Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Oct 17, 2018 00:43

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 19:48 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6734
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
SafeSpeed wrote:
I have warned you at least three times about ad hominem. Accordingly consider yourself banned for violating forum rules.

And quite right too :twisted:

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:09 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 09:18
Posts: 181
Well as some of you know I have been on the fence for a long time about SS. However after reading this thread it's clear to me that it's most definately something I do not want to be associated with. Before all your hackels rise, at least look at my points before digging up whatever you can about me, and therefore putting my views into question.

The things raised in this thread are not the only factor, but it does sum up very well what I have thought one of the main problems with SS is.

Theres no actual evidence (or rather summary) verified from a decent other source. I don't care what any of you claim, it's not open.

I'm sure many of you think it is, genuinely, but while it resides here, it's not. This thread is extremely evident of it.

Basically, it's one person at a time, against hordes of other people who claim degrees, qualifications, and whatever else they feel adds weight to their opinion. There are scientists with vastly more qualifications than everyone here on either side of the climbate debate (which has been discussed in your own forum).

No one person can stand up to it, it's simply not possible. And it's not open, since there is no debate, and it's very clear that there isn't. One (perhaps 2) people against many others whom are supporters of such views is not an open debate.

Clearly, anyone whom attempts an opposing view also gets attacked by members. Snide referances, members digging up whatever they can find to discredit them, and that 'ad hominem' term you all so love. Just to make myself very clear here, I understand and appriciate the need for it, but I feel it's been badly misused on this site, and a vast majority are guilty of being hippocrites.

It's the same old story - someone says they disagree, and then it devolves into an argument of statistics and anologies, with claims and examples here and there. And always, always, it breaks down into who is best to review such evidence.

What people dont seem to understand on here is that by being on here (and most of you members or at least regulars), you cannot have a valid say on the evidence. Not as the end voice. Because your supporters. And thus will be seen to have bias. Such is the time and effort many of you spend on here, how can anyone think different?

I know of the other few places that agree with SS, but they are not that many, and to be honest, definatly not the be all or end all of decisive opinions or reviews. And do people not understand? Such third parties are given out by SS to back them up - that's not the way it should be for verification! In addition, very few indeed seem to back the entire view of SS. Many only partially conceed points, not the SS claim as a whole.

My other main issue is the funding. I did ask about this, and had a reply. But upon looking into what SS has been doing....I am afraid I can't see anything.

The website has broken links everywhere, theres no evidence of anything having been done - not that I'm saying there hasn't, but this sort of thing should be obvious when theres a big page about donations.

I'm sure I'm going to come under fire, but if SS is what it claims to be, and still accepts donations, then I think I have a valid point.

My personal view is that SS has it all wrong. It should be mainly about road safety, this massive play on villianising speed cameras, saying that they are responsible for deaths just doesn't do it any good. I'm sure most of you are aware of the view a lot of people have of SS. Ones that will never visit the forum to 'discuss' it.

The average person will simply never know if SS's claims are true. And can never find out. First is that it's claimed all the information is here. And that anyone can understand it.

First off, that's a lie. And I say lie, because everyone knows that many people won't be able to understand the information presented, as it's not a whole, you constantly have to cross referance with other reports.

Second, it's a matter of time. And reviewing all the information given, even just on this site is a mammoth task. And this isn't taking into account looking at other sources and checking this information, which is definatly needed of any research.

And if you question anything, you get given counter arguments by many members. Quite often, as said, this devolves into 'whos the most qualified'. This was especially pointless in this thread, since the original question was why not about if the information was accurate, it was to get it verified by something more publically recognised.

And as correctly pointed out, if the members deem themselves more qualified (which is inevitable, since there are so many, and with all due respect you can claim anything on the internet), then they win any argument.

I myself have looked at a lot of the evidence on display, and still cannot decide. I can come up with many reasons why I don't think it's sound, but I find myself with nowhere to discuss them. Here is most certainly not the place as this thread shows. Anything I say will be blown out the water by people who claim they do whatever, have expirenced whatever, and thus their opinions rule over mine. And who would I be to argue, I simply don't have the time to look into everything everyone will say against me.

SS will make no ground whatsoever. There does need to be some sort of extra verification of it. Because as it stands, it just looks like a personal view with a few like minded followers. That might seem harsh, but that's how many people view SS.

There needs to be so much more done. If there isn't the time/money, then a rethink has to be done. The only thing that seems to exist is the forum at the moment. Oh, and a mention on the BBC which was far more counter productive than good (I can't remember exactly what, but it was reasonably recent).

My personal view of SS's claims is that they are very suspect at best. I don't know if they are wrong - I simply don't have the time (and, if I'm honest, knowlage) to research such a thing fully. I just hope you all realise how unreasonable your being - saying you basically cannot trust any other source to varify it, and yet claiming it's right when your all staunch supports of it.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 13:22 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
I'm puzzled why the last post is appended to a thread not open for at least 4 years.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion including Pratnership. My opinion differs from his.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 00:42 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Pratnership wrote:
And as correctly pointed out, if the members deem themselves more qualified (which is inevitable, since there are so many, and with all due respect you can claim anything on the internet), then they win any argument.


