Safe Speed Forums

This post of yours is so full of false assumptions that I hardly know where to start...



It's nothing like 'assertion without proof'. What it is like is a wholistic approach to the problems of improving road safety. Working from crash causation data and crash statistics we can draw a number of certain conclusions. Speeding is commonplace, yet crashes are rare. Speed related crashes are rarer still. Driver routinely avoid crashes and minimise crashes by applying brainpower. The physics of road safety is thus massively subservient to the psychology. It is immediately obvious to anyone who cares to examine driver behaviour that speed cameras are bad driver psychology. They don't stand a chance of working.

Examine: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/againstcameras.html for a fair summary of the arguments.



That paragraph is piffle from begining to end.



It's not hard - see:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/heydecker2.html
and
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trl.html

There you go - hopeless official thinking exposed in a few words.



It IS open to independent scrutiny. You're doing it now. And you're not doing a very good job.



I'm the bloke who has taken the trouble to look at how road safety works. Find me one other who has taken a system level approach and I'll be impressed, nay, amazed.



But it isn't fatal to the cause is it? I'm making a huge difference.



Many suggestions for the cause of the trend change have been positively eliminated. The page invites further suggestions and contains: If anyone has any other sensible or supportable theories about the cause of the change in trend we will be delighted to publish them here on this page.

No one, and I mean no one has been able to offer a better explaination for the loss of trend. DfT commissioned TRL to examine the loss of trend and TRL concluded that 'drivers are getting worse' was the main reason. Well, OF COURSE, drivers are getting worse. We're putting them under pressure, telling them lies and not policing the roads properly. All because of cameras.

There's every reason to expect cameras to make road safety worse - and we indeed have evidence that road safety is getting worse. Well, there's a surprise.



I think it shows as a theory supported by real data but I'll be happy to check the wording.



I asked you to justify your unsubstantiated critism. I note that you have not done so.



Nothing on the Safe Speed web site is published carelessly. In fact the standards of rigour are demonstrably far far higher than those in use by DfT and camera partnerships.

Preparation for publication is entirely dependent on the medium of publication. As you very well know.

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

Judging from the number of dodgy overtakes on wrong side of road we have seen lately around here, poor judgment of corners und absence of policemen (und ist not lieber Ian's fault either as he ist patrolling more or less as lonesome somewhere in very big rural area) - but ist fact we see LESS traffic police than before und only area where they appear on every corner "stealth like - suddenly und form nowhere like the genie in the panto " ist in lieber IG's territory - und they have a darned good ACCREDITED BY FELLOW PEERS AS IN OTHER FORCES record





I think Durham ist an example und contrary to myth -they are probably tougher than anywhere else I have heard IG's lecture which he gives as training to his "lads und lasses" - ist not easy forgotten either yet ist not belittling in any way either

We are not seeing any reduction in fatalities either - still 3500 yet claims of reduction at scam sites to tune of 70% - und ist little matter of checking this out because ist ssort of mege soduko challenge to work out how the sub-marinated Maths in Cumbria's stats. Ist not 70% reduction no matter how you apply the equations und arithmetic (und by the way - did Maths as subsid degree )

Now in this family - we are ex BRAKE members und we lost one relative at 20mph impact when articulated with bare treads und dodgy brakes crashed through central reserve into crawling tea time traffic. I was almost killed when someone was taken ill at wheel - pressed accelerator hard und hit my rear end. A policeman happened to be on hard shoulder und that saved my life really. But could just as easily have been him und not me... was Kismet at work that day.

How on earth ist speed camera going to prevent driver driving when feeling unwell or even detect the worrying driving trend. He was seen by a Panda patrol before joining but Panda in inquest claimed he lost him in traffic heading up to motorway.

