Safe Speed Forums

I thought that actually was the case (in essence).


O.K.......


Instead of giving your own unusual amount of effort to make the campaign look wrong, why don't you use it to give the examples demonstrating the claimed deficiencies, or explain how it can be bettered - why not just respond to Claire’s very reasonable questions? I expect you to respond to those, at the very least to support your own point.
Why not instead spend a few minutes turning your apparent "hours" of work into something useful?


I don’t mind folks having different opinions, but I make a point of disrespecting claims that aren’t supported or substantiated in any way
such as:
- "always persists in saying that the person whom disagrees with you doesn't check the facts",
- "cherry picked from your source.",
- " Quite often, as said, this devolves into 'whos the most qualified'. … And always, always, it breaks down into who is best to review such evidence. … inevitably, people clamiming this and that qualification",
- "a vast majority are guilty of being hippocrites. "
There is more but I can’t be bothered to make more effort for what I know will likely be wasted.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Nice try Steve. Are you trying to perfect the art of twisting things? I'm here, as stated many moons ago, for the sake of trying to get him to realise his driving is bad. Like I said, the people on here are among the few I thought he might actually listen too. Except I the page with all the evidence (which is still available on the net I might add!) was deleted. I've said this, you have no doubt seen it. Not because he annoyed me (though he has, in his blatent disregard of other peoples safety on the roads).



Your again being sarcastic Steve. Theres just no need. Your not stupid, so please don't make out that you don't know both can be applicable.

This doesn't take that much effort, since I'm not checking sources, or looking into data. And have also given up replying to lengthy quotes, which I did say initially, I wasn't going to do.

Your efforts Steve are nothing more than to discredit me so my opinions mean less. You are by far intelligent enough to know what I am on about - I've explained that I am not one to do the research about the data, and yet you say I should.

Making out I said I put hours of work into this - you even put quote marks around it. Oh, I'm sure you'll get around it with a bit of jiggling, but you'll have to excuse me if I'm not as masterful at this word fencing. I'm just speaking as I see fit.

I don't spend hours of work on this forum, apart from when I looked at all the data. You do - just look at all the replies, research you have done on here over the years! It's not even comparible.

I thank SS for allowing me to speak out, and air my views. They remain that the SS claims as a whole are not entirely sound, and that this forum is far from a place of open debate due to bias. Please don't reply with things for me to answer - I've spent enough time on it and feel anymore would be wasted due to the bias I feel is here.

As for what could be improved (I have mentioned most of this already Steve):

If there is not enough time for Claire, hand it over to someone else, perhaps one of the mods members whom have a lot of time (please don't read into this as some sort of insult or dig, it's not).

Increase visability.

Change the whole look - I feel the main page looks a bit ranty, and very angry at speed cameras. I understand this is because they are perceived to be dangerous, but it doesn't look good imo.

Sort out the website - loads of broken links etc. I know everyones aware of this and it's on the fix list.

More impartial moderating - I can only say I feel it's biased. That's imo and I don't expect it's agreed with.

A well known third party to give a conclusion on SS's claims as a whole - I know the discussion around this, but I was asked to say what I thought should be done.

Change the image. I think it would be far better to concentrate about roads safety, rather than villianising speed cameras as it appears now. I'm not saying get rid, but have it as a secondary thing maybe, rather than the primary it seems to be now.

And....I don't know what else. It's not really my job to do.

_________________
If you think everyone else around you is driving badly, perhaps it's time to examine your own driving.

Can you tell me what these page/s were about ? I take it you are referring to Squirrel ? Please PM a reply as this is way off topic for this thread ... thanks.

NO he just wanted you to view what you said you had already looked at and consider - well that is how I read it. I understand your preference to take another persons credit to the Campaign - so who / or Academic would you choose by preference to believe ? For example do you have belief in their 'title' or their Academy standing in society or an individuals ability?

Then why not take some of what he says to be sincere and only trying to help you see our point of view - you don't have to agree with it necessarily - just recognise a point. Many like to consider a pint for some time before after recognising it to understand the whole meaning of that concept.


There really is no bias here, on who posts. There are rules that people occasionally breech and then we have to act. The rules are decent and honorable. Please can say things in many ways. People can take great offence to something someone has said, yet it may not have been written 'in that way' at all. People can become 'sensitive' and then only see the 'critical side'. Can you be sure all that has been written is how you have interpreted it?
For example I had not taken what Steve had written as offensive but 'direct'. He tried to tell you that I am open to debate positives and negatives, but why concentrate on the negatives - why not help as you seem to want to with the positives and allow that to grow and develop.
I try hard to help the forums retain a good debate balance without it resorting to personal attacks.
It does concern me though, when I see we have a University take the time and trouble to look over government figures and compare their results with Paul's - not 'for us', or on behalf of either, we never asked them to - they did this for their own reasons ... yet you dismiss it - I do not understand that whatsoever.
We point to it because it is unbias yet you have implied that it is - how ?

This thread is not about Safe Speed development, as much as I appreciate your (what seems to come across to me) genuine concerns for our ability to do a better job.
Yes but in the right thread ...
We are against all enforcement cameras as they are not helping Road Safety - our prime concern.

Can we now please revert back to this thread's topic - thanks or I will have to move this to Gen Chat or other appropriate area thanks.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

I'll Pm you the details - but not having it public merely enforces my point about bias. I did all this before and it went nowhere.

_________________
If you think everyone else around you is driving badly, perhaps it's time to examine your own driving.

Pratnership.

There’s no point me doing my usual point-by-point direct response, because yet again, you choose to make an effort skirt around the issues you raised (all your unsubstantiated claims, no need to repeat these), whilst completely disregarding an attempt at resolution. Now you’re making yet more claims, even of bias; no doubt that’s also from thin air with nothing to back that up too. I guess that’s the downside of debating on an open platform.

Thank you for that list of proposed improvements.
However, while some have already been accepted, subsequent debate has shown your rational behind others to be contradictory or unreasonable; these problems have never been addressed.
You’ve been given plenty of opportunity to reconcile your contradictions and validate your claims. It is painfully obvious to the reader you’re never going to do this - even though you keep on making an effort to respond.

Unless you actually respond with something useful, such as addressing SSV2’s very reasonable questions (remember my tumbleweeds?), I’m now going to do what you have repeatedly failed to do – bow out.

Shoe on other foot: have the last word and claim for yourself your win


Yes Claire, there seems to be nothing of substance within this new chunk of debate that is within the spirit of this Honesty and Accuracy forum (apart from the "lie" claim, but that was never demonstrated so it doesn’t count).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I have moved the last two posts to here.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.