Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

Ah right. Now we're down to crude slurs and sexual innuendo. Pathetic. Really, truly pathetic, the behaviour of children.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Hmmm. Not completely. You'll see that in the midst of people reacting to the fact that you've been outed, there are still questions that remain unanswered by you.

Questions which you were asked right at the beginning. Reasonable and useful questions.

But you choose to ignore them and instead start throwing toys.

So are you going to answer them, or have you given up with your argument?

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

So Cretin's true identity is revealed. So he spits his dummy and then disappears. With several questions crucial to the SS campaign unanswered by him.

How predictable. Smeggy has done it a few times, and even the great Smithy himself ran, and is too afraid to return.

Anyone would think there were fundamental flaws in the campaign that they couldn't answer.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

The Bosscp · June 2007

Repeat the questions and I'll answer them for him, I'm interested to know what these unanswerable questions are.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

Cunobelin · June 2007

Rearrange......
Calling
The
Pot
Black
Kettle
The

Your record of answering questions is not that good either.

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

Repeat the questions and I'll answer them for him, I'm interested to know what these unanswerable questions are.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You've tried. And you couldn't.

1)Problems with 20mph limits?

2)Why can't 20mph limits limit the current risk alongside a concerted effort to improve driving standards. Any speed limits for that matter. If standards ever improve to the point that speed limits are not needed, then this can be considered.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Cunobelin · June 2007

Just to reiterate - this has nothing to do with driving standards per se.......

This is about people who have asked for the speed limit in their local area to be lowered in response to a perceived risk.

If the local community feels this is achieved with an improved quality of life then that is the easure that should be accpted as the main issue.

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

1)Problems with 20mph limits?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
My answer: none in practice, but in principle why can't we educate rather than legislate. It perpetuates the myth that there is a direct unwavering correlation between slowness and safety, and to some bad drivers (not me I might add) it 'feels boring' and they thus don't pay as much attention, because a lot of today's modern range rovers and audis and what not have got doors about a foot thick and huge bullbars over everywhere and they must make the drivers feel really safe. Whereas what should be happening is the driver being forced to adapt their speed all the time in relation to the surroundings and the potential hazards - not just setting off, getting up to 'the limit', whacking the cruise control on and daydreaming till they get to work.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

2)Why can't 20mph limits limit the current risk alongside a concerted effort to improve driving standards. Any speed limits for that matter. If standards ever improve to the point that speed limits are not needed, then this can be considered.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Exactly. Have speed limits, but instead of demanding money every time one is broken, which isn't going to teach people, invent a cleverer way of punishing them but that instead of a direct punishment as such it is more about something that is actually going to educate them. My pet hate is audi drivers.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cunobelin

Just to reiterate - this has nothing to do with driving standards per se.......

This is about people who have asked for the speed limit in their local area to be lowered in response to a perceived risk.

If the local community feels this is achieved with an improved quality of life then that is the easure that should be accpted as the main issue.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You mean it is about a community in which people have been told they've asked for the speed limit to be lowered.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

Cunobelin · June 2007

No.....

It is genuinely about people who want to improve their quality of life and local environment.

Like it or not this is a grass roots movement by local residents, and the reduction asked for by the residents.

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Jaded · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

1)Problems with 20mph limits?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
My answer: none in practice, but in principle why can't we educate rather than legislate. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

OK - you have the floor. In a few paragraphs, explain how you are going to educate. How you are going to measure the success of the education. How you are going to pay for it. Lastly how you are going to enforce it given that you and your SS gang spend 95% of your time campaigning against enforcement.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cunobelin

No.....

It is genuinely about people who want to improve their quality of life and local environment.

Like it or not this is a grass roots movement by local residents, and the reduction asked for by the residents.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You're one of the more sane people here, as far as I'm concerned Mister Paul, Rothbrook and Tourist Tony are pretty much this lot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAOHhV1EFe4

I've nothing against people wanting to improve the quality of life, but unfortunately most people today don't understand anything they're not told to understand, which sums up the residents of Portsmouth IMO.

