Safe Speed Forums

I've been reading the C+ forums for a while, it keeps me entertained. If you wish to see the undercurrent of resentment against motorists, just find the thread regarding the deaths of the cyclists in Wales, and read the prejudice in that thread.

He has responded to every single issue you have raised, in more than one thread. What you want to do is keep raking the same coals again and again, until you finally have what you want - an admission from Paul that actually, everything he has tried to do in the name of road safety has been wrong, that speeding is an evil crime, and that he must bow down and accept his punishment from a group that seem intent on attacking the messenger, rather than listening to the message.

The simple fact is that the vocal posters on C+ aren't interested in discussing road safety. They're only interested in furthering their beliefs that the issue is beyond debate, that the science is irrefutable, and that any opposition to road safety policy in any regard is simply not to be trusted no matter how valid the argument.

Honestly Paul, I applaud your efforts to state your case over there, but I don't think you're doing much more than entertaining the deluded fantasies of a vocal minority who believe that all motorists are evil, and that all laws are just.

I'm quite certain that apart from Spindrift the mental case (and his D-wing prison cell partner Tony Tourist), the others are quite capable of seeing the valid points of the Safespeed argument, and are just arguing because they enjoy hiding behind an electronic identity.

I'm amazed that otherwise intelligent people can be so obtuse. Apart from some good posts by CometGirl I haven't really seen any members attempt to argue with you on anything other than a personal level. Even a serving police officer who posts over there is treated with derision.

The attacks seem to centre on old pages which I feel you have explained very well, ill-advised forum posts from certain members, forum smilies (the shooting GATSO ones, they seem to think that a smiley is indicative of criminal intent). The attacks on your personal appearance are completely unjustified, and demonstrate their lack of anything worthwhile to add to the discussion.

Right now I think you should just leave them to it. After all, what debate have they stirred in the national press and broadcast media?

You're doing a good job and most sane people would wish you well. You're bringing the debate to a national audience. The Cycling + forum is a place for people to rant and hide behind aliases. I wouldn't worry about it, I have very rarely met anybody who would echo their uneducated opinions.

What cyclists aren't comfortable with is someone who encourages, whether he likes it or not, dangerous practice on the roads, to the detriment of the safety of other road users.

And that is why this campaign is more hindered than helped by this forum, and some of the members that it attracts.

And I don't know why you keep going on about 'suspect motives'. Its quite obvious to me that Paul probably started from the point of view of the disgusted motorist being automatically fined for minor transgressions of speed limits, to hosting a website that discussed methods of preventing this, to realising that the system actually worsens road safety, to giving up his job and devoting all of his time to rectify the situation.

Find me a post where Paul encourages dangerous practice on the roads.

Exactly!!

But Paul denies this. He says that 'it has always been about road safety'. This lie calls into question everything else that he has done since.

If only he could be honest, admit to some mistakes, and distance himself from his inappropriate past, then he would be taken a lot more seriously.

I've been reading the C+ forums for a while, it keeps me entertained. If you wish to see the undercurrent of resentment against motorists, just find the thread regarding the deaths of the cyclists in Wales, and read the prejudice in that thread.

But of course since C+ 'archives' old threads, you can't. But take it from me, most members had the driver lynched and burnt to death, complained when a police officer gave his opinion that speed was irrelevant to the accident, and then virtually spat feathers when it came out that actually, the motorist hadn't really done anything wrong that contributed to the accident.

His whole beginnings, the 'we are being hard done by, send in your ideas to break the speed limit without being caught, I'm a safe driver and know better' grooms a culture of acceptance that the law is wrong and can be challenged not by proper campaign but by making your own decisions and ignoring the law.

This is dangerous, and this is what Paul needs to address.

But the two statements are not mutually exclusive. Its more than possible to be completely opposed to the system of speed camera enforcement because of its negative contribution to road safety, and to wish to confound this policy on every level.

Its only inappropriate in your opinion. You should perhaps just accept that Paul has had his say on the matter (and he has, in many threads over there, I've read them all) and move on to other aspects of Safespeed on which you disagree? Right now you sound like the Spanish Inquisition - in the interests of furthering debate, its not helping. The thread in question is mired in repetition - from C+ posters.

C+ does not represent a broad cross-section of society. Neither do the Safespeed forums. If you disagree so much with what is proposed on this site, then perhaps you should be more proactive about it.

I have my suspicions that Spindrift is employed by an SCP.

When you're in charge of a ton of metal capable of travelling at speeds over 100mph, then you have great capacity to harm; it's a responsibility that shouldn't be taken lightly. The motorist in Wales killed four cyclists when he lost contol of an unroadworthy car that he was driving too fast along an icy road with no clear line of sight. Yes, people were angry about what he'd done and the way he got away with it.

If you wish to discuss this further, please start a new thread. I would happily contribute and prove how wrong you are on nearly all counts.

As C+ members are far more vulnerable than commuters who don't cycle, there is every reason for them to be concerned about road safety. And you know from other threads that this is indeed the case. What cyclists aren't comfortable with is someone who encourages, whether he likes it or not, dangerous practice on the roads, to the detriment of the safety of other road users.

Exactly!!

But Paul denies this. He says that 'it has always been about road safety'. This lie calls into question everything else that he has done since.

If only he could be honest, admit to some mistakes, and distance himself from his inappropriate past, then he would be taken a lot more seriously.

We're dragging the argument over here aren't we? Folks, if you are interested, pop over there and have a read. And make up your own mind.

You say that we're not interested in road safety? That's why my own driving has improved 1000 fold since I've been a member then is it?

Jub Jub, you sound like a f*cking broken record. It REALLY is wearing thin.

I'll see your single C+ (quite entertaining) loony and raise you 3 completely barking SS trolls.

funny, I could have sworn that I ride about 10000 miles every year. Silly me, I must be confused about what Safespeed is about because I sure as hell don't see anyone advocating "dangerous practice on the roads" around here, most especially Paul.
How about you go back over to the looney bin and take a survey of people who've been either been knocked off their bikes or had a close call and find out the causes of the incidents. In my case I've been knocked off 3 times and had innumerable close calls and the cause of every single one has not been "speeding motorists" but either poor observation or just plain stupidity (I'll you define the category for turning left across the front of someone that you've just *slowly* driven past). I've also nearly been wiped out by a couple of red light running idiots but I suppose they don't count as they were on bikes and therefore perfectly safe if the Richmond thread is to be believed.