Safe Speed Forums

Jub Jub, from what I can see from this thread it started out as a possible bridge between cycling plus and SafeSpeed. From what I’ve read in the last couple of pages all you're trying to do is muddy the waters for people who will be reading these forums. I only joined SafeSpeed a couple of years ago, yes I’ve heard about these so call pages you’re going on about, people have also tried to use them in the past to discredit Paul but life continues and people who visit these forums can make there own minds up about what this campaign is about.

I drive a Vauxhall Corsa and if you’re ever on the M6 Monday morning or Thursday afternoon you will no doubt catch me driving at between 65 – 70 mph. I’ve only been caught speeding once in my whole driving career and that was on my motorbike in North Wales 3 years ago, I was driving at what the SPC says was 71 in a 60 (on an open country road), the camera was hidden behind a mound of earth at the side of the road. If I’d known what I know now from reading such sites as SafeSpeed, PePipoo Piston Heads then, I’d have contested my case in court, because at the time they got me for speeding I was overtaking a line of cars, doing what any normal bike rider would have done.

I’ve seen a big change in our roads (I’m 53) from how they used to be and I don’t like what this government, or our so called SCP’s are doing to them, it’s not natural and makes me feel very uneasy. The trouble nowadays is that people have become selfish on the roads and all these so called traffic calming measures are doing is making people even more selfish (that’s my opinion). I’d like to see a return to the way roads were before the camera era when road deaths where on a steady decline, that’s why I support Paul’s campaign.

If you’re only here to try and discredit Paul’s work other than by not discussing road safety, (and I’ll listen to anyone’s side) then can you please go and discuss it somewhere else.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

I can't be bothered to keep repeating the same thing Paul. You know the facts.

Questions were asked about your involvement in the pages. You said that it was 'all lies'. Then you claimed that you were 'well, not really' the author and admittedly the editor of the pages that used to be on here. The pages that list ways of breaking the law to evade conviction after being caught speeding (oh, this is so tedious). The pages that someone has written comments like "Thanks to Joe Bloggs for this one". Then you say-

"I NEVER advocated nor recommended, nor conspired with others to interfere with the process of justice."

No libel there. Just facts about what you have done. And it doesn't add up.

The bottom line is Paul that it doesn't matter what I think. The fact is that the pages were there and everyone, including the government and the press, knows that they were there. It isn't me that you have to convince. And you're not doing a very good job of it.

If SS was purely about road safety you would get masses of support. It clearly isn't, and that is why you don't.

Call it advice if you like, but if you distance yourself from that kind of activity then you will get much further, as then this will clearly be about road safety and not just getting rid of cameras so that you can drive faster.

Just one thing that puzzles me a bit....

How does he distance himself from these "old pages" that were removed 5? years ago when he's already said he would never advocate breaking the law, but you won't let it rest?

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

For exactly that reason. He has said that he would never advocate breaking the law, but in endorsing the pages -you need to look at their content if you haven't seen them as they are quite blatant- it is clear that this site in the past has advocated breaking the law.

The first time I asked him about them he said it was "all lies". DEnying the pages is the wrong kind of distancing really, because it avoids him having to make a statement about their content.

Then when I asked him whether he was the author he said "Not really". Pretty ambiguous. He does admit to being editor of the pages, but claims that they were part of his investigation of all areas of the subject.

He has not admitting endorsing the pages, and as yet avoided making any public statement to say that his support of the activities was wrong.

Of course, a forum is different as this is an area where anyone can share their views. A moderator can moderate as much as he likes. Another person's views on a forum do not reflect the view of the site. But you cannot use this excuse with pages that were approved for inclusion by the site owner.

Perhaps the most puzzling question is...

If he was merely investigating all avenues and researching fully all aspects of the argument (though evading punishment has nothing to do with road safety), and this is his justification for including them, then why pull the pages?

I don't really see what your motivation is here - other than to attempt to discredit the work that Paul's put into road safety research.

I really can't see any relevance to some 5 year old web pages.

If you're determined to "have a go" as you certainly seem to want then why don't you debate some of the current safespeed policies (or is it that you can't find anything else to disagree with? )

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

Fundamental to any campaign is the ground it was built upon. If a campaign comes from a motive of enabling people to drive at their chosen speed, regardless of the law, and avoid punishment then it will not, and should not, receive sufficient support for it to get anywhere. Especially if it includes any endorsement to lawbreaking that is avoided when raised. It is flawed from the start, as it is immediately biased. The overemphasis on speed cameras in press articles in which SS is mentioned is a classic example.

A successful safety campaign starts with a safety motive and concentrates purely on this.

Now, if you are going to keep asking me questions then it is only reasonable that I answer them. If my answers in any way discrediting SS then that is a secondary consequence. I originally came over here to see what SS was all about, after having heard and read very mixed views. What I have seen and been told does not reassure me that the campaign is primarily about safety, and so it will continue to be biased. Fundamental issues about the campaign have been raised which have not been addressed properly. There is far too much ambiguity to conclude that SafeSpeed is primarily about improving road safety.

More correct, I believe, is that the road safety angle is a deliberately acceptable one, and a biproduct of attempts to enable people to drive faster because they want to, and not because it is safer. A quick example, without wanting to invite another long sub-argument, is the dubious argument that slower speeds will increase road deaths only including injuries to car occupants and not pedestrians. The argument is often loaded towards being able to drive faster.

This is my opinion. I'm quite happy to leave it at that. Unless there are any more questions?

