OT: Paul Smith down

[elyob]

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/229652/

Paul Smith, a respected campaigner against speed cameras and founder
of safespeed.org.uk, died yesterday aged 52.

Smith was well known for his belief that speed cameras reduced road
safety, and that safe driving wasn't just about speed, but about
improving road safety through measures such as better driver training.

The specific cause of Smith's death is not known, though it's believed
he died of a heart attack or stroke.

His partner of 22 years, Claire Armstrong, has already said she will
continue his work.

 

[Pete Whelan]

elyob wrote:
> http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/229652/
>
> Paul Smith, a respected campaigner against speed cameras and founder
> of safespeed.org.uk, died yesterday aged 52.
>
> Smith was well known for his belief that speed cameras reduced road
> safety, and that safe driving wasn't just about speed, but about
> improving road safety through measures such as better driver training.
>
> The specific cause of Smith's death is not known, though it's believed
> he died of a heart attack or stroke.
>
> His partner of 22 years, Claire Armstrong, has already said she will
> continue his work.
let's hope his partner doesn't have the same vitriolic stance he had
against speed cameras and cyclists, etc

 

[spindrift]

On 14 Dec, 17:23, Pete Whelan <[email protected]> wrote:
> elyob wrote:
> >http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/229652/
>
> > Paul Smith, a respected campaigner against speed cameras and founder
> > of safespeed.org.uk, died yesterday aged 52.
>
> > Smith was well known for his belief that speed cameras reduced road
> > safety, and that safe driving wasn't just about speed, but about
> > improving road safety through measures such as better driver training.
>
> > The specific cause of Smith's death is not known, though it's believed
> > he died of a heart attack or stroke.
>
> > His partner of 22 years, Claire Armstrong, has already said she will
> > continue his work.
>
> let's hope his partner doesn't have the same vitriolic stance he had
> against speed cameras and cyclists, etc

The man was an apologist for boy racers and speeding idiots. he
misrepresented proper road safety research, lied about the findings of
peer-reviewed authors and moderated a forum where police officers were
called "nazis" and posters expressed the desire to burn policemen to
death.

He was a grown man, he chose his path and chose to lie, cheat and
deceive and make the roads more dangerous for cyclists and anyone
else.

The below post appeared briefly on the Safespeeding website:

It read:


"I'm sure this is a very sad time for all those close to Paul.
Perhaps you could publish Paul's address so people can send cards
and/
or flowers. Then in a few months' time, when the rawness of his loss
has begun to subside, some of my friends could use his details to
avoid a few speeding tickets. I'm sure Paul wouldn't mind ... would
he?"

This, of course, refers to Smith's recommendation of trampling on
peoples' grief to duck speeding fines here:

Paul Smith Sep 3 2001, 11:01 am
You don`t even need to know the deceased. Just picking a name for
the


local newspaper`s obituary column has been known to work nicely.
With
a bit of care in your choice, there`s no one to call you a liar.
(It`s on my web site -- Paul Smith Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk


http://tinyurl.com/cnun3





http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed
/avoid%20the%20points.htm