I think that is the nub of the matter. There are any number of self styled experts on the forums - experts on speed cameras, aviation medicine, policing, court procedure, vehicle construction - but non of them are prepared to establish their credentials in the time honoured way. Whilst these 'experts' insist on remaining anonymous it is impossible to give any greater credence to their utterings than one would give to a stranger in a pub.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 09:46 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 09:18
Posts: 181
malcolmw wrote:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion including Pratnership.


Why, am I somehow lower in status than you or others? That's an ad hominem attack in some peoples eyes, even if it is subtle. Either that or you genuinely feel that my opinion isn't worth much for some reason. Either supports what I said previously.


dcbwhaley, going on from your point, with all the time spent on here by said people, plus many of them claiming to do peer reviews themselves, I don't understand why none of them are helping produce something. Although it could also be argued that since they are such strong supporters on here they would be biased. Damned if you do damned if you don't (I do look at all sides). Still, I think something far more productive could come out of time spent rather than just arguing it on the forums.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 09:57 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Pratnership wrote:
malcolmw wrote:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion including Pratnership.


Why, am I somehow lower in status than you or others? That's an ad hominem attack in some peoples eyes, even if it is subtle. Either that or you genuinely feel that my opinion isn't worth much for some reason. Either supports what I said previously.


If you feel that this is an attack on you then you are wrong. The words mean exactly what they say. It is you that is reading some meaning into them which is not present.

If I said "How are you today?" would you think that I was implying that you were ill?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:13 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 09:18
Posts: 181
Malcom, I'm not getting into yet another of these infamous discussions where one person claims one thing and another argues. In my view there was no reason to put that other than to infer what I said before. It's like some silly art of insulting but being able to claim it's not. :roll:

Anyway, I have stated what I think, and maybe advice will be taken, or perhaps it will just be taken as an attack on SS, it matters little to me in all honesty as I only came here to bring to light and change one persons driving. That now has no need (see elsewhere).

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:42 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
I personally have never purported to be any authority on road safety.

But as an old’ish very experienced driver and rider, and notwithstanding all you have said Mr P, what brought me here is what makes me stay.

i.e. Experienced drivers with a life-long impeccable accident-free driving record are being done for speeding.

And so the conclusion I came to is that whether you or I think we are right or wrong one thing I do know – speed cameras and nailing anyone who transgresses over a posted limit is not targeting bad drivers or driving.

I think that simple message alone is clear, concise and above all something which most drivers can understand and relate to who are just an average guy like me going about his or her business without ever hurting anyone and trying to hang on to their licence and livelihood.

The situation is not helped by the fact that all revenue gained is not put back into real road safety measures with increased traffic police and the plethora of other better methods which are more costly to fund than cameras.


Best wishes

Tony

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:48 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
dcbwhaley wrote:
I think that is the nub of the matter. There are any number of self styled experts on the forums - experts on speed cameras, aviation medicine, policing, court procedure, vehicle construction - but non of them are prepared to establish their credentials in the time honoured way. Whilst these 'experts' insist on remaining anonymous it is impossible to give any greater credence to their utterings than one would give to a stranger in a pub.

Appeal To Authority is as great a fallacy as any other. This is a mistake I made when allowing myself to be swayed towards being pro-camera when listening to these so-called authorities (RTTM et al).

I don't care who is who, either the arguments withstand scrutiny or they don't.


I always found it odd that some folks choose to heavily scrutinise this forum/campaign, yet completely disregard the full-time, handsomely paid partnership staff and their claims, even though those claims have been repeatedly proven to be nothing more than fallacies, spin and blatant misrepresentation, and it is their policies based on their claims that are actually in force. Has their work withstood peer-review?

Very inconsistent don't you think?

Pratnership wrote:
Still, I think something far more productive could come out of time spent rather than just arguing it on the forums.

Perhaps if the authorities argued their policies out on 'forums' and were equally scrutinised before enacting them we wouldn't be in this mess.
The point being: it is right to ensure an action is right before it is done.
In the case of this campaign, it is rather unfortunate that circumstances beyond anyone's control came into play.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:03 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 09:18
Posts: 181
Big Tone wrote:
But as an old’ish very experienced driver and rider, and notwithstanding all you have said Mr P, what brought me here is what makes me stay.

i.e. Experienced drivers with a life-long impeccable accident-free driving record are being done for speeding.

And so the conclusion I came to is that whether you or I think we are right or wrong one thing I do know – speed cameras and nailing anyone who transgresses over a posted limit is not targeting bad drivers or driving.

