Time To Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

Nuxx Bar said:

If you're one of the camera-supporting trolls here, and you drive
regularly, then the following statements are all true, are they not?

1. You believe that every instance of someone being caught speeding
(when they actually were) is "perfectly fair".
2. You believe that every instance of someone being banned through the
totting up of speeding points is "perfectly fair".
3. You speed at least 4 times every 3 years.

Bringing those statements together, you therefore believe that it's
"perfectly fair" that YOU should be PERMANENTLY BANNED.  So by rights,
if you're going to continue to support cameras, you must send the DVLA
your licences and tell them that you wish to stop driving.  Any other
course of action is outrageously hypocritical; it shows that you think
it should be one rule for you and another for everyone else, and that
you consider yourselves to be so much more important than most drivers
that the anti-motorist effort shouldn't apply to you.

If you know that all the above is true, and you don't wish to admit it
because it makes you look so ridiculous, feel free to attempt to
disguise it by throwing your toys out of the pram and spouting ad
hominem.  It won't change the reality: that your position is utterly
absurd, and that if you're going to continue this pathetic motorist-
hating under the guise of road safety, you should follow through
logically and stop driving yourselves.

So which is it to be, trolls: are you going to stop pretending that
you think cameras save lives in order to get motorists off the road,
or are you going to stop driving?  If neither, please explain why you
think that your need to drive is so much more pressing than everyone
else's that you should be exempt from the motorist-purging which you
are so keen to support.

(And as for those motorist-haters who have been pretending that they
drive when they actually don't: perhaps you should take this
opportunity to come clean, as your lying has just made you look more
stupid rather than less.)

Thanks very much and all the best

Bobby Lightcycles

1,

Yes

2,

Yes

3,

No.

You've been told this before, speeding fines are a stupidity tax on
those too ignorant or arrogant to feel that the law should apply to
them. I avoid fly tipping fines by not dumping pissy mattresses on the
street, I avoid speeding fines by obeying the law on the roads and I
avoid graffiti fines by not painting:

"NUXXY IS A SINGLE-ISSUE MENTALIST WHO PISSES ON BABY MICE AND STUFFS
THEM UP HER [censored]"

on garage walls in East London, easy!

Nuxx Bar said:

If you're one of the camera-supporting trolls here, and you drive
regularly, then the following statements are all true, are they not?

1. You believe that every instance of someone being caught speeding
(when they actually were) is "perfectly fair".
2. You believe that every instance of someone being banned through the
totting up of speeding points is "perfectly fair".
3. You speed at least 4 times every 3 years.

Bringing those statements together, you therefore believe that it's
"perfectly fair" that YOU should be PERMANENTLY BANNED. So by rights,
if you're going to continue to support cameras, you must send the DVLA
your licences and tell them that you wish to stop driving. Any other
course of action is outrageously hypocritical; it shows that you think
it should be one rule for you and another for everyone else, and that
you consider yourselves to be so much more important than most drivers
that the anti-motorist effort shouldn't apply to you.

If you know that all the above is true, and you don't wish to admit it
because it makes you look so ridiculous, feel free to attempt to
disguise it by throwing your toys out of the pram and spouting ad
hominem. It won't change the reality: that your position is utterly
absurd, and that if you're going to continue this pathetic motorist-
hating under the guise of road safety, you should follow through
logically and stop driving yourselves.

So which is it to be, trolls: are you going to stop pretending that
you think cameras save lives in order to get motorists off the road,
or are you going to stop driving? If neither, please explain why you
think that your need to drive is so much more pressing than everyone
else's that you should be exempt from the motorist-purging which you
are so keen to support.

(And as for those motorist-haters who have been pretending that they
drive when they actually don't: perhaps you should take this
opportunity to come clean, as your lying has just made you look more
stupid rather than less.)

Thanks very much and all the best

Bobby Lightcycles

No measure will ever eliminate speeding. The idea is to reduce it
overall. This cameras do. If you are unfortunate enough be caught often
enough to be banned then such is life. If you go for years and never get
caught, such is life. Only a total loser would end up with a persecution
complex over it.

Brian.

Nuxx Bar said:

If you're one of the camera-supporting trolls here, and you drive
regularly, then the following statements are all true, are they not?

