Colourful European Parliament member Godfrey Bloom says speed has nothing to do with accidents, and Britain’s 30 million drivers are “the most oppressed group of people” in the country. He’s considering running for election to the UK Parliament as an MP for fringe pressure group the Drivers’ Union.
The former UKIP MEP now sits in Brussels as an independent. He left UKIP earlier this year after saying that a group of female party members who did not clean behind their fridges were “sluts”.
Now he is taking aim at the police and road safety charities for their emphasis on the role of speeding in road crashes.
He said: “Speed is not the offence. In law the offence is driving without due care and attention or reckless driving.
“Speeding on its own is meaningless. It has nothing to do with accidents.”
According to Department for Transport statistics, exceeding the speed limit was a factor in 194 fatal crashes in 2012, and a further 1,295 that resulted in serious injuries. A driver travelling too fast for the conditions was cited as a contributory factor in 183 fatal collisions.
Mr Bloom claims to have evidence that speed cameras are placed to raise revenue.
He said: “The police can set a trap for you and then they can intimidate you into taking one of their profit-making driving courses. I don’t know of anything else in the British constitution where the police can suspend prosecutions in exchange for money.”
And he doesn’t like the way road safety charities “make their points using the grieving mothers of road accident victims.
“You get these emotional women talking about how their child has been killed. But those people are killed because the driver wasn’t driving with due care and attention.”
As executive patron of the Drivers’ Union, Bloom has associated himself with an organisation whose founder, Keith Peat has claimed that road design “induces” drivers to speed, and who argues against 20 mph speed limits by claiming that “every 1 mph we slow road transport is about 2-3 billion a year from the economy.”
Unsurprisingly, then, Bloom also opposes 20mph speed limits, which he claims have made the streets less safe.
He said: “The extension of 20mph zones is actually causing more accidents.
“Pedestrians aren’t paying the same level of attention and, for drivers, it’s difficult to maintain a speed under 20mph. You have people looking at the dashboard, making sure the needle’s at 19mph, rather than the road.”
However, he said he had not yet decided to run for Parliament he was “just getting my feet under table” at the Drivers’ Union, but added: “I certainly wouldn’t rule it out.”
89 thoughts on “Godfrey Bloom says speeding “has nothing to do with accidents”, considers standing for Westminster”
Why does he exist? Why?…
Why does he exist? Why?…
smithy456 wrote:Why does he
More importantly why give this toolbag any more air-time?
This misogynist cannot back
This misogynist cannot back up a single one of his feeble and flimsy petrol-fume induced arguments. I hope he loses his deposit, for all our sakes.
Agree. Don’t give him the
Agree. Don’t give him the oxygen of publicity. If everyone ignores him hopefully he’ll crawl off back under his rock the odious little man
To an extent he does have a
To an extent he does have a point, speed in itself doesn’t cause accidents, but speed does make accidents worse. Driving fast and paying attention is safer than driving slow and not paying attention.
However speed differentials, the attitude that accompanies some drivers, i am good i can drive fast safely, etc does lead to complacency and hence to accidents.
Is he a muppet, bit harsh on muppets if you ask me.
Drivers being hard done by, well as there is no right to drive… Everyone who has a driving licence knows the rules when you get one, if you don’t like them don’t get a licence, if you get caught breaking the rules, unless you had a GOOD reason, tough.
Godfrey?
Godfrey? 8}
Yes, whatever you do, don’t
Yes, whatever you do, don’t use his name in the comments else he will get more internet traffic. 😉
As for speed not causing accidents – yes they aren’t accidents, often. If I decide to cross a road based on what I can see and reasonably expect to see enough of the road so I can cross safely and some idiots barrels along at say 40mph in a small 30mph road and knocks me down, speed clearly *is* the reason I couldn’t get out of the way in time and they couldn’t brake in time.
The specific road and weather conditions are a factor but one has to realise why certain speed limits are set for certain roads and why flouting them is an offence.
Another old white man who
Another old white man who still wishes we were living in the 1970s. The world has moved on, Godfrey.
dp24 wrote:Another old white
1870s. I hesitate to recommend this, contradicting my earlier post, but if you want to get a measure of the man then look for his performance on ‘have I got news for you’ recently. He’s beyond satire really.
dp24 wrote:Another old white
Careful with the old white man stuff, ? I’m headed that way myself. What would be said if you wrote, “Old black man” ?