Anyway it will be interesting to see what happens. Personally I don't think anything will happen. The idea is based on ignorance.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded

OK - you have the floor. In a few paragraphs, explain how you are going to educate.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, actually banning someone for a week but with no imposed financial consequence is going to make them think about it a lot more than sending them a œ60 fine will, but I'm not saying that idea's perfect - it's just one alternative.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded

How you are going to measure the success of the education.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You see that's just it with you lot isn't it, all you speed camera lobby all you're bothered about is statistics, and how it's going to look. What about - er - if number of accidents / seriousness of accidents per 100 miles driven drops?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded

How you are going to pay for it. Lastly how you are going to enforce it given that you and your SS gang spend 95% of your time campaigning against enforcement.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
It wouldn't even cost that much more than the current system. Sending someone a week long ban notification in the post would cost no more than to send them a fine.
Extra resource needed to spot-check people would be more than paid for by the fewer police investigations you would need due to accidents and savings on hospitals and ambulances due to having less accidents where people would be injured. Any further cash needed could be raised by putting a 12-episode reality series out on BBC1 and there are 12 contestants at the start, and they all have to undertake driving-based challenges, and at the end of each one, you have a big text-in / phone vote (this is where the money comes from) to vote one of them off.
The situations could be something like driving in stop-start traffic with deliberately annoying people in the surrounding cars, cyclists undertaking idiot manoeuvres (obviously actors doing it deliberately really). The public love a good row, so any beef between contestants and road-rage would naturally have to be encouraged as this would rake it in.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

BigBren · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Any further cash needed could be raised by putting a 12-episode reality series out on BBC1 and there are 12 contestants at the start, and they all have to undertake driving-based challenges, and at the end of each one, you have a big text-in / phone vote (this is where the money comes from) to vote one of them off.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Is he a clever troll, or a genuine moron? I can never quite decide...

Bren

Jaded · June 2007

Boss/Bonj.

You haven't really answered my question, you've just talked about looking at offenders. Surely the crux of the SS position is to educate ALL drivers, not just the ones that get caught by the foul cameras...?

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Jaded · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

What about - er - if number of accidents / seriousness of accidents per 100 miles driven drops?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yeah, what about that eh?

You mean like it has done over the last 15 years or so and continues to do so? Doh!

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

domd1979 · June 2007

Because a lot of the time it doesn't work. Example: seatbelts.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
My answer: none in practice, but in principle why can't we educate rather than legislate.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Cunobelin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Well, actually banning someone for a week but with no imposed financial consequence is going to make them think about it a lot more than sending them a œ60 fine will, but I'm not saying that idea's perfect - it's just one alternative.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yet one "road safsty group" advocates that this is victimisation and that this would be justification for a number of illegal activities by "otherwise law-abiding motorists"

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You see that's just it with you lot isn't it, all you speed camera lobby all you're bothered about is statistics, and how it's going to look. What about - er - if number of accidents / seriousness of accidents per 100 miles driven drops?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yet when "Quality of Life" was suggested in Portsmouth as an assessment of the value of the success of 20 mph limits - you immediately went back to accident rates............ Are you now saying that an improved quality of life for the community involved (the main stake holder) IS now a valid measurre for the success of 20 mph limits.

Finally, although laudable, the same flaw exists as with the present system... thehard line "otherwise law abiding" motorist "forced to drive" without a license and insurance by this gross victimisation.

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

1)Problems with 20mph limits?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
My answer: none in practice, but in principle why can't we educate rather than legislate. It perpetuates the myth that there is a direct unwavering correlation between slowness and safety, and to some bad drivers (not me I might add) it 'feels boring' and they thus don't pay as much attention, because a lot of today's modern range rovers and audis and what not have got doors about a foot thick and huge bullbars over everywhere and they must make the drivers feel really safe. Whereas what should be happening is the driver being forced to adapt their speed all the time in relation to the surroundings and the potential hazards - not just setting off, getting up to 'the limit', whacking the cruise control on and daydreaming till they get to work.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

2)Why can't 20mph limits limit the current risk alongside a concerted effort to improve driving standards. Any speed limits for that matter. If standards ever improve to the point that speed limits are not needed, then this can be considered.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Exactly. Have speed limits, but instead of demanding money every time one is broken, which isn't going to teach people, invent a cleverer way of punishing them but that instead of a direct punishment as such it is more about something that is actually going to educate them. My pet hate is audi drivers.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

D'oh!

