Remember the imminent public humiliation of Paul Smith?

[Jon Senior]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 07:51:24 -0700, smeggy wrote:
> That is entirely correct, this includes speed cameras.

Ah. My mistake, I look forward to the explanation.

> Both offer people the temptation to REACT in a dangerous way. Knives
> could tempt people into stabbing others during an argument (did you
> know that's why our table knives now have rounded ends? Some doctors
> recently called for ALL knives to be this way); cameras tempt drivers
> into being distracted and/or panic braking even when risking an
> accident.

Ah... Even better than expected! Missiles presumably tempt world leaders
to start wars. Electricity tempts... er... no hang on, that doesn't really
work does it. And here was I thinking that knives were dangerous because
in the hands of a suitably anti-social person they become a tool for doing
harm. Much like a car in fact.

Of course, when we instigate this program of removing speed cameras
because they are "tempting people to react", I presume that we will also
be banning the wearing of provactive clothing (At least by attractive
women) since that has clearly led to the temptation of otherwise perfectly
sociable people into the field of rape. Strange that the idea doesn't
really work when transposed (Or not, given it didn't really work in the
first place!).

> Already discussed, I'm not going to repeat myself.

Why stop now?

> Happy to explain. What is happening here is not topic drift - it is
> topic STEERING!

Of course. A dedicated group of individuals is deliberately drawing the
conversation away from the original topic and into the (new?) arena of the
usefulness of SCPs and Paul Smith.

> Despite my repeated attempts to return to the subject at hand, members
> (oddly enough those who are anti 'speed lobby') continue with unrelated
> issues.

There is ample space back there (Newsreader dependant) to discuss
spindrift and his one man anti-SS campaign. Indeed, the fact that you can
be drawn on these issues at all suggests that they are not so "unrelated".
Suffixing each post with a small whinge that "we" are not playing fair
does not a lot for credibility.

> This is not obsession on my part, I can tell when I'm being
> managed and I refuse to be steered. I will let the unbiased reader make
> up their own mind.

I was a relatively unbiased reader. I believe that PS spouts an almost
unprecidented amount of tosh, but as someone with an understanding of the
workings of media, I understand why he is so often given the space to do
so. I don't believe that spindrift is doing himself or the public any
favours by attacking SS et al in this way, as (As the pair of you have
demonstrated) it rapidly turns into a pantomine farce (Is that
tortology?). I you believe that you are being managed, can I recommend to
sir the application of the tin-foil hat, as the same level of paranoia is
required for both. And if you are being managed... then you are it has
been successful as you _are still here_!

As predicted, there was a marked lack of rationality in your explanations,
but while I await your response with some degree of anticipation, I may be
forced to abandon the game. Sharpening one's wit on dull objects rapidly
proves tiring! ;-)

Jon

 

[Tony Raven]

MichaelB wrote:
> I think that arrogant little man, Paul Smith's, arguement is based on
> the fact that he thinks motorists are more able to judge what speed is
> appropriate as opposed to having some arbitrary (in his opinion) speed
> set by the fact that there are houses and lampposts near-by.
>

Which, to play devil's advocate, is not much different from those who
think they are more able to judge whether a junction is safe to cross
than having some arbitrary traffic light telling them when they can.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[smeggy]

> I think what you meant to say was:
>
> 'cameras tempt habitual speed criminals into being distracted and/or
> panic braking even when risking an accident due to the fact that other
> speed criminals are driving to closely behind them.'
No I don't. Cameras tempt ALL drivers to look at their speedos and
slow down - even if they are already within the speed limit.

> Anyhow, as I said before what you say is effectively an
> argument for why completely covert speed enforcement needs to be
> introduced.
No it isn't. I said random covert cameras will lead to drivers being
distracted by ensuring control their speed on a continual basis, even
where it's not needed.

> > Yes speeding is illegal, but is it unsafe?
>
> Obviously, not least because the kinetic energy which must be
> dissipated in the event of a crash rises with the square of the speed.
Not necessarily. You have assumed the car will come to a complete halt
during the impact. There is also the fact that impact speed will
usually be less than prior travelling speed, which is entirely
dependent on the attentiveness of the drivers involved, not speed.