I too am grading that way but
I too am grading that way but it is the emphasis on the word ‘another’ which means it is not offensive or racist. Old Black men do not, with very rare exceptions, hold positions of power through an old boys network.
That being said, at least he is not an anodyne career politician. He has settled for being a dipstick.
Russsauntry wrote:I too am
stop trolling us road.cc. Let
stop trolling us road.cc. Let the twit rot in obscurity as he deserves.
I think he’s right about this
I think he’s right about this though.
“I don’t know of anything else in the British constitution where the police can suspend prosecutions in exchange for money”.
sneakerfrfeak wrote:I think
We have a constitution?
We do have a constitution but
We do have a constitution but not a codifide one like the Americans have.
Ours is made up of Statue law and legal precedent.
Godfrey Bloom
Moonfaced
Godfrey Bloom
Moonfaced Loon
Silverspoon fed Goon
Please depart,
expire,
quite soon.
Speed may not be the direct
Speed may not be the direct cause of many accidents but it is a significant factor in almost all of them.
The faster a vehicle is travelling means that, when something unexpected occurs, the driver has correspondingly less time to take avoiding action and the impact forces will be greater.
Godfrey is “the gift that keeps on giving” for the media desperate to fill their pages or hours on-air each day.
Keith Peat – The Dog
Keith Peat – The Dog Fingerer…
..
..
Could we have more cycling
Could we have more cycling news, this place is becoming depressing lately and I don’t want to have to stop frequenting until the new year and some actual cycling news appears.
Thanks.
Charles_Hunter wrote:Could we
+1
I’d like to read about ridiculously expensive bikes being ridden in unfeasibly warm weather through stunning scenery by people who are patently enjoying themselves.
I know there are bad things happening out there and the world is full of reactionary nutters but there is a limit to how often I wish to be reminded of these facts. Ditto helmet/hi-viz/ASL debates.
Hope the user feedback is welcome.
Won’t be surprised to be shot down in flames of course by the more ‘committed’ members here present.
Ah, the old oppressed
Ah, the old oppressed motoring community chestnut on whom a war of attrition is being fought! If they weren’t breaking speed limits etc then they wouldn’t be paying the consequences.
Farage must be doing his nut.
Farage must be doing his nut. UKIP is doing very well in the polls. Think how much better they would do if they could get this arse to shut up.
And his comment is just dumb
And his comment is just dumb as any advanced driver will tell you. The advanced driving mantra is simple. TTR = Time to React.
Another daft comment heard but years ago was when I asked a colleague who was driving me why they were driving so close to the vehicle in front. It was a question I thought would lead to a comment like “oh yeah sorry didn’t realise, of course” and then a drop back to a sensible distance.
Instead I was treated to the most warped logic I have ever heard. “It’s safer” said the culprit because if I hit a car I am close to it causes less damage than if there was more of a run up before the impact”.
The person had a driving licence and as far as I know they are still alive and they are still out there.
Incorrect. We are ex police
Incorrect. We are ex police advanced drivers. ‘Speeding’ cannot cause anything.
Unless you can explain the physics of how by putting a number up and exceeding it something will happen.
The Police Advance drivers will tell you, that driving too fast for conditions, ability, the vehicle, the circumstances causes accidents. This is mostly below the limits and is an element of dangerous driving. Since dangerous driving happens at any speed, then clearly ‘speeding’, even if present, cannot be a factor.
It is this myth about ‘speeding’ that generates so much profit for the Speeding Industry. It’s explained here. http://bit.ly/HaR59V
Sedgepeat wrote:Incorrect. We
Who’s the “we”? Are you more than one person? Please explain.
Sedgepeat wrote:It is this
1993 called, it wants its web design back.
Presumably, if he doesn’t
Presumably, if he doesn’t want somebody to be charged for doing 35mph in a 30mph limit as long as it is judged “safe”, he would also want drivers to be charged for doing 25mph in a 30mph limit, if that was judged to be “unsafe”?