http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed/countermeasures.htm


http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed/non cooperation.htm

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 14 Dec, 17:32, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 14 Dec, 17:23, Pete Whelan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > elyob wrote:
> > >http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/229652/
>
> > > Paul Smith, a respected campaigner against speed cameras and founder
> > > of safespeed.org.uk, died yesterday aged 52.
>
> > > Smith was well known for his belief that speed cameras reduced road
> > > safety, and that safe driving wasn't just about speed, but about
> > > improving road safety through measures such as better driver training.
>
> > > The specific cause of Smith's death is not known, though it's believed
> > > he died of a heart attack or stroke.
>
> > > His partner of 22 years, Claire Armstrong, has already said she will
> > > continue his work.
>
> > let's hope his partner doesn't have the same vitriolic stance he had
> > against speed cameras and cyclists, etc
>
> The man was an apologist for boy racers and speeding idiots. he
> misrepresented proper road safety research, lied about the findings of
> peer-reviewed authors and moderated a forum where police officers were
> called "nazis" and posters expressed the desire to burn policemen to
> death.
>
> He was a grown man, he chose his path and chose to lie, cheat and
> deceive and make the roads more dangerous for cyclists and anyone
> else.
>
> The below post appeared briefly on the Safespeeding website:
>
> It read:
>
> "I'm sure this is a very sad time for all those close to Paul.
> Perhaps you could publish Paul's address so people can send cards
> and/
> or flowers. Then in a few months' time, when the rawness of his loss
> has begun to subside, some of my friends could use his details to
> avoid a few speeding tickets. I'm sure Paul wouldn't mind ... would
> he?"
>
> This, of course, refers to Smith's recommendation of trampling on
> peoples' grief to duck speeding fines here:
>
> Paul Smith Sep 3 2001, 11:01 am
> You don`t even need to know the deceased. Just picking a name for
> the
>
> local newspaper`s obituary column has been known to work nicely.
> With
> a bit of care in your choice, there`s no one to call you a liar.
> (It`s on my web site -- Paul Smith Scotland, UK
> http://www.safespeed.org.uk
>
> http://tinyurl.com/cnun3
>
> http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed
> /avoid%20the%20points.htm
>
> http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed/countermeasures.htm
>
> http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed/non cooperation.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


You utter sicko, I hope he comes back to haunt you

 

[Ekul Namsob]

Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 14 Dec, 17:32, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:

> > The below post appeared briefly on the Safespeeding website:
> >
> > It read:
> >
> > "I'm sure this is a very sad time for all those close to Paul.
> > Perhaps you could publish Paul's address so people can send cards
> > and/
> > or flowers. Then in a few months' time, when the rawness of his loss
> > has begun to subside, some of my friends could use his details to
> > avoid a few speeding tickets. I'm sure Paul wouldn't mind ... would
> > he?"
> >
> > This, of course, refers to Smith's recommendation of trampling on
> > peoples' grief to duck speeding fines here:
> >
> > Paul Smith Sep 3 2001, 11:01 am
> > You don`t even need to know the deceased. Just picking a name for
> > the
> >
> > local newspaper`s obituary column has been known to work nicely.
> > With
> > a bit of care in your choice, there`s no one to call you a liar.
> > (It`s on my web site -- Paul Smith Scotland, UK

> You utter sicko, I hope he comes back to haunt you

I'm sure Paul Smith would be proud to find people following his advice
to avoid speeding fines.

Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[burtthebike]

"Sir Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:bf2d5914-ce25-40b3-b563-d32da6826ff6@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On 14 Dec, 17:32, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 14 Dec, 17:23, Pete Whelan <[email protected]> wrote:>>

>>
>> This, of course, refers to Smith's recommendation of trampling on
>> peoples' grief to duck speeding fines here:
>>
>> Paul Smith Sep 3 2001, 11:01 am
>> You don`t even need to know the deceased. Just picking a name for
>> the
>>
>> local newspaper`s obituary column has been known to work nicely.
>> With
>> a bit of care in your choice, there`s no one to call you a liar.
>> (It`s on my web site -- Paul Smith Scotland, UK
>> http://www.safespeed.org.uk
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/cnun3
>>
>> http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed
>> /avoid%20the%20points.htm
>>
>> http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed/countermeasures.htm
>>
>> http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed/non cooperation.htm-
>> Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> You utter sicko, I hope he comes back to haunt you

Wrong. The sicko was Paul Smith.

 

[TimHenderson]

On 14 Dec, 16:46, elyob <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/229652/
>
> Paul Smith, a respected campaigner against speed cameras and founder
> of safespeed.org.uk, died yesterday aged 52.
>
> Smith was well known for his belief that speed cameras reduced road
> safety, and that safe driving wasn't just about speed, but about
> improving road safety through measures such as better driver training.
>

I am sure it has no connection at all, but I was interested to see
yesterday that upd8 had released a new activity to help in the
teaching of "How Science Works" to 14-16 year old kids exploring the
concept of "validity". Although mainly based on "Healthy Chocolate"
one part of the exercise involved looking at

Speedsafely
We represent drivers against unfair speed cameras. Since the 1970's
the number of road deaths has been falling. But in the 1990's the
figures levelled off. This is when speed cameras were
introduced.............Out latest research shows that cameras actually
increase the number of deaths......