I think that simple message alone is clear, concise and above all something which most drivers can understand and relate to who are just an average guy like me going about his or her business without ever hurting anyone and trying to hang on to their licence and livelihood.

The situation is not helped by the fact that all revenue gained is not put back into real road safety measures with increased traffic police and the plethora of other better methods which are more costly to fund than cameras.


Best wishes

Tony


Unfortunatly, I don't think this is clear at all and one look at the home page pretty much says that. Being honest, it looks ranty, and not something in which proper figures could come out of. I understand time funds etc (sort of - theres members here whom clearly have the knowlage and time, what about the inclination to help?), but I am just saying how it looks.


Don't mistake me for someone whom likes speed cameras though. I don't. But on the flipside, I'd find it hard to sympathise with someone whom has been banned because of it. If I had 2 I'd be driving very carefully indeed (please don't open up silly discussions about carefully and watching the speedo anyone, I mean under the speed limit).

Steve, I can only say you prove my point perfectly - everything you said there is in your opinion. A supporter and contributor (both money and time) towards SS, whom is disregarding other sources whom might disagree with SS's claims.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:20 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Pratnership wrote:
Steve, I can only say you prove my point perfectly - everything you said there is in your opinion.

The confounding factors of RTTM and long-term trends are not opinions; they are proven and real and continually ignored by those whose derive revenue is aided by the disregarding of them. The possibility of other factors such as 'Bias on Selection' isn't opinion either.
Aren’t these alone enough to ring alarm bells of the non-entrenched reader?
Is your post at risk of being somewhat ironic?

Pratnership wrote:
A supporter and contributor (both money and time) towards SS, whom is disregarding other sources whom might disagree with SS's claims.

I have always endeavoured to consider other sources, especially opposing ones, and I can usually find obvious confounding factors within them. By all means show specific examples of where these other opposing sources are being unreasonably dismissed without consideration, folks here will try to address them.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:00 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 09:18
Posts: 181
Indeed Steve. 'Folks here'. To me, that's already been proven to be a fruitless and very likely biased exercise, as I explained before. Besides, I'm not here to give contrary evidence. I have looked at it all and have my own opinions, and also incorperated into that is various other things, like the way members act on this site.

My point is, as was the OPs of this thread, you can't be expected to be taken seriously (and I mean no insult but to me the general view outside of SS is that it's not) if you constantly say other verification sources might scew the self proclaimed results to being wrong. It quite frankly amazes me that people of some intelligence on here don't see that.

So please stop throwing RTTM at me - it's very boring rehtoric and not at all relevant to what I have been saying. RTTM doesn't mean all the claims are correct on it's own, even if it's true. I'm sick and tired of it being used like some silver sword.

I'm sure that your very certain about SS's claims. But then again, I'm sure vastly more qualified and intelligent (no offense meant - we are talking about scientists here) who actually do research into it as their living are on both sides of the climbate argument. With some examples like RTTM. And, as solid as the claim you make about RTTM (I'm using this as an example, theres various other things SS claims). I'm sure you get my point there, in that intelligent people have done research into something they are interested in, and found results that don't compare with others.

You either see my point or don't, and I very much doubt you don't. I imagine you disagree, but then I expect that. Like I said, either people look upon it as advice as to how SS is protrayed, or not.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:40 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 16:34
Posts: 4923
Location: Somewhere between a rock and a hard place
Pratnership wrote:
I'd find it hard to sympathise with someone whom has been banned because of it. If I had 2 I'd be driving very carefully indeed (please don't open up silly discussions about carefully and watching the speedo anyone, I mean under the speed limit).
Well I don't think it would be a silly question to ask if you really think you would be a safer driver under this paranoid, 'mustn't get done again', state of mind.

I maintain that I use a speed appropriate for the conditions and the speedometer indicates 'whatever it does' which at a guess is mainly under, or on, the limit but sometimes over.

My style may not keep my licence clean in future, in fact I'm sure it's only a question of time, but my style has and does keep me and others safe from harm because I am concentrating on the road. What's more, insurance companies all seem to agree with me so what does that tell you? ;)

As for the bigger picture... I think you only have to look at other issues, past and present, to realise that the tide of public opinion never gets through to the thick heads of Government or local council quickly, EVER, especially when it costs them.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.


Last edited by Big Tone on Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:43, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:43 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Pratnership wrote:
My point is, as was the OPs of this thread, you can't be expected to be taken seriously (and I mean no insult but to me the general view outside of SS is that it's not) if you constantly say other verification sources might scew the self proclaimed results to being wrong.

"Might"? What have you been reading?
There's no 'might' about table H7 of the 'The national safety camera programme: Four-year evaluation report'. Yet we still see things like "Are they Working?"

Pratnership wrote:
So please stop throwing RTTM at me

While the SCPs and pro-camera folks continue to make their fallacious claims while disregarding that critical factor, I will continue to raise it.