1. You believe that every instance of someone being caught speeding
(when they actually were) is "perfectly fair".
2. You believe that every instance of someone being banned through the
totting up of speeding points is "perfectly fair".
3. You speed at least 4 times every 3 years.

You really cheer me up ;o)

But seriously I hope the government does start punishing speeders
because I have seen very little evidence of it so far.

Still 70% of cars in speed past my house, when they aren't queuing that is.

So after they bring in the 20 mph limits I hope they start putting black
box recorders into cars so that they can catch all these selfish
maniacs. I guess it would make you happy to because then the hypocrites
would get caught too.

Nuxx Bar said:

If you're one of the camera-supporting trolls here, and you drive
regularly, then the following statements are all true, are they not?

1. You believe that every instance of someone being caught speeding
(when they actually were) is "perfectly fair".
2. You believe that every instance of someone being banned through the
totting up of speeding points is "perfectly fair".
3. You speed at least 4 times every 3 years.

Bringing those statements together, you therefore believe that it's
"perfectly fair" that YOU should be PERMANENTLY BANNED.

You maths/logic is off.

Your conclusion would only stand
if assumption (1) was valid on every instance of
assumption (3), i.e. that every time someone
speeds they are caught. This is not the case.

BugBear

Nuxx Bar said:

If you're one of the camera-supporting trolls here, and you drive
regularly, then the following statements are all true, are they not?

1. You believe that every instance of someone being caught speeding
(when they actually were) is "perfectly fair".
2. You believe that every instance of someone being banned through the
totting up of speeding points is "perfectly fair".
3. You speed at least 4 times every 3 years.

snips

Quoted message said:

Bobby Lightcycles

i find that speed cameras mounted on a big steel pole, painted bright
yellow are fairly unmissable, same goes for most "safety vans" if
nothing else the postion gives it away. a van parked on a bridge on a
big fast road, don't have to think at the speed of light to work out
what that might be.

if not most sat nav's etc will beep and such when near one.

it really is a non issue.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

In article <4998a97e-25c9-42e3-83ee-d517a049c575
@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Nuxx Bar
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

If you're one of the camera-supporting trolls here, and you drive
regularly, then the following statements are all true, are they not?

Let's skip your faulty reasoning and try this instead:

1) You are opposed to speed cameras.
2) Speed cameras are used to help enforce speed limits.
3) Speed limits are imposed by law.
4) You think it's OK to break the law.
5) You are a mad ranting criminal.

Brian Robertson said:

Nuxx Bar said:

If you're one of the camera-supporting trolls here,...

No measure will ever eliminate speeding. The idea is to reduce it
overall. This cameras do.

Actually, I /think/ the original 'idea' was to tackle the UK's road
fatality rate. That worthy objective seems to have been lost in the
mists of time though. Perhaps it is because of the loss of the
significant downward trend in the fatality statistics since the cameras
were introduced?

--
Matt B

Nuxx Bar said:

the following statements are all true, are they not?

1. You believe that every instance of someone being caught speeding
(when they actually were) is "perfectly fair".

Ae you really asking whether being caught doing something thaT you are
doing is fair?

Quoted message said:

2. You believe that every instance of someone being banned through the totting up of speeding points is "perfectly fair".

Yes, people who repeatedly break the law should be punished
accordingly.

Quoted message said:

3. You speed at least 4 times every 3 years.

No. In fact I don't get much oportuinity, driving mainly on motorways
in a vehicle with a 100kph (62mph) limiter fitted.

Nuxx Bar said:

If you're one of the camera-supporting trolls here,

I know that you are a bit of an anarchist, and don't like law breakers
to be punished, but I would like to make it easier to take bad drivers
off of our roads.

If it was made easier to get bad drivers off the roads, than perhaps
Kiera Coultas might be at home with her small child now, instead of
sitting in a prison cell wishing she had been a more careful driver.

But I bet all those people killed every day due to speeding and other
bad driving don't concern you, as all you want to do is drive at 100mph
down a residential street.

If you think people like Kiera should be taken off our roads, then
please say so, by replying here.

"Nuxx Bar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If you're one of the camera-supporting trolls here, and you drive
regularly, then the following statements are all true, are they not?

1. You believe that every instance of someone being caught speeding
(when they actually were) is "perfectly fair".
2. You believe that every instance of someone being banned through the
totting up of speeding points is "perfectly fair".
3. You speed at least 4 times every 3 years.