Und ist not likely to trace unregistered throwaway either - as in 14 days - thrown away probably und another picked up for £50 or so




But this ist precisely the problem. We have a single focus road policy which erects forests of these darned things but fails to correct the driving standard itself - und only way to judge professionally ist to get police driving back to old Gold Star Hendon standard und let these professionals loose to lurk on roads again und judge the driving or bliped overspeed professionally as these accidents are not speed per se und lieber IG has posted up link to tragedy near scamera in Norfolk where they say blackspot ist down to dodgy junction und not speed und justify scam to enforce speed limit of 50 mph und claim 85th pervcentile ist 46 mph und mean speed ist 42 mph - und scam in question reportedly makes 3% of their fine rake-in...

So - we have section on this site aimed at improving driving standards, und one aimed at promoting SAFE CYCLING PRACTICE.

What have scammers goto to offer on their sites?

Daft game which no matter how you play und even if you sit with arms folded - congratulates you on arriving 10 minutes late but alive for rollocking at work Und some other game of which objective fails me...

Oh und not to mention the two blokes in pub und one pro-scam ist DRINKING! (Derbyshire prats ... )



Und in BMJ - Pilkington concluded that the OFFICIAL stats were flawed as no standardised scientific collation und some records not even kept. But peer reviews seized on the 70% paragraph for press release und conveneniently forgot the rest as the report which appears und which the pro-lobby seized on ist one paragraph in whole piece which they use to misrepresent the paper in entirety und conclusion - und I have enough pieces published in accredited medical, bio-chemical und pharmaceutical journals given I have more than one widely used prescriptive drug from design to licence under my pearl encrusted choker Und the Mad Doc has some research items on his lurgies in print too

Quote:

Finally, for your theory to be successful, you need to posit the existence of either an incompetent or malign government that systematically fails to act in the best interest of its citizens,

Well - we did not ask them to be Bush puppets, take us to war, sell our EU rebates, get dupedund taken to cleaners by Jaques und Angela Nor are we pro-ID cards either.

By the way - his education policies are not working when reports say kids are unable to read and write (but able to point a speed camera at a car und encouraged to talk to strangers who may just have been speeding for thrill of being told off by a 7 year old ) Und do not tell me they are more intelligent since I have had to recruit calibre I require from [i] abroad und admin had schoolgirl on work expeerience who could not file because she could not read!

Und there ist little matter of prescriptions, lottery treatment und manipulated wai t stats in NHS - und Mad Doc happens to be consultant wally! so we know from reality und not IVORY TOWER of Bliaristic stats und muppets he employs!




IAM are speaking out! RAC speaking out Opposition speaking out! Retired :cop: - Sir John Stevens etc are speaking out

What we have is an ignorant population of pseudo-academics who do not live in real world und are duped by government stats - which Pilkington described as "lacking und in need of much improvement" in his paper in a peer reveiwed journal Und we also have Prof Rose Baker whose piece showed element of lottery chance in pings in first place - also published in peer reviewed magazine und also proving regression to the mean - also acceredited by peer review in same magazine





Und the turn out? Und ist no longer a significant "majority" either. Lot of members of public including labour voters are not convinced by speed cams efficiency - und now the other side have a cyclist for leader - (Und he has a cute bum too )

So - you voted for a someone proven to be a little loose with the truth as well You are first person I have come across who actually admits voting for this guy anyway. Lot of silly intruding laws - identity cards, people spying on our movements all the time, I had enough of all this in Leipzig aged just 20 und that was just for a semester thankfully.






As matter of fact - my useful gadget bleeps when I approach schools und can set to two mile radius - though ist a tadge irritating when in school cluster zone It also bleeps at known blackspots und flashes up a peed limit reminder in case a lollipop was missed und there ist a blip over to correct.

It has added bonus that it bleeps mile off scam site - und if you update weekly - includes the mobile ones as reminder too

Und the speedo on the dash - ist right in view which mean I can check speed without taking ey off road at all





Millions of blippers get fined - but deaths remain 3500. Und this ist the official figure. One would expect deaths to go down und less to be fined if this ist so successful as YOU claim



If person ist allergic to eggs - they may die from reaction Und in any case - a flu jab only vaccinate against last year's variation. Lurgies evolve to survive - und ist quite possible that flu jab will not prevent the disease nor death in a vulnerable.