Yes of course. They often
Yes of course. They often are. Most dangerous driving is below the limits and so are accidents. It has nothing to do with the limit.
Just which constituency of
Just which constituency of inward looking dimwits voted for this misogynist swivel eyed loon?
Sudor wrote:Just which
Its because of the EU, and the pointless nature of the EU parliament, that buffoons like Bloom and Farage (and far worse, like Nick Griffen) get a high-profile (and well-remunerated) platform.
People treat EU elections as a chance for a protest vote, hence all sorts of ludicrous chancers get into the EU parliament. Which is why I wonder whether the likes of Bloom are really, deep-down, opposed to the EU. On the other hand, its one reason why I think quitting it might not be a bad thing.
Can we put up a pro-cycling
Can we put up a pro-cycling candidate against him?
No, no, no, no!
Please don’t
No, no, no, no!
Please don’t give this idiot more coverage.
road.cc – I thought you were better than this.
ROSPA statistics
ROSPA statistics
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/driving/speed/
Speeding is a contributory factor in 24% of road deaths.
Godfrey is an idiot.
Well, as much as he is
Well, as much as he is generally an arse, it’s not speed (in the sense of breaking the speed limit) per se that’s the issue. It’s inappropriate speed that’s the problem.
In a lot of situations, driving 30 mph in a 30 zone is dangerously fast. On the other hand, it’s quite often perfectly safe to go well above 70 mph (heck, people in Germany drive way faster than that with – AFAIK – not significantly more accidents on the motorway). On motorways, the key factor is speed appropriate distance – and checking mirrors. Similarly, quite frequently 70 mph is way too fast, as the recent incident on Shepney Bridge showed.
maybe some homepage
maybe some homepage preferences in the user settings:
I want to see stories about (tick those that apply):
[] Shiny Stuff
[] Swivel Eyed Loons
[] Serious Depressing Stuff
[] Helmets / Hi Viz / Rapha
[] Kittens
As an MEP is elected by
As an MEP is elected by proportional representation, and no one personally voted for Godfrey, and he no longer represents a party, why is what he thinks relevant?
The only person with less credibility than this idiot is Christopher Monckton.
CLOWN.
CLOWN.
The driving slut.
The driving slut.
I wonder which oil / car
I wonder which oil / car manufacturer company boards he sits on? Slime ball. You can tell he was slapped with wet fish by his head boy when at school! =))
Cyclist wrote:I wonder which
None, apparently. Although he is an adviser to Cambridge University Women’s Rugby, and a member “Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality”, a significant proportion of which seems to be, er, female [1]. Let us not forget perhaps his finest moment about not sending aid to “bongo bongo land” [2].
UKIP withdrew the party whip from Mr Bloom over his recent “sluts” comments. When UKIP thinks someone’s gone a bit far, you know something’s gone wrong. It’s like being thrown out of a graveyard by the residents for being a bit quiet.
Credit and kudos to Victoria Cohen for ripping the proverbial out of him on HIGNFY though.
[1] – http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28513/GODFREY_BLOOM_home.html (related links to committee and declaration of interests)
[2] – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMym8bX4guE
I’m sorry…? He branded a
I’m sorry…? He branded a group of women who don’t clean behind their fridges as ‘sluts’! Bizarre.
Seriously though, more cycling news stories please.
Oh, by the way, I like this
Oh, by the way, I like this story. Reminds me of how sane I am. Perhaps I will stand for Europe…
Godfrey bloom says it’s Ok to
Godfrey bloom says it’s Ok to drive faster in urban areas. Wow I’m impressed he’s such an ex-spurt (sic). Isn’t that contrary to all the other statistical experts.
We could save a a Euro billion by retiring this old outa touch nutter.
wonder how this numptard
wonder how this numptard would feel after being hit by
a speeding motorist !!!!
perhaps a phone call or two to make … 🙂
Bet he loses his deposit if
Bet he loses his deposit if he stands. He’s to the right of the average Daily Mail reader, and a good deal less rational. His record speaks for itself. Even UKIP didn’t want him.
Speed is involved in every
Speed is involved in every road traffic accident, but only ‘inappropriate speed’ causes accidents.