> Lower speeds give more time to react in an emergency situation, shorten
> braking distances,
Lower speeds mean nothing if drivers are distracted, aggressive, under
the influence or tailgating (so they can't even see the danger). The
issue here is vehicle control and being able to stop within the
distance the driver can see and reasonably expect to be clear. A speed
camera is a poor proxy measurement of this.

> reduce the consequences of any crash which does
> occur an so on.
Is it preferable to treat the symptoms rather than apply the cure?

> In any case the 'safety' angle is only one reason why
> speeding is anti-social. Quite apart from the 'social contract' angle
> that I have already mentioned excessive speed intimidate vulnerable
> road users, often to degree that they feel that are unable to exercise
> their right to use the public road. Speeding causes an annoyance to
> residents who live alongside roads due to the additional noise it
> generates and so on.
Here I agree with you. Many times I have seen the argument 'roads are
for cars, pavements are for people' and it makes me cringe every
time. I fully agree that speed must be capped in such sensitive areas
(to allow other road users to correctly judge a vehicle's actions,
drivers don't want to see an explosion of residential traffic
lights), but speed cameras alone (covert or otherwise) are not the best
solution in these dynamic environments.

> By the way all those idiots I saw in Germany doing well over 120 mph in
> heavy rain on the motorway were all Germans, not visitors from
> neighbouring countries...
I am amazed you can reliably identify a German VRM, at such huge
differential speeds (I am assuming 'well over' 50mph if you were at
70mph), in such heavy rain and inevitable spray (many autobahns are
well known for their standing water), whilst controlling a vehicle in
such poor conditions.

 

[smeggy]

> Ah... Even better than expected! Missiles presumably tempt world leaders
> to start wars.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
You think that only world leaders have access to missiles?
(on reflection, bombs would have been a better example)

> Electricity tempts... er... no hang on, that doesn't really
> work does it.
I admit that wasn't the best example, but I'll stick with it.
There are many instances where people try to do their own wiring
without any knowledge of how to do so or the dangers involved.

> And here was I thinking that knives were dangerous because
> in the hands of a suitably anti-social person they become a tool for doing
> harm. Much like a car in fact.
And that suitable anti-social person would be stopped or discouraged by
a speed camera?

> Of course, when we instigate this program of removing speed cameras
> because they are "tempting people to react", I presume that we will also
> be banning the wearing of provactive clothing (At least by attractive
> women) since that has clearly led to the temptation of otherwise perfectly
> sociable people into the field of rape.
That's not the same psychologically and you know it.

> Of course. A dedicated group of individuals is deliberately drawing the
> conversation away from the original topic and into the (new?) arena of the
> usefulness of SCPs and Paul Smith.
Look at the direction of the posts from start to finish, you tell me!

> Indeed, the fact that you can
> be drawn on these issues at all suggests that they are not so "unrelated".
As I have already said, I am merely humouring for the sake of
discussion. This is why many of my posts contain reminders of this
thread's original intentions.

> I don't believe that spindrift is doing himself or the public any
> favours by attacking SS et al in this way
At last we agree on something - which was my point from the very
start.

> as (As the pair of you have
> demonstrated) it rapidly turns into a pantomine farce
You think it has been a farce so far, you wait - this'll get
better!

> I you believe that you are being managed, can I recommend to
> sir the application of the tin-foil hat, as the same level of paranoia is
> required for both. And if you are being managed... then you are it has
> been successful as you _are still here_!
Yes, of course I am still here, I am waiting for a decent response and
closure.

I humoured you (not you specifically) with the notion of topic drift (I
already mentioned this), now you have justified that the line should be
drawn here.

>From now on, I will only respond to posts regarding the intention of
the thread, all other unrelated posts will be dismissed.

..

Spindrift, I await your answers to my (let's be honest) simple to
answer questions.

 

[[email protected]]

smeggy wrote:

'random covert cameras will lead to drivers being distracted by
ensuring control their speed on a continual basis, even where it's not
needed.'

Roll on ISA technology then!

smeggy wrote:

'Lower speeds mean nothing if drivers are distracted, aggressive, under
the influence or tailgating...'

I do agree that there are many other driving habits which are dangerous
other than speeding, and much more need to be done to address such
behaviours. However, until motorists learn to drive in a considerate
and responsible manner at all times speed enforcement will always be
necessary if only to reduce the consequences of all that bad driving
when the inevitable 'accident' results.

