Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 03:18

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 19:35 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
fixitsan wrote:
A agree that guidance through instruction will assist, but how do you convey in a couple of lessons the criteria for driving safely above the limit ?


How do you convey in a couple of lessons the criteria for driving safely at all?

Answer - you can't. The speed limit has absolutely nothing to do with it.

_________________
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 Oct 29, 2007 23:02 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
fixitsan wrote:
Mad Moggie wrote:
By the way fixit .. EU now doing much better than we are in the reducing KSI stats. They have fewer cams on aggregate but more police presence.


Better at reducing which stats ? Do you mean the rate of improvement stat which cannot be used a as a reliable pointer towards the current figure, or the actual number of deaths per billion km's ?




I would even say better training - even though both France and Germany increased the probationary period to three years and will ban automatically - any new driver who tailgates. They do have harsher penalties for tailgating overall and we've noticed even less of it over there recently.

I would be happy to seestiffer penalties here to for people who play follow my leader








Young drivers? Said before .. we need to cease treading on eggshells lest we "upset our young and remove them from this pedestal we appear to place them on! "

Firm discipline from the start seems to work well.. but since we removed various disciplinary measures from the schools because of what seems to be a morbid fear of "allowing children to fail in anything even though they have no aptitude for acquiring certain skills and we lead them to believe they are more competent than actual capability as a result" - we end up undermining progress and our own safety as a result. :roll:


We can't expect to go back unfortunately. The new era is coming and brings with it the premise that children can grow to be what they want to be in terms of attitude towards the world. As long as they are financially active that will be good enough. Hence why we now see the statistics from government which do not call people unemployed, anymore, but 'not financially active'. There is an organisation called Common Purpose which is bringing in the first waves of 'new leaders'. Being a criminal isn't a bad thing in their organisation. Police chiefs have even made contributions towards their charity with public money. If Safespeed is registered as a charity could they hope for a contribution from the police too, I wonder ?



If I judged any of our kids incompetent . then I would not be paying for any driving lessons until certain they are mature enough to be on the road. That goes for unsupervised errands on foot and on their bikes. I call it parenting. I teach them road sense, morals, ethics and pray they have some common sense too - and if I judge them competent.. then I allow some independence according to their level of maturity. :wink:


You won't ever see tehir kids for their true abililty, that's just an unfortunate fact. Your mind still holds memories of the hopes and esteemed ambitions you held for them until they became old enoguh to hold them, and they then picked their own instead. It's good to teach them values, I won't disagree because that's something which I think we have got to maintain due to it's proven track record.

It's possibly easier to remember what to do if you rememebr the old saying , that, a boy becomes a man two years after he thinks he does and three years before his parents think he does




But we seem as a society to be drifting away from such responsibilites - even to making excuses for young men making suicidal flights from policemen these days. :roll:


Well I do think that part of the problem there is to do with the fact that they sometimes only end up doing it to make themselves feel good about themselves particularl when their mates are watching. Thisis often because they have never had anything to feel good about themselves for in the past (but not always). This might just be the reason why schools now don't insist on dictating a life direction to the students but just attempt to make them feel good about themselves now for who they are as young people in the hope that they wil not feel the need to reinforce their self image at a later date.



Ach.. we foster all sorts.. from the child carer needing a much needed break to the child released from a Young Offenders' at other side of spectrum.

For all the children in this household at any one time.. whether they be fruits of our marriage or adopted or fostered.. we motivate.. encourage.. hopefully steer towards decency und morality und set of ethics.

I think Wayne a success story of sorts. He one wild boy when he came to us. I was worried. Mad Doc had some scary moments. He was one handful to be honest. We think we failing badly at one point.. especially whe we deliver him to school .. he bunk off. we end up almost getting done for his truancy at the time :rolll: It why I end up changing my work hours. To deliver him into school und then sit at other entrance to pick him up on his way out.

Our own kids help. Introduced him to their pals. Peer pressure. The RIGHT peer pressure would seem to influence. We have a decent plumber to call on now :wink:

But I think it case of careful nurturing. Making them feel capable but at same time not deceiving them as to ability. Deceit does not help either :wink:

There also saying . show me 7 year old .. I show you the adult in making.

It case of recognising flaws here und working on correcting then :roll: Und it NOT easy.. as we find out with the fosters we have here. Mind you . we have one who so honest. He so right. I trust this boy's sense of what I look sassy in. He only little too. But he so direct. He has a little problem. It OK. He one darling of a child. I really like him. He has aspergers. He one pedant.