Allowing a driver to drive at the ‘optimum’ speed for the road enhances concentration, anticipation and awareness. Draconian enforcement of speed limits in areas where marginal encroachments over the limit have been accepted as normal safe driving, is doing nothing to enhance road safety.
Bloom is a buffoon, but this is not a straightforward topic. The relationship between speed limits and safety is complex, and requires intelligent enforcement to add value.
Kendal Brat wrote:Speed is
By definition any speed above the maximum allowed by law is an ‘inappropriate speed’. It is a *maximum* btw, you are allowed to drive slower than the maximum.
How do you control and enforce ‘appropriate speeds’, in any given area, at any particular time and under varying conditions?
Are 100% of the driving public sufficiently skilled and experienced, even immediately after they’ve passed their test, to determine the correct ‘appropriate speed’ under all conditions?
Err but how do you know the
Err but how do you know the limit is appropriate, who set it, and what was his expertise?
I survey many speed limit orders and most I survey are not for any other reason that some parochial councillor wants to get re-elected. Many where no accidents are happening at all indicating that the existing limit is fine.
Since 2006, the sensible formula by which limits had previously been set, the 85% tile rule, was abandoned for a totally arbitrary Hobson’s choice method.
But you are supporting my other posts that it has nothing to do with the limit at all but driving within the conditions and circumstances and most drivers are doing that all the time. If not there’d be piles of wreckage at every corner.
Good job Godfrey! Finally
Good job Godfrey! Finally someone said it. I’m sick of cyclists who think they are better than car drivers or just cyclists who don’t know how to behave on roads. Which is a vast majority, at least where I live.
ricolek wrote:Good job
And here we can observe the common internet troll in its natural habitat… *sigh*
ricolek wrote:Good job
So, other than the road situation, what is La La Land like?
Reading the comments, road.cc
Reading the comments, road.cc readers seem to be alibistic socialists. Oh well, what can you expect.
I live in the same area as
I live in the same area as Godfrey, East Yorkshire which is part of the Humberside Police area. In the past 6 months our Deputy Police Commissioner has been reported for using a mobile phone whilst driving, he was approaching the toll booths for the Humber Bridge at the time, and has been successfully prosecuted for doing 100mph on a motorway. The Police Commissioner has also been sent on a “safer driving course” after being caught doing 36 mph in a 30 limit, strangely enough Godfrey was not available to comment on these issues. He used to be a character now he’s just an embarrassment who didn’t even realise he was being mocked on HIGNFY last month.
Godfrey was misplaced on
Godfrey was misplaced on HIGNFY but humour and ridicule isn’t a sign of intelligence anyway. Bad forum choice for him. Wrong type of humour.
How does ridicule address any
How does ridicule address any issue? It seems that’s the sum total of the cycle lobby. He hasn’t attacked cyclists but clearly being pro driver is regarded as anti cyclist and here is the real source of the Two Tribes syndrome.
And yes he is absolutely correct. ‘Speeding’ that is the act of simply exceeding a number on a pole cannot cause a damn thing. Too fast does and that can be at any speed, often below the limits, hence most accidents including the worst are below the limits. The stats the you quote are wrong. I have been involved with creating them. All they show is that x% of non specialist reporting officers ticked a box that shouldn’t be there. Worse than that there are options that should be on their stats form that are not there.
The same principle applies to cyclists but as they are more vulnerable and on two skinny wheels, too fast for a cyclist will be much lower than for motor vehicles.
If Road CC were really interested in road safety why not understand these things? And does it really support non experts, with no particular driving expertise, prosecution or accident reporting background, like BRAKE, commenting on such a life & death issue & prosecution of drivers too?
It’s because of every Tom Dick & Harry having such a big say in road safety, we have policy based on profit & vested interest across the board. We have managed to link vested interested spokesmen and campaigners on our site http://bit.ly/163UkZO
Let’s be more positive about our drivers. We all depend on them.
This man is not being
This man is not being pro-driver.
He is being pro-speed, and he’s doing it because of his usual inability to analyse a situation and his enthusiasm for populist support.