It is a silver sword (one of several in the armoury), one that is proven and accepted, yet wantonly ignored when convenient.
It is completely relevant. We are talking about evidence, the consideration of said evidence, and perceptions; all I've done is apply it in a different direction to highlight possible inconsistencies with apparent sentiments.

Pratnership wrote:
I'm sure that your very certain about SS's claims. But then again, I'm sure vastly more qualified and intelligent (no offense meant - we are talking about scientists here) who actually do research into it as their living are on both sides of the climbate argument. With some examples like RTTM. And, as solid as the claim you make about RTTM (I'm using this as an example, theres various other things SS claims). I'm sure you get my point there, in that intelligent people have done research into something they are interested in, and found results that don't compare with others.

No one has disputed the three year evaluation of the effects of RTTM, except one group and they failed (opposing sources evaluated, not disregarded).

Pratnership wrote:
You either see my point or don't, and I very much doubt you don't.

I see the point you are trying to make, I just don't see how you can reasonably justify it.
However, I have said there are circumstances that have made maintenance of the site difficult (the broken links, outdated figures, much in the forums instead, etc) and I agree these can give a negative perception. I'm under the impression that this deficiency will be put right quite soon.

AFAIC, the overall thrust of this campaign makes a bloody good point: cameras are nowhere near as great as folks have claimed they are.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 09:18
Posts: 181
Steve, you *just* don't get it do you?

Are you deliberatly being obtuse, or is this just an effort to try and 'win' a discussion on a forum?

I am not going to follow your links, your claims, nothing. I have looked at the claimed evidence on here. I have told you this time and time again.

The OP was right. All this forum does is mire people in with so many responses, so many links, claims and whatnot, that one person simply doesn't have the time to follow it all.

And what happens when they give up and leave? You all claim a win, and make snide comments about them not coming back.

Did you not read what I said about the climbate change example? If scientists who research it as their work claim to have such foolproof data and theories disgaree with one another, why on earth would I trust someone like you? Who is for all intents anon, will not verify any sort of qualifications, and in my view is almost fanatical in support of SS.

I say again, I don't have the time or inclanation to look at your posts in detail, and then do the research to back it up. I have looked at the claims on this site and that's enough. It should speak for itself, yet it doesn't imo.

This you will claim as a win, and yet everyone totally fails to do anything about SS to make it something it should be, if it was legitimate. I see vast amounts of time silencing and berating anyone on here who disagrees with your views, and nothing actually done. I could well be wrong, but there is certainly no obvious evidence to suggest otherwise.
Quote:
AFAIC, the overall thrust of this campaign makes a bloody good point: cameras are nowhere near as great as folks have claimed they are.


Yes, exactly. As far as *you* can see. Theres also many other claims, like they actually cause accidents.

Hows this for an example.

I go on a pro climbate change website, slightly sceptical. I challenge such and such claim, or evidence. The members of this pro forum provide me with lots of evidence, theories and arguments for this. It looks very convincing.

Now, what's the betting I'd get exactly the same going onto an anti forum?

So you try to put the counter arguments against each other, and all you end up with is dismissal of other claims, various bits of sniping, and inevitably, people clamiming this and that qualification, and why it's relevant and proves the point.

I've said my bit. I can't help but feel you'll all say the usual, and of course not forgetting what is said in the clubhouse.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 14:08 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Pratnership wrote:
Steve, you *just* don't get it do you?

Alternatively: I see exactly what is going on here and, for whatever reason, some other won't.

Pratnership wrote:
And what happens when they give up and leave?

This was your first point in the revival of this thread. Saying that within subsequent logic in the way you have is a little bit naughty. :nono:

Pratnership wrote:
Did you not read what I said about the climbate change example? If scientists who research it as their work claim to have such foolproof data and theories disgaree with one another, why on earth would I trust someone like you? Who is for all intents anon, will not verify any sort of qualifications, ...
Pratnership previously wrote:
And always, always, it breaks down into who is best to review such evidence.

:roll:

Pratnership wrote:
I could well be wrong, but there is certainly no obvious evidence to suggest otherwise.

It seems you wouldn't even look into it if it was given - again!

Pratnership wrote:
Quote:
AFAIC, the overall thrust of this campaign makes a bloody good point: cameras are nowhere near as great as folks have claimed they are.

Yes, exactly. As far as *you* can see. Theres also many other claims, like they actually cause accidents.

You have misunderstood. The opinion was about the campaign's point; the false claim of effectiveness is factual and correct. The rest you added yourself, it going beyond the boundaries of my own rebuttal.

You say "No one person can stand up to it", yet Paul Smith managed exactly that against the might of 43 SCPs et al with their comparatively unlimited resource. Of course I'm not expecting you or anyone else to expend the same effort as he did, but then again what we're talking about here isn't exactly to the same scale.

You're here to claim "opinions ... no actual evidence ... not open", etc; I give you the critical evidence and logical follow through; then you say you won't follow/read them... :?

