"Oh. Well, I never read anything of his over a couple of lines long, so I missed that. I am consumed with guilt"
Apologies, but the truth never did come nicely packaged and in easily digestible chunks.
As a lawyer you should know that.
Or are all the contracts you deal with a couple of lines long?
And this is why, very shortly, we are going to have blanket 20mph urban speed limits (except for the 10mph home zones), blanket 40mph rural speed limits (except for the 15mph village through route zones), and blanket 50mph motorway limits, policed by speed/parking/pollution tax cameras on every corner.
No one can be bothered to read anything longer or more intelectually demanding than "Speed Kills", or, at a very big push, "Kill Your Speed".
|
I am *SO* going to regret this.
Whilst it may be misleading, and certainly not fair, surely the problem for the motorist is that there would be less accidents and less severe accidents if everybody drove around at 10 mph.
Now, of course this would cripple everything from the economy to supermarket deliveries and I would never support that.
However, it is probably true. I know that the correct approach would be educating pedestrians, educating drivers improving roads, subjective laws, but that is politically harder.
The govt. is likely to be much more concerned with appearing to reduce accidents than it is actually reducing them.
It will come down to vote power and that takes a long time.
> Apologies, but the truth never did come nicely packaged and in easily digestible chunks.
Actually I think it normally does. Thinking about it, I'd probably goes as far as to say it always does.
Its lies and misrepresentations that normally take all of the text.
> As a lawyer you should know that.
Thank you. Now I know where I have been going wrong all these years. I feel fulfilled with a new wealth of self-knowledge and purpose coursing through my veins.
> Or are all the contracts you deal with a couple of lines long?
I wish. But at least there is interest and value in reading them.
|
Did you manage to sample any Fish and Chips
Now that I've grabbed your attention with a short n snappy on-topic soundbite:
Mark (Brazil) wrote:
>
> I am *SO* going to regret this.
Yup ; - )
> Whilst it may be misleading, and certainly not fair, surely
> the problem for the motorist is that there would be less
> accidents and less severe accidents if everybody drove around
> at 10 mph.
Yes, obviously, they would be less severe at 10mph.
Did you collar the pilot and insist that he throttled back to 10 knots on your flight back?!
> Now, of course this would cripple everything from the economy
> to supermarket deliveries and I would never support that.
>
> However, it is probably true.
Nope. As I have repeatedly, and boringly attempted to point out, along with others, in the past:
The optimum safe speed is that at, or below, which 85% of drivers would travel in the absence of speed limits.
Go above, OR BELOW that, and accidents rise!
Currently, on improved roads, speed limits are being reduced below the previously safe ones. The actual limits are being hidden in one way or another. Speed trap cameras erected. And safe motorists taxed.
The unsafe ones (figures given elsewhere in other long boring posts by myself and other old farts) have fake plates/stolen cars, etc.
There is no safety, or other, justification for this, excluding revenue.
And it INCREASES accidents by firstly forcing drivers to travel at a dangerously slow speed, and secondly by diverting their attention from safety issues to keeping their license safe.
> I know that the correct
> approach would be educating pedestrians, educating drivers
> improving roads, subjective laws, but that is politically
> harder.
That doesn't make it right.
Drivers ARE educated.
They need a certain amount of sense to start with.
They do a written test.
Receive training.
Get tested.
And, by definition, are licensed as qualified to safely pilot a car on the public roads.
Not only are pedestrians none of the above: but the government is training them to believe that they have the "right of way" viv a vis a ton of metal doing 30.
And that if the step onto the road the car "must" stop.
In addition they are now going to train children that streets are for playing in, and for addults to stop and chat in.
Currently 84% of pedestrian accidents are caused by the pedestrians themselves.
0.3% caused by excessive (though potentially below the limit) speed.
Again posted numerous times by numerous loonies.
> The govt. is likely to be much more concerned with appearing
> to reduce accidents than it is actually reducing them.
And that is a justification for the above?
Or just for, at best, refusing to read my long and boring posts?
At worst for banning me from posting them?
> It will come down to vote power and that takes a long time.
It takes forever if no one is interested in the truth, or worse, tries to silence it.
> > Apologies, but the truth never did come nicely packaged and
> in easily digestible chunks.
>
> Actually I think it normally does. Thinking about it, I'd
> probably goes as far as to say it always does.
So would you like to paraphrase the above into a nice soundbite for me.
I'm always willing to learn.
And I've often asked for suggestions on how to make my style more acceptable.
To date no one has been able to rise to the challenge.
Perhaps you can succed where the rest failed?
> Its lies and misrepresentations that normally take all of the
> text.
Like "Kill your Speed"?
Or the even more verbose "Speed Kills"!
> > As a lawyer you should know that.
>
> Thank you. Now I know where I have been going wrong all these
> years. I feel fulfilled with a new wealth of self-knowledge
> and purpose coursing through my veins.
>
> > Or are all the contracts you deal with a couple of lines
> long?
>
> I wish. But at least there is interest and value in reading
> them.
Yeah?
And you find my posts boring and lacking value!
|
> Did you collar the pilot and insist that he throttled back to
> 10 knots on your flight back?!
No, why would I do that ?
> Nope. As I have repeatedly, and boringly attempted to point
> out, along with others, in the past:
I disagree. Than safest speed is stationery. The slower, the safer, assuming people obey. Any increase in speed must have an impact on frequency and severity of accidents.
> And safe motorists taxed.
This is a different point. I would agree that there is a revenue motivation, but that was not my point.
> And it INCREASES accidents by firstly forcing drivers to
> travel at a dangerously slow speed, and secondly by diverting
> their attention from safety issues to keeping their license
> safe.
Overstated rubbish. I don't like driving at 30, but I can do it safely. If everybody is doing it, it isn't a dangerously low speed. If driving at 30 is beyond you, drive at 25 and then even if your speed does vary, you'll still be legal.
> That doesn't make it right.
That wasn't my point, neither did I say it did.
> > The govt. is likely to be much more concerned with appearing
> > to reduce accidents than it is actually reducing them.
That wasn't my point, neither did I say it did.
> And you find my posts boring and lacking value!
Yes.
Two points;
You'll never win anything, or even maintain anybody's interest, if you alienate everybody who doesn't have exactly the opinion you would like them to have.
Secondly, like it or not, you would like to do something [increase speed limits] which *will* result in more, and more severe, accidents. You will probably need to find something a little more convincing then repeating the same arguments over and over.
Since you are open to suggestions, then why don't you try a less combative method of discussion. I don't know if it will help you to get people to agree with you, but it will help you to get them to listen to you, which is a start.
|
|
|
I had the same accusation. Boring! Your writings sound just like mine on many things but are clearly put more betterer.
On the speed kills thing, did you know that the first pedestrian to walk in front of a car and be killed was Bridget Driscoll. The collision took place on a terrace in the grounds of the Crystal Palace London on August 17th 1896.
The car was reported to be travelling at 4 mph!
|
|
|
|
|
