OT: Sp**d C*m*r*s

  • Thread starter Colin Blackburn
  • Start date



Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Paul Smith

Guest
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:24:57 +0100, "David Gillbe" <david.NO^&[email protected]> wrote:

>> >Interesting - not really, I think the people concerned have every right in answering in the
>> >manner they did, you asked questions that as far as I care, have been answered satisfactorily in
>> >the public domain, why should you get special treatment.

>> Well, in that case you'll obviously be able to provide references.

>You provide them yourself, on your own website.

What a cop out! Whatever you might think I've found no valid evidence whatsoever to support the
central questions raised in my letters to Brunstrom and Sharland.

>And personal experience does a lot as well, having been hit twice on my bike by drivers who were
>driving over the speed limit at the time.

I don't even suppose you know that for a fact. Anyway, anecdotal evidence is unlikely to be
sufficient.

>> I certainly do have enemies. Mostly they are liars playing god with public safety.

>I see far more evidence that speeding does cost lives than that it doesn't. Your argument that it
>is not the speeding itself but the dangerous driving that comes with it that costs lives is
>pathetic. Speeding in itself is dangerous. Cars over the speed limit are often out of control -
>because they are driving to fast. It is fairly simple science that a car going faster is less
>likely to be able to stop or manoeuvre in order to avoid an accident. That is why speed limits
>exist (except on the M25, where they serve as a form of traffic control - a completely different
>topic). If every single car had some kind of limiter ensuring that it never went over the local
>speed limit, I have absolutely no doubt that less accidents would occur, and that less accidents
>would be fatal. Perhaps you are the liar playing God with the public safety, or perhaps, each time
>you get in your car, you are merely lying to yourself by pretending that driving over the speed
>limit is safe.

Perhaps you would like to ponder on the fact that we had the safest roads in the world long before
modern speed enforcement, and now we're losing ground at a very significant rate.

The principles which made our road the safest in the first place could have continued, in which case
we could reasonably expect to have 2,500 deaths a year, not 3,500.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
A

Albert Fish

Guest
"AndyMorris" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> albert fish wrote:
> >
> > it's just another form of direct action by people that feel that they are not being listened to
> > by tptb. true, it's a pointless and costly but it's a valid form of protest however much you or
> > I disagree with the methods involved.
> >
>
> No, no no.
>
> A direct action protest against speed laws would be to inform the police that you were going to
> break the speed limit, arrange publicity, break the speed limit and get yourself arrested.
>
> If you object to speed cameras, get the local paper to photograph you blacking it out, or cutting
> the wires.
>
> Blowing up or torching the cameras anonymously is a pathetic little tantrum.
>
>
>
> --
> Andy Morris

I was with you until you said "pathetic little"


Albert
 
D

David Gillbe

Guest
> >You provide them yourself, on your own website.
>
> What a cop out! Whatever you might think I've found no valid evidence whatsoever to support the
> central questions raised in my letters to Brunstrom and Sharland.

Perhaps a cop out, though references that satisfy me are on your website, clearly we shall have to
agree to differ.

> >And personal experience does a lot as well, having been hit twice on my bike by drivers who were
driving
> >over the speed limit at the time.
>
> I don't even suppose you know that for a fact. Anyway, anecdotal evidence is unlikely to be
> sufficient.

Agreed I'm afraid, anecdotal evidence is generally useless. However, one of those drivers stopped,
apologised, got out of the car, and said "I'm so sorry, I was going a little too fast" I never
pursued that since he was awfully nice, and offered to pay for any damage to me or my bike (sorry to
the rest of the cyclists who will now crucify me for being so nice). As for the other one, I was
doing 27 mph (I have that on my computer thanks to my polar HRM/cyclo computer) in a 30 zone (on my
bike - training for TTs). I got hit extremely hard on the elbow and thigh by someone trying to
overtake me with traffic coming the other way - sending me into the verge. I can confidently say he
was going at least 10 mph faster than me, I expect it was more that means he was doing at least 37
mph. Had he not been going so fast when he came up behind me, he could have waited to overtake, and
had room to get by without sending me into the hedgerow. I reported that one to the police, but was
so dazed I never even saw what model of car, let alone what the plates were.

> Perhaps you would like to ponder on the fact that we had the safest roads in the world long before
> modern speed enforcement, and now we're losing ground at a very significant rate.

