I don't know whether to be amused or freaked out that Crapman rarely
posts here unless it's in reply to me. Amused because Crapman
obviously feels threatened by me and my habit of revealing the truth
about cameras and the trolls' anti-motorist agenda. Freaked out
because it's never a good thing to have someone stalking you,
especially when they're clearly so blase about lives being lost.
you know? said:On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:32:15 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:why would Safe Speed
supporters (if that's who you mean) be trying to reduce road deaths if
they took such delight in them?
Close, but no banana. Safespeed is, and always was, a speed
apologist and anti-enforcement group /pretending/ to be concerned
with road deaths.
Really? Where's your evidence? Oh that's right, you've got NONE.
I'm sure that you and your troll friends have moles in the Clubhouse
(sorry to disappoint you but we do know), and no doubt you've seen a
distinct lack of the sorts of posts that you'd expect to see there
from an organisation that really had such an agenda. Once again,
you've shown yourself to be a LIAR.
I know many of the people from Safe Speed, an awful lot better than
you do, and they are decent, responsible people who quite obviously
care about saving lives a hell of a lot more than the trolls here do.
And if we really were a "speed apologist and anti-enforcement group",
we'd all have a lot of points to show for it by now. Polls have very
clearly shown otherwise.
"Speed apologist" is absurd: we don't want people going too fast any
more than anyone else does. Why would we? We don't want people to
die. And "anti-enforcement" is nothing more than slander; most of us
want *more* enforcement of most traffic laws, and we still want speed
limits and parking restrictions: we just want them to be set sensibly
and by the right people (with the right motives), and we want them to
be enforced with discretion (and I can't see how anyone except a
motorist-hating [censored] would not want those things). If you actually
look at the Safe Speed manifesto, I bet you can't find a single thing
on there that you can logically argue with. So no wonder you're
making [censored] up about Safe Speed instead. It's like when you can't
argue with what I'm saying, so you start talking [censored] about me having
been banned, or not having passed my test. You'd rather slander
people than admit that the anti-camera brigade are right about
anything. You're pathetic.
Quoted message said:Everybody who is /genuinely/ concerned with
reducing road deaths seems remarkably consistent in supporting the
conclusion, robustly scientifically proven, that both frequency and
severity of collisions rises with speed.
But since you (purportedly at least) automatically assume that anyone
who questions speed enforcement can't be concerned with road deaths,
it's hardly surprising that you've come to the above conclusion. All
of what you're saying is lies anyway, and you know the truth as well
as I do. Safe Speed most definitely is concerned with reducing road
deaths; it's you and your troll friends who prioritise the persecution
of motorists above the saving of people's lives.
By the way, what do you mean by "speed": impact speed or free-
travelling speed? Do you acknowledge that they are different, and no
relationship has been found between them? Oops, sorry, we're not
allowed to go there are we? Any attempt at uncovering the deceit and
intentional oversimplification surrounding the "case" for speed
cameras is invariably met with flaming from the troll collective. So
I'd better not mention the fact that 95% of crashes take place within
the speed limit, despite people exceeding the speed limit half the
time. So much for the frequency of collisions rising with "speed".
Oh dear, Crapman doesn't like that. A salvo of irrefutable facts:
it's guaranteed to upset the trolls. The trouble is that it's great
fun as well, and one has to try to get some amusement out of the
existence of such twisted motorist-haters.