Kids are asked to challenge the claims if
they didn't investigate the right variables to answer the question
the experiment was done in a way which doesn't match the real life
situation
they didn't control the variables which might affect the outcome
they didn't collect sufficient data to be sure about the pattern
they did something which altered the outcome
the conclusion exaggerates what the data show


More at
http://www.upd8.org.uk/activity/251/Healthy-Chocolate.html
in the Powerpoint Part 2 Explore (registration - free- to Upd8 may be
needed to access it )

 

[spindrift]

On 15 Dec, 10:25, TimHenderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 14 Dec, 16:46, elyob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/229652/
>
> > Paul Smith, a respected campaigner against speed cameras and founder
> > of safespeed.org.uk, died yesterday aged 52.
>
> > Smith was well known for his belief that speed cameras reduced road
> > safety, and that safe driving wasn't just about speed, but about
> > improving road safety through measures such as better driver training.
>
> I am sure it has no connection at all, but I was interested to see
> yesterday that upd8 had released a new activity to help in the
> teaching of "How Science Works" to 14-16 year old kids exploring the
> concept of "validity". Although mainly based on "Healthy Chocolate"
> one part of the exercise involved looking at
>
> Speedsafely
> We represent drivers against unfair speed cameras. Since the 1970's
> the number of road deaths has been falling. But in the 1990's the
> figures levelled off. This is when speed cameras were
> introduced.............Out latest research shows that cameras actually
> increase the number of deaths......
>
> Kids are asked to challenge the claims if
> they didn't investigate the right variables to answer the question
> the experiment was done in a way which doesn't match the real life
> situation
> they didn't control the variables which might affect the outcome
> they didn't collect sufficient data to be sure about the pattern
> they did something which altered the outcome
> the conclusion exaggerates what the data show
>
> More athttp://www.upd8.org.uk/activity/251/Healthy-Chocolate.html
> in the Powerpoint Part 2 Explore (registration - free- to Upd8 may be
> needed to access it )

14-16 are asked to display a deeper understanding of statistics,
trends and data than Smith ever managed.

Figures.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting cupra <[email protected]>:
>burtthebike wrote:
>I am questioning the need to post his address and cause distress to his
>partner and family who have lost a loved one.

If that causes them distress they should query why their loved one's
favourite technique causes them distress.

>>Please feel free to disagree, but if I was you, I wouldn't bother on
>>this forum.
>Are you the spokesman then?

He certainly is saying what I would have said.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Wednesday, December.

 

[cupra]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting cupra <[email protected]>:
>> burtthebike wrote:
>> I am questioning the need to post his address and cause distress to
>> his partner and family who have lost a loved one.
>
> If that causes them distress they should query why their loved one's
> favourite technique causes them distress.

So it's acceptable to drop down to that level then? That's what I'm talking
about.

>
>>> Please feel free to disagree, but if I was you, I wouldn't bother on
>>> this forum.
>> Are you the spokesman then?
>
> He certainly is saying what I would have said.

OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to cause
distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of the views of
said deceased?

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:41:48 -0000, " cupra"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to cause
>distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of the views of
>said deceased?

The knowledge that the advice of her late partner is being followed,
through the receipt of a bundle of FPNs in Paul Smith's name, may
bring her great joy at this difficult time.

 

[JNugent]

cupra wrote:

> David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting cupra <[email protected]>:
>>>burtthebike wrote:

>>>I am questioning the need to post his address and cause distress to
>>>his partner and family who have lost a loved one.

>>If that causes them distress they should query why their loved one's
>>favourite technique causes them distress.

> So it's acceptable to drop down to that level then? That's what I'm talking
> about.