Nonsense! Views and ideas change... For instance, if you look carefully enough you'll find that the well-respected charity "Shelter" was largely derived from a group who helped squatters to continue their illegal activities - culminating in the concept of "licensed squatting". They've come a long way since then but I don't see anyone pouring scorn on their present-day activities simply because they had a somewhat shadowy birth.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Except of course that you're wildly wrong and basing your claimed opinion on lies.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

So you arrived with an open mind? So what have you SEEN on the safespeed website that gives you doubts about the aims of the campaign? I'm more than willing to discuss current pages, opinion etc with you.



Well I guess that if we all drove at 0 mph then we may avoid accidents, on the other hand that's not very practical is it? Please direct me at the particular page you refer to, very happy to debate that.

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

sorry to butt in so late in the game, but I'll add my opinion here ...

My perception of safespeed before I joined (the forum, not the campaign) was of speed crazy camera haters. Having been around here, my perception is that there is a road safety message in there but it's all but hidden by the "anti camera", "anti government" and (in one case) "anti everything" rhetoric that is spouted on the forum.

The base message of safespeed is still to allow drivers to choose whatever speed they damn well please ... Paul believes most drivers are a trustworthy bunch and should be OK if this was allowed. Paul also believes that most drivers follow the speed limit on a stick blindly as a target speed rather than a maximum permitted regardless of any other information given to them. SO most drivers are safe and experienced, whilst most drivers are crap.

The message of road safety IS diluted by the anti camera rhetoric.

Regarding the 5 year old advice to avoid speeding fines, IMVHO it was wrong, it's been taken down, move past it.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Quite. And let's be perfectly 100% clear on this...

There's nothing dodgy in the history of the Safe Speed campaign. Absolutely nothing.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

You what?

The correct version is: Road safety ABSOLUTELY depends on speeds selected by drivers as suitable that hazard environment.



The correct version is: Most drivers are good at selecting appropriate speeds, but there's considerable room for improvement. We must assist all drivers to find appropriate speeds and Police the roads properly to deal with those that cannot or will not.



The correct version is: Excessive emphasis on numerical speed is reducing driver quality, increasing excessive speed crashes and replacing life-saving policies.



Which is true. Thankfully. We have very safe roads, and there's oodles of room for improvement.



Gee, thanks.

[edited to fix quotes]

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Exactly my point! But for some reason Paul Smith won't publicly distance himself from the past. He would rather deny that what was there was there, or deny any connection with it.

If he could only do that then there might be some proper progress. Which is what I said pages ago.

I'd agree with that one, but also say that it's mostly caused by 99% of official road safety policy being based around cameras. It's a big issue.

Many people I'm sure don't start to think about transport policy until the "NIP" drops through the letterbox.

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

Yup, you've said that several times now, both here and over on the dark side. But you won't go further than that. What lies?

You deny any involvement with the old pages, then admit that you edited them. You claim that you have never and will never have any association with advocating lawbreaking, but the pages that you admit to editing (Please explain how you can do that without having any association with them) and which appeared on your site did exactly that.

And you are accusing others of lies. You can't have it both ways Paul. You were either in on those pages or you weren't. You have admitted that you were. But any reference to them results in you claiming that there are lies somewhere.

Where is the lie in my comments about your old pages?

Where is the lie about your 'research' on one of the pages on here that claims that going slower kills more people, but does not include pedestrians in your calculations?

Exactly! Of course people should be allowed to change, and I would welcome that. However, Paul Smith has done nothing to publicly distance himself from the mistakes of the past, if that is indeed what they are. Instead, he appears to be in denial about them.

Until he stops beating about the bush, and addresses the serious issue properly he isn't going to get anywhere.

I believe the pages in question were removed after the campaign was started?


I asked you a question, several times, which was directly related to your original question - you skirted around it each time (apart from the first which lead to the RTTM discussion).

The fact that you keep harping on about theses ‘old pages’ even though you wanted to “see what SS was all about” but clearly didn’t make that effort, clearly shows us all that you an agenda before you had begun. Does this make you more 'dishonest' than Paul?

And you and Handy missed one of the SS arguments, the 85th percentile risk level. If followed, this will not enable drivers to ‘drive at any speed they like regardless of law’; it actually puts a brake on those deemed to be the most dangerous.

You're a LIAR.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 698#114698

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I am sure this was not just a comment about just me... however... I would say that i had a healthy scepticisum on the placement of cameras before I came here. Debateting here helped me understand why. And the more I try and lobby the more I see the government earn thier "anti goverment " stance. I am pleased to see the government swinging over to looking at young drivers and attitudes. I even heard a Hampshire copper on the radio saying they would have a zero tollerance day on cyclists! .... But... I don't see them ripping out any cameras!

If
I am not anti government, It is the government that is anti-me. I just want a peacefull life. It is the government that want to take my back garden, treat me like a terrorist for moving my mortgage, tax life, death, wheeli-bins, transport, homes, flights, food, parking , driving.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

Is anyone actually saying that going faster is safer and going slower is more dangerous?

Or is the whole thrust of the campain that

a- Cameras are ineffective at reducing accidents and consequent injuries

and

b - An unwanted side effect of aggressive camera enforcement is that it distracts from the real issues of awareness, driver skill and appropriate behaviour aka - personal responsibility that has led to a a loss of the year on year safety improvement trend.

Why are you so hung up on what involvement paul may or may not have had 5 years ago in providing information to people about things that may or may not have been illegal?

How does that in anyway distract or undermine the debate which is underpinned by publishe stats?