_________________
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
!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:44 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
fixitsan wrote:
Quote:
Lives saved by cameras = drivers passing cameras – drivers who died


If I could just point out the impossible logic that because I don't hold an argument against cameras to the same extent as others that I am somehow in favour of them.


I think the logic is quite clear.

I believe you are correct in the sense that it is not a simple polarised argument. I am no more against cameras than I am guns for instance, it is where and how they are used that I object to along with the poor road safety policies which support them.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:47 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
fixitsan wrote:
[...]It's something you can know for yourself from experience, but, simply because it came from experience means that you cannot teach it to another doesn't it ?[...]
Absolutely not! If I'm experienced in a certain field, I can then teach others those skills I have learned. They then further & hone their skills based on their experiences...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 16:47 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
BottyBurp wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
[...]It's something you can know for yourself from experience, but, simply because it came from experience means that you cannot teach it to another doesn't it ?[...]
Absolutely not! If I'm experienced in a certain field, I can then teach others those skills I have learned. They then further & hone their skills based on their experiences...


I would like to think that in doing so you don't lead the people you teach into the same mistakes you had to deal with ? I understand what you'[re saying but suggest you are not passing on experience, the sort of deep experience you gain only when under pressure and on your own. This is why I think spurious 'education is the answer' without a discussion about the type of education and it's suitability is a false start.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 16:54 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
botach wrote:
Fixit????????


MM & I were talking about the reduction in reduction in road safety brought about by the fixation of "road safety 'experts'" in speed reduction versus the old tried and proven method of sorting the sheep from the goats.


What you're talking about, the 'reduction in reduction' is the same slowing of the rate of improvement we have already discussed. As i've said on that subject already I believe it is the result of a good road safety policy, reflected in the way that the number of miles travelled and the number of cars increases year on year but yet improvements are still made, or, not lost year after year

Them BOOM - you throw in the idea of a learner driver. FYI I believe that learners should be treated as cows in some foreign country and treated with the greatest of respect( because sometimes their actions are beyond belief as possibly all of ours were at some time ), shown the utmost in courtesy (in the hope that some day it may rub off) and
generally shied clear off (so as not to frighten them)
I would hope that whilst driving your thoughts and attention do not hop about as much as on here unless of course you're on of the accidents i see daily going somewhere to happen . .



Your consideration of my wellbeing is noted, but the thread title is improving road safety, and education has been mentioned by others before me, so lets assume we are able to educate learners well, we are also able to talk about them. I'm surprised you can't see that talking about improving driving standards and road safety through education would mean that you can't mention learners !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 17:00 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
smeggy wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
smeggy wrote:
My what a change of emphasis that was!
I can only assume that your original concern has been addressed, especially as you’ve been given some links.

I gave up waiting to hear if even a single person was willing to provide me with practical ways to reduce the accident rate. But I am not surprised by this, we don't actually have a road safety problem in the first place

No you were not. How disingenuous of you!
Further, I have explained many times how your interpretation of the trends are flawed. Your continuation to stand by your interpretation, coupled with your lack of addressing my posts addressing the flaws of your interpretation, mark you as a disingenuous poster. It appears Paul assessment of you was indeed on the money.

The rest of your post is just laughable.
- Criminals don’t slow down for unmarked cars. Unmarked cars or otherwise, all police are trained to look for tell-tale signs.
- Police can and do pull drivers for dangerous driving (there’s your quality management).
- Logical reasoning is not simply ‘guesswork’.
- You completely sidestepped the point I was making about the use of the speed cameras local to me (road layout engineering).
- The recent tragic case which you conveniently cherry picked disregarding the obvious notion that it’s an under-representation. Besides, who said those children didn’t look?
- If speed cameras stimulate it is for the wrong reason – they are a distraction.
- There’s more misrepresentation with your final quote – who said there was a study?

Why on earth I should take you seriously? I’m not going to format my response for your convenience, I’ve wasted enough time composing this post.




Indeed, why should I listen to your specific comments about a speed camera I cannot see, in an area I don't know. If you have a problem with that particular camera, then it is disingenious of you to expect to be able to comment on that is it not ?

I wonder if your expectations are somehwere above the clouds.