The origins und RAs do not undermine any safety initiative - they enhance as you have the accurate speed per GPS on dash, a bleep at black spots, schools, kengestion zone warnings so you can buy your ticket in time if new to area und not able to buy on line (which ist always dodgy practice) - und they flash reminder of speed limit in scam zone und black spot und if you have no cruise control und the Moggies/Stags und other classics do not have this function - yucan set to overspeed warning. So ist a useful tool und not at all what your blinkered, prejudiced Noo Labia Bliar brainwashed brain tell you

_________________
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!

The purpose of this thread, in a Forum entitled "Honesty and Accuracy Queries", is to challenge the decision not to test the honesty and accuracy of your beliefs on the matter by submitting them to independent scrutiny.

You may, if you like, begin another thread in which we can debate whether the mass adoption of the practice of using mobile phones while driving, compensatory increased risk taking arising from widespread introduction of crash protection systems, the increased prevalence of SUVs, the willful vandalism of speed control facilities, etc, etc. account for the changes.

In the meantime it is sufficient simply for me to assert that they are individually and collectively at least as plausible as the mechanisms you advance and that, until you disprove that statement by having your own arguments to the contrary verified externally, it would be irresponsible of you to undermine existing safety provisions, or incite others to do so.

This is getting annoying. How many times do we have to say:

THIS IS INDEPENDENT SCRUTINY

- Anyone may contribute
- No time limit
- Comments are immediately visible for all to see
- Comments are associated with source material and are permanent
- Comments may themselves be commented upon

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

You're putting them to the test, why do you need others to put them to the test for you?

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

Oh sure they can.
-And they get leapt upon by hoards of posters
-All making the same point as they did last time
-Some making peronsal accusations
-Others recounting their entire life story and that of their extended family, billion smileys and all - who wants to read all that
-Others who can't/won't stick to the point or don't actually know what the point is but are just going along with the flow.

Yeah, this is a really good medium through which to conduct a proper analysis - NOT.

I have started another thread here :
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5367

Ach - we have Appendix H of Dr Mountain's work, Prof Rose Baker's work und her stats made similar findings und have been accredited by peer review und we also have Pilkington's piece which conlcuded that the evidence to date would appear to show efficiency in KSO reduction at scam sites to tune of 17-70% but that the quality of this evidence ist somewhat lacking und as such cannot be offered as absolute und irrefutable proof This would appear to back up many of points raised in the debate here.




Do not get me started on "Handys" .... if you use one in restaurant near me - I have to fight urge to place in the soup tureen! Or ram it where light does not shine in cinema

As for increased risk from crumple zones ... people spend hard earned cash on cars und littlest stone chip can cause such enormous stress to them - so hardly think they will take unnecessary risk to crumple their metal

As for SUVs.... not a town car und not a car I would choose for town work - but my sister ist vet und uses one for her work in very rural area. She needs it as she sometimes has to drive across pasture und grazing fields to get to patient. She has normal saloon for jaunts to towns though. Arrg A three car family with his car, her work car und their town car und we have not got to her play cars - a Capri und a classic MG!

As for necklaced Gatsos - ist proving really that people are not happy with them after all.



But we have evidence that mistakes are made, that the scams are not 100% accurate - per ACCREDITED reports where the people using them und police have admitted there are flaws due to slippage, vibrations und so on. Not to mention clerical errors und staff not loooking at photos properly

Und you cannot possibly claim 70% reduction in KSI at scam sites when collective figure has remained static und the two main scam free zones show decreases or low contant year on year. Per OFFICIAL UND ACCREDITED BY YOUR GOVERNMENT REPORTS!

