed that will guarantee that you can't crash into
anything is remaining stationary.

Even at a slow speed you can hit something.

Quite true, but it won't be the speed that causes the collision in the same
way that excessive sped can and does will it?

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Brimstone wrote:
Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Right so after all that you agree that traveliing at a slow speed
does not, in itself, cause someone to crash the car they're driving.

No, the only speed that will guarantee that you can't crash into
anything is remaining stationary.

Even at a slow speed you can hit something.

Quite true, but it won't be the speed that causes the collision in the same
way that excessive sped can and does will it?

When faced with a stationary object, any speed is excessive for the
conditions.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Right so after all that you agree that traveliing at a slow speed
does not, in itself, cause someone to crash the car they're
driving.

No, the only speed that will guarantee that you can't crash into
anything is remaining stationary.

Even at a slow speed you can hit something.

Quite true, but it won't be the speed that causes the collision in
the same way that excessive sped can and does will it?

When faced with a stationary object, any speed is excessive for the
conditions.

Quite true. But this stationary object is your invention and doesn't feature
in the original scenario.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Brimstone wrote:

Quite true. But this stationary object is your invention and doesn't feature
in the original scenario.

Well let's imagine then that there is something coming from behind
towards you that is out of control. Let's say this object, whatever it
is, is approaching at 30mph and there is no way you can get out of its
way. It will be pretty nasty if it catches up with you and hits you.

So what is safer, driving faster or driving slower?

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Quite true. But this stationary object is your invention and doesn't
feature in the original scenario.

Well let's imagine

That's not necessary. The original scenrio was dealing with a single vehicle
on a road.


then that there is something coming from behind
towards you that is out of control. Let's say this object, whatever it
is, is approaching at 30mph and there is no way you can get out of its
way. It will be pretty nasty if it catches up with you and hits you.

So what is safer, driving faster or driving slower?

You quite obviously have a vivid imagintion, have you considered writing a
novel or other work of fiction?

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

In message , Brimstone
writes
It will be pretty nasty if it catches up with you and hits you.

So what is safer, driving faster or driving slower?

You quite obviously have a vivid imagintion, have you considered writing a
novel or other work of fiction?
I used to drive an old beetle and the brakes would fade when braking
from 70mph at about 20mph which could be quite hairy unless you read the
road ahead, so I wouldn't imagine the above a work of fiction.
--
Clive.

Paul from SafeSpeed on BBC Breakfast today on Driving Offence Cameras
 

Clive Coleman. wrote:
In message , Brimstone
writes
It will be pretty nasty if it catches up with you and hits you.

So what is safer, driving faster or driving slower?

You quite obviously have a vivid imagintion, have you considered
writing a novel or other work of fiction?
I used to drive an old beetle and the brakes would fade when braking
from 70mph at about 20mph which could be quite hairy unless you read
the road ahead, so I wouldn't imagine the above a work of fiction.

The paragraph you've snipped is, however.