Bringing those statements together, you therefore believe that it's
"perfectly fair" that YOU should be PERMANENTLY BANNED. So by rights,

DIET AND HEART ATTACKS
Consider the following data taken from bona fide epidemiological research.

1. The Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the
British or Americans.

2. The Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than the
British or Americans.

3. The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks
than the British or Americans.

4. The Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and suffer fewer heart
attacks than the British or Americans.

5. The Germans drink a lot of beer and eat lots of sausages and fat and
suffer fewer heart attacks than the British or Americans.

So what do you conclude? Eat and drink what you like. Speaking English is
apparently what kills you!

The logic is impeccable, but the conclusion is absurd.

MJP

Nick said:

Nuxx Bar said:

If you're one of the camera-supporting trolls here, and you drive
regularly, then the following statements are all true, are they not?

1. You believe that every instance of someone being caught speeding
(when they actually were) is "perfectly fair".
2. You believe that every instance of someone being banned through the
totting up of speeding points is "perfectly fair".
3. You speed at least 4 times every 3 years.

You really cheer me up ;o)

But seriously I hope the government does start punishing speeders
because I have seen very little evidence of it so far.

Still 70% of cars in speed past my house, when they aren't queuing that is.

So after they bring in the 20 mph limits I hope they start putting black
box recorders into cars so that they can catch all these selfish
maniacs. I guess it would make you happy to because then the hypocrites
would get caught too.

Bwaahaaaaahaaaha....<deep breath>...Bwaahaahaaahaaaahaaaa.....

The 20mph speed limit in Portsmouth is *universally* ignored. Why?
Because there is nothing to enforce it. Millions spent, not a single
camera (i've found) on a 20 mph limit.

This was the biggest waste of money I've seen[1], in the few areas a
20mph limit was really needed they did nowt, in the areas they applied a
20 limit and you could quite safely drive down at 30 they didn't even
have the sense to put up a revenue generator.

No, I'm sorry to say, a 20mph limit will make no discernable difference.

Oh, forgot to mention, my road is still a 30, despite being a 100 metres
long with a dead end 🙂

[1] Well, the bus timing fiasco was quite good. Oh, I forgot the cycle
lane incident. Oh, yes, then there was the A3020 roundabout, but that
might have been county.

Tosspot said:

Nick said:

Nuxx Bar said:

If you're one of the camera-supporting trolls here, and you drive
regularly, then the following statements are all true, are they not?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1. You believe that every instance of someone being caught speeding
(when they actually were) is "perfectly fair".
2. You believe that every instance of someone being banned through the
totting up of speeding points is "perfectly fair".
3. You speed at least 4 times every 3 years.

Quoted message said:

You really cheer me up ;o)

Quoted message said:

But seriously I hope the government does start punishing speeders
because I have seen very little evidence of it so far.

Quoted message said:

Still 70% of cars in speed past my house, when they aren't queuing that is.

Quoted message said:

So after they bring in the 20 mph limits I hope they start putting black
box recorders into cars so that they can catch all these selfish
maniacs. I guess it would make you happy to because then the hypocrites
would get caught too.

Bwaahaaaaahaaaha....<deep breath>...Bwaahaahaaahaaaahaaaa.....

The 20mph speed limit in Portsmouth is *universally* ignored.  Why?
Because there is nothing to enforce it.  Millions spent, not a single
camera (i've found) on a 20 mph limit.

This was the biggest waste of money I've seen[1], in the few areas a
20mph limit was really needed they did nowt, in the areas they applied a
20 limit and you could quite safely drive down at 30 they didn't even
have the sense to put up a revenue generator.

No, I'm sorry to say, a 20mph limit will make no discernable difference.

Oh, forgot to mention, my road is still a 30, despite being a 100 metres
long with a dead end 🙂

[1] Well, the bus timing fiasco was quite good.  Oh, I forgot the cycle
lane incident.  Oh, yes, then there was the A3020 roundabout, but that
might have been county.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nuxxy, your campaign is as dead as Smith is. Smith failed, there are
now more cameras than ever, his campaign failed, 20 mph zones (that
Smith opposed) are being rolled out across the country. There really
is only the dregs of supporters left now, those weird stalky swiss
ments who pretend to be coppers and so on.