>>>>Please feel free to disagree, but if I was you, I wouldn't bother on
>>>>this forum.

>>>Are you the spokesman then?

>>He certainly is saying what I would have said.

> OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to cause
> distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of the views of
> said deceased?

Absolutely *not*, if it is done deliberately and gratuitously.

OTOH, I expect there'll be a certain amount of tabloid jubilation the
day after (say) Ian Brady pops his clogs, without any offence being
aimed at his surviving relatives (if any).

 

[cupra]

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:41:48 -0000, " cupra"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to cause
>> distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of the
>> views of said deceased?
>
> The knowledge that the advice of her late partner is being followed,
> through the receipt of a bundle of FPNs in Paul Smith's name, may
> bring her great joy at this difficult time.

I'll give you that, if she shares his views fully.

 

[cupra]

JNugent wrote:
> cupra wrote:
>
>> David Damerell wrote:
>>> Quoting cupra <[email protected]>:
>>>> burtthebike wrote:
>
>>>> I am questioning the need to post his address and cause distress to
>>>> his partner and family who have lost a loved one.
>
>>> If that causes them distress they should query why their loved one's
>>> favourite technique causes them distress.
>
>> So it's acceptable to drop down to that level then? That's what I'm
>> talking about.
>
>>>>> Please feel free to disagree, but if I was you, I wouldn't bother
>>>>> on this forum.
>
>>>> Are you the spokesman then?
>
>>> He certainly is saying what I would have said.
>
>> OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to cause
>> distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of the
>> views of said deceased?
>
> Absolutely *not*, if it is done deliberately and gratuitously.
>

That's my objection to the address posting - after all, who on urc is going
to receiving FPNs to send on to him?

> OTOH, I expect there'll be a certain amount of tabloid jubilation the
> day after (say) Ian Brady pops his clogs, without any offence being
> aimed at his surviving relatives (if any).

True.

 

[David Damerell]

Quoting cupra <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting cupra <[email protected]>:
>>>burtthebike wrote:
>>>I am questioning the need to post his address and cause distress to
>>>his partner and family who have lost a loved one.
>>If that causes them distress they should query why their loved one's
>>favourite technique causes them distress.
>So it's acceptable to drop down to that level then?

Don't tell me you actually suppose that a significant number of urcers
drive, speed, and will put this into practice? That's absurd.

>>>Are you the spokesman then?
>>He certainly is saying what I would have said.
>OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to cause
>distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of the views of
>said deceased?

Two errors there; it's not "regardless" of his views at all, and it won't
cause any distress if, as seems likely, his relatives are not in the habit
of reading urc.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Wednesday, December.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:41:48 -0000, cupra <[email protected]> wrote:
> David Damerell wrote:
> >
> > If that causes them distress they should query why their loved
> > one's favourite technique causes them distress.
>
> OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to
> cause distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of
> the views of said deceased?

I have, on occasion, participated in some form of celebration /
memorial of a recently deceased person that I would not have chosen
for myself. On occasion such memorials might seem inappropriate
or irreverent to others but if the deceased actually believed it was a
good thing to do, I would tend to respect their wishes and go along
with the request.

In teh event that the bereaved make it clear that teh deceased's views
were offensive (or deranged, mad, whatever) and that following teh
deceased's wishes will cause distress I would probably follow teh
request of teh bereaved rather than that of teh deceased.

Has Paul Smith's family made a statement that his views were
offensive, and requested that no-one ever comply with them? I haven't
seen any repudiation of his beliefs by the bereaved.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[cupra]

David Damerell wrote:
> Quoting cupra <[email protected]>:
>> David Damerell wrote:
>>> Quoting cupra <[email protected]>:
>>>> burtthebike wrote:
>>>> I am questioning the need to post his address and cause distress to
>>>> his partner and family who have lost a loved one.
>>> If that causes them distress they should query why their loved one's
>>> favourite technique causes them distress.
>> So it's acceptable to drop down to that level then?
>
> Don't tell me you actually suppose that a significant number of urcers
> drive, speed, and will put this into practice? That's absurd.

