Safe Speed Forums

You probably can tell the difference between enthusiasm and endorsement. You probably can tell the difference between a 'brilliant idea' and a brilliant thing to do. You probably can recognise the total insignificance of five year old newsgroup posts. You probably know very well that no one is interested, except in your twisted little fantasies.

And you probably know that when you write 'not a slur' that no one here will believe you.

But what I don't understand is why you think it is reasonable to attempt to assassinate someone's reputation on such a basis. Now it's your turn to explain yourself.

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

Tell me the difference Paul. You're getting onto some slippery ground and you really need to make the distinction.



So you're telling me that, rather than being approving of suggestions, you were merely being impressed by the ingenuity of the creator? Come on, Paul. Who are you trying to kid?



If your previous two sentences are true, then why the need to say this? Aside from that though, how is it totally insignificant? You have said many times that it has already been about road safety, so it is entirely significant. The only situation where it could be moved on from is if you admitted that in the beginning your attitude was questionable, and now you have changed.



You know that this isn't true. You know how many people read C+. And how many people read this forum. There are many interested people, who make up their minds from what you have to say.



It makes no odds to me whether people here believe me. It is you that I am addressing the questions to. Not the parrot, nor anyone else. I am asking you to explain your words because they did not, and still do not, tally with your explanation.



I'm asking you questions Paul. If you are becoming unstuck through not being able to explain your actions acceptably, then I'm doing nothing for your reputation.

Jub Jub, do you intend to keep asking the same questions over and over until something is said in response that you can twist to fit your agenda?

You are really becoming quite tedious, and I'm quite disappointed that Paul is still indulging you. F#ck off back under your bridge, troll.

Nope. I'll keep asking until he gives a truthful answer. The ball's in his court.

You don't have to read the thread.

I've never in my life seen such pathetic desperation to prove a false assumption. Although of course in your case it isn't a false assumption is it?

And you haven't answered the question:

But what I don't understand is why you think it is reasonable to attempt to assassinate someone's reputation on such a basis. Now it's your turn to explain yourself.

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

I answered it. Emotive language, on the other hand, does nothing to address my question to you.

So are you telling me that your 'brilliant' and 'good' comments were merely complementing the contributor on his idea?

Why the "more good ideas on my site" comment and invitation? Can you not see that this may have invited people who were interested in learning more tips for evading the law to your site? Giving them the green light that SS is the place for the like-minded to congregate? Is that what you wanted? Was it your intention, or naivity?

So, rather than your comments being approval of the ideas, they were in fact complements to the authors for their intelligence of thought. That's what you're saying, right?

Paul has given you truthful answers, only for you to change the question. This smacks of some personal vendetta and ad hominem attack on Paul himself, which I find intolerable on our site.
You will never obtain the 'answers' you demand because they do not now exist, the basic tenets of the site having evolved far beyond any of the original thoughts that caused its creation - the area that you so carefully trawl.
Many years ago, in my first profession, I was an active Socialist and a Trades Union Convenor - owing to Bliar and his cronies, I have had to seek other political alliances that reflect my professional and personal status, that would have been very seriously at odds with my original standing. Just as my status has evolved, so has the status of this site and, under Paul's unstinting efforts, in spite of his personal situation, our beliefs are becoming justified - a fact that the likes of yourself seem unable to come to terms with.
I am proud to be a member of this site, as it so closely reflects my views of the totalitarianism that is New Labour and its hatred of the motor-car. The mutual support offered here is second to few and we tolerate inordinately wide views in our posters.
Your trolling attempts, however, are far beyond the pail and, if it were in my power, I would kick you into free-fall here and now. Your presence is not constructive here, or on any other site and the permanent failure of your mother-board would probably do the World a favour...

_________________
Aquila



Licat volare si super tergum aquila volat...

Fuuuuuuuuccckkkkkkk..................

Jub, you really need a blow job. Don't you.

Not the most constructive post, I admit.