You've not read the post through properly before jumping in to answer the first point.

FWIW there is a direct link between speed and safety. You've got a physics degree, so you know what I'm talking about. The trouble is, you speed apologists say "Fool!! It's not the only issue!!!" when no-one ever suggested that it was.

All your other stuff about concentration is irrelevant, as it can apply at any speed. You need to stop listening to Smithy's childrens stories.

And on the contrary, fining people for speeding is working. Incidents of second offences are falling.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cunobelin

No.....

It is genuinely about people who want to improve their quality of life and local environment.

Like it or not this is a grass roots movement by local residents, and the reduction asked for by the residents.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You're one of the more sane people here, as far as I'm concerned Mister Paul, Rothbrook and Tourist Tony are pretty much this lot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAOHhV1EFe4

I've nothing against people wanting to improve the quality of life, but unfortunately most people today don't understand anything they're not told to understand, which sums up the residents of Portsmouth IMO.

Anyway it will be interesting to see what happens. Personally I don't think anything will happen. The idea is based on ignorance.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, Simon. The idea is based on physics, which you can't really argue, and statistics which suggest that 20mph limits where appropriate are successful in reducing injury.

You still haven't been able to come up with an argument against 20mph limits, nor explained why you don't think they can be used alongside your idea of improving driving standards.

You'll ignore this, because it's me talking. What a convenient way of ignoring a question that you can't answer.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Cretin · June 2007

I've already told you that I am not that Simon person. Since you demand sources and proof for practically everything you read (aside from your own arguments), I demand you prove I am this person.

I tell you what, register on his website and ask him to come here. Then ask an admin to compare the IP addresses and their locality and tell you for sure.

Until you do otherwise I shall consider anything you say to be a slur, and you can go and share the room with Rothbrook and Tourist Tony.

rothbook · June 2007

Interesting debating technique Cretin.

You post summat blatantly untrue.

You are corrected.

You refuse to engage in discussion with the person who corrects you.

Do you always run away when you lose an argument?

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

FWIW there is a direct link between speed and safety. You've got a physics degree, so you know what I'm talking about. The trouble is, you speed apologists say "Fool!! It's not the only issue!!!" when no-one ever suggested that it was.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Note the difference between that and what I said, which was 'direct unwavering link'. There may be a direct link GENERALLY, but people will always make an exception for themselves, in that their logic goes 'well I was driving at 30mph this morning, and I was perfectly safe - so therefore if I was driving at 20mph I couldn't have been any more safe, so therefore 20mph is unnecessarily slow, therefore I've got some concentration spare to do other things'.
Like I say, that's not how my logic goes, but some people do think that, which is one example of a negative side of 20mph speed limits. But like I say, when you say "there aren't any disadvantages", what you actually mean is "there aren't any disadvantages that you like". It's all very well to say there aren't any, and when one is posted, to say that you don't like it and pretend that that means it doesn't exist.
They may not outweight the advantages, that will have to be seen. But it doesn't mean disadvantages don't exist just because YOU don't consider them significant or agree with the logic of them.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

All your other stuff about concentration is irrelevant, as it can apply at any speed. You need to stop listening to Smithy's childrens stories.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
People are always going to be concentrating when they are driving at the speed they think is appropriate. That doesn't in itself mean that that's what speed they should be driving at, and neither does it mean that they shouldn't have to concentrate at a lower speed, but the greater the difference between the speed they think they should be travelling at and the speed you are making them travel at, the greater the drop in concentration. That shouldn't be the case, but 'should' isn't good enough. It is the case.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> It is the case. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Source please.

Points deducted if you claim "Common sense innit".

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cretin

I've already told you that I am not that Simon person. Since you demand sources and proof for practically everything you read (aside from your own arguments), I demand you prove I am this person.

I tell you what, register on his website and ask him to come here. Then ask an admin to compare the IP addresses and their locality and tell you for sure.

Until you do otherwise I shall consider anything you say to be a slur, and you can go and share the room with Rothbrook and Tourist Tony.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So you're going to continue to use that tactic to ignore the perfectly legitimate questions, central to your position?

I see...