Like I already said, I don't see how you can reasonably justify your opinion, especially when the opposing side has a great deal more to answer for.
My fears about consistency of sentiment are becoming increasingly apparent.
I did take your point about presentation, but you've not given adequate reasoning/evidence for anything else.

I think we've entered into a circular argument.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 14:33 
Offline
User

Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 09:18
Posts: 181
Quote:
Alternatively: I see exactly what is going on here and, for whatever reason, some other won't


That doesn't make sense.

Quote:
This was your first point in the revival of this thread. Saying that within subsequent logic in the way you have is a little bit naughty


Don't understand. I am hazarding a guess that it's deliberatly worded badly.

Also don't understand your smiley - slightly bad attempt at mocking a point.

Quote:
It seems you wouldn't even look into it if it was given - again


Err, no. And why should I? Because I can't trust you, and you put your own slant on things:
Quote:
We are talking about evidence, the consideration of said evidence, and perceptions; all I've done is apply it in a different direction to highlight possible inconsistencies with apparent sentiments.
My italics to highlight my point earlier about someone whom is...dedicated...to a cause putting their own spin on it.

Quote:
You have misunderstood. The opinion was about the campaign's point; the false claim of effectiveness is factual and correct. The rest you added yourself, it going beyond the boundaries of my own rebuttal.
No I haven't, your twisting it. 'False claim of effectiveness'? Oh come on Steve. You actually mean to say - SS's claims about speed cameras are right. Please don't do pointless word fencing. The rest I added, as you very well know, is entirely relevant. SS's claims, among them is that speed cameras cause accidents, was one example.

Quote:
You say "No one person can stand up to it", yet Paul Smith managed exactly that against the might of 43 SCPs et al with their comparatively unlimited resource. Of course I'm not expecting you or anyone else to expend the same effort as he did, but then again what we're talking about here isn't exactly to the same scale


You say it like it's been proven, that's my point, it hasn't! Only in peoples minds here. I'm not saying it is or isn't true, but this goes back to the verification I (and the OP) was on about.
Quote:
You're here to claim "opinions ... no actual evidence ... not open", etc; I give you the critical evidence and logical follow through; then you say you won't follow/read them...


Quoting out of context Steve...that's unlike you. Especially since you have blasted others for it.

Where have I said theres no actual evidence? Yes, I do claim it's not open, for the reasons I said before.And yet you *still* want to discuss it on this forum for goodness sake.

Quote:
Like I already said, I don't see how you can reasonably justify your opinion, especially when the opposing side has a great deal more to answer for.
My fears about consistency of sentiment are becoming increasingly apparent.
I did take your point about presentation, but you've not given adequate reasoning/evidence for anything else.



Well you wouldn't, since it's very clear you put huge amount of effort into discrediting anything opposing SS. I've given more than good reasoning, yet the fact of the matter is you continue to debate it on here as though it's an open and fair platform. By it's very nature, it cannot be due to the nature of the members all being supporters.

It's my personal opinion your very aware of all this, but continue to bog it down in discussion and revert to links with 'evidence' in them when that's clearly not the crux of the discussion. You don't understand that with your eventual 'win' (when I run out of time and or inclanation to reply), people will still see this and notice it's on SS forums, not discussed somewhere else where such devoted members reside.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 16:48 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Pratnership wrote:
Quote:
This was your first point in the revival of this thread. Saying that within subsequent logic in the way you have is a little bit naughty

Don't understand. I am hazarding a guess that it's deliberatly worded badly.

That’s right, everything you don’t understand is deliberately done so you don’t understand it. :roll:
Other people would have instead asked for a clarification.
To explain the point: the first thing you said implied you were not remaining here. To later on use your leaving as "your eventual 'win'" is disingenuous logic. The argument follows as ‘we were always going to interpret as a win even though you were leaving anyway’.

Pratnership wrote:
Quote:
It seems you wouldn't even look into it if it was given - again

you’ve concluded that I misrepresent these things Err, no. And why should I? Because I can't trust you, and you put your own slant on things:

So you’ve concluded that I misrepresent (put my own slant) these things even though you haven’t actually checked, and you won’t check because you’ve concluded that I misrepresent these things. OK!

Pratnership wrote:
My italics to highlight my point earlier about someone whom is...dedicated...to a cause putting their own spin on it.

I may well be (RTTM needs no spin, that work is done and constantly ignored by the SCPs), but who is the more invested: someone anonymous who isn’t paid and gets no benefit, or someone who has a tangible ego, and income, to protect?
So all else equal, whose "spin" do you think is going to be larger?

Yet again, we have folks who choose to so strongly look at only one side (but not the given evidence apparently) but thus far has still not even acknowledged there is a second side to the coin.

Pratnership wrote:
Quote:
You have misunderstood. The opinion was about the campaign's point; the false claim of effectiveness is factual and correct. The rest you added yourself, it going beyond the boundaries of my own rebuttal.