I do find it entertaining that anyone should think that motorists, who
you admit often drive in an aggressive way, tailgate and so on, should
be 'free' to also drive at whatever speed they think fit. If anything
the behaviour of many drivers suggests that should never be allowed to
drive faster than 20 Mph, such is the standard of their driving!

 

[smeggy]

[email protected] wrote:
> smeggy wrote:
>
> 'random covert cameras will lead to drivers being distracted by
> ensuring control their speed on a continual basis, even where it's not
> needed.'
>
> Roll on ISA technology then!
>
> smeggy wrote:
>
> 'Lower speeds mean nothing if drivers are distracted, aggressive, under
> the influence or tailgating...'
>
> I do agree that there are many other driving habits which are dangerous
> other than speeding, and much more need to be done to address such
> behaviours. However, until motorists learn to drive in a considerate
> and responsible manner at all times speed enforcement will always be
> necessary if only to reduce the consequences of all that bad driving
> when the inevitable 'accident' results.
>
> I do find it entertaining that anyone should think that motorists, who
> you admit often drive in an aggressive way, tailgate and so on, should
> be 'free' to also drive at whatever speed they think fit. If anything
> the behaviour of many drivers suggests that should never be allowed to
> drive faster than 20 Mph, such is the standard of their driving!

As promised, I'm not answering that in this thread, so I've started a
new one.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk...85afd7e532b/304d77bf69ae608b#304d77bf69ae608b

 

[Matt B]

Tony Raven wrote:
> MichaelB wrote:
>> I think that arrogant little man, Paul Smith's, arguement is based on
>> the fact that he thinks motorists are more able to judge what speed is
>> appropriate as opposed to having some arbitrary (in his opinion) speed
>> set by the fact that there are houses and lampposts near-by.
>
> Which, to play devil's advocate, is not much different from those who
> think they are more able to judge whether a junction is safe to cross
> than having some arbitrary traffic light telling them when they can.

A very moot point indeed. There is /very/ strong evidence to suggest
that the removal of traffic lights from a junction not only would make
it much safer, but would also eliminate congestion at it too.

--
Matt B

 

[Pinky]

"Jon Senior" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 07:51:24 -0700, smeggy wrote:
>> That is entirely correct, this includes speed cameras.
>
> Ah. My mistake, I look forward to the explanation.
>
>> Both offer people the temptation to REACT in a dangerous way. Knives
>> could tempt people into stabbing others during an argument (did you
>> know that's why our table knives now have rounded ends? Some doctors
>> recently called for ALL knives to be this way); cameras tempt drivers
>> into being distracted and/or panic braking even when risking an
>> accident.
>
> Ah... Even better than expected! Missiles presumably tempt world leaders
> to start wars. Electricity tempts... er... no hang on, that doesn't really
> work does it. And here was I thinking that knives were dangerous because
> in the hands of a suitably anti-social person they become a tool for doing
> harm. Much like a car in fact.
>
> Of course, when we instigate this program of removing speed cameras
> because they are "tempting people to react", I presume that we will also
> be banning the wearing of provactive clothing (At least by attractive
> women) since that has clearly led to the temptation of otherwise perfectly
> sociable people into the field of rape. Strange that the idea doesn't
> really work when transposed (Or not, given it didn't really work in the
> first place!).
>
>> Already discussed, I'm not going to repeat myself.
>
> Why stop now?
>
>> Happy to explain. What is happening here is not topic drift - it is
>> topic STEERING!
>
> Of course. A dedicated group of individuals is deliberately drawing the
> conversation away from the original topic and into the (new?) arena of the
> usefulness of SCPs and Paul Smith.
>
>> Despite my repeated attempts to return to the subject at hand, members
>> (oddly enough those who are anti 'speed lobby') continue with unrelated
>> issues.
>
> There is ample space back there (Newsreader dependant) to discuss
> spindrift and his one man anti-SS campaign. Indeed, the fact that you can
> be drawn on these issues at all suggests that they are not so "unrelated".
> Suffixing each post with a small whinge that "we" are not playing fair
> does not a lot for credibility.
>
>> This is not obsession on my part, I can tell when I'm being
>> managed and I refuse to be steered. I will let the unbiased reader make
>> up their own mind.
>
> I was a relatively unbiased reader. I believe that PS spouts an almost
> unprecidented amount of tosh, but as someone with an understanding of the
> workings of media, I understand why he is so often given the space to do
> so. I don't believe that spindrift is doing himself or the public any
> favours by attacking SS et al in this way, as (As the pair of you have
> demonstrated) it rapidly turns into a pantomine farce (Is that
> tortology?). I you believe that you are being managed, can I recommend to
> sir the application of the tin-foil hat, as the same level of paranoia is
> required for both. And if you are being managed... then you are it has
> been successful as you _are still here_!
>
> As predicted, there was a marked lack of rationality in your explanations,
> but while I await your response with some degree of anticipation, I may be
> forced to abandon the game. Sharpening one's wit on dull objects rapidly
> proves tiring! ;-)
>
> Jon