I haven't tried to ram any ideas down anybody's throat, if you take everything seriously that's your right and your choice, but I feel like keeping perspective from time to time.
I know we won't see any widespread removal of speed cameras, it's one of those things you just get a feel for. If the removal of speed cameras on the grounds that they are profit making devices is succesful where does that leave parking meters , which are a most obvious profit making device ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 17:25 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
fixitsan wrote:
BottyBurp wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
[...]It's something you can know for yourself from experience, but, simply because it came from experience means that you cannot teach it to another doesn't it ?[...]
Absolutely not! If I'm experienced in a certain field, I can then teach others those skills I have learned. They then further & hone their skills based on their experiences...


I would like to think that in doing so you don't lead the people you teach into the same mistakes you had to deal with ? I understand what you'[re saying but suggest you are not passing on experience, the sort of deep experience you gain only when under pressure and on your own. This is why I think spurious 'education is the answer' without a discussion about the type of education and it's suitability is a false start.

Correct. Using my experience, I can teach people to avoid making the same mistakes I made. And yes, I'm not passing on 'experience' but the lessons learned through my experience. It is then up to the candidate to further refine and enhance those skills through their experience. And to that end, this is why I think that education is, in fact, the answer.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 01:21 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
BottyBurp wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
BottyBurp wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
[...]It's something you can know for yourself from experience, but, simply because it came from experience means that you cannot teach it to another doesn't it ?[...]
Absolutely not! If I'm experienced in a certain field, I can then teach others those skills I have learned. They then further & hone their skills based on their experiences...


I would like to think that in doing so you don't lead the people you teach into the same mistakes you had to deal with ? I understand what you'[re saying but suggest you are not passing on experience, the sort of deep experience you gain only when under pressure and on your own. This is why I think spurious 'education is the answer' without a discussion about the type of education and it's suitability is a false start.

Correct. Using my experience, I can teach people to avoid making the same mistakes I made. And yes, I'm not passing on 'experience' but the lessons learned through my experience. It is then up to the candidate to further refine and enhance those skills through their experience. And to that end, this is why I think that education is, in fact, the answer.


That's great.
Now, where to start ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 22:08 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
fixitsan wrote:
Indeed, why should I listen to your specific comments about a speed camera I cannot see, in an area I don't know. If you have a problem with that particular camera, then it is disingenious of you to expect to be able to comment on that is it not ?

From your reply it seems you don’t know what that means; you can’t even spell it (not reading into that, merely just pointing out the humorous irony).
Let’s not forget the fact you asked for more information regarding the issue – my you back-pedal quickly.

fixitsan wrote:
I wonder if your expectations are somehwere above the clouds.

What became of your ‘defeating ANPR’ idea?

fixitsan wrote:
I haven't tried to ram any ideas down anybody's throat, if you take everything seriously that's your right and your choice, but I feel like keeping perspective from time to time.
I know we won't see any widespread removal of speed cameras, it's one of those things you just get a feel for. If the removal of speed cameras on the grounds that they are profit making devices is succesful where does that leave parking meters , which are a most obvious profit making device ?

Parking meters have not been fraudulently credited with massive KSI reductions and then further rolled out on that basis.

I personally have never seriously entertained the notion that speed cameras are any form of underhand profit machine (except for the staff themselves); afterall ‘Simon Colwell pays more in income tax’.

Sure we might not see any widespread removal of cameras, should that stop us from trying? Besides, Paul can always take comfort in knowing he has prevented an even larger rollout (the moratorium). I truly believe there would be a great many more cameras if it weren’t for his efforts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 00:10 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Big Tone wrote:
I wish there were a town, a city, a country even, which would regulate all vehicles so that it was physically impossible for anyone to exceed a speed limit in any vehicle anywhere just so that it would finally lay to rest this fallacious simplistic narrow-minded argument that the reason so many people are being Killed or Seriously Injured on our roads is because “Speed Kills”.


Well, in a country not a million miles from here, they went part way towards that by fitting speed limiters to all heavy goods vehicles! True, they wouldn't stop them exceeding any limits other than on the motorways but I think Paul had a graph showing HGV motorway accidents somewhere and although there was an initial dip (IIRC) around the time limiters were introduced, it was very temporary and I think the accident rate for HGVs went up again afterwards as the drivers started "switching off". I can't see any reason why it wouldn't happen with any other kind of vehicle but we're about to find out as smaller trucks and minibuses now need speed limiters! This time, though, they've been a bit "cute" and only introduced them on newer vehicles initially so that we won't see as sharp a change in any graphs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 00:20 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
Um.. we don't have fixed speed cams here.
We have just the one. We move him aroung :lol:

We use gadgets in our fleet. Our fleet are on the road 24/7. Visible .. Marked and even our un-markeds are sussed quicky :roll: We have one cam van. We advertise its location in the local press.