Hahaha!

_________________
Simon

Don't say that, he might misunderstand and take it as an offer

WRT my bike test. The thing to bear in mind is that big bike training (DAS) is effectively an advanced course for beginners. The instructers and examiners treat it as such - I remember my instructer basically saying to me 'bollox to passing the test, I'm going to teach you to ride'. The examiner I had took the same attitude and was quite willing to ignore minor, none dangerous errors like exceeding the limit in the name of safety. The training and test is hard enough as it is with DAS and its fairly well expected that anyone who takes the course isn't about to give up biking the next day.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Jub Jub - this is not a post directed at you - more directed at those persons you mention on that other site and why no one really takes that much notice of them

From a glance over at this cycling site - someone asked why the media listen to Paul.

I think the answer must be that he keeps calm and his manner friendly when dealing with the media and that much of his current material does make sense to a growing number of people - from all walks of life.

Also this forum tries as far as it can to refrain from personal abuse - and seen to be so overall.

Sure.. we get the odd nutter and I do not know what it is about internet chatting as a medium which makes some people behave in such a vicious and rude manner. I do know that a USA University is planning to do some more research on internet behaviour in chatroom fora. I have already sent the team leader a link to the cycling fora as I think there is plenty to start off a research area into why people will post abuse and yet appear to be a different personality in the tangible eye-contact meeting It is perhaps a bit similar to the early days of the "telephone in every house" where people got nuisance calls. As the telephone companies can now tell you which number is calling you.. these have ceased to be. The internet is different... multiple accounts and no serious regulation as to the subtle niceties of life beyond it leads nonny ignorants like the notorious internet troll to use internet cafes and thus be hard to trace whilst he tries to cause inter-fora wars amongst all these chat rooms whether they be special interest like motoring and cycling or general interest like sheffield/EDP24 and so on. And not doubt gets the equivalent to a "blow job" by posting his vile and vulgar garbage.


Well, as a few are well aware, one or two persons on that certain site make some ludicrous personal comments - mostly vulgar abuse - and some malicious defamation - which thankfully are posted on a forum run in the name only of a magazine which majority out there don't know and don't apparently want to know after one visit to the site. Such is the damage they are doing to cycling.

CW has a forum. Comment in passing. on their forum which oddly enough talks only of cycling and as such worthy of visiting for me the cyclist

..


Er.. People can and people do. These nutters never discuss cycling and it you look closely of all the several thousands of posts in their post count - very little to do with cycling and almost all to do with bitching and vying to be considered the nastiest on that forum [shudder].

These same people complain that they have been involved in as many incidents as their posts and that each and every one of these "incidents" was



Law of averages does not work like that and as Franklin pointed out in his book, there is indeed research which shows that this angry type are prone to accidents. Perhaps if they applied as much attention to their cycling as they do to trying to be the nastiest little person on the internet - they may actually find they enjoy cycling and have less incidents.


These are the same people who posted abuse when suggestions such as

1. read the Highway Code..for sound advice
2. make sure you are visible
3. obey rules of the road.. such as red lights
4. How about a lid?

They claim - in unnecessarily abusive langauge - that most of the above give the "impression that cycling is dangerous" and anything criticising the cyclist even slightly - regardless of whether or not that cyclist is really in the wrong as "anti-cycling" - when their own posts describing all these accidents (and one wonders how come they are at home typing away and not in hospital) seem to give more ammunition that "cycling is dangerous"

Their logic beggars belief and the sheer malice does nothing to warm the passing visitor to the site towards cyclists, cycling to commute, cycling for sport and leisure either and it rubs off on magazine sales..

The magazine is nothing like the forum by the way. Quite an agreeable and very pleasant read in front of the fire after a long work-out ride.

These people are then their own worst enemies to their cause. and I think at least we are doing more to get cyclists well and truly included in the road safety agenda on aggregate.
I am engaged in a "war" with our Council over dangerous cycle lanes. We were better off without them and no cyclist here actually uses them. We are well out in primary there Sure .. there are a couple which are OK ,.. and I want more of that type.


