Safe Speed Forums

Goodness. Gracious. Me.

Paul, those pages were there. You know they were there. You 'edited' them and allowed them onto your site. You know the content of the pages. They were basically a list of tips of how to avoid getting points and fines for speeding. Some of the methods suggested are illegal. There were credits given to a couple of comments along the lines of "thanks to Bill for this one" and then an invite at the bottom for people to submit their own ideas.

Now, that paragraph is very clear. Please be clear about stating exactly where the lies are in the paragraph. Otherwise, you have to admit that your statement in bold is untrue.

I'm sorry, but just claiming that this is all lies isn't acceptable.

This actually does follow. People really are capable of judging a safe and considerate speed. However, the current policy of unreasonably low limits coupled with strict enforcement means that drivers are routinely coming to rely upon the limits as their guide, hence them inadvertently relying upon the limit when they shouldn’t and eroding their own judgement. These are the people who come unstuck when the limit doesn’t suit the conditions (coupled with equally poor skill of the drivers around them and some bad luck).

Can you post a link to this page - then maybe could discuss it properly and avoid the slanging matches

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

No I'm not. All you said is that the comments were put together from press reports. You included them on your site. Someone added a disclaimer at the top, credits to people for suggestions, and an invitation at the bottom for people to send any more in. Were these all compiled form press reports?

You can claim what you like, but the facts are there. Denying responsibility for them or just calling me a liar isn't going to change anything. Nor is it going to sway anyone who sees the facts for what they are.

This thread is now over 12 pages long, and has been going on for some days. It started out pretty sensibly, and then deteriorated.

If I had an agenda then I wouldn't have bothered in the first place. If I really wanted to discredit SS then I would be far more successful going elsewhere. I ask questions. At the moment I am not getting satisfactory answers.

Show us the denial, liar.

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

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/12mph.html

Determinated when it became clear there was an answer to your original question?


That does not follow. You could be on a wind up or looking out for interpretations of posts for what you would consider to be supporting evidence; in fact I strongly suspect this to be the case.


Again you skirt around the question, the answer must have been satisfactory……

There's already been quite a bit of discussion about this here:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20

Suggest you read through what's there then discuss on that thread? By the way have you seen the DfT "contributory stats" which show that exceeding the speed limit is not even one of the top 10 reasons for accidents?

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk

"The purpose here has been to show the relative importance of vehicle speed and driver response in accident outcomes"

Makes perfect sense to me given one of my previous posts. Anyway, as Graeme has highlighed, there is already a dedicated thread for that.

You're running yourself around in circles.

1)You admitted that you compiled and edited pages avocating lawbreaking, regardless of the origin of the suggestions.

2)You put the pages onto your own site.

3)The page thanked people for submitting comments, and invited more.

4) You said "I NEVER advocated nor recommended, nor conspired with others to interfere with the process of justice. "

All of the comments are proven to be true. Please explain otherwise.

As all of the comments are proven to be true, it is clear that it is not me doing the lying.

You're missing something crucial. Read the heading to the left at the top. Then read the page. It is intentionally deceptive.

Show us the denial

I asked the question because I didn't understand. Let's not start at the beginning again.

I'm looking for information which is clear, intelligent, unbiased and not loaded.

Anyway, I think we've pushed this as far as it will go, don't you?

My only interest now is to why Paul is calling me a liar, and the majority of comments about the old pages lies, but is seemingly unable to go any deeper than that. For his ease I have now simplified it as far as I can and listed 4 facts. I am awaiting his response.

You haven't shown us the denial (still in bold in the nest above) have you? Pathetic.

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

I will find it. It is on one of 3 very long threads, and so I need to look tonight.

Rather than diverting, in the mean time perhaps you would care to respond properly to my last post to you. It is as clear as I can make it.

Is that it? How desperate!
I expect you also write in to every national newspaper to have half their headings corrected!

However, I could see how that could be open to interpretation.
The 12mph page is purely about driver response. Anyone who took the time to understand that argument would also notice the link for statistics for pedestrians, and note the rather important comment at the bottom. Besides, the same people would be able factor those figures in for themselves; the overall figure will not be very different – irrelevant as it would be.

At the risk of extending this thread this might perhaps clarify some of the "liar" accusations, about pages that used to be on the site.

Many web pages are archived to that older versions of basic HTML sites can be viewed in older states - so older SafeSpeed versions can be seen here:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www ... eed.org.uk

(The BB software doesn't recognise this as a URL, but cut and paste of the whole line will work)

From the description Jub Jub gave, then he might have been refering to this page on the original site:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010826120354/www.safespeed.org.uk/avoid.html

This page existed on the original site and revisions through to some point in 2003 when it was removed (with very clear advance notice and reasons for the deletion). This has a very clear disclaimer at the top.



I cannot see how any version of this page has ever promoted law breaking.

Ah, so your original question has been answered satisfactorily? You now understand why cameras are pointless and even likely to be detrimental to road safety?

If not then your unwillingness to continue with the original discussion proves your dishonest agenda.

To be honest I wasn't around when the alleged dirt may or may not have been on the website.

It's not there now so frankly I couldn't give a toss either way. What I read on this forum now does genuinely improve my driving through developing and maturing my attitude and thinking behind the wheel.

Jub Jub - I deliberately didn't rubbish you previosly, but now I will.

In one breath you say that Safespeed could go much further if it distanced itself from *alleged* dirt 5 years ago.

In the next breath you say that a clean foundation is essential for any campaign.


Please make up your mind which of your points of view you actually hold.

What exactly is Paul Smith supposed to do? How exactly does one distance ones' self from alleged past events whilst cleansing the past?

Isn't that Orwellian "Doublethink"?

Is Paul suppose to commit suicide and hope that he reincarnates with the same knowledge but without any history to start again?


Really - who cares what may or may not have been endorsed 5 years ago??

Even if Paul's real motive was to create a land of road chaos and adrenalin junkies - are you suggesting that there is NOTHING of any value to the average driver on this forum and with the campaign?

You really do look like you're here only to rubbish every effort made by Paul Smith. You would be very wrong to be so dismissive...

_________________