Perhaps you would like to ponder on the rate at which traffic on our roads is growing, and the
rate at which the good behaviour of our drivers is decreasing. I've not been around long enough
to truly appreciate these effects, but I'm fairly convinced that modern speed enforcement has led
to this change, and completely convinced that you can't provide scientific and accurate evidence
that it has.

> The principles which made our road the safest in the first place could have continued, in which
> case we could reasonably expect to have 2,500 deaths a year, not 3,500.

Ah, the principles of everyone driving safely, treating each other like gentlemen. They were great,
obviously, but those principles and attitudes have changed, and not because of speed limits.
 
J

John B

Guest
David Gillbe wrote

>
> > Perhaps you would like to ponder on the fact that we had the safest roads in the world long
> > before modern speed enforcement, and now we're losing ground at a very significant rate.
>
> Perhaps you would like to ponder on the rate at which traffic on our roads is growing, and the
> rate at which the good behaviour of our drivers is decreasing...

Or that there is a link between the deterioration of standards, and the appearance of Mr SS Sm*th.

John B
 
G

Gonzalez

Guest
Paul Smith wrote:

>That's your cover blown then. Haven't you got anything better to do that make a prat of yourself?

I've certainly had you and lots of others running around in circles.
--
remove remove to reply
 
P

Paul Smith

Guest
On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 13:13:49 +0100, Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:

>Paul Smith wrote:

>>That's your cover blown then. Haven't you got anything better to do that make a prat of yourself?

>I've certainly had you and lots of others running around in circles.

Isn't it amusing to waste people's time? You must be feeling so pleased with yourself. What a clever
little Road Runner you are!
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
P

Paul Smith

Guest
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 12:47:38 +0100, "David Gillbe" <david.NO^&[email protected]> wrote:

>> >You provide them yourself, on your own website.

>> What a cop out! Whatever you might think I've found no valid evidence whatsoever to support the
>> central questions raised in my letters to Brunstrom and Sharland.

>Perhaps a cop out, though references that satisfy me are on your website, clearly we shall have to
>agree to differ.

Seriously, if you think you can see supporting evidence, I can probably tell you fairly precisely
why it's flawed or false. I'd be willing to do that.

>> >And personal experience does a lot as well, having been hit twice on my bike by drivers who were
>> >driving over the speed limit at the time.

>> I don't even suppose you know that for a fact. Anyway, anecdotal evidence is unlikely to be
>> sufficient.

>Agreed I'm afraid, anecdotal evidence is generally useless. However, one of those drivers stopped,
>apologised, got out of the car, and said "I'm so sorry, I was going a little too fast" I never
>pursued that since he was awfully nice, and offered to pay for any damage to me or my bike (sorry
>to the rest of the cyclists who will now crucify me for being so nice). As for the other one, I was
>doing 27 mph (I have that on my computer thanks to my polar HRM/cyclo computer) in a 30 zone (on my
>bike - training for TTs). I got hit extremely hard on the elbow and thigh by someone trying to
>overtake me with traffic coming the other way - sending me into the verge. I can confidently say he
>was going at least 10 mph faster than me, I expect it was more that means he was doing at least 37
>mph. Had he not been going so fast when he came up behind me, he could have waited to overtake, and
>had room to get by without sending me into the hedgerow. I reported that one to the police, but was
>so dazed I never even saw what model of car, let alone what the plates were.

In this second case I accept your evidence that he was exceeding the speed limit, but it was really
him "driving like an ****" (technical term!) which caused the trouble. He probably drives like an
**** under the speed limit as well on occasion. If we'd managed to force him to stick to the speed
limit he'd probably have had a different accident instead.

>> Perhaps you would like to ponder on the fact that we had the safest roads in the world long
>> before modern speed enforcement, and now we're losing ground at a very significant rate.

>Perhaps you would like to ponder on the rate at which traffic on our roads is growing, and the
>rate at which the good behaviour of our drivers is decreasing. I've not been around long enough
>to truly appreciate these effects, but I'm fairly convinced that modern speed enforcement has led
>to this change, and completely convinced that you can't provide scientific and accurate evidence
>that it has.

The growth of traffic has been broadly steady since before 1950.

