Safe Speed Forums

NO, it hasn't been answered satisfactorily. I asked an educated and experienced driver why he should be distracted by a tripod on a bridge. I haven't seen a satisfactory answer yet. I have seen arguments that poor drivers aren't good enough to have to look for all hazards, but like I said, that takes it back to the beginning again.

If we are all honest then the original discussion got to a point where both sides were making their cases, and their was stalement. So the argument deteriorated into this.

In terms of the original argument, I have already said that we seem to have taken it as far as we can.

If handy is refering to me as I’m of the same opinion as Anton, then for the record, if Paul or any other members here believe that I am in anyway jeopardising Paul’s site/campaign by what I post on these forums then I’d be happy if they let me know, and I’ll gladly stand down .

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.

[quote="jamie_duff"]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.
quote]

OK. Concession time. I used the wrong word. Essential was perhaps too closed. My apologies.

Change 'essential' to something like 'extremely important' and look again. My argument still stands. There has been no distancing.

Now, does anyone fancy a drink?

This would be far more worthwhile being discussed in a pub.

jub jub, setting aside whether or not a list of ways to dodge speeding tickets appeared on the site, it doesn't take much intelligence to realise that when all the prosecution goes on is a picture showing a number plate, that making sure the information they get doesn't lead to you is fairly obvious, i will leave it to you to work out ways,

I've been trying to understand your position. Would you answer two simple questions carefully please?

1) Do you think that road safety is founded on the law?

2) Do you think that any attack on the law is an attack on road safety?

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

OK. Found it on the dark side-

You were asked
Widely known anyway, but referenced to in this thread, it is clear that your agenda in the past was clearly not about road safety, and erred more towards revolt against speed limits, using some pretty questionable methods.

You replied, amongst other things
None of that is true really.

You were asked
Please don't be evasive. You know that I am asking you about the pages from SafeSpeed that are still available online, and show you encouraging people to, for example, obscure number plates, or get a second driving license in the name of a dead person.

Are you saying that this is untrue? The evidence there would suggest pretty conlusively that it is. And if it is, why has your stance changed from one of blatantly advocating law breaking, to trying to campaign for better road safety?

Can you see that it is difficult to see how your original agenda is not still present?

You replied
I told you it wasn't true. Other than that, I'm not going there. You'll have to decide if you're more interested in mudslinging or road safety.

You were asked
Let's just get this straight. I'm not interested in mudslinging. I'm trying to get a clear picture of you and your campaign. There are pages on the internet that claim to be from your site that state the issues that I have already referred to. They are linked to on here. And they look very much like they came from the SafeSpeed site.

Are you categorically denying that these pages were ever on your site, and that you had nothing at all to do with them? That's all I'm asking. Please click on the links and then respond.

And the answer, as you know, is crucial to understanding the SafeSpeed site and its development.

You ignored the question. When I repeated it over here you sent me a PM.
Author? Not really. Say 'editor'. Those pages were compiled largely from press reports. There was nothing there that hadn't been reported by the Times or the BBC (for example).

The spin that has been put on it is libellous, out of context and deeply offensive.

I make no apology for exploring every aspect of the speed camera programme and publishing my findings. I NEVER advocated nor recommended, nor conspired with others to interfere with the process of justice. If I had I would have been arrested - and I wasn't.

But I'm absolutely not going to be drawn into a public discussion on the matter.

This subject is closed.

So, what isn't true? The pages? What they said? That you approved them being posted on your site? That they advocated lawbreaking to avoid punishment for speeding? That there are credits on the page thanking people for sending in suggestions, and an invitation to send more? Or your statement that you NEVER advocated nor recommended, nor conspired with others to interfere with the process of justice?

You're clearly contradicting yourself. You stated that 'none of it is true'. Clear denial.

Anyway, I'm not interested in proving that you denied anything. I have because you asked me to, but it has only served, intentionally, to divert from my valid question. Answer them truthfully please.

And you've obviously been reading so closely that you missed the fact that tha OP was infact a she

I think you got a pretty concise answer to your question in page 1 TBH. We then seemed to get lost in character assassination somehow.

If you want to discuss road safety we are all ears. If you want to discredit SS then we are not.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Waste of time / load of rubbish. I never advocated lawbreaking. I never denied that the pages existed. The emphasis was always road safety.

That makes you the liar. More fool me for wasting my time on you.

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

1) No. But the country we live in have decided on the current law in an attempt to maximise safety. That may be under question, but while it is still in place none of us is above the law, no matter how good a driver we think we are.

2) No. However, I would see your first objective as to highlight the issues while remaining within the current law.