The game's over, you lost, deal with it or I'm afraid you'll die the
same bitter, resentful wreck.

Or pop back over to the safespeeding forums where you can fantasise
about killing cyclists and call traffic wardens "nazis" with the rest
of the delightful people.

Nick said:

Nuxx Bar said:

If you're one of the camera-supporting trolls here, and you drive
regularly, then the following statements are all true, are they not?

1. You believe that every instance of someone being caught speeding
(when they actually were) is "perfectly fair".
2. You believe that every instance of someone being banned through the
totting up of speeding points is "perfectly fair".
3. You speed at least 4 times every 3 years.

You really cheer me up ;o)

But seriously I hope the government does start punishing speeders
because I have seen very little evidence of it so far.

I'd rather they concentrated on measures likely to reduce traffic speed
in community spaces, and improve road safety.

Quoted message said:

Still 70% of cars in speed past my house, when they aren't queuing that is.

And what percentage of them have crashes each day? Is there continual
carnage in your street?

Quoted message said:

So after they bring in the 20 mph limits I hope they start putting black
box recorders into cars so that they can catch all these selfish
maniacs.

Now you sound as though you're more interested in the punishment of
motorists than in making the streets safer. Could that possibly be the
case?

No, speed limits definitely aren't the answer. What we need is slower
traffic, not more frustrated drivers, or drivers relieved of their
responsibilities to other road users.

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

Nuxxy, your campaign is as dead as Smith is.

Quoted message said:

Smith failed, there are now more cameras than ever,

Smith, almost single-handedly, kept the debate going, exposed the flaws
in "argument" used to "prove" that speeding was a major cause of
crashes, succeeded, at least partially, in getting the effect of
regression-to-the-mean recognised as the major reason for the reduction
in "observed" crashes at camera sites, brought down the national
"safety" camera program, and saw the government stepping back from its
original camera-happy stance.

Quoted message said:

his campaign failed,

Partially, yes, there are still some who believe that regulation,
enforcement, and punishment, are the most effective road safety measures.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Nick said:

Still 70% of cars in speed past my house, when they aren't queuing that is.

And what percentage of them have crashes each day?  Is there continual
carnage in your street?

What percentage of local people have been intimidated into yielding to
the offenders by giving up cycling, avoiding crossing the road,
keeping their children indoors, etc, so that the inherent dangers of
excess speed do not materialise?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hope they start putting black
box recorders into cars so that they can catch all these selfish
maniacs.

Now you sound as though you're more interested in the punishment of
motorists than in making the streets safer.  Could that possibly be the
case?

He did not write anything about punishing motorists as a group, he
wrote of punishing offenders.

Quoted message said:

 What we need is slower
traffic, not more frustrated drivers, or drivers relieved of their
responsibilities to other road users.

Speed limits per se do not create driver frustration. I and many
others have been obeying speed limits for decades and are not
frustrated by them. The main causes of driver frustration are
unrealistic expecatations and attitudes, which simply because they are
unrealistic can never be fulfilled.

Matt B said:

Nick said:

Nuxx Bar said:

If you're one of the camera-supporting trolls here, and you drive
regularly, then the following statements are all true, are they not?

1. You believe that every instance of someone being caught speeding
(when they actually were) is "perfectly fair".
2. You believe that every instance of someone being banned through the
totting up of speeding points is "perfectly fair".
3. You speed at least 4 times every 3 years.

You really cheer me up ;o)

But seriously I hope the government does start punishing speeders
because I have seen very little evidence of it so far.

I'd rather they concentrated on measures likely to reduce traffic speed
in community spaces, and improve road safety.

That would be using the lets talk about it and do nothing method, I take
it. Or do you actually have some totally impractical measures that you
know are too expensive and would never be implemented.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Still 70% of cars in speed past my house, when they aren't queuing
that is.

And what percentage of them have crashes each day? Is there continual
carnage in your street?

Two dead kids in the last year. So basically the same as the girls
killed at Soham, it didn't generate as much news coverage for some reason.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So after they bring in the 20 mph limits I hope they start putting
black box recorders into cars so that they can catch all these selfish
maniacs.

Now you sound as though you're more interested in the punishment of
motorists than in making the streets safer. Could that possibly be the
case?

Only to the retarded. Improved detection has the biggest deterrent
effect on crime not punishment.