I agree about modern declining standards, and very much agree with your last two phrases above.
(although I'm not fully convinced that you meant what you wrote...)

As far as evidence is concerned, it's growing, and will become compelling at some point. Many find
it compelling already.

>> The principles which made our road the safest in the first place could have continued, in which
>> case we could reasonably expect to have 2,500 deaths a year, not 3,500.

>Ah, the principles of everyone driving safely, treating each other like gentlemen. They were great,
>obviously, but those principles and attitudes have changed, and not because of speed limits.

No, no, no. You're putting that very wrongly. I've been tracing UK driving culture back to 1926 when
a chap known as the 6th Earl of Cottenham had a radio show about safe driving. He was already
recommending what we now call the "Safe Speed rule". In the 30s he was appointed to the newly formed
Police Driver School at Hendon. Hendon developed into a centre of driving excellence and gave us
many of the factors which still make the Uk roads the safest in the world. From trivial things like
push-pull steering through to "taking driving seriously" and "individual responsibility", Hendon
ideas were incorporated in all sorts of places, including legislation, the driving test and advice
to drivers.

UK road safety has been true to these ideals until about 1993, when we suddenly forgot what had
made us the safest drivers in the world and changed tack. "Speed kills" became the main thrust.
Since 1993 various road safety indicators have shown serious losses of trend and it's becoming
quite obvious that we have turned our backs on the very principles that made our roads the safest
in the world.

To get back on track, all we need to do is dump the speed cameras and the misleading claims, and
start basing road safety again on the principles which proved themselves sound in the past. I
estimate that 5,500 lives have been lost to date due to modern misguided policies.

In fact, if we incorporated modern Health and Safety ideas I expect we could be doing even better
than we were in the 1980s.

[uk.rec.driving re-added]
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 10:43:43 +0000 (UTC), "Peter B" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Yes, I think "Patrols" were obliged to salute passing motorists, the absence of a salute implied a
>policeman was close. According to folklore anyway.

That was a modification after they were told to stop flagging people down when there was a speed
trap. Allegedly.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 13:40:14 +0100, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>Isn't it amusing to waste people's time?

You certainly appear to think so, yes.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
P

Paul Smith

Guest
On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 14:38:17 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 13:40:14 +0100, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Isn't it amusing to waste people's time?

>You certainly appear to think so, yes.

My god guy, is there no end to your whit (sic)?
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
P

Paul Smith

Guest
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 17:39:40 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Geraint
Jones) wrote:
>{ >> speed cameras cost lives

> } >Predictably, I can't decide which of these is the more unlikely claim.

>{ http://www.safespeed.org.uk/brunstrom.html

>I cannot at the moment see that either of these sheds any light on your either of the claims in
>question, so I assume your message was intended to be one of your periodic non sequiturs.

You would think, that one of the UK chief proponents of speed cameras would be able to fire off
evidence that they save lives machine-gun-style. Not one bit if it. He's got nothing. No
evidence. Nada.

>As the image of Chief Constables goes, Richard Brunstrom is a surpsisingly pleasant chap when you
>meet him; I'm quite surprised that someone with friends in all sorts of places has failed to hit it
>off with him. Perhaps you should think of a different opening approach? First impressions are said
>to be very important.

Get on with him? Are you mad? He's the anti-Smith.

I've got no interest whatsoever in getting on with him, and in fact if I can get right up his nose,
I'll be pleased. It seems to be working thankfully.

This helps:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%2B%22richard+brunstrom%22
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:49:45 +0100, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>You would think, that one of the UK chief proponents of speed cameras would be able to fire off
>evidence that they save lives machine-gun-style. Not one bit if it. He's got nothing. No
>evidence. Nada.

You would think that, as an upholder of the law, he would be able to provide proof that they catch
people committing an offence. And indeed he can. So that's alright then.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
P

Paul Smith

Guest
On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:23:37 +0100, Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:

>Paul Smith wrote:

>>>I've certainly had you and lots of others running around in circles.

>>Isn't it amusing to waste people's time? You must be feeling so pleased with yourself. What a
>>clever little Road Runner you are!

>I've modeled my trolling techniques on yours. You should be flattered.

You're completely mistaken. I've never once trolled.

>BTW: we have a mutual friend. I know quite a bit about you...