We have a decent KSI record. We are consistently below national average year on year. We have no secret weapon. We use our RPU resources properly. We do have some incidents. Try as we might.. incidents occur - such is perhaps human folly. :roll We could never hope to return a zero KSI /routine prang return ever.

But automatiion? Only as good as its programme. It cannot replace the eyes/ears/tongue/brain/perception/astuteness of your average human being whether MoP or BiB. I accord other folk who are not BiB as just as capable as self when out and about normal business.

But all automation can do is record known data per database . or record a speed per some pre-set programme. It cannot deliver justice and I have been in court in the past - giving evidence against someone whose driving sped was legal.. but whose driving was careless to the point of very dangerous all the same. I want to remove these negligent at any speed people from the road in reality. We do so in this patch. We prosecute statistically more for careless/dangerous than we do for speeding.


Don't take my word for this. Check out our stats. Do DO an FOI on our record on this.

Do not EVER think Durham is SOFT because we don't do speed cams. :wink: I can assure any would-be twazak that this is not the case and they will meet me and my team in court should they ever think so. :popcorn:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 04, 2007 11:00 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
smeggy wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
Indeed, why should I listen to your specific comments about a speed camera I cannot see, in an area I don't know. If you have a problem with that particular camera, then it is disingenious of you to expect to be able to comment on that is it not ?



From your reply it seems you don’t know what that means; you can’t even spell it (not reading into that, merely just pointing out the humorous irony).


There is a greater and more humorous irony which I enjoy...






Let’s not forget the fact you asked for more information regarding the issue – my you back-pedal quickly.


I had only hoped for some information which I could relate to, is that asking too much ? You must believe I can see for myself what you described from what few words you used as, as if it were in front of me. This isn't back -pedalling. I am still interested, but hope you have the sense to see that if you cannot give a reasonably lengthy description covering all the relevant aspects of the situation then you're wasting your own time by giving only a half of a description





fixitsan wrote:
I wonder if your expectations are somehwere above the clouds.

What became of your ‘defeating ANPR’ idea?


In what way do you mean that?
Do you mean have I become rich from it ? No.
Have I made something which defeats ANPRS, yes I have, and it was surprisingly simple. It may not work on all occasions, but it works for many, and my point to making it was to show how pointless it is to use technology for one purpose and adapting it to serve another.

Just like taking the idea of using passive GPS reception to make a secure method to provide the basis of a reliable congestion charging scheme. It is just never going to work.

In 2005 I built a device which could be used to demonstrate the problem with gps based systems. With AutoExpress magazine, who supported what I was trying to show, I got to the point of making a prototype and together with the magazine we were hoping to go to the next step which was to get the then transport minister to take a ride in a car equipped with GM's Onstar gps based telematics system( the most advanced of it's time), and prove to them how simple a gps based system can be fooled.

Unfortunately on July 7th events took a different course for most of us, but I completed a prototype and went ahead and published the design.
Basically you get to report via telematics what your position is anywhere in the world. There are two controls on the box and you use it much like an etch-a-sketch to move your reported position about.

I don't claim to have done anything clever, and that was my point. It is very simple to defeat any system which does not have 100% secure connections between the gps receiver and the reporting device.

Here is a link to the webgroup
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GPSHackin ... d=48099276


As for ANPRS, I have already publisghed the first basic design and it is abotu somewhere, though it does not represent what has been done recently. I am more cautious about releasing those details than I was of releasing info about the GPS system because ANPRS is already used in a legal capacity whereas GPS is not. If it came down to it I would probably publish a detailed report with build instructions.










fixitsan wrote:
I haven't tried to ram any ideas down anybody's throat, if you take everything seriously that's your right and your choice, but I feel like keeping perspective from time to time.
I know we won't see any widespread removal of speed cameras, it's one of those things you just get a feel for. If the removal of speed cameras on the grounds that they are profit making devices is succesful where does that leave parking meters , which are a most obvious profit making device ?

Parking meters have not been fraudulently credited with massive KSI reductions and then further rolled out on that basis.


No, they were just claimed not to be fraudulent at all and were rolled out on that basis alone. I pay road tax for use of the road, part of the fuel duty does that too. I do this for each car I own. The car takes up a certain ammount of room and that room has been paid for. It is merely profiteering to charge me for the space it occupies when it is stationary seperately from the charge I have to pay when it is moving. etc etc.