Nope - but it only takes one to cause offence....

 

[cupra]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:41:48 -0000, cupra <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> David Damerell wrote:
>>>
>>> If that causes them distress they should query why their loved
>>> one's favourite technique causes them distress.
>>
>> OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to
>> cause distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of
>> the views of said deceased?
>
> I have, on occasion, participated in some form of celebration /
> memorial of a recently deceased person that I would not have chosen
> for myself. On occasion such memorials might seem inappropriate
> or irreverent to others but if the deceased actually believed it was a
> good thing to do, I would tend to respect their wishes and go along
> with the request.
>
> In teh event that the bereaved make it clear that teh deceased's views
> were offensive (or deranged, mad, whatever) and that following teh
> deceased's wishes will cause distress I would probably follow teh
> request of teh bereaved rather than that of teh deceased.
>
> Has Paul Smith's family made a statement that his views were
> offensive, and requested that no-one ever comply with them? I haven't
> seen any repudiation of his beliefs by the bereaved.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but should we be asking a mourning relative
to let us know so soon?

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, cupra <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, cupra <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> David Damerell wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If that causes them distress they should query why their loved
> >>> one's favourite technique causes them distress.
> >>
> >> OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to
> >> cause distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of
> >> the views of said deceased?
> >
> > I have, on occasion, participated in some form of celebration /
> > memorial of a recently deceased person that I would not have chosen
> > for myself. On occasion such memorials might seem inappropriate
> > or irreverent to others but if the deceased actually believed it was a
> > good thing to do, I would tend to respect their wishes and go along
> > with the request.
> >
> > In teh event that the bereaved make it clear that teh deceased's views
> > were offensive (or deranged, mad, whatever) and that following teh
> > deceased's wishes will cause distress I would probably follow teh
> > request of teh bereaved rather than that of teh deceased.
> >
> > Has Paul Smith's family made a statement that his views were
> > offensive, and requested that no-one ever comply with them? I haven't
> > seen any repudiation of his beliefs by the bereaved.
>
> I agree with you wholeheartedly, but should we be asking a mourning relative
> to let us know so soon?

I thought it was actually suggested that people wait a few weeks
before trying this - though Paul Smith himself advocated doing it
immediately the death was publicised, I believe.

regards, Ian Smith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[cupra]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, cupra <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, cupra <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> David Damerell wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If that causes them distress they should query why their loved
>>>>> one's favourite technique causes them distress.
>>>>
>>>> OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to
>>>> cause distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless
>>>> of the views of said deceased?
>>>
>>> I have, on occasion, participated in some form of celebration /
>>> memorial of a recently deceased person that I would not have chosen
>>> for myself. On occasion such memorials might seem inappropriate
>>> or irreverent to others but if the deceased actually believed it
>>> was a good thing to do, I would tend to respect their wishes and go
>>> along with the request.
>>>
>>> In teh event that the bereaved make it clear that teh deceased's
>>> views were offensive (or deranged, mad, whatever) and that
>>> following teh deceased's wishes will cause distress I would
>>> probably follow teh request of teh bereaved rather than that of teh
>>> deceased.
>>>
>>> Has Paul Smith's family made a statement that his views were
>>> offensive, and requested that no-one ever comply with them? I
>>> haven't seen any repudiation of his beliefs by the bereaved.
>>
>> I agree with you wholeheartedly, but should we be asking a mourning
>> relative to let us know so soon?
>
> I thought it was actually suggested that people wait a few weeks
> before trying this - though Paul Smith himself advocated doing it
> immediately the death was publicised, I believe.

I can't really comment on his advice because I've never really looked into
'safespeed' and don't have a detailed knowledge of what it represents.

The problem I can see is that I am guessing some people in this thread (not
necessarily you) have interpreted my expression of distaste at implied
'revenge acts' as support for the deceased's views.

To restate my point - he's dead, let's leave his relatives alone and attack
anyone who picks up his baton.

If that turns out to be his partner and relatives then so be it, once their
views are stated.