How nice for you.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
J

Just Zis Guy

Guest
On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 14:58:19 +0100, Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>Isn't it amusing to waste people's time?
>>You certainly appear to think so, yes.
>My god guy, is there no end to your whit (sic)?

I don't know. There is apparently no beginning to yours, though.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.
 
P

Paul Smith

Guest
On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 19:18:58 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:49:45 +0100, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You would think, that one of the UK chief proponents of speed cameras would be able to fire off
>>evidence that they save lives machine-gun-style. Not one bit if it. He's got nothing. No
>>evidence. Nada.

>You would think that, as an upholder of the law, he would be able to provide proof that they catch
>people committing an offence. And indeed he can. So that's alright then.

The police have a responsibility to enforce the law in the public interest.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
D

Devil~

Guest
"Zack Evans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > >That's your cover blown then. Haven't you got anything better to do that make a prat of
> > >yourself?
> >
> > I've certainly had you and lots of others running around in circles.
>
> Demolishing your propositions in a constructive and coherent fashion does not constitute "running
> in circles."
>
A sound and responsible contributor to Usenet. A couple of quotes (courtesy of Google):

>uk.community,firefighting (where I am a visiting troll - ID withheld) alt.folklore.military (where
>I am a resident troll - ID withheld) us.military.army (where I've been a resident troll for four
>years - ID
withheld)
>uk.rec.cycling (where I try to behave) uk.rec.driving (where I am a visiting troll - roadrunner)
>uk.transport (where I am a visiting troll - roadrunner)
--
>I was really impressed when, on a mountain bike with slick tires, I passed a 50 MPH restriction
>sign in the peak district with my GPS registering 51.8 MPH. I'd have been even more impressed if a
>policeman wasn't impressed. I've already been prosecuted, and found not guilty, TWICE for being
>drunk in charge of a pedal cycle. Being prosecuted for speeding on a push bike would be quite an
>achievement, especially if the limit was 50!
 
P

Paul Smith

Guest
On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 19:19:59 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>Isn't it amusing to waste people's time?

>>>You certainly appear to think so, yes.

>>My god guy, is there no end to your whit (sic)?

>I don't know.

Not really surprising. Never mind.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
T

Trevor Barton

Guest
Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:46:34 +0100, Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Colin Blackburn wrote:
>>
>>>I know it is well OT but I was amused by a short piece in the Metro today about a motorist
>>>convicted of destroying a speed camera. He was clocked at 13mph over the limit (not sure what the
>>>limit was) and rather than face the fine, the points, and the sack from work, he took an angle
>>>grinder to the camera. Now, as well as the above, he has to pay 4000 pounds compensation and do
>>>120 hours of community service. Will he learn, I doubt it. I hope they confiscated his angle
>>>grinder.
>
>>I'm currently trolling those in uk.rec.driving under the guise "roadrunner" suggesting a blanket
>>reduction of speed limits by 15 mph.
>
> That's your cover blown then. Haven't you got anything better to do that make a prat of yourself?

for a while. Who Mentioned P++l S+i+h???

Tosspot.

Trev.
 
T

Trevor Barton

Guest
Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:35:37 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:46:34 +0100, Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>I'm currently trolling those in uk.rec.driving under the guise
>>>>>"roadrunner" suggesting a blanket reduction of speed limits by 15 mph.
>
>>> That's your cover blown then. Haven't you got anything better to do that make a prat of
>>> yourself?
>
>>You still fishing in urc?
>
> Actually one of the regulars there sent me an email.
>
> I have friends in all sorts of places.

Many of the, I suggest, in your head.

Tosspot.

Trev
 
P

Paul Smith

Guest
On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 00:35:50 +0100, Trevor Barton <[email protected]> wrote:

>Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 21:35:37 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:46:34 +0100, Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>I'm currently trolling those in uk.rec.driving under the guise
>>>>>>"roadrunner" suggesting a blanket reduction of speed limits by 15 mph.
>>
>>>> That's your cover blown then. Haven't you got anything better to do that make a prat of
>>>> yourself?
>>
>>>You still fishing in urc?
>>
>> Actually one of the regulars there sent me an email.
>>
>> I have friends in all sorts of places.
>
>Many of the, I suggest, in your head.

You suggest wrong. You have NO idea.

>Tosspot.

Nice...
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
Status
Not open for further replies.