But then .. do these "affronts" to cycling actually ride I have to date made almost 1900 posts and about 500 on PH over the past three years. To my mind I spend a bit too much time on-line.. but this pales into insignficance when just looking at the posting volume of these same people who profess to riding the Tourmalet, Ventoux, various cols in Haute Savoie, and so on and so on.
They are, of course, being a little "careless with the truth" here. Speaking as someone who rides a lot around our Lakes, Fells and Dales just up the A66 from us - and completed a recent trip with the family in Austria..

you have to train and train hard to do those rides. Takes strength and stamina as well as skills to do these rides

I'm lucky.. I live in the ideal place to ride a bike and drive a car.. and walk Appreciate that London life is very much different from that in the villages dotted around here ... and perhaps they would do best cycling the loop planned for the 2007 Tour to work out their anger.


But I see no evidence from post count and presence on line which tells me that these people

a) ride a bicycle
b) hold the jobs or professions they profess to as no employer would tolerate the time he pays for being spent in an internet chatroom each and every working day.
c) from the content of some of the posts.. well .. it does seem at odds with the PhDs and so on which they also claim to possess. One would expect something other than petty abuse and a better logic progression than that so far in evidence.

So.. I think that's where no one really takes much notice and whatever Paul says will be twisted into something not said or claimed. After all how can you take anyone seriously who reads a post and then leaps to the rather bizarre conclusion as evidenced on your site and repeated once on this site by cyclissimo.

Two plus two would appear to make five in their lah lah land of "my degree and me" And which basically tells me that personality of person(s) concerned is insecure as well as unstable.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Since they spend so much time on the internet Moggie, maybe thats where their PhDs came from

Worth noting that academics do not need to be professional, or possess much in the way of interpersonal skills

I'm waiting for one of you to agree that you you think Paul's excitement at suggestions for evading convictions for speeding is explained away by it being research. I note that no-one has.

Asking someone to explain themselves properly isn't ad hominem.

Actually that really rather depends on the motives of the poster.

And in this case I do believe that you have removed all possible doubt.

So please continue to violate forum rules if you think it is in your best interests. Alternatively, you might even consider discussing road safety in an adult manner.

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

Right ... now I've got the anger which both my wife and the in-laws feel over the constant nonsense posted "exorcised" in the above rant .. let's just look at what you appear to be asking.

An answer to something or other posted five years ago and since deleted. Thus it no longer exists and cannot be produced as evidence.


Apart from this .. the campaign has moved on.... and whilst it has not changed a direction in desiring an end to automated enforcement and continues to highlight the shortcomings of this system - it is beginning to look more closely at improving road safety awareness for all. Paul does some of this by getting feedback and opinion via the internet fora and and from the press.

In the early days - I would think line of popular attack would well have been to try to show the ease in which someone could pervert the course of justice. They are still at it today as we know .. and it's part of the reason why we say "no to automation and yes to real police"


The driver who got copped 10 times and filled in a NIP naming his lodgers. No one ever thought of chasing these kids for unpaid court costs or even writing to advise them they were on 6-9 points as a result of a judgement in their absence... I thus have to presume the person finally convicted must have paid these fines but did not want the points on his licence.

But it highlights the problem.. along with all those unregistered cars out there driven by unlicenced chavs with no inusrance.

Lethal cars in the hands of the truly lethal driver.

. We now even have Merry Hughes claiming "he cannot identify the driver". Nothing new - Hants force also had this and let's not forget the Cleveland coppers who argued that because the sign had the wrong colour background - they could not be prosecuted. (Er they won the case.. and on the privilege of a knowedge which few MOP would have been aware and who never had their conviction for driving along that road at 35 mph squashed as far as I am aware). We have one police officer claiming police business when copped well above the speed limit whilst collecting a takeway. Such good luck that a call came over the radio at the correct time and he used it. I would have been checking the time of the photo with the time of the call.. but hey - he was believed

So perhaps then.. whatever the issue .. Paul was right to highlight it.. and five years ago.. I think the anger and some brainstorming as to how to fight the situation and show up its shortcomings perhaps resulted in something which some internet trolls will twist to their own little twilight lah-lah land .

