FPL wrote:
RobinXe wrote:
Oh, by the way, its spelt folk. Boy do I love irony!
But hang on, if you are implying I'm dumb(I don't mind) then it kind of proves my point doesn't it?
I'm not implying that at all mate, I don't know you nearly well enough yet. I just found abundant amusement in a blatant spelling error whilst you were accusing others of being dumb. Its ironic, not humiliating.
Quote:
I wouldn't recieve (sic) the same treatment if I was a Safe Speed supporter.
I shouldn't take it personally mate. I hope you understand that we get a lot of new folks here, many of whom have been brainwashed by the 'speed kills' dogma (exacerbated if they have lost a loved one and blame it, rightly or wrongly, on speed) and are often keen to 'troll' or 'catch us out' with specious arguments, so our default stance with new posters who disagree can sometimes come across as somewhat guarded. Others may feel that we are a haven for those who wish to wriggle out of 'fair cops' or push for laws to allow them to drive recklessly, and we have to educate them as well.
I can see from your posts that you appear to have faith in the current system as a good way to reduce road casualties. You also seem to be willing to take new points on board however, as evidenced by the last post on page 1. 'Theres hope for you yet' so to speak!
I hope you stick around and give us the chance to persuade you that introducing strict rules and obsessing about how people
should act is not the route to safer roads. The only way we can achieve our goals of the safest roads possible (as balanced with our society's need for their use) is by addressing how road users
do act, and how to alter that through education and persuasion as a means of willing attitude adjustment.