No I haven't, your twisting it. 'False claim of effectiveness'? Oh come on Steve. You actually mean to say - SS's claims about speed cameras are right.

I clearly implied that SafeSpeed is correct in saying the claim surrounding effectiveness of speed cameras are wrong; I went no further (only you did). Can you really not see or understand this difference?

Pratnership wrote:
You say it like it's been proven, that's my point, it hasn't! Only in peoples minds here.

And the report I stated? That isn’t proven at all is it! Oh that’s right, you don’t want to look into that!!

You see, for you this will always remain within the realm of mere opinion because you don’t want to check the given facts. Until you want to follow the arguments (as poorly presented as they may or may not be) you will always be the winner In your mind. I believe that’s called bias confirmation, perhaps resulting from a little cognitive dissonance.

Pratnership wrote:
Quote:
You're here to claim "opinions ... no actual evidence ... not open", etc; I give you the critical evidence and logical follow through; then you say you won't follow/read them...


Quoting out of context Steve...that's unlike you. Especially since you have blasted others for it.

Where have I said theres no actual evidence?

10:09:34 - 8th Apr 10
I don’t believe those were out of context; it is very clear what your context and point is.

Pratnership wrote:
Well you wouldn't, since it's very clear you put huge amount of effort into discrediting anything opposing SS. I've given more than good reasoning,

Oh really? Can you point to this "beyond reasoning" argument/claim? Your reasoning doesn’t even withstand scrutiny - how can it when you won’t even follow an example of argument that refutes yours?
Why do you assume my efforts are "huge"? Do my posts need considerably more effort than yours?
Why should I "discredit" (interesting choice of word) when I only need to invalidate?
Do I always discredit instead of invalidate? If so, can you prove this?

Pratnership wrote:
yet the fact of the matter is you continue to debate it on here as though it's an open and fair platform. By it's very nature, it cannot be due to the nature of the members all being supporters.

Please can you explain that, it doesn’t make sense to me.
There are many regulars who don’t exactly agree with everything about the campaign/arguments; they seem to manage.
It takes just one voice with the wind of proper understanding to bring a house of cards crashing down (Galileo/Geocentric model).
It’s no surprise that the majority of folks here are strong supporters, we’re actually happy to evaluate the evidence.

Pratnership wrote:
You don't understand that with your eventual 'win' (when I run out of time and or inclanation to reply), people will still see this and notice it's on SS forums, not discussed somewhere else where such devoted members reside.

I've visited other forums. There are others that are truly closed, from the heavily moderated, post removal, posts needing pre-approval, right up to selective membership limited to those who can show they are agreers (Stanley Hill is one example from memory).


Perhaps it would have been much more constructive to have suggested a way to make the campaign more to your liking, or asking why it is the way it is, instead of trying to burn bridges in the way you obviously are.
Like I already agreed, parts of the site really do need updating, but that's not a reason for such contempt.



Regardless of how you see this campaign, I can assume you view SCPs with far greater distrust – would that be correct?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 20:40 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7354
Location: Highlands
Pratnership wrote:
Well as some of you know I have been on the fence for a long time about SS. However after reading this thread it's clear to me that it's most definately something I do not want to be associated with. Before all your hackels rise, at least look at my points before digging up whatever you can about me, and therefore putting my views into question.
You are free to express your views. We will of course defend anything we / I see as mis-understood or wrong. You have a right to your opinion of course.
Pratnership wrote:
Theres no actual evidence (or rather summary) verified from a decent other source. I don't care what any of you claim, it's not open. ............... No one person can stand up to it, it's simply not possible. And it's not open, since there is no debate, and it's very clear that there isn't. One (perhaps 2) people against many others whom are supporters of such views is not an open debate.
I do not see that, can you point to an example/s. We have many threads where many website topics have been discussed in depth and although I fully appreciate that understandably the vast majority of people here are supporters with fairly similar views, we have always welcomed opposing views and everything inbetween.
Pratnership wrote:
Clearly, anyone whom attempts an opposing view also gets attacked by members. Snide referances, members digging up whatever they can find to discredit them, and that 'ad hominem' term you all so love.....
It's the same old story - someone says they disagree, and then it devolves into an argument of statistics ....
I think we try to have a good balanced allowance for individual expression and retain topic conversation. If a thread is going too much one way or another then let any Mod/ Admin know and we can look in to it immediately.
Pratnership wrote:
What people dont seem to understand on here is that by being on here (and most of you members or at least regulars), you cannot have a valid say on the evidence. Not as the end voice. Because your supporters. And thus will be seen to have bias. Such is the time and effort many of you spend on here, how can anyone think different?
Everyone is invited to comment on every aspect of the website and anything else they care to ask. :D
Pratnership wrote:
I know of the other few places that agree with SS, but they are not that many, and to be honest, definatly not the be all or end all of decisive opinions or reviews. And do people not understand? Such third parties are given out by SS to back them up - that's not the way it should be for verification! In addition, very few indeed seem to back the entire view of SS. Many only partially conceed points, not the SS claim as a whole.
- no one knows HOW many people agree with us ! Unless a poll of the whole Country was accomplished - frankly! I would welcome a National open debate. :) How do you see how the verification 'should be'? I fail to see how any independent 3rd party is anything but a good thing? Sometimes the best plans can have prohibitive costs. many people Only have the time don't forget to verify a single point - that is fine and correct.
Pratnership wrote:
My other main issue is the funding. I did ask about this, and had a reply. But upon looking into what SS has been doing....I am afraid I can't see anything. ...The website has broken links everywhere, theres no evidence of anything having been done - not that I'm saying there hasn't, but this sort of thing should be obvious when theres a big page about donations.

