Safe Speed Forums

Yes I have... This, I assume, is the George Monbiot who's not above quoting from non peer-reviewed information if it happens to suit his cause? The self-styled "ecologist" who, if it were not for his family money and connections, would probably have reached the peak of his career teaching biology in a sink comprehensive?

What was it you said about "being an idiot"?

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

I think what you seem to forget, we are all pro road safety, I know I am. However we have different views on how safer roads can be achieved. Your responses put me in mind of something I read by Clarkson. I is about environmentalism, however I think the sentiment is the same.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 757025.ece


What I don’t understand is people who take the standpoint “Speed Kills” seem to be full of such venom and anger towards people like myself?



If your argument could stand by itself you would not have to resort to means to get your point across.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

'Ere! Moind what you'm zayin', boy!

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

Ah, you obviously don't recognise the bright eye and firm footfall of the terminally self-righteous. Debate does not appear on these people's radar; there is - as far as they are concerned - no debate; and that's how they justify their venom and hatred. They're pretty sad people, really, and obviously don't enjoy life very much, so add a little pity to the contempt they so richly deserve!

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

I don't hate cars - I hate the morons who deliberately break safety laws - this included those morons who speed.

Interesting comments from George Monbiot aren't they?

Just to sum them up (because pro-speeders can't take in too much information in one go, can they?):
Your founder was a crank who refused to let experts examine his 'proof' (in reality lies) that he used to set up this extremist pro-speed group.

If your argument could stand by itself you would not have to resort to these means to get your point across.

What does pro-speed mean?

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor

His proof is here on this web site for anyone to read, have you tried reading it for yourself, I doubt it.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

It would appear that you have come on here just to hurl gratuitous and offensive insults rather than to engage in any kind of meaningful debate.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

And the charge is that that "proof" would be largely discredited if put out to peer review.

Offensive insults?
What about the hate campaigns against the people who enforce speed limits for public safety? What is wrong with enforcing speed limits in North Wales?
At least I'm supporting public safety, not condoning law-breaking.

Liebchen .. prof beard explain already most excellently what peer review ist.


Thalidomide had peer review in medical journals before it administered to pregnant ladies. It has some very positive reviews on its qualities with regard to treating completely different illnesses though..


Prof Meadows had peer reviews about his work.. which later proven as discredited after the events...

Just because it peer reviewed does not mean "good" either. It does not mean the work ist wrong or right either because there can be many issues.


Paulie's work could hold own in a peer review based on the fact that Drs/Profs Baker und Mountain both provided papers - also peer reviewed with the former making waves as to the "lottery aspect of cam as "safety measure" und also found RTTM was going on.. as did Mountain agree that her research concentrated only on one set of roads with 30 mph limit und that RTTM was also a reality. Neither concluded that speed cam policy work und the Pennington piece also concluded that the the evidence provided would seem to indicate efficiency but that the collation of the data was flawed und inconsistent und that in reality we had not actually proved any more than an "indication to that conclusion based on the flawed data as supplied"


Which all seem to back up what Paulie was really saying

Peer reviews appear in academic journals specialising in various disciplines und the whole purpose of the review ist not to discredit the researcher's work but to look at the methodology on the academia/science researched or explored in objective way. Since the above people already touched on Paul's conclusions in passing .. und been found to be sound.. then indirectly there has been an accreditation.

By the way.. I think Paulie had been in contact with the three researchers from something he said on the phone to me once. und was quite happy from what they said at the time to him.

So to you Liebchen

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

So you do not call making ad hominem attacks on other fora a "hate campaign".


We are ex-BRAKE members in this family. We support some of BRAKE's ideas but they are not right on the automation issue as no cam can guarantee safety.


I have a piece from Germany to post .. two £45 K cams but there ist a difference in way the enforcement work anyway.. und I will post up later when I done some shopping und done a bit of "Trimm Dich" with the hoover. (There ist peer reviewed research which tell me I can ditch the gym here und hoover the carpet instead.. I wonder which macho male paid for that gem It all do do with keeping us wimmin in check in the housework )

But the bloke in charge said that the speed cams do not guarantee safety und all they do ist make person slow at the spot. Und he the one in charge of the cam in Ost-Hessen....

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

By the way Monbigot write for a paper..he not had any rave or any peer reviews for his nonsenses.

He cherry pick sentences out of the works to back up his claims.. takes them outof context und as such cannot be taken seriously.


He appear on radio sometimes und the listener comments tehreafter are usually far from kind.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien!

How do you know Paul was a "crank"? In effect all Paul done was peer review information what other bodies put out i.e. the Dft, and IMO he has intelligently debunked it. Is that your definition of a crank?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Really?
Read thisand tell me you can remain by your comment.

BTW, we're not 'pro-speed', we're largely anti-camera and pro-road safety for all users; discussions around greater use of trafpol will prove that.

So you hate all drivers then, including yourself if you're one of them (and if you're not, you really shouldn't be lecturing us on something that you know comparatively little about)? You're calling all drivers morons? Trolltastic. This is the trouble with taking an illogical position: you very quickly find yourself coming out with one ridiculous, contradictory and nonsensical assertion after another. You find yourself needing to make more and more of them. It's like when you tell a lie, then you need to tell more lies to cover up the first lie, etc. It's much easier all round if you just tell the truth in the first place.

The question that none of you lot ever answer is: Why would Paul's work need to be peer-reviewed when he just uses figures straight from DfT?

Why won't you answer most people's questions, by the way? Is it because they're too difficult? If that's the case then it might be another clue that you should be reconsidering your position. But that would mean admitting that you'd been wrong, and renouncing your neurotic hatred of cars and Safe Speed, and we can't have that can we? Not even if 10 lives a day are at stake, no sirree.

It never ceases to amaze and disappoint me how f**ked up the priorities of people like you are. Every death is a tragedy, every death is one too many, and yet somehow you persuade yourself that trivialities like your pride and your hatred of cars are more important. Incredible. I sometimes wonder just how many bereaved relatives of those killed in accidents (not caused by "speeding") C+ types would have to meet before they stopped kidding themselves that all this was some kind of game.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Sorry mate, didn't know your first name was "Some..."

_________________
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

Actually, I believe it may be time for some proper offensive insults.

F*** off.t**t.

There we go. A post with all the spirit, reason and logic of everything you've said so far.

It felt good too

_________________
Smokebelching,CO2 making,child murdering planet raping,granny mugging,politically incorrect globally warming (or is it climate changing now it's getting colder?)thug.
That's what the government want you to believe of me. If they get back in I'm emigrating.

Could we keep the language civil. Thanks.

For some reason I'm reminded by this thread of a bus journey into Edinburgh from the airport a couple of years ago, said route crawling with gatsos.

My friend (who is certainly no Clarkson, more a hippie & owning a clapped-out Volvo) for some reason suddenly piped up in a loud deadpan voice, with heavy emphasis on the block words :

"It's a good thing they've put all these speed cameras up, 'cos back in the '80s everybody died"

At which point more than half the top deck of the bus burst out laughing.