Going on about speed cameras being revenue raisers and dangerous, while at the same time saying that driver education will enhance our ability to be aware of and safely respond to all hazards doesn't add up. Speed cameras don't have to come into it at the moment. If you forget that for now, then you don't have to concentrate on your arguments about speed which are contraversial and highly debatable. Why not work on the things that are easy to change first? You're not going to get the speed limits changed for a very long time, if ever. And what is unachievable as a short-term goal is seriously affecting you reaching your achievable short-term goals.

The general public know that speed cameras don't have to be a dangerous distraction. They aren't for millions of people every day, so to use this argument to justify their removal isn't going to work, because people get suspicious about you. And the fact that you have honestly been acting strangely about the 'old pages' merely adds to the suspicion.

You say that you have never and will never collude with lawbreaking. You seem to be worried about any damage to yourself that you think you might do if you simply stated that it was a mistake to put those comments on your site in the way that you did, and accept that the pages do suggest that you were colluding (disclaimers hold no worth, especially if they are contradicted by what is below them). In fact, making this kind of public statement, rather than accusing people of lying and avoiding addressing the issue properly, would bring you plenty of brownie points. I for one would be very impressed.

I think the truth is that by nature of what you are campaigning for it is inevitable that you will bring suspicion, so you need to be especially sensitive about anything that may suggest otherwise. I think the other poster has something when he said that there are elements of your forum where some of the discussions may not be what you actually think, but you are associated by the fact that they are on your site. And some of those discussions wouldn't be missed if they weren't here.

See? You still won't answer reasonable questions, but instead call me a pathetic liar.

In my last post I carefully answered, as you asked me to, 2 of your questions.

Please would you now carefully answer one, just one, of mine?

1) The page in question credited people for their suggestions in evading prosecution, and thanked them. It also invited more suggestions. Who wrote these parts of the page?

Yes was the answer!

Re-iterating: how do you know it was a man with a tripod unless you look at him? I view any activity at any bridge I’m driving or riding (yes, I really do) with suspicion. It is very common for young thugs to throw objects at others from high ground.

However, if you didn’t agree with that then perhaps you should have stated why you found the answer unsatisfactory; this is the basis of a real debate, right?
However, you never acknowledged the response and moved on.

This has happened several times throughout this thread. Is it any wonder why the thread deteriorated?

Yet you put soooo much focus on one item that came much later on……..

dixie, anton, my comment "Anti everything" wasn't aimed at anyone, it was, in a very poor way, an attempt at a joke. I originally typed "anti macassar" but I wasn't sure of the spelling and anyway anyone under about 40 wouldn't have got it. Perhaps "anti freeze" would have worked.

Anti government? It's a long, long queue - I'm by no means a government supporter (I may have posted before that there is noplace for me in UK politics as I am a socialist ... we don't have a party anymore).

There IS a lot of anti-camera rhetoric on here. I accept the point someone made that road safety policy is also heavily skewed pro-camera, so perhaps there is some justification.

I do not accept that numpty drivers are in the minority, and with derestricted roads they will just drive faster (not "safer").

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

To explain the last question a bit for those who have no idea what we are talking about, the bottom of one of the pages contained the following-

If you have an idea for speed enforcement countermeasures please send it to us by email. Tell us if you would like to be credited with the idea or not. If you desire anonymity, please tell us so and we will delete all copies of the email immediately. click here

The 'click here' allows you to send an email to countermeasures@safespeed.org.uk

OF COURSE it adds up. Speed cameras and supporting policies are the exact opposite of education. They make drivers worse. They reduce skill and worsen attitudes.

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

Jub Jub. Seriously, get over it.

You claim to be a serious poster who's genuinely interested and yet to KEEP coming back to the same old thing. You're discrediting yourself here, not Paul.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

That doesn't make sense. Distracted by a man on a bridge when you are looking there anyway as part of your driving? Either you were distracted or you weren't. In your argument, whether the man is there or not is irrelevant. Unless, of course, you were speeding. Which is where the argument went the first time around. And then went on for a long time before we got to this whole 'liar' stuff.

And do you expect me to be able to respond to every single on of the posts? Why, then you would accuse me of trying to discredit everything that is said, as some of my responses would disagree.

And now you have got us back to the beginning again. Sheesh!

This really isn't worth it.

I'm only coming back to the same old thing because Paul is so desperately trying to avoid the questions that I have asked several times. He is being deliberately evasive. Why, the first time he responded in a PM so as to keep it off the forum. It just all adds to the suspicion. At the moment I am being proved right.

Paul, I got it down to one question, and you still ignore it. Please answer.

That comes back to one of your theories, that is not provable and is open to dispute.

We have been there and not got anywhere, and there is no sense going back there again.

Oh if only you could have said something like that first time around, then perhaps I would have believed your intentions to be honourable.
Oh, and I said “activity” not ‘man on a bridge’. And yes, it is a distraction anyway. This was answered on the first page!

Are you saying that you always deliberately do not look up at a bridge when you see some sort of activity on it?


Of course not, but recently you seem to be doing just that!