Not actually aware that the donation page is any bigger than many of the others. I do agree that there is a great need and urgency to update the links - sadly I recall Paul being really upset that the dft had changed their website and that instantly made every link fail. I agree this needs updating but in the massive task that I undertook after Paul died, it is still in the to do list. :( There are many things to pay for when you run a Campaign like this ... The maintenance, the time & costs that it takes to run the site and forum. The development of the Campaign and so on ... There is much that goes on behind the scenes, and the donations help towards those costs. Paul used to pay for Political Press promotion but I had had to stop that, as there is just not enough to pay for it ... but there is little to show for that anywhere on the site.
The many contacts that I have to keep up with politicians, and others all over the Country and then there is the Press and the day to day running of the Campaign.
There is often little allowance of personal grief in any business, and it does not matter how much we can all try to sweep it under the carpet, it does have a negative effct one's ability to perform - of course. I am slowly doing more and more, and see much more happening before long too. :) You obviously (by saying this) have no concept of the task that I took on after Paul died, but also it shows that you care and I thank you for that.
Pratnership wrote:
My personal view is that SS has it all wrong. It should be mainly about road safety, ....

We are entirely about Road Safety, cameras are not about intelligent or genuine road safety in our opinion. How do you mean please?
Pratnership wrote:
The average person will simply never know if SS's claims are true. And can never find out. First is that it's claimed all the information is here. And that anyone can understand it.
First off, that's a lie. And I say lie, because everyone knows that many people won't be able to understand the information presented, as it's not a whole, you constantly have to cross referance with other reports.
I am not sure that the 'average person' ever understand most of what Politicians rule and decide on / upon. Most people do not have the time and money to fully research political decisions - that is what we pay the politicians, and trust them, to do. Because so many 'average people' have become involved with this flawed policy, they are having to look into it as it seems unfair and unjust.
....It is not for us to dumb down facts and figures but to help explain the information supplied. IF you have ANY problem understanding anything, please just ASK - I will be more than happy to go through it in detail - always have been, always will. But I will not reduce facts and figures for the convenience of presenting a 'dumbed down version', that in itself is IMHO insulting to the public as a whole. I'd rather educate and guide by explaining and imparting knowledge. That is not to say, that we will not change anything, far from it, if something that is shown to be unclear or confusing, and can be improved, with the use of additional material or information - then we will of course take this action.
I think you must withdraw your lie accusation, there is no LIE.
Pratnership wrote:
Second, it's a matter of time. And reviewing all the information given, even just on this site is a mammoth task. And this isn't taking into account looking at other sources and checking this information, which is definatly needed of any research.

.... which goes to show by your own admission, how involved and how detailed the site is and how much work has gone into it, to try and help everyone understand every aspect and how it relates and dovetails into every aspect. It also shows the care and depth of research that has been undertaken. Surely you cannot criticise too much research ?
Pratnership wrote:
And if you question anything, you get given counter arguments by many members. Quite often, as said, this devolves into 'whos the most qualified'. This was especially pointless in this thread, since the original question was why not about if the information was accurate, it was to get it verified by something more publically recognised.

.... it IS an open forum - if you wish to hold a private discussion with a few members only, I will be delighted to consider this.
I'd rather concentrate on moving forward than debate past issues.
Reviews are a massive 'time suck' and so any other developments fall by the wayside as the review is worked on. Safe Speed has always been tight on funds and so to put aside active Campaigning, in favour of presenting the materials that are already, in the public domain and published already, and what for - so that a few Universities or College professors can debate an issue? They can at any time study the website and ask any question they so wish ... so it was decided the loss of Campaign, against peer Review did not stack up as a valid best productive output. Don't get me wrong a peer review is nice, but is it cost effective, no. Would it gain respect yes, but how much more than is already in existence - perhaps only a little more in the real world.
Pratnership wrote:
And as correctly pointed out, if the members deem themselves more qualified (which is inevitable, since there are so many, and with all due respect you can claim anything on the internet), then they win any argument.

