Jub Jub wrote:
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.
Execpt that these originated in a chat room and one would be researching opinion and lengths people go to get out of t a situation. He does not appear to claim this these days .. more desperate measures some are tempted to go along .. and end up making more mess for themselves.
Whether or not in naivity - he was grasping at the odd straw at the time - is irrelevant today as at that stage he did not know where this campaign would ultimately end up as he was involved in a more meaningful exploration of RTTM and Lotto effect - which was ironically backed indepedently in 2003 by Professor Rose Baker - expert in statistics and peer reviewed in her own journal by the way
Actions speak louder than words and the act of removing the earlier, green and perhaps immature is an act of refuting that earlier material and completely discarding to concentrate on the present day criteria of steering back to the common sense of police control. Given that the prats will not be getting cash directly from these fines under the New Bill - is one small step forwards if you like and possible a small nod to the concerns raised by virtue of this campaign. Small steps .. but you chip away long enough and we get the cycling facilities and the road safety we all want ... without robots.
Quote:
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.
Now if only we could lift ships
We ain't doing too bad on moving mountains though
Quote:
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.
Nope .. I think more defend in the light of the puerile viciousness from the likes of two serious idiots on that "for cyclists (term meant loosely) only forum" That pair cannot be serious riders .. look at the time wasted. Only indoors today cos it's a bit wet and seriously windy out there.
Quote:
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.
So.. come on then .. dish the dirt. What speed were you done for?
and what did you do to "get out of 'em . Depends what they were
Come on ./. don't be vague. You engaged in some dodgy behaviour and we want to know what they were.
Quote:
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.
Ahhh... speeding in a 30 mph zone
Undercutting .. taligating .. perhaps these days you promote chucking rocks at
Quote:
crappy cars
and kicking cars which you perceive to be in your way at traffic lights and condone not giving way to "middle aged women who were described as
ridiculous comment on a for cyclists only forum wrote:
"old trouts who got in the way of progress on a footpath"
along with a number of posters - including yourself as my brother-in-law and Andreas each have copies downloaded - claiming that pedestrians have no right to get in your way and you would be justified in cycling over them.
Now this was over 12 months ago. Still like to stand by those comments?
I cannot paste it up as not on my computer .. but Swiss have the copies along with the link to that porn that time
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
Check the 'Safespeed in the press' thread peanut!!