_________________
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!

Liebchen _ I told you before - I like those little guys Und in any case - our use of them has netted us a three figure sum to date from family - und will be split three was with cancer und lurgy research getting some und we have to send Paul toward fund as he hosts the site anyway!

As for the story of the two incidents involving this family - very relevant as speed cam would not have prevented - but in both cases an astute cop should have done. Panda saw my guy swerve - but was not on ball fast enough to pull him before he reached motorway Ferdl's artic passed a patrol on one of those mounts - he failed to notice it but pulled a speeder at the time - it all came out in inquest.

Lieber IG refers to it as it affected him badly at time Took him too long to get over it - he pulled everything that moved for a long time afterwards..... )

This guy has only coughed up the same old garbage we see on all T2K /pro scam sites und giving some insight into nature of peer reviewed work ist highly relevant to argument as it does not give the credence that this person think it does - und there are other peer reviewed data which do indeed place some supportive conclusions in place.

Also - Pilkington never found in favour of scams but did find the evidence supporting their claims was dubious to say least.

By the way Liebchen - I make a very good friend but am a formidable enemy

_________________
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!

I never said it was perfect. And yes, there is 'static'.

But the opportunity really does exist for anyone to make a valid point, to have it recorded and to have it discussed.

From your list the aspect that I most regret is the tendency to develop ad hominem arguments. I would like to remind posters that ad hominem is banned here.

It is unfortunate the new posters tend to be 'jumped upon' by regulars. Regulars will know that I have tried very hard on occasion to encourage folk with different views to participate in the debate. The virtual absence of a cogent pro camera faction is both remarkable and highly illuminating.

If someone reading this as a lurker (one who reads but does not post) is a camera supporter with arguments to present, then PLEASE join the debate. I promise I'll do my best to make you welcome.

And Richard, if you feel unwelcome I apologise deeply. That's not been my intention.

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

I'm delighted. So let the experts review it.


With all due respect, Paul, (and I make this point with care and in no way intend any moral comparisons), [deleted: illustrative examples] single issue obsessives all take the trouble to look at how their respective areas of interest work. "Taking the trouble" is not, of itself, sufficient grounds for assuming you have authority to decide what is in the public interest.


Immediately prior to inviting visitors to give you money, you advise them that SafeSpeed is under threat of closure. If you are about to close, perhaps it is a signal that you have gone about as far as you can go in selling coals to Newcastle, and need to broaden your appeal by acquiring the respectability of external verification. If you are not about to close, the juxtaposition of the threat and the request for money are a little unfortunate.


Where? To who's satisfaction - yours? To pick one at random, you mention the introduction of crash protection systems as a change which should have improved safety. You make no mention of the phenomenon by which people who believe they are protected by improved crash protection systems adjust their risk taking and crash more, into people who have not yet adopted those protections. Your 'elimination' argument, if that what was intended, is at best selective, sparse and far from positive.


Paul, yesterday you drew my attention to your summary of the thoughts of Professor Mervyn Stone who, you asserted, had confessed his failure to provide a better explanation for one or more of your theories. I then drew your attention to the BBC's account of the exchange in which precisely the opposite view was expressed. You then dismissed the BBC's account (presumably who in your view join the government, independent experts, drivers and public as incompetent) as exhibiting bias, slant and spin.

Given your refusal to invite independent scrutiny, misrepresentation of any scrutiny and commentary that is received, and wholesale denigration of any source that disagrees with you, what possible value do you believe can be attached to your claim about the absence of better explanations than yours for any given phenomenon?


Once you've done so, perhaps you would explain how you feel it is different from a 'flu vaccinations kill people' argument. Perhaps then we can decide whether my criticism is justified. After two specific posts, it is certainly substantiated whether you think so or not.

.
Fantastic. Then you will have no hesitation in taking up Accident Analysis and Preventions offer to review it immediately?

