Safespeed lies and the Press Complaints Commission

[Matt B]

John B wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> John B wrote:
>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>> spindrift wrote:
>>>>> Letter to the editor:
>>>> You believe that a couple of dozen cameras is a better way to make our
>>>> roads safer than increased and comprehensive policing by real people?
>>>> Amazing.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that all you will achieve with this post/letter is more
>>>> publicity for Safe Speed, because much of what you say about Paul Smith
>>>> is, at best, inaccurate, and some possibly verging on the libellous.
>>> What is inaccurate?
>> Much of what was said.
>
> Would you like to repost here the bits you consider inaccurate?

***** my emphasis.

'The Eastern Evening News repeatedly quotes Safespeed an *obscure* lobby
group run by a man called Paul Smith.'

'*Neither* of these claims [that he is a "road safety campaigner" and
that Safe Speed is a "road safety group"] are true.'

'Smith is a retired van driver with *no road safety training*.'

'His one-man pressure group *defends the motorist's right to speed when
they feel like it* and claims that speeding is not dangerous.'

'*Official, accredited and peer-reviewed* road safety organisations like
Brake, T2000, RoadPeace, TRL, DfT, all disagree with this *ridiculous
view*.'

'Smith's website is a nonsensical mix of *dishonest* claims and easily
disprovable research.'

'Smith is a *proven liar* and a man who *encourages the perversion of
justice* by claiming that arranging for one's speeding tickets to be
sent to the home of the families of recently deceased people'

'Smith had a page on his website which *recommended this perversion of
justice* and I am amazed that the Evening News lends credibility to this
reckless fraud.'

'Does the Evening News really expect its readers to believe that a man
who *encourages people to intrude in the most horrible way on a grieving
family* by arranging for their speeding tickets to be sent to their home
can fairly be described as a "road safety campaigner"?'

>>> What do you think is libellous?
>> Some of it, possibly.
>
> Which "some"?

'Neither of these claims [that he is a "" and that Safe Speed is a "road
safety group"] *are true*.'

'Smith is a retired van driver with *no road safety training*.'

'His one-man pressure group *defends the motorist's right to speed when
they feel like it* and claims that speeding is not dangerous.'

'Smith's website is a nonsensical mix of *dishonest* claims and easily
disprovable research.'

'Smith is a *proven liar* and a man who *encourages the perversion of
justice* by claiming that arranging for one's speeding tickets to be
sent to the home of the families of recently deceased people'

'Smith had a page on his website which *recommended this perversion of
justice* and I am amazed that the Evening News lends credibility to this
reckless fraud.'

'Does the Evening News really expect its readers to believe that a man
who *encourages people to intrude in the most horrible way on a grieving
family* by arranging for their speeding tickets to be sent to their home
can fairly be described as a "road safety campaigner"?'

>>> And why?
>> Perhaps because the OP has a grudge, or an axe to grind with Safe Speed
>> or with the Norwich press?
>
> I'm asking you why *you* think it is libellous.
> So why?

Was I clear enough for you.

> Or are you confirming your troll status again?

Are you suggesting I have confirmed it before?

--
Matt B

 

[Budstaff]

"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Budstaff wrote:
>> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> spindrift wrote:
>>>> But when a retired van driver releases cack-handed statements claiming
>>>> that cyclists are more dangerous than light domestic vehicles and
>>>> encourages drivers to pervert justice then lazy hacks who regurgitate
>>>> his dangerous garbage should be brought to account.
>>> I take it you have a different interpretation of the government's
>>> statistics for urban KSI casualties then. Can you please share it with
>>> us to help those of us who have arrived at the same view as Safe Speed
>>> to see where we have gone wrong.
>>
>> I would have thought that the numerous posts in response to the
>> statistics you gave earlier,
>
> Just the one then, apart from the one of thanks from yourself, and the
> request for clarification from 'David Martin'.
>
>> particularly those of Simon Proven and Guy,
>
> I didn't see one from 'Guy'.
Just zis Guy
>
>> should have given you ample food for thought as to why your simplistic
>> interpretation of some of the headline statistics might have been
>> mistaken.
>
> I answered the points in the one from 'Simon Proven', who was rather
> naively suggesting that only the 'killed' figures should be used, and the
> 'seriously injured' ignored.

nothing naive about his suggestion, given the loose definition of 'serious'
>
>> If you have arrived at the same view as Safe Speed then your undoubted
>> ability at producing statistics is not in any way matched by your
>> understanding of them.
>
> Explain how, from the DfT urban van/pedestrian and bike/pedestrian KSI
> figures you, or anyone else, could seriously arrive at any other more
> valid conclusion.