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

FWIW there is a direct link between speed and safety. You've got a physics degree, so you know what I'm talking about. The trouble is, you speed apologists say "Fool!! It's not the only issue!!!" when no-one ever suggested that it was.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Note the difference between that and what I said, which was 'direct unwavering link'. There may be a direct link GENERALLY, but people will always make an exception for themselves, in that their logic goes 'well I was driving at 30mph this morning, and I was perfectly safe - so therefore if I was driving at 20mph I couldn't have been any more safe, so therefore 20mph is unnecessarily slow, therefore I've got some concentration spare to do other things'.
Like I say, that's not how my logic goes, but some people do think that, which is one example of a negative side of 20mph speed limits. But like I say, when you say "there aren't any disadvantages", what you actually mean is "there aren't any disadvantages that you like". It's all very well to say there aren't any, and when one is posted, to say that you don't like it and pretend that that means it doesn't exist.
They may not outweight the advantages, that will have to be seen. But it doesn't mean disadvantages don't exist just because YOU don't consider them significant or agree with the logic of them.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Bonjy. Hit something at 20 and you'll do less damage than if you hit it about 30.

Please tell me where the wavering is in that...

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

FWIW there is a direct link between speed and safety. You've got a physics degree, so you know what I'm talking about. The trouble is, you speed apologists say "Fool!! It's not the only issue!!!" when no-one ever suggested that it was.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Note the difference between that and what I said, which was 'direct unwavering link'. There may be a direct link GENERALLY, but people will always make an exception for themselves, in that their logic goes 'well I was driving at 30mph this morning, and I was perfectly safe - so therefore if I was driving at 20mph I couldn't have been any more safe, so therefore 20mph is unnecessarily slow, therefore I've got some concentration spare to do other things'.
Like I say, that's not how my logic goes, but some people do think that, which is one example of a negative side of 20mph speed limits. But like I say, when you say "there aren't any disadvantages", what you actually mean is "there aren't any disadvantages that you like". It's all very well to say there aren't any, and when one is posted, to say that you don't like it and pretend that that means it doesn't exist.
They may not outweight the advantages, that will have to be seen. But it doesn't mean disadvantages don't exist just because YOU don't consider them significant or agree with the logic of them.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Bonjy. Hit something at 20 and you'll do less damage than if you hit it about 30.

Please tell me where the wavering is in that...

Oh, and you still haven't given an example of a problem with 20mph limits. You've just done your usual thing of making up a hypothetical situation. Which isn't an example. What are you going to suggest next? That a 20 mph limit is dangerous because some elephants might be chasing you and the could catch you up?

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

All your other stuff about concentration is irrelevant, as it can apply at any speed. You need to stop listening to Smithy's childrens stories.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
People are always going to be concentrating when they are driving at the speed they think is appropriate. That doesn't in itself mean that that's what speed they should be driving at, and neither does it mean that they shouldn't have to concentrate at a lower speed, but the greater the difference between the speed they think they should be travelling at and the speed you are making them travel at, the greater the drop in concentration. That shouldn't be the case, but 'should' isn't good enough. It is the case.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Now that's very interesting. Because daddy Smith claims the opposite. He says that if you force someone to drive in an unnatural state (which for him is below the speed limit) then you unnerve them. If you unnerve them then they're not relaxed and so don't lose concentration.

Now, who do I believe? One road safety expert or another?

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Cretin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
So you're going to continue to use that tactic to ignore the perfectly legitimate questions, central to your position?

I see...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Do you consider it a perfectly legitimate tactic to guess my real life identity and then use that guess to place doubt on anything else I say?

Its truly pathetic, even more so because the person involved is offensive.

As for the argument about 20mph limits, nothing of yours that I have read over the last few months has demonstrated that you have anything but an unwavering belief in your own opinions and superiority - and therefore I simply will not waste my time helping you to inflate your ego. You believe in a world where responsibility should be abrogated to the state. I believe in a world where responsibility should be assumed by the individual. The two positions are diametrically placed and will never meet.

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I believe in a world where responsibility should be assumed by the individual. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Then why don't you take responsibility for the lies you told about the "official police report" you claimed exonerated the Rhyl driver?

Refusing to admit you lied means nothing you say can be trusted.

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

Comments

Categories