It is also immensely boring!

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
> The bottom lines is that speeding is illegal.

And that may well be the start of the problem. Hard inflexible limits
which have no real significance at any particular road location, under
any particular traffic (vehicle or pedestrian) conditions, to any
particular driver, in any particular vehicle, in any particular weather,
are held up as a line which must /never/ be crossed. Yet, for many
drivers, in many vehicles, in many weather conditions, when, for
instance, there are children about, at certain times of the day and at
specific road locations, to drive /anywhere/ /near/ the limit would be
outrageously dangerous, yet perfectly tolerated by any speed camera.
What use are they? They cannot detect inappropriate speed, they only
detect speed above a limit, whether it is dangerous or not. Given that
most 'accidents' happen within the speed limit cameras will not detect
the real culprits and the real dangers to society.

--
Matt B

 

[mb]

Matt B wrote:

> There is very strong evidence to suggest
> that the removal of traffic lights from a junction not only would
> make it much safer, but would also eliminate congestion at it too.


No, there isn't.

--
Mike

 

[[email protected]]

Although is clearly futile trying to talk sense to those who feel that
motorists should be allowed to drive at any speed they think fit, the
claim that driver are 'distracted' by attempts to enforce the legal
limit demands comment.

Firstly the legal limit is just that, a maximum legal sped, not a
target, and the law should be enforced in such a way which reflects
this, so encouraging people to drive well below the legal limit most of
the time so they are confident that they are 'legal' and so have no
need to take 'compensatory action'.


Secondly, as a motorist I know that the time I am looking at my
speedometer is minimal- using mainly when travelling from one limit to
another. Most of the time I am able to judge my speed from cues such as
the speed objects pass, the engine note, the position of the
accelerator and so on. (And plenty of research shows that drivers who
are speeding almost always do so quite consciously). The safety benefit
of driving at a reduced speed greatly outweighs the momentary
'distraction' of glancing at ones speedometer occasionally. Also there
are many more serious distractions in a car that for some reason the
speed control mob do not seem to be calling to be banned- in car
entertainment systems, mobile phones, sat-nat systems etc. That the
anti speed-control mob are not campaigning for such distractions to be
made illegal highlights their true motivation- for it to be deemed
acceptable for motorists to drive at speeds which are currently
illegal.

As to the supposed ineffectiveness of cameras that cameras do not lead
to even bigger falls in casualties than they do is down to one simple
fact. Motorists still speed even when cameras are in place! Just look
at the number of speeding convictions despite the use of 'high
visibility' cameras and 'Speed enforcement area' signs. This indicates
that the penalties for speeding are simply far too lenient- drivers
know that the penalty for speeding is low and so are willing to risk
the chance of being caught. This problem is compounded by the fact that
drivers know not all cameras are active and 'mobile' enforcement is
very sporadic. On top of all this the standard '10% plus 2 Mph' leeway
means that the police actually condone a significant level of speeding,
despite the increased danger this causes, especially to vulnerable road
users.

As with the problem of drivers treating the maximum legal speed as a
target the answer is clear, much higher penalties for speeding and a
'Zero tolerance' approach with drivers doing even 1 Mph over the legal
maximum risking prosecution. This would soon lead to motorists learning
to keep well under the legal maximum at all times. I feel that the
supposed 'problem' of 'panic braking' and so on is largely due to the
laxity of the current enforcement regime as, for example, drivers enter
a speed enforcement zone and still speed in the expectation that the
camera van won't be out today, then being 'taken by surprise' when a
camera is actually been used. Similarly, the large threshold allowed
over the actual legal limit encourages motorists to drive along at
indicated 35-40 mph rather than keeping below the actual legal limit.