Mr Proven did that for me
>
> --
> Matt B

 

[John B]

Matt B wrote:

> John B wrote:
>
> > I'm asking you why *you* think it is libellous.
> > So why?
>
> Was I clear enough for you.

Most certainly.
You *do* realise that by repeating and reposting anything alleged to be
libellous as you have now done, Smith could now take *you* to court too if
indeed it were proven?
You're not that clued up on libel laws are you.

> > Or are you confirming your troll status again?
>
> Are you suggesting I have confirmed it before?
>

Are you suggesting you haven't?

John B

 

[Matt B]

Budstaff wrote:
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Budstaff wrote:
>>> particularly those of Simon Proven and Guy,
>> I didn't see one from 'Guy'.
> Just zis Guy

He didn't reply to my post.

>>> should have given you ample food for thought as to why your simplistic
>>> interpretation of some of the headline statistics might have been
>>> mistaken.
>> I answered the points in the one from 'Simon Proven', who was rather
>> naively suggesting that only the 'killed' figures should be used, and the
>> 'seriously injured' ignored.
>
> nothing naive about his suggestion, given the loose definition of 'serious'

Except that annual figures so low, and subject to random and significant
fluctuations can hardly be used reliably to demonstrate a state or trend.

>>> If you have arrived at the same view as Safe Speed then your undoubted
>>> ability at producing statistics is not in any way matched by your
>>> understanding of them.
>> Explain how, from the DfT urban van/pedestrian and bike/pedestrian KSI
>> figures you, or anyone else, could seriously arrive at any other more
>> valid conclusion.
>
> Mr Proven did that for me

So you'll see you were mistaken then - as he was.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

John B wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> John B wrote:
>>
>>> I'm asking you why *you* think it is libellous.
>>> So why?
>> Was I clear enough for you.
>
> Most certainly.
> You *do* realise that by repeating and reposting anything alleged to be
> libellous as you have now done, Smith could now take *you* to court too if
> indeed it were proven?

Ha ha.

> You're not that clued up on libel laws are you.

You don't think?

>>> Or are you confirming your troll status again?
>> Are you suggesting I have confirmed it before?
> Are you suggesting you haven't?

Most certainly.

--
Matt B

 

[spindrift]

Web archive of Smith's posts regarding law-breaking and perversion of
justice :

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

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

Safespeed's (ie Smith's) own words:

"How not to cooperate with dumb speed enforcement"

In other words the law.

"Ideas for people prosecuted for speed camera offences to avoid points
on their licences"

In other words pervert justice.

I'd forgotten, until that webarchive thing came up, just how
unprincipled SafeSpeed used to be until it acquired its pragmatic
veneer of respectability.

But really - inspiring people, under the unconvincing banner of "don't
try this at home, dears" beloved of software and DVD pirate sites the
world over, to have their traffic points sent to the parents of dead
people - and then have his supporters display the bare-faced memory
loss and lack of remorse shown in this thread - is a bit too rich for
my blood.

 

[John B]

Matt B wrote:

> John B wrote:
>
> >>> I'm asking you why *you* think it is libellous.
> >>> So why?
> >> Was I clear enough for you.
> >
> > Most certainly.
> > You *do* realise that by repeating and reposting anything alleged to be
> > libellous as you have now done, Smith could now take *you* to court too if
> > indeed it were proven?
>
> Ha ha.

Yep, you fell hook line and sinker.

> > You're not that clued up on libel laws are you.
>
> You don't think?

Will you repeat the alleged libel by reposting it again?

> > Are you suggesting you haven't?
>
> Most certainly.

Really?

John B

 

[Budstaff]

"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Budstaff wrote:
>> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Budstaff wrote:
>>>> particularly those of Simon Proven and Guy,
>>> I didn't see one from 'Guy'.
>> Just zis Guy
>
> He didn't reply to my post.

Igave you credit for watching the thread, not just responses to yur own
contributions - after all you weren't the OP so you must have been watching
it before _you_ responded
>
>>>> should have given you ample food for thought as to why your simplistic
>>>> interpretation of some of the headline statistics might have been
>>>> mistaken.
>>> I answered the points in the one from 'Simon Proven', who was rather
>>> naively suggesting that only the 'killed' figures should be used, and
>>> the 'seriously injured' ignored.
>>
>> nothing naive about his suggestion, given the loose definition of
>> 'serious'
>
> Except that annual figures so low, and subject to random and significant
> fluctuations can hardly be used reliably to demonstrate a state or trend.

You seem happy to draw conclusions from what you've just agreed is a
statistically unreliable comparison
>
>>>> If you have arrived at the same view as Safe Speed then your undoubted
>>>> ability at producing statistics is not in any way matched by your
>>>> understanding of them.
>>> Explain how, from the DfT urban van/pedestrian and bike/pedestrian KSI
>>> figures you, or anyone else, could seriously arrive at any other more
>>> valid conclusion.
>>
>> Mr Proven did that for me
>
> So you'll see you were mistaken then - as he was.