...Counter arguments can be hard to win when faced with so much in depth understanding and considered analyst from many thought processes. Debating can sometimes leave one's pen short of ability, by true phrase, intention or meaning. This is where the forum medium can let many down, where a face to face meeting might not.
I will be south soon and would be delighted to collate some members and sit with you and others, to see if we can discuss this more directly point by point, perhaps that will help? I welcome new venues and opportunities to spread the word, and to help people understand our viewpoint. By debating we hone our skills too, and verify that all our facts are accurate and correct, and, soon I hope and expect, much more up to date.
Pratnership wrote:
I myself have looked at a lot of the evidence on display, and still cannot decide. I can come up with many reasons why I don't think it's sound, but I find myself with nowhere to discuss them. ...

... fair enough ... OK then let's debate those reasons, I am / we are happy to discuss the points and issues that you have as a concern.
I am sorry that you can see nowhere to discuss them. Do send me a PM or reply with what you would like to see. I was unaware that there is an area/s lacking in subject ... I am always happy to consider and expand ... I try to always keep things fair and on an even playing field, if I or any Mods are failing in that, then please address those issues to me and I will check. Anyone (attacking any other poster) producing Ad hominem will be warned or banned etc - our rules are clear.
Pratnership wrote:
SS will make no ground whatsoever. There does need to be some sort of extra verification of it. Because as it stands, it just looks like a personal view with a few like minded followers. That might seem harsh, but that's how many people view SS.

... maybe some, but I can assure you Safe Speed has a very, very good name for itself and is very well respected. A while back I approved and authorised a whole section of the website to a University for their use on a course and in a report. There are people outside that recommend many sections of the website - it is my failing if that does not come across - I do know full well, that I need to update and launch the new website and so on, and much of this is in development.
I am pleased to see, and thank you for caring so much, that you are taking the trouble to tell us, and making us fully aware of your serious concerns, and I take them on board.
Pratnership wrote:
There needs to be so much more done. If there isn't the time/money, then a rethink has to be done. The only thing that seems to exist is the forum at the moment. Oh, and a mention on the BBC which was far more counter productive than good (I can't remember exactly what, but it was reasonably recent).

... sadly like most things there are not enough hours in the day - I can tell you that I do see much more happening in the future for Safe Speed. I am personally very frustrated that I have not achieved more ... I see many many things that I wish to do. I am always grateful to receive support and ideas, perhaps you would like to impart some of your ideas on how you view this may happen?
Humm I am unaware of any negative BBC mention - care to enlighten me ? Do you recall what program and when ? The BBC are normally very fair towards us and check before anything goes on air - what did you hear ?
Pratnership wrote:
My personal view of SS's claims is that they are very suspect at best. I don't know if they are wrong - I simply don't have the time (and, if I'm honest, knowlage) to research such a thing fully. I just hope you all realise how unreasonable your being - saying you basically cannot trust any other source to varify it, and yet claiming it's right when your all staunch supports of it.

.. Of course, you are quite justified in your stand point. I am not here to persuade every person who visits the forums, I just try to explain our stand point, there is no pressure or propaganda, not hidden agenda or necessity to 'join us'. It is our hope that you will understand and appreciate out valid concerns and glean much more knowledge on this topic, and then make a much better, and well informed decision. We appreciate that this may take time, but we are hear to listen too.
You clearly appreciate the extensive knowledge that we have gone to, to make our case. Dr Linda Mountain and others have verified our findings don't forget. I agree that this needs to be presented more clearly.
I guess as one radio listener stated (approximately) 'I wholeheartedly agree with that lady (myself who had just spoken) and I assume she has her facts straight, but I totally disagree with cameras they are there to just make money'. (BBC Radio Oxford caller to the show.)
I will try to address your other concerns ... soon.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 20:52 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7354
Location: Highlands
Pratnership wrote:
...So please stop throwing RTTM at me - it's very boring rehtoric and not at all relevant to what I have been saying. RTTM doesn't mean all the claims are correct on it's own, even if it's true. I'm sick and tired of it being used like some silver sword.
I'm sure that your very certain about SS's claims. But then again, I'm sure vastly more qualified and intelligent (no offense meant - we are talking about scientists here) who actually do research into it as their living are on both sides of the climbate argument. With some examples like RTTM. And, as solid as the claim you make about RTTM (I'm using this as an example, theres various other things SS claims). I'm sure you get my point there, in that intelligent people have done research into something they are interested in, and found results that don't compare with others.
When we have looked at the facts and figures we can see clearly errors and problems with the research - it can miss important and sometimes crucial points. RTTM has been shown independently by Dr Linda Mountain not to have been included in the figures. So if that matters to you then it cannot and must not be dismissed. An impartial authority just trying to produce a good job, for road safety, should care seriously about this grave error ad error it is. This needs to be addressed as it has such a great bearing on the figures, yet people still fail to alter there figures to suit ! That makes me question their true aim. Hence why we are so concerned and why we mention it 'so' much.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.297s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]