A sub-thread on speed limits had developed when a poster replied to just 
one of the points made in an earlier on-topic post in the thread "Re: 
cycling improves driving.." - a point about speed limits.

I would be very interested to hear the moderators' opinions on this 
sequence, particularly on why my post[1], which was the first reply to 
the first post on this branch, was left for more than *8 hours* on the 
queue then rejected, whilst the other similarly off-charter replies were 
waved through and accepted.

Several other posters besides me replied to that point.  Here is the 
chronology (of those accepted, and mine):

Post 1 - in reply to an earlier post (off-charter)
   From: Just zis Guy, you know?
   Received: Monday 16:52
   *Accepted*: Monday 16:56

Post 2 - in reply to post 1 (off-charter)   <== *my post* [1]
   From: Matt B
   Received: Monday 17:17
   (left on queue)

Post 3 - in reply to post 1 (off-charter)
   From: nmm1 at .. m.ac.uk
   Received: Monday 17:57
   *Accepted*: Monday 18:03

Post 4 - in reply to post 3 (off-charter)
   From: Just zis Guy, you know?
   Received: Monday 20:12
   *Accepted*: Monday: 20:48

Post 5 - in reply to post 4 ( *pointing out the off-charter posts* )
   From: Clive George
   Received: Monday 21:15
   *Accepted*: Monday 21:20

Post 6 - in reply to post 5 (noting sub-thread as off-charter)
   From: Simon Brooke (a URCM moderator)
   Received: Monday 21:26
   (left on queue)

Post 7 - in reply to post 5 (off-charter)
   From: Just zis Guy, you know?
   Received: 21:28
   *Accepted*: 21:28

Post 6 (from queue)
   *Accepted*: Monday 22:27

Post 8 - in reply to post 4 (off-charter)
   From: nmm1 at .. m.ac.uk
   Received: Monday 21:46
   *Accepted*: 21:59

Post 2 (from queue)                    <== *my post* [1]
   _Rejected_: Tuesday 02:08

Post 9 - in reply to post 1 (off-charter)
   From: KeithT
   Received: Tuesday 09:19
   *Accepted*: Tuesday 09:19

[1] My rejected post (the rest are in urcm, of course):

-----Start post-----
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
 > On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:02:48 +0000, Mark
 > <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
 >
 >> Speed limits are now treated as targets, rather than limits.  This
 >> leads to excessive speed in high-risk areas.
 >
 > Do you have any evidence that it was ever any different?  As far as my
 > reading on the subject shows, there has never been a time when drivers
 > willingly accepted the speed limit, and there has never been a time at
 > which they were content to travel for any meaningful period at less
 > than the limit allowed.

In fact, I'd go one stage further and say that speed limits are
generally /ignored/.  If there is strict enforcement activity, then
things will change.  Drivers' speed choice, at the population level,
isn't generally influenced by the prevailing speed limit, but by the lay
of the road and the "message" it gives them.

This is apparent form observation... In towns with blanket 30 mph speed
limits you'll find places, say on wide boulevards, where speeds of 40+
mph are common.  In other locations, say in narrow streets with parked
cars each side, nothing exceeds 15 mph.  The same speed limit applies -
the difference is the road message.

-- 
Matt B
2009-10-26 17:17:15 GMT
-----End post-----

-- 
Matt B

In article , 
matt.bourke@nospam.london.com says...
> 
> In fact, I'd go one stage further and say that speed limits are
> generally /ignored/.  If there is strict enforcement activity, then
> things will change.  Drivers' speed choice, at the population level,
> isn't generally influenced by the prevailing speed limit, but by the lay
> of the road and the "message" it gives them.
> 
> This is apparent form observation... In towns with blanket 30 mph speed
> limits you'll find places, say on wide boulevards, where speeds of 40+
> mph are common.  In other locations, say in narrow streets with parked
> cars each side, nothing exceeds 15 mph.  The same speed limit applies -
> the difference is the road message.

Seems entirely accurate and sensible to me.  But unfortunately it also 
exposes the total inadequacy of overzealous speed enforcement, which is 
a big no-no on URCM, run as it is by the sorts of car-haters who see 
speed cameras as such a wonderful weapon against motorists that they 
must be encouraged even though they kill thousands of people a year 
(apparently that's a small price to pay for something that's such an 
effective means of bullying law-abiding motorists).

The above post is exactly the reason why URCM was created: the clique 
was fed up with people talking sense about road safety and exposing the 
short-sightedness of anti-motorist measures such as automated speed 
enforcement, and they knew they couldn't argue with such posts, so they 
decided to censor them instead.  And that's exactly what they're doing.  
(After all, no-one in their right mind would attempt to argue that there 
was anything untrue about the above post: it's just unpalatable to 
fuckwit car-haters, that's all.  All I can say is thank god that it *is* 
true, and that drivers have the sense to choose their speeds according 
to the conditions, and not some stupid politically motivated number on a 
sign.)

I'd love to see one of the car-haters attempt to argue that 40mph 
*isn't* a common speed on 30mph dual carriageways.  Assuming that they 
debated in an honest fashion (which is a big assumption I know), they'd 
very quickly and hilariously tie themselves up in all sorts of knots.  
Then you could *really* annoy them by reminding them that the 85th-90th 
percentile speeds are statistically the safest, and criminalising them 
is absurd.  The truth hurts when you're a fuckwitted car-hater, but it's 
hard to be sympathetic towards those who've decided to persecute 32 
million people at all costs just for trying to get around.