Oh for goodness sake I'm trying to make a serious point here, I'm not being 'scared' away by threats

I've long contended that we seldom get a good debate with someone contesting the SS argument because of the quality and quantity of replies they receive.
The trouble is Wildy, you and yours recount more or less exactly the same lengthy narrative on each occaision. I respectfully ask you now to put yourself in the other persons shoes, go back to your main post ,scroll through it and ask yourself how easy is it to unravel it all and, more importantly, to ascertain which points contribute relevantly to the matter at hand, not just to the case in general.
Furthermore, how many times does anyone actually reply

And collecting for charity is fine and honourable, I try to do my bit as well as my dad and Father-In-Law died of cancer, but everything has its place. One wouldn't expect to see the PM wearing a clowns nose (however fitting it may be ) during the state opening of parliament simply because its in a good cause.

Jump away. I'm a big boy and quite capable of taking care of myself. But thank you for making me welcome.

Richylon,

hows it going?

Now I'm begining to get rather confused, is your issue the lack of peer review? or is it the content / validity of some of Paul's arguements and conclusions? Could it be the fact that you are basically pro camera and Paul is not or are there other underlying preconceptions, prejudices and so on that are coming to the fore here? (we all have them)

May I suggest that you start with a specific issue - say the graph showing Paul's analysis of the 'missing' accident reductions since the introduction of camera enforcement. Post a thread....state your case and let the debate begin. Paul will I'm sure moderate out any white noise and general carping and sniping.

While you're at it maybe fill in a piece on the techincal section stating your academic credentials experience etc.......openness is the key I feel.

Well, thank you for the compliment, but with the best will in the world my views cannot be regarded as comparable with those of a panel of respected Industry Experts. In all rational progress, Appeal to Authority is an important element in persuading others. I don't have any.

It would be less easy to dismiss a panel of respected Industry Experts that finds fault with any of the arguments than it would be to dismiss me. This is the Big Problem with SafeSpeed's 'open review' policy.

And, of course, its big attraction ...

My italics...


But isn't that one of the logical fallacies which you, so rightly, decry?

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

I'm not hiding away here. I frequently travel around the country and give presentations. I throw out challenges to debate the issues. Your 'respected industry experts' are either moving in my direction (e.g. IAM, RAC, RAC Foundation) or they have their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen (e.g. DfT, ACPO, RoSPA (although I did win a debate recently in Wrexham hosted by RoSPA) It's head office in Birmingham that won't listen..)

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

Und what threat would that be Liebchen




Ist relevant because the guy asked how scams cause deterioration of road safety - we see it each day as people overtake in frustration on wrong side of road. We see road rage, tailgating and these are on increase because police have been culled. Manchester papers reported Cheshire ist now down to handful und scam have increased there. So ist very relevant to a point questioning how far the scams have impacted on road safety.

He ask about whether return to good old fashioned policing would be better - und I cited Durham as shiniest example und ist not because of liebster cousin - but based on the stats I see appear on accredited website - so ist relevant!

He claim that scams are saving lives - I say the evidence of 3500 deaths as static non -reducing figure bandied about by his anti-scam lobby does not support this und that if scams cut death by 70% - logically this 3500 figure should reduce in proportion. Also - I quoted Pilkington yet again whose article did not prove the data as being correct und even questioned its reliability but the pro lobby fail to read his conclusion which ist most meaningful bit! Und so it get repeated to drive it home

This und the other articles - all peer reviewed - but my work ist also peer reviewed und whilst I may have one drug hailed as flavour of month at moment as it come to up to licence - am getting hammered over delays in licencing it as well - und have one peer review which criticise my new kitten of a drug in favour of a rival one - und another which kiss my claws! I point out that peer review does not necessarily give bullet proof seal of approval he think und that the official stats have been slated as well by peer reviews as well as praised.

