Thanks for your comments Safespeedv2 and sorry to hear what happened to your long time partner
But with "This Challenge area is not generally for individuals but for opposing Media Represented Bodies. Are you such? " are you saying as a member of the public like many in Safe Speed are, I cannot ask you a specific question that I have already asked and which still have not been answered with evidence which is:
What I was referring to was that you posted the same set of questions up on many areas, which is 'bombardment' and usually if one wants respect this is not a good way to get it. So I have confined, *that* question to here. However you may of course ask other questions in other areas of the forum provided that you obey the rules and guidelines of this forum.
Like I say we are happy to debate. I ask for specific questions as this help to deal with one aspect at a time, and so progressive thought can be created.
Do you have evidence that is not connected to you or Safe Speed or similar groups that proves "Speed cameras don't save lives at all. They make the roads more dangerous"?
(See my note below - but this is a BIG and loaded question.)
Yes, one can concur from figures coming out that lives are not being saved but it requires an understanding of the figures to 'see' the truth through the government stats. This is involved and takes time to explain. I know that Paul had been working on some of the latest figures and was putting more evidence together. I have yet to delve into these latest figures. There is clear evidence from earlier figures (on the website) that show these trends of patterns that 'show' (and therefor prove') that cameras do not save lives. Another example is the Hospital figures do not correlate with the Police figures which is bizarre, and these figures show higher casualties. We have deaths at camera sites too. When you start to put all of these and many more points together - the puzzle starts to 'fit' and the true picture emerges. Hence my serious point about reading the website - first
Especially as unlike some, like Safe Speed, thatsnew, tol and odim, I have back up my opinion with evidence like a link to Monash Uni and their studies on speed cameras saving lives.
I do not enter into slanging matches (see slanging match policy of the forum) - this is not the purpose and certainly not with me. You see I see that by you stating this - and checking the posts I cannot 'see' where you 'have' posted the information ? Then you are leaving yourself exposed to potential ridicule.
If you are going to use information - great - show us a link to it as a minimum, or post (if not too big) sections of the relevant (but not out of context) components. Then it can be held against our own data, but before you 'look' at answers from one particular organisation you first have to find out - what questions were hey answering (some are VERY 'loaded' questions) and how long was the research, what area did it cover etc so all these points can be taken into account. Plus even the individual doing the research has to be considered too.
Then you have to look at the camera sites, over what period, data prior to that study period, Regression to the mean - was it considered etc.
Just looking at answers in this day and age is (sadly) only the beginning, not the conclusion. Governments debate about research for years sometimes!
As abuse, lies and ducking and weaving people from the like of thatsnew, tol and odin, because they are scare of the truth, is not providing evidence to their claims, like removing speed cameras lives well be saved or naming vehicles on a web site is against The UK Law.
Now this is just flaming and you again get no respect for it. All you are doing here is slagging off people. You see if you get respect, make a point and then 'debate' the points, even if people disagree this is fine. But your frustration and anger are showing through with the above comments and all that you will achieve is to anger people and if you anger people you will never get their respect. If you loose people's respect then they will NEVER listen to you. And so you will end up never getting people to 'hear' your point because they have already turned you off. Hence the slagging matches, which I will then delete as it is not going to ruin my forums that my partner worked so hard for.
You then add on the insulting comments that they are 'scarred', but this is just plain silly and again wins you no friends or respect. Hence you dig yourself into an ever increasing hole. You get everyone upset and then you get banned.
This is exactly why I have asked you to post here, so that I can explain precisely this to you. Debate does not include slagging matches. We require facts and information, or general driving chat conversations where points are deliberated.
Now do you see what I am driving at ?
Perhaps by asking one point - a SMALL point at a time, whilst the 'conversation' may move more slowly, it establishes the most important fact that the people that you are conversing with, 'get you' and you 'get them' eg you 'understand' each other. By asking very loaded questions, and then answer with even more loaded and in some cases insulting answers all you do is create a slagging match. As this is not tolerated on this forum - you then get upset if you are banned.
We welcome debate.