I am a driver, I have driven around half a million miles since I started driving. I am also a cyclist having cycled around a quarter of a million miles since I started cycling. Like most cyclists I’m not one of two tribes. Like all drivers and all cyclists I am a road user.
And as a road user I understand that speed in a motor vehicle above the limit is always wrong and the limits are intended to be the fastest speed at which we may drive. I also realise, as most people do when they stop and think, that often conditions (eg. road surface conditions, weather, visibility and traffic volume etc) mean that the appropriate speed to drive at is somewhere below the legal limit.
As a road user, whether driving or cycling, I am put at risk by idiots making the assumption that they are safe to drive at speeds which are obviously too high to be appropriate. When I’m cycling that risk is greater.
As a road user I’m also acutely aware that lowering the limit to 20mph in urban areas has a significant effect on lowering casualties. In fact, as a motorist, I would support any motoring group that had the guts to face reality and campaign for 20mph limits on all urban roads. That would be pro-driver because it would protect themselves and protect them from getting involved in hurting other road users (including the substantial number of pedestrians killed on pavements each year by motor vehicles).
The only reason that drivers find it difficult to drive below 20mph is that they’ve been trained to drive to a 30mph limit. It doesn’t take long to get used to the new limit where it already exists and you certainly don’t need to be watching the needle (and if you do you need to re-evaluate your driving skills).
As a road user I get put at risk by idiots I am quite justified in getting annoyed about that. And I’m totally at liberty and justified in calling such drivers idiots and am happy to extend that label to Godfrey Bloom.
Joe in Poole wrote
“By
Joe in Poole wrote
“By definition any speed above the maximum allowed by law is an ‘inappropriate speed’.”
No it’s not. It’s simply a speed in excess of the limit. Many speeds below the legal limit are inappropriate too, but the system of camera speed enforcement fails to recognise this.
When you look a the stats up to 1994, UK had a dramatically improving road safety picture based on (generally) a good attitude to road safety by most drivers. Between 1994 and 2004, road safety improvement stalled dramatically, perhaps caused in part by the dramatic reduction of traffic cops and the increase in speed cameras. Only when Labour decided in 2004 to limit the growth of speed cameras, did road safety come back on track.
If you take time to think about how you drive, and what you concentrate on, it’s not hard to see that to concentrate on legal rather than appropriate speed can have an impact on the quality, therefore safety of your driving.
Drivers need to be responsible about speed, and to respect the applicable limits, but not to feel overthreatened by them. When all our concentration is applied to hazard recognition, observation links, limits of observation, hazard anticipation etc, we drive at the speed appropriate to these observable and anticipated hazards, with an awareness of the applicable limit. However, as these hazards diminish, often on the exit from a town, the speed naturally and safely increases. This is where you’ll find speed enforcement – in the places that drivers will marginally exceed the limit as a by-product of their safe driving.
If you examine closely (as I do) the causes of serious accidents, you would recognise that a responsible driver exceeding the speed limit where appropriate doesn’t feature. They are indeed notable by their absence. Irresponsible speed (irrespective of limits) borne of a poor attitude is where the speed risk comes in, but the current method of enforcement offers them the chance to speed dangerously with impunity.
KP ALERT ! KP ALERT !
Please
KP ALERT ! KP ALERT !
Please folks do not under any circumstances feed the troll.
Phrases like “vested interests” are just a dead give away that there will be no rational debate other than “mixing with essential machinery”
Oh I see now. A ‘troll is
Oh I see now. A ‘troll is someone with a valid point of view that you cannot fault but simply don’t like? Thank God for democracy and free speech I say. 🙂
Joe in Poole wrote
“By
Joe in Poole wrote
“By definition any speed above the maximum allowed by law is an ‘inappropriate speed’.”
No it’s not. It’s simply a speed in excess of the limit. Many speeds below the legal limit are inappropriate too, but the system of camera speed enforcement fails to recognise this.
I’m a driver and a cyclist, like most people here. Inappropriate speed is definitely that which is too high for the conditions, not over or even just under the arbritrary number on the pole. Anyone whose ‘road safety’ policy is ONLY to keep knocking speed limits lower and lower is an idiot. Unfortunately, we’ve had a period where this seems to pretty much been the only game in town.
edster99 wrote:Joe in Poole
Why, when you ‘quoted’ me, did you leave out the next line in which I agreed that it was perfectly ok to drive *below* the maximum permitted speed limit? Thus your reply makes no sense without the out-of-context, abbreviated version of what I said.