I think that you should consider the possibility that you are the mistaken
one.
>
> --
> Matt B

 

[Matt B]

John B wrote:
>
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> John B wrote:
>>
>>>>> I'm asking you why *you* think it is libellous.
>>>>> So why?
>>>> Was I clear enough for you.
>>> Most certainly.
>>> You *do* realise that by repeating and reposting anything alleged to be
>>> libellous as you have now done, Smith could now take *you* to court too if
>>> indeed it were proven?
>> Ha ha.
>
> Yep, you fell hook line and sinker.

You would of course be done for incitement too ;-)

>>> You're not that clued up on libel laws are you.
>> You don't think?
>
> Will you repeat the alleged libel by reposting it again?

I never made the accusations, in fact I pointed out the folly in making
them, refuted them, and warned against them.

>>> Are you suggesting you haven't?
>> Most certainly.
>
> Really?

Do you have information to the contrary?

--
Matt B

 

[John B]

Matt B wrote:

> John B wrote:
> >
> > Matt B wrote:

>
> > Will you repeat the alleged libel by reposting it again?
>

I note you haven't. I wonder why. Sinking in is it?

> I never made the accusations, in fact I pointed out the folly in making
> them, refuted them, and warned against them.

Making the accusations is not the issue. It is re-publishing them.
*You* did that and whatever your views on them *you* decided to repost them again.

Now do you have anything to contribute concerning cycling or is it the sin bin
once again?

John B

 

[Tony Raven]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2006 03:26:49 -0800, "spindrift" <[email protected]> said
> in <[email protected]>:
>
>> So, to recap, Smith posts nonsense.
>
> I know. But the important thing is, he is the sole source for some of
> that nonsense, and it's nonsense people want to believe, so he gets
> quoted.
>
> Guy


"Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence
of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones."
- Bertrand Russell


--
Tony

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

 

[Matt B]

David Martin wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Explain how, from the DfT urban van/pedestrian and bike/pedestrian KSI
>> figures you, or anyone else, could seriously arrive at any other more
>> valid conclusion.
>
> That depends on the question you are asking. If it is:
> Is any given pedestrian at random more likely to be killed by a van or
> a bicycle?
> Is any given van/bicycle at random more likely to ksi a pedestrian?
> In any given journey, is a van or a bicycle more likely to kill a
> pedestrian?
> In any given vehicle/mile is a van or a bicycle more likely to kill a
> pedestrian?
> In a pedestrian/vehicle conflict, is a van or a cycle more dangerous?

The question is: In the urban environment, in single vehicle accidents
involving a pedestrian KSI, which vehicle type be involved more per mile
travelled - a LGV or a pedal cycle?

--
Matt B

 

[David Martin]

Matt B wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
> > Matt B wrote:
> >> Explain how, from the DfT urban van/pedestrian and bike/pedestrian KSI
> >> figures you, or anyone else, could seriously arrive at any other more
> >> valid conclusion.
> >
> > That depends on the question you are asking. If it is:
> > Is any given pedestrian at random more likely to be killed by a van or
> > a bicycle?
> > Is any given van/bicycle at random more likely to ksi a pedestrian?
> > In any given journey, is a van or a bicycle more likely to kill a
> > pedestrian?
> > In any given vehicle/mile is a van or a bicycle more likely to kill a
> > pedestrian?
> > In a pedestrian/vehicle conflict, is a van or a cycle more dangerous?
>
> The question is: In the urban environment, in single vehicle accidents
> involving a pedestrian KSI, which vehicle type be involved more per mile
> travelled - a LGV or a pedal cycle?

You'd have to correct for pedestrian exposure. Ie per 1000
pedestrian/other interactions.

AFAICT that is not easy to do.

The reason behind that is that the time based mileage of pedestrians
and cyclists is probably similar, but that of LGV and pedestrians or
cyclists is probably different. So a simple per mile is not an
appropriate measure of danger. Restricting it to urban environments
goes some way towards an appropriate normalisation but nowhere near far
enough.

...d



>
> --
> Matt B

 

[Daniel Barlow]

Matt B <[email protected]> writes:

> The question is: In the urban environment, in single vehicle accidents
> involving a pedestrian KSI, which vehicle type be involved more per
> mile travelled - a LGV or a pedal cycle?

Per mile travelled by the pedestrian or by the van driver? As a
pedestrian I can't imagine why I'd care how far the van has travelled
before it hit me. How far it travelled after it hit me, perhaps ...


-dan

--
http://coruskate.blogspot.com/ # why skate when you can talk about it instead?