 

[Tony Raven]

[email protected] wrote:
> Although is clearly futile trying to talk sense to those who feel that
> motorists should be allowed to drive at any speed they think fit, the
> claim that driver are 'distracted' by attempts to enforce the legal
> limit demands comment.
>

Why persist then? Most of us have the people you are trying to "talk
sense to" in our kill files. We only see their ramblings through the
insistence of people who keep trying to "talk sense to" trolls - unless
we kill file you too which I would prefer not to.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[[email protected]]

Hi Tony,

Wise words! All I can say in defence is that I haven't spent enough
time on here recently to know who the current trolls are. (Quietly goes
off to investigate how to use a 'kill file').

 

[smeggy]

> Wise words! All I can say in defence is that I haven't spent enough
> time on here recently to know who the current trolls are. (Quietly goes
> off to investigate how to use a 'kill file').

I have no problem with you guys 'kill-filing' me, simply because
misuse of a kill file will make the killfiler appear much worse to
those unbiased. In fact I wish you already had, this would have
prevented the almighty topic 'drift'.

UKRC, I have already replied to your post but you are evidently
ignoring me, so be it.

I am happy that members are putting their heads in the sand
(kill-filing); the lack of any response to my posts will make my task
of publicly humiliating spindrift even easier (now and for future
reference).

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> Wise words! All I can say in defence is that I haven't spent enough
> time on here recently to know who the current trolls are. (Quietly goes
> off to investigate how to use a 'kill file').
>

Put your head in the sand if you like. The real world will whiz past
you. You will miss out on the radical and intelligent debate. New
ideas will not take into account your views!

Your choice.

--
Matt B

 

[Jon Senior]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:39:27 +0100, Matt B wrote:
> Put your head in the sand if you like. The real world will whiz past
> you. You will miss out on the radical and intelligent debate. New
> ideas will not take into account your views!

Perhaps "we" could nominate someone to inform the group as and when you
actually say something either "radical" or "intelligent".

And how did you get out of my kill-file?

Jon

 

[spindrift]

The pretend copper is back!

Who needs rational argument to blow Smith's hopeless flounderings out
of the water when he's got transparent fakes on his website bigging him
up!


Trouble is though, from the frantic back-pedalling and distancing
himself from this raving- fake- copper- nutter's garbage, it seems that
Smith HIMSELF is aware that In Gear is a worryingly disturbed fantasist
rather than a serving officer, so is Smith guilty of an offence by
allowing criminal imposters to use the safespeed website for their own
weird wish-fulfillment?


Put it this way, TRL, Universities of Liverpool and Bristol, ACPO and
DFT use accredited peer-reviewed research and articles to support thair
claims that speed cameras save lives.


Smith?

He uses sub-literate goons who can't even maintain the pretence of
being a police officer!



"We would fine cyclists in flip flops!"


LOL!!





Sheer quality.

Next week on safespeed Smith discusses road safety with Nelson Mandela,
the dark-haired one off Tatu and the funny dog off Fraggle Rock, no
really.


In fact here's a picture of the last Safespeed posters' gathering:

http://tinyurl.com/er2sr


Don't forget to visit the safespeed site to see Smith discussing cycle
lanes with Marlon Brando, safe road positioning with Marilyn Monroe and
padded saddle recommendations with the Dalai Lama.

Hello Dalai!

 

[Peter Clinch]

spindrift wrote:

> Who needs rational argument to blow Smith's hopeless flounderings out
> of the water when he's got transparent fakes on his website bigging him
> up!

Who needs you frothing at the mouth about it? If it is all self
evidently ridiculous then leave them all to stew in their own juices:
there is nothing to be gained by crowing about it.

Do please shut up about it. You're not adding anything useful to any
argument against SS.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[spindrift]

" Hello Dalai !"


Heh heh.

"If it is all self evidently ridiculous then leave them all to stew in
their own juices"

Well, ok, but the posturing is just too funny!

Maybe I'm as guilty as the gullible hacks who take smith seriously...

 

[Peter Clinch]

spindrift wrote:

> Well, ok, but the posturing is just too funny!

pathetic != funny, or at least not for very long. And it's been a
/long/ time now.

> Maybe I'm as guilty as the gullible hacks who take smith seriously...

Different problem.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/