7@m3 G33k wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>>
>> Ah! It confronts your prejudices. Do you agree that someone who is
>> thought to be attempting to "discredit Government policy" should be
>> treated with contempt by the police, or just those whose views
>> conflict with yours?
>>
>> You never did tell us the background to your obsession with him, and
>> your continued futile attempts to smear him. Did he get the better of
>> you sometime in the past - in a seriously BIG way?
>>
>
> What's your point in this thread Matt?
To understand the source of the PP's contempt for SS.
> That we need 'beyond reasonable
> doubt' evidence that Mr Smith is a whacko whose
Not at all. Some of the accusations made are very serious indeed, and
go way beyond the normal "acceptable" banter. It is not unreasonable to
expect /some/ evidence for those.
> anti-road safety
> rantings have no basis in fact? I'll go with 'balance of probabilities'
> on this nut-job as I suspect most reasonable people will.
Are you a speed camera supporter? Are our roads significantly safer
since the speed limit (+10% +2), at accident black spots, became the
centrepiece of our road safety policy?
It took several years for the powers-that-be to admit that much of what
"he" said about the justification of speed cameras was, in fact, true.
They have now acknowledged that regression-to-the-mean accounts for much
of the reduction in casualties at camera sites and that exceeding the
speed limit is a factor in only a very small percentage of collisions.
> But why defend him anyway? To further your argument against the new
> imposition of six penalty points for withholding the identity of an
> offending driver? There's been a deafening silence in terms of coherent
> arguments against this policy, I expect because the evidence and
> arguments that stack up so heavily against the pro-speeding lobby are
> becoming more widely understood by the public.
Who exactly is the "pro-speeding" lobby? Do /you/ understand the road
safety difference between "exceeding the speed limit" and "going too
fast for conditions"?
The latter is /always/ dangerous, and very risky, and should be avoided
and prevented as far as is possible. The former is a technical offence
which may, or may not be dangerous, dependent on how accurately the
speed limit reflects the prevailing conditions.
Those who understand the dangers of ignoring the latter, whilst
ignorantly concentrating on the former, should not be characterised as
"pro-speeding" rather as "anti-dangerous-speed" (or even
pro-safe-speed), especially given that most casualty collisions occur
within the speed limit.
The speed limit philosophy relies on drivers being able to judge when
the actual speed limit is too high for the prevailing conditions, which
assumes that they have that skill. If they have that skill then why are
speed limits required?
Additionally, speed limits, especially where they are enforced with
speed cameras, actually legitimise speed which is too fast for the
conditions - so long as it is technically within the speed limit.
> Or perhaps you're questioning the sanction against the delivery driver
> turned F1 wannabe?
If the speed limit was 172 mph, or higher, would he have been driving
perfectly safely - as he would have been within the limit?
> Do you want someone to post the verified radar
> telemetry data here before you'll accept he should have been nicked for
> his masturbatory 172mph stunt?
What do you think his /real/ crime was - "exceeding the speed limit" or
"going too fast for conditions"?
What do you think the maximum speed is that could be _safe_ (even if
technically illegal) somewhere on our roads?
--
Matt B