In the early days.. I thought speed cameras were there to cop the truly OTT at known blackspots and vulnerable areas such as approaches to parks, schools, old folks' homes and so on.. Then comes the Pratnerships and we realised people were losing licences over 33/34 mph per the Blackpool local press and this made us question the logic - especially the claims when I knew for fact that my colleagues across our area were still treating increases in RTC incoming wounded. Did not make sense.


I did not and still have not seen any change in driver behaviour and even consider standards are falling in some areas.


I was also observing for myself how people braked for the camera .. and my wife called it the "Pavlov Dog Syndrome". Thus they could not be held to be "improving skills".

Then three people who work at my wife's place of work were pinged . Her company does insist all their drivers are IAM members if they drive for them. All pinged at 34/35 mph and invited to the Speed Aware Course at which they reported most were middle aged women and elderly fellows and all were pinged at 33/35 mph. Ironically the Course teaches COAST and I hear from those I know to have attended this that they found it enjoyable and useful. After some pressure.. Swiss involved - Lancs open up the course across the speed limit range and modify the cut-off to something more realistic. Only .. with so many cameras in the area and attempts to conceal them..they still get high revenues from the course and the fines and no significant drop in KSI figures

Perhaps because these cams are not the answer and VAS, engineering and continuous education are

A part of the campaign for the better .. along with a call for more well trained police and a few less speed cams and more VAS

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Paul

You made statements. I question them. You said many times it has only ever been about road safety. Your origins suggest very strongly something different.

Nowhere have you said that your attitude was different in the beginning, yet you claim that evasion ideas are 'great' or 'brilliant'. If you had explained that in the early days you had a different attitude then fair enough. But you haven't. You have said that you were gathering information as research. That, again, would be fine. If the 'gathering' didn't involve personal opinion about the ideas. You trying to explain them away as research just doesn't wash.

Note that of those of your supporters who have come to your defense, none of them has said that they feel the explanation fits. It doesn't. It's like saying that tips to get away with shiplifting are great and brilliant. They aren't.

So, we have you, claiming one thing but saying another with your words. Yes, it may have been 5 years ago, but you have never said that you were wrong to say those things. All you have done is tried to defend them.

So where does that leave us? You want to promote a campaign about road safety, which is admirable, but when questioned about some of your activities you cannot provide valid explanations.

I used to speed. I used to read with interest articles on evasion tactics, and consider their worth. I thought that they were good ideas. I have done some very stupid things in my driving past. I know that I was wrong, that it was dangerous to collude with the activities or condone them, and am happy to say that and turn my back on it. Those admissions do not impact negatively on my integrity.

Now I realise that those kind of activities, whether or not a safe and experienced driver feels that they are ok for him personally, are dangerous, wrong, and a risk to the safety of road users and pedestrians.

;)

The problem is, in my opinion Safe Speed is viewed as primarily a right wing, pro-car, anti-government pressure group with a secondary view on road safety which was started primarily because of the frustration about the number of restrictions that were being introduced into motoring, and as such will never be taken seriously by people that matter.

Blimey.... I would think wotsiname competeting for world's strongest man would be interested

Careful with the turkey Jubs ..

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !
But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.

Exactly!

Which is why I came over to this site originally. To try and understand it. It started off ok, but we hit a brick wall when I started asking Paul about the origins. And we are still there. I don't think anyone thinks that Paul's 'research' excuse holds any water, but no-one is saying that, and he can't come up with an acceptable explanation.

And that is why the view described above still holds. And it will do until there is clarity.

Don't worry about it. Really. We're doing very well indeed.

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