So what exactly would anyone prove here - some will find for und some against same as Prof Rose, Mountain und Pilkington

He has not put forward any point of substance other than to state he only believe something which has appeared in some peer reviewed magazine - but ivory towered academia ....not exactly all it is cracked up to be!


He accuses of not looking at other areas - und this ist precisely the argument - the pro lobby only look at speed und not the rest of it. und we have always said need to training und more cops

Und pointed out site und forum have debated all the other issues at greatest length und pointed out the scam sites offerings are laughable to say least und offer nothing constructive to improve matters.

In short - all our new pal offers ist same old stuff we have already debated at great length on here und elsewhere. Und claims he supports und voted for this government - even claiming to have faith und trust in them. I pointed that their track record on truthfulness ist a bit lacking - und ist thus a valid counter und he made some bizarre reference to flu jabs - unbd they only vaccinate against previous strain und not current. They do not stop current strain invading your body und ist no guarantee you live if "vulnerable in health" either. So in one way similar to blind faith in speed cam - no guarantee you keep alive so in one way - he shot himself an own goaly there So again - valid to explain as do know more about vaccines than most on here - including Mad Doc!

he also questioned the useful gadgets - und suggest they are "naughty". On contrary - very useful tool for all drivers und not really scam detector but general hazard /driver information tool Thus quite in order to comment the counter about it.



I think it would be general improvement in House of Commons if they all wore clown costume We have to date collected almost £400 from our family by the way. Und fined IG!

As for replies - I do not hang in awe stricken jaw dropping adulation of many of your posts or that many others come to that .... 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!

The issue for me is less about being pro- or anti- [insert contentious issue here], although I do have a view on the particular issue of speed cameras. I am, however, very suspicious of anyone who promotes civil disobedience.

Imagine, for a moment, the prospect of a paedophile, or a handgun fanatic, or a National Front member approaching his Single Issue with the enthusiasm with which Paul Smith evidently approaches his. From that Fanatic's perspective, society has simply not yet caught up with his level of enlightenment. Any limits society has chosen to place on his activities are nothing more than the inconvenient consequence of society's ignorance of the Truth. Such limits could be safely ignored and circumvented with impunity until such time as enlightenment prevailed and the restriction was lifted. He might even place adverts (within the law) targeted at other Fanatics encouraging them to push the limits of what society tolerated.

Of course from our perspective, such civil disobedience would be thoroughly objectionable. Before (and certainly not while) the Fanatic was allowed to influence our society, we would subject any claims he made to the highest standards of scrutiny. We would reject any claim to authority by the Fanatic on the basis of some "open review" policy he had organised within his self-selecting group of members, and insist on having his claims verified by people we appointed and trusted. We would be highly suspicious of any criticism the Fanatic levelled at our behaviours. And no matter how right the Fanatic thought he was, we would be highly intolerant of any attempts he made to circumvent any boundaries we had chosen to place on his activities until we were satisfied.

Both the Fanatic's Single Issue, and SafeSpeed's Single Issue are outside the law. From a legal perspective, if you carefully inspect your reactions during this thought experiment, you'll notice that the only difference between fanatic's case, and SafeSpeed's case, is that you probably have a gut feel that one is OK, and the other isn't. However, there are a great many people who have a gut feel that neither is OK (probably either the majority or a larger minority than the one that feels OK). So there is no basis for tolerating any lower set of standards of honesty and accuracy for one than the other.

Of course there is a place for civil disobedience in every democracy. But the standards of honesty and accuracy that anyone who would promote civil disobedience are very high. Those standards are, in my view, not yet being met by SafeSpeed. In operating without meeting those standards, it is acting irresponsibly.

(You are, of course, mature enough to understand that in no way do I make any moral comparison between SafeSpeed and any of the illustrative Single Issues.)

Continuing that analogy, Rich, while some of us have a little joke and giggle when a camera gets derailed by the MAD lot or individual vigilantes, there is nothing on this site that advocates law-breaking. Nothing.