Weird. How do trolls find
Weird. How do trolls find stories like this? Google alerts maybe? Losers.
What we need isn’t more, or
What we need isn’t more, or less, speed cameras.
We could really do with some red light cameras.
Keith Peat ego wank.
Keith Peat ego wank.
It’s like falling:
Falling
It’s like falling:
Falling has nothing to do with accidents. It’s hitting the ground that hurts.
If you analyse the causes of
If you analyse the causes of fatal road traffic collisions involving cyclists, it’s abundantly clear that the type of driver being denigrated here hardly features in the stats. The driving errors and omissions that are killing cyclists are either failure to observe the cyclist, or misjudging the cyclists path or speed. Exceeding the speed limit is not the recognised primary cause in the vast majority of cases.
The risks that I’ve listed can be reduced through concentration, awareness and anticipation – vital road safety skills that are not helped by being asked to divert much of your attention away from your driving to ensure rigid speed limit adherence.
So, in our knee-jerk demands for stricter application and enforcement of speed limits, we may actually be making the urban road system much less safe for cyclists.
Yes indeed, BUT the risks
Yes indeed, BUT the risks that you’ve listed are all reduced where the speed of the vehicle is reduced.
Failure to observe is less likely when taking more time to make a manouvre (commensurate with lower speed).
Misjudgements are less likely to have serious impacts when the speed of the vehicle is lower.
Finally when failure to observe and misjudgements result in a collision the consequences of that are likely to be less serious when the speed is lower.
That must be why so many people feel that lower limits would generally improve safety.
Simple really!
Drivers Union claim that they
Drivers Union claim that they are ‘the voice of reason’ for 30 million drivers. Their twitter page show that they have 218 followers and have sent over 7,500 tweets. That’s a hell of a lot of noise and not much light.
Given that their views are followed by less than 0.00001% of their possible ‘constituency’ on twitter I say let democracy take it’s course. As it stands it seems like no-one’s listening to what they have to say anyway 😕
According to KP, I’m the
According to KP, I’m the anti-Christ.
I had to block his various personas on Twitter; life is too short.
Geoffrey Bloom’s self
Geoffrey Bloom’s self appointment as a “Drivers’ Champion” is brilliant news for cyclists. I can’t wait for him to cast some of his special magic on the motoring lobby’s campaigning!
Again. Why is pro driver
Again. Why is pro driver translated to anti cyclist with you? Has he said anything against cyclists?
Are you saying drivers have no say in their affairs at all? You are definitely part of a tribe with that comment.
As it happens Godfrey is referencing experts with the correct CV which BRAKE, RACF, PACTS, Edmund King don’t have.
I was asked by a TV interviewer why Godfrey would be good for Road Safety and the answer?….. ‘Thats why I am on now. Because of Godfrey Bloom’. Watch this space. :-))
KP
I wonder if Keith Peat is
I wonder if Keith Peat is anything like Keith Lard? We’ll have to ask Keith Peats Dog
zanf wrote:I wonder if Keith
Fine. I can handle ridicule very easily. There is nothing intelligent in it to fret about and means I am on the right track.
KP
Sedgepeat wrote:zanf wrote:I
If you put as much effort into web design as you do the monumental outpouring of crap you spout, then your website wouldn’t be a 90’s looking monstrosity.
As an ex Black Rat (similar
As an ex Black Rat (similar it seems to KP) all I can say is that this sentence of SC’s is so fundamentally important that it bears repeating.
In my day (early ’90s) being on an advanced course was effectively an opportunity to learn to get from A to B as fast as the prevailing circumstances allowed. 30s and 40s were sacrosanct, but anything above was fair game to treat as a minimum dependent upon road conditions. I won’t tell you the max speed I achieved on the course, it scares me to this day. It was an amazing experience and I would like to think that my training meant that in subsequent years I was able to arrive ‘on scene’ more quickly and safely than the vast majority of other drivers on the road would have been able to do. It’s a little like being God. And that is the problem. It appears that some advanced-trained drivers think they are incapable of misjudgement.