Quoted message said:

No, speed limits definitely aren't the answer. What we need is slower
traffic, not more frustrated drivers, or drivers relieved of their
responsibilities to other road users.

Nick said:

Matt B said:

Nick said:

Nuxx Bar wrote:
> If you're one of the camera-supporting trolls here, and you drive
> regularly, then the following statements are all true, are they not?
>
> 1. You believe that every instance of someone being caught speeding
> (when they actually were) is "perfectly fair".
> 2. You believe that every instance of someone being banned through the
> totting up of speeding points is "perfectly fair".
> 3. You speed at least 4 times every 3 years.
>
You really cheer me up ;o)

But seriously I hope the government does start punishing speeders
because I have seen very little evidence of it so far.

I'd rather they concentrated on measures likely to reduce traffic
speed in community spaces, and improve road safety.

That would be using the lets talk about it and do nothing method, I take
it. Or do you actually have some totally impractical measures that you
know are too expensive and would never be implemented.

We could start by taking the politics and the prejudice out of the
process, and allowing only evidence-based measures.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Still 70% of cars in speed past my house, when they aren't queuing
that is.

And what percentage of them have crashes each day? Is there continual
carnage in your street?

Two dead kids in the last year.

How many in the year before? What were recognised as the main
contributory factors?

Quoted message said:

So basically the same as the girls
killed at Soham, it didn't generate as much news coverage for some reason.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So after they bring in the 20 mph limits I hope they start putting
black box recorders into cars so that they can catch all these
selfish maniacs.

Now you sound as though you're more interested in the punishment of
motorists than in making the streets safer. Could that possibly be
the case?

Only to the retarded.

Please explain.

Quoted message said:

Improved detection has the biggest deterrent
effect on crime not punishment.

So you'd detect them, say "ha-ha gotcha", and then let them go? Are you
assuming that if we eradicate the "crime" of speeding, that the road
safety problem would go away? Remember, most collisions, especially
those in urban streets, occur at speeds below the speed limit, how would
improved detection affect them?

I think you've given a commendable answer, but to the wrong question.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Nick said:

Matt B said:

Nick wrote:
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>> If you're one of the camera-supporting trolls here, and you drive
>> regularly, then the following statements are all true, are they not?
>>
>> 1. You believe that every instance of someone being caught speeding
>> (when they actually were) is "perfectly fair".
>> 2. You believe that every instance of someone being banned through the
>> totting up of speeding points is "perfectly fair".
>> 3. You speed at least 4 times every 3 years.
>>
> You really cheer me up ;o)
>
> But seriously I hope the government does start punishing speeders
> because I have seen very little evidence of it so far.

I'd rather they concentrated on measures likely to reduce traffic
speed in community spaces, and improve road safety.

That would be using the lets talk about it and do nothing method, I
take it. Or do you actually have some totally impractical measures
that you know are too expensive and would never be implemented.

We could start by taking the politics and the prejudice out of the
process, and allowing only evidence-based measures.

You're a Jehovah's witness ICMFP.

Do they still go around knocking on people's door trying to engage them
in conversation with remarks like this? I haven't seen one for years.

Nick said:

Matt B said:

Nick said:

Matt B wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>>> If you're one of the camera-supporting trolls here, and you drive
>>> regularly, then the following statements are all true, are they not?
>>>
>>> 1. You believe that every instance of someone being caught speeding
>>> (when they actually were) is "perfectly fair".
>>> 2. You believe that every instance of someone being banned through
>>> the
>>> totting up of speeding points is "perfectly fair".
>>> 3. You speed at least 4 times every 3 years.
>>>
>> You really cheer me up ;o)
>>
>> But seriously I hope the government does start punishing speeders
>> because I have seen very little evidence of it so far.
>
> I'd rather they concentrated on measures likely to reduce traffic
> speed in community spaces, and improve road safety.

That would be using the lets talk about it and do nothing method, I
take it. Or do you actually have some totally impractical measures
that you know are too expensive and would never be implemented.

We could start by taking the politics and the prejudice out of the
process, and allowing only evidence-based measures.

You're a Jehovah's witness ICMFP.

Do they still go around knocking on people's door trying to engage them
in conversation with remarks like this? I haven't seen one for years.

And your answers to the other points in that same post are where? Are
we to assume that you accept my counter-arguments?

--
Matt B