I think you are being naive in the extreme to think that someone can expose fraudulent KSI 'misinterpretations' in the mainstream media. Paul appears on television as a token voice for the people but he is never really able to put forward the whole case and expose the full problem all in one go, it is piecemeal repoting. It is that way for a reason.

There are really only three 'media giants' in the uk, and they are all friends with the government.

Not wanting to get too far off track, did you notice reports recently of Turkish soldiers moving into Iraq. The Turkish press might have somethign to say abotu that you might think, somebody has been stirring up the dirt. But it would appear that 2 months before then Rupert Murdoch had bought into the largest media distibutorship there as the primary controller, in order to do so he had to take Turkish nationality. Is that only a coincidence ? possibly it is, but he never has had a great interest in Turkish media before now. Veyr few Turkish people are aware of the scale of the intrusion by their troops because mostly the people in the oulying areas can only receive Murdoch broadcasts.

So how does this affect speed cameras ? If there is a governemtn will to keep speed cameras then they shall stay. Any piece of evidence which proves the governemnt wrong either will not be allowed to make it into the media or will be portrayed in a different way if it is allowed through.

And then theres the third clause. When it has been decided that it is time for a government to leave, all of the factual information which has been held back will be released in a trickle to build up the 'our government has lied' feelign and a new government comes into being. But they don't necessarily have to be responsible for previosu governments and certainly the never undo what has been done before in terms of making civil controls of any sort.

It is impossible to separate speed and safety in the eyes of the ordinary media reader and viewer, they just won't make the jump in rationality of thought because their first port of call for truth is the existing media, and every time they see a story of an injured child as a result of someone's excess speed they will assume that anything which contradicts it is wrong because otherwise if it were true then it would be reported in the mainstream media, for sure (!)




I personally have never seriously entertained the notion that speed cameras are any form of underhand profit machine (except for the staff themselves); afterall ‘Simon Colwell pays more in income tax’.

Sure we might not see any widespread removal of cameras, should that stop us from trying? Besides, Paul can always take comfort in knowing he has prevented an even larger rollout (the moratorium). I truly believe there would be a great many more cameras if it weren’t for his efforts.


I don't want to take away other's efforts either, but we are talking about a biased news system, re-iterating government bias to already biased viewers. For a change so large as to make the government do the massive u-turn required to get cameras removed we need the step up to the next level of government, a proper democratic government.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 21:58 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
fixitsan wrote:
I had only hoped for some information which I could relate to, is that asking too much ? You must believe I can see for myself what you described from what few words you used as, as if it were in front of me. This isn't back -pedalling. I am still interested, but hope you have the sense to see that if you cannot give a reasonably lengthy description covering all the relevant aspects of the situation then you're wasting your own time by giving only a half of a description

I’ve explained why I don’t need to give you a lengthy description. That’s why you were given those relevant links – remember?

fixitsan wrote:
In what way do you mean that?
Do you mean have I become rich from it ? No.
Have I made something which defeats ANPRS, yes I have,

Really? I sincerely doubt that. As I said in that other thread,

fixitsan wrote:
smeggy wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
I know we won't see any widespread removal of speed cameras, it's one of those things you just get a feel for. If the removal of speed cameras on the grounds that they are profit making devices is succesful where does that leave parking meters , which are a most obvious profit making device ?

Parking meters have not been fraudulently credited with massive KSI reductions and then further rolled out on that basis.

No, they were just claimed not to be fraudulent at all and were rolled out on that basis alone. I pay road tax for use of the road, part of the fuel duty does that too. I do this for each car I own. The car takes up a certain ammount of room and that room has been paid for. It is merely profiteering to charge me for the space it occupies when it is stationary seperately from the charge I have to pay when it is moving. etc etc.

So you do understand the difference?

fixitsan wrote:
So how does this affect speed cameras ? If there is a governemtn will to keep speed cameras then they shall stay. Any piece of evidence which proves the governemnt wrong either will not be allowed to make it into the media or will be portrayed in a different way if it is allowed through.

I think many would disagree with you there. Even if true, dies that mean we should just roll over and give up?

fixitsan wrote:
I don't want to take away other's efforts either, but we are talking about a biased news system, re-iterating government bias to already biased viewers. For a change so large as to make the government do the massive u-turn required to get cameras removed we need the step up to the next level of government, a proper democratic government.

This is another straw on the camel’s back!

