Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 22:28

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 06:38 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
This split from topic: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5354 because it is another change of subject.

richlyon wrote:
However, web.archive.org is a surprising and rather interesting resource - thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Some of the (now deleted) pages that existed on SafeSpeed make troubling reading. To honour Paul's intention to have them removed, I refrain from linking to them. However, I'm particularly troubled by my inability to reconcile this quote from this thread (my emphasis):

SafeSpeed wrote:
Good grief. Safe Sped does not, nor has ever, advocated or condoned law breaking or civil disobedience. Since you have so little understanding of the campaign, its content and its objectives, you disqualify yourself from commenting on the validity of the underlying analysis.

with information that appears to have been published on SafeSpeed as recently as October 2003. When Paul made this statement, it did cause me to rethink whether I had miscalculated the situation and to soften my argument.

I wonder if Paul would care to clarify now, in the interests of honesty and accuracy, whether SafeSpeed still believes that the present speed camera based road safety policy should be "attacked and undermined at every level", and if the commitment SafeSpeed made to replace information it used to provide directly (such as assuming the identity of dead people to avoid traffic convictions) with links to websites providing such information is still in force?

In those same interests, could he also clarify whether aggregating, publishing and actively updating lists as recently as October 2003 of mechanisms for undermining the speed camera system is consistent with the spirit of the quote given here, or whether it is simply a technical compliance that was intended.

I'm sure this is all old hat for the regulars, so please just treat this as a bit of help for a new member getting up to speed with some context.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Old information
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 07:24 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
richlyon wrote:
However, web.archive.org is a surprising and rather interesting resource - thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Some of the (now deleted) pages that existed on SafeSpeed make troubling reading. To honour Paul's intention to have them removed, I refrain from linking to them. However, I'm particularly troubled by my inability to reconcile this quote from this thread (my emphasis):

SafeSpeed wrote:
Good grief. Safe Sped does not, nor has ever, advocated or condoned law breaking or civil disobedience. Since you have so little understanding of the campaign, its content and its objectives, you disqualify yourself from commenting on the validity of the underlying analysis.

with information that appears to have been published on SafeSpeed as recently as October 2003. When Paul made this statement, it did cause me to rethink whether I had miscalculated the situation and to soften my argument.


Sorry. I don't believe you. I recognise sophistry when I see it.

richlyon wrote:
I wonder if Paul would care to clarify now, in the interests of honesty and accuracy, whether SafeSpeed still believes that the present speed camera based road safety policy should be "attacked and undermined at every level", and if the commitment SafeSpeed made to replace information it used to provide directly (such as assuming the identity of dead people to avoid traffic convictions) with links to websites providing such information is still in force?


Of course speed camera based road safety policy should be undermined and attacked at every level. It's quite clearly deadly. The loss of trend in the fatality rate accounts for around 8,000 unexplained road deaths to date.

The old information was no more or less than a catalogue of techniques that people had used to avoid speed camera fines as reported in press.

It was scheduled for removal in 2002 when Safe Speed was about a year old. See: http://web.archive.org/web/200302020036 ... /main.html which contains:

Due to policy and priority changes some pages (marked in red) will be deleted at the end of the year.

We are operating a serious campaign to improve road safety, and the presence of this information is sometimes used against us in discussions. We still believe that the present speed camera based road safety policy should be attacked and undermined at every level, but we can achieve more by concentrating our efforts on the foundations of policy and policy itself.


richlyon wrote:
In those same interests, could he also clarify whether aggregating, publishing and actively updating lists as recently as October 2003 of mechanisms for undermining the speed camera system is consistent with the spirit of the quote given here, or whether it is simply a technical compliance that was intended.


The information that your purport to be worried about was offered with the following disclaimer:

We do not recommend or condone law breaking. We are not lawyers and the content on this page are simply ideas not recommendations. Our interest in this instance is to collect ideas for research purposes. If you try to use this information you do so entirely at your own risk.

Most of the material on the page was gathered from the BBC and Times newspaper reports. Perhaps you should take your concerns up with them?

richlyon wrote:
I'm sure this is all old hat for the regulars, so please just treat this as a bit of help for a new member getting up to speed with some context.


Either that or you are looking for opportunities to have a go.

I'm neither pleased nor impressed with your approach. At best it's a cheap shot. At worst it's a wilful and deliberate attempt to undermine a serious road safety campaign.

I must have in excess of a million of my words published available around the internet. I'm not surprised that you can find opportunities to take material out of context. I'm not surprised that old material dating from before the time that I carried out the bulk of the Safe Speed research and analysis has a significantly different flavour.

When I started the campaign I knew that speed cameras were a bad idea, because as an advanced motorist with a very wide range of training I knew what I had to do to drive safely - the speedo had no real role to play. But I had absolutely no idea that camera policy was deadly. I thought the worst of it was injustice - needless fines leading to personal hardship, loss of job, that sort of thing.

But every time I turned over a stone - examining part of the government case - I found something nasty. And there were landmark discoveries along the way. This was one: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/tiger.html

If you want to enter a serious discussion about the issues then please do so. I have offered you a link time and time again. You have shown no interest. What would you like me to conclude from your lack of interest?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 12:20 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 10:47
Posts: 37
Folks, I never intended to spawn three different subjects and need to sign off. Sorry.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 16:19 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
We have Cabinet Ministers who are former members of the Communist Party. We have ministers in Northern Ireland who were in the past strong supporters of terrorism, if not actual terrorists themselves.

In comparison with this, a past expression of a sneaking sympathy with people who want to swap licence points rather pales into insignificance.

_________________
"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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 17:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
PeterE wrote:
We have Cabinet Ministers who are former members of the Communist Party. We have ministers in Northern Ireland who were in the past strong supporters of terrorism, if not actual terrorists themselves.

In comparison with this, a past expression of a sneaking sympathy with people who want to swap licence points rather pales into insignificance.


And even if I was a convicted axe murderer that would not affect the validity of the findings. It wouldn't mean that fewer folk were dying of bad road safety policy...

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.391s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]