Recently, I’ve been going down to London for meetings quite often. When I get the opportunity I always walk through Admiralty Arch and go to the National Police Memorial. Written on the Roll of Honour there is the name of a friend of mine who died in a road traffic accident, which occurred as he was being driven by another of my friends to assist another of my friends, who had called for urgent assistance. I like to pass on my respects.
Speed + misjudgement = elevated risk of fatal consequences
It appears that some people think they can beat the roulette wheel…every time.
Utter ******g hubris
As any capable and honest
As any capable and honest driver/rider will tell you speed is not the problem but it can be a factor in accidents. Inappropriate speed is the problem no matter whether you are on a bike or in a car. The need for speed limits is only there because most people have no idea what ‘appropriate speed’ is so the law tries to guide us these days. The biggest problem is the muppets who fail to consider other road users.
alg wrote:As any capable and
One thing you fail to consider with the phrase appropriate speed, the speed at which a 2CV can take a corner compared to that an Veyron can. Drive both at a speed in which you can safely stop on a corner and the speeds of both cars will differ massively. By having limits you get around car capability as well.
But yes most drivers haven’t a clue what is safe, and that is the scariest thing about roads and traffic.
Speed is a ‘factor’ in all
Speed is a ‘factor’ in all accidents including walking into a telegraph pole.
‘Speeding’ is not a factor even if present. It’s the act of too fast at any speed will be a factor. Don’t mix ‘speed’ with ‘speeding’. That’s what the Speeding Industry want you to do. I have gone to a great deal of trouble to explain this in detail here. http://bit.ly/QlE23D
KP
This guys a bleedin’ Nutter !
This guys a bleedin’ Nutter ! =))
I think the average driver is
I think the average driver is just about competent. What worries me is that, by definition, half of all drivers are below even this derisory standard.
Hey Sedgepeat. I love your
Hey Sedgepeat. I love your ‘myth busting’ page here:
http://kspeat.magix.net/website#/Cycling%20in%20Europe:%20Myths%20exposed
Amazing.
.
hanuman wrote:Hey Sedgepeat.
FFS
Hasis wrote:hanuman wrote:Hey
FFS— hanuman
I’ve got some photos of European cities with bicycles in. Some of them are road bikes. Does that disprove his photos? I’m I myth busting his myth busting?
I’m a particular fan of the
I’m a particular fan of the photo of Liege, the one with the silver Ford Galaxy, which shows that Liege isn’t a cycling city……………
The photo was taken on the autoroute. (Top tip Keith, airbrush the blue signs next time, they’re a dead giveaway) =))
Ahem.. *Am* I?…
Ahem.. *Am* I?…
Oddly enough, the bit on the
Oddly enough, the bit on the driver’s union website about cycling says that when cyclists ride faster there is an increased risk of crashing.
Err, shurely shome mishtake?
The website design looks similar to the one my old company used back in the 1990s.
I’m unfortunate enough to
I’m unfortunate enough to have to share a county with Keith Peat and although I agree with the sentiment about denying him the oxygen of publicity I also think it’s important that he’s outed as the horrible, gloating, flat earther that he is.
He tried to present himself as reasonable on this site and as some kind of advocate for drivers. But that’s just not the case. He was publically rebuked by the Lincolnshire Echo for leaving ‘ghoulish’ comments on their web-page reporting the death of a cyclist in Spalding. He advised drivers not to cooperate with the police in the immediate aftermath of an accident following another cycling incident in Horncastle. Presumably only if the other party was a cyclist – maybe you can answer that Keith? This isn’t pro-driver, its simply anti-cyclist.
I do not understand why our local media in Lincolnshire continue to give him air time. He heads a group of three people, himself, a guy called Jan and now ol’ Godders. But they do, and he frequently gets the opportunity to spout his bullshit on air, whenever he does we have to call ‘bullshit’ back on him.
I’m glad Bloom has joined them, it shows up the ‘Drivers Union’ for the irrelevance they actually are. Keith, I hope you put the deposit up for Godfrey’s election yourself – I’ll enjoy watching you lose it.