Let’s leave that at that as it isn’t relevant.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 09:43 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 16:59
Posts: 94
smeggy wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
I had only hoped for some information which I could relate to, is that asking too much ? You must believe I can see for myself what you described from what few words you used as, as if it were in front of me. This isn't back -pedalling. I am still interested, but hope you have the sense to see that if you cannot give a reasonably lengthy description covering all the relevant aspects of the situation then you're wasting your own time by giving only a half of a description

I’ve explained why I don’t need to give you a lengthy description. That’s why you were given those relevant links – remember?


HHhmm. No I have to interpret your actions as being that you give links just because you can't be bothered to give an answer. It's how you've been with most other threads where you decide to obsolutely object to what is being said. Of course you absolutely couldn't possibly agree that you are doing that





fixitsan wrote:
In what way do you mean that?
Do you mean have I become rich from it ? No.
Have I made something which defeats ANPRS, yes I have,

Really? I sincerely doubt that. As I said in that other thread,


HHhhmm.
How much more childish are you capable of getting I wonder ? You are having to cross post on threads just to find something to criticise.

Why dodn't you go back to the thread you are referring to and post a question there to ma about it if you are genuinely interested and aren't just trying to create nonsense in this thread just to confuse matters further.


fixitsan wrote:
smeggy wrote:
fixitsan wrote:
I know we won't see any widespread removal of speed cameras, it's one of those things you just get a feel for. If the removal of speed cameras on the grounds that they are profit making devices is succesful where does that leave parking meters , which are a most obvious profit making device ?

Parking meters have not been fraudulently credited with massive KSI reductions and then further rolled out on that basis.

No, they were just claimed not to be fraudulent at all and were rolled out on that basis alone. I pay road tax for use of the road, part of the fuel duty does that too. I do this for each car I own. The car takes up a certain ammount of room and that room has been paid for. It is merely profiteering to charge me for the space it occupies when it is stationary seperately from the charge I have to pay when it is moving. etc etc.

So you do understand the difference?


Are yo sure you understand that cars cannot be driving at excess speed when stationary when they are parked ? I think you do, but I have to check. I am pointing out the political background to the situation in response to your question about it. Nothing more than that. Now you seem to be going into idea recruitment mode as if to suggest that you were making a significant subtle suggestion to me all along, and you were just waiting for me to catch up. You will get very far that way. Unfortunately it will all be in the wrong direction though




fixitsan wrote:
So how does this affect speed cameras ? If there is a governemtn will to keep speed cameras then they shall stay. Any piece of evidence which proves the governemnt wrong either will not be allowed to make it into the media or will be portrayed in a different way if it is allowed through.

I think many would disagree with you there. Even if true, dies that mean we should just roll over and give up?


You think many will disagree with me ? Based on what ? a chat in a pub perhaps ?

Within a few short years parliament will be rendered ineffectual through EU legislation, accelerated yesterday by mention of it in the Queen's Peach. Is Safespeed geared up to work on a European level ? are you personally networking with European counterparts to make sure that the _unelected_ and _undemocratic_ leaders in Brussels give a listening ear to what you have to say PMSL.....

Wake up. there will be no Britain soon, very soon, by 2015 there will definately be no British parliament but we will be part of european regionalsied adminstrations.

Are you aware that Gordon Brown is about to give up our last chance to get out of Europe ?

You can carry an talking about road safety as if controls on road safety aspects aspects which affect yor freedoms are the biggest threat to your personal freedom, if you really want to. I just wish you would hurry up.


fixitsan wrote:
I don't want to take away other's efforts either, but we are talking about a biased news system, re-iterating government bias to already biased viewers. For a change so large as to make the government do the massive u-turn required to get cameras removed we need the step up to the next level of government, a proper democratic government.

This is another straw on the camel’s back!

Jolly old jolly stuff then.

The hollowed out governement we now have is giving views to the media it has not generated by itself in the best interests of the people of Britain, but is handing on legislation handed to us from Europe. You can spend much time humouring governenment stats and picking holes in speeches by transport ministers as much as you want, but I would like to suggest that you spend your time considering why they don't respond. It is not because they can't respond but that their agenda does not allow time for a discussion on the subject because their agenda is to get us governed from Europe as quickly as possible. You are not delaying the process.

There is a much larger peril on the horizon, but hey, you don't want to know do you ? jolly old hey ho, have another pint, chuuckle chuckle.
And wake up in a couple of years time when things are too late.




Let’s leave that at that as it isn’t relevant.


And comments like that speak volumes about you


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

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 : 0.303s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]