Safe Speed Forums

Haha, I love it when something like this happens, it's hilarious. They get their knickers all in a twist and as a result render the opinion of half their supporters on other issues hypocritical

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20080 ... e80_3.html

So... it's ok for them to illegally climb onto a plane and illegally advertise when they haven't paid for advertising space but I bet an awful lot of Greenpeace activists are anti drivers breaking limits and think we should be shot for doing so.

I also couldn't help but notice this gem, "The scientists say we have 100 months", I see they've resorted to using a monthly countdown now to make 'it' seem more urgent. What scientists I ask you? What about the scientists who don't say that... what about the facts which go along way against the climate change argument? Eesh

Possibly been watching the Safespeed front page?

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/index1.html

(top left)

Always got a smart answer for everything dont you ?

1. I never look at the website, it hurts my head
2.a. One is a "100 months til the end of the world"
2.b. The other is "24 hours til Camera meltdown" - which is not the end of the world, nor predicting the end of the world, nor saying something will happen if we don't change our ways and go back to the stone ages... it's saying if only it were 24 hours til cameras were gone, but they won't be. And no one will mistake "24 hours til camera meltdown" as fact, or as an end of the world scenario, it doesn't attempt to strike fear into the population and it doesn't try to mislead anyone. One is on the SS website and the other is in national media... which is more harmful?

Oooo, good question!

I don't see the harm in cutting down carbon emmissions where we can, I do see the harm in encouraging a disdain of the law and the enforcement of it, particulary in regards to laws designed to mitigate danger and improve safety.

I will say I'm not too opposed to expansion at Heathrow, I figure international air travel has a calming effect on humanity that might outweigh it's effect on the atmosphere, but then if we end up underwater, or in a desert before we have time to adjust properly to the changing environment then that'll all be moot.

I suppose the bright side is that after 100 months, when nothing happens, they'll have to admit they were wrong about the amount of time. Then they'll say "another 100 months", and the same thing will happen again. Each time they'll lose a bit more credibility, and more of the public will realise what's going on. They should have said "100 years", but then I suppose it wouldn't have been enough of a panicky scare story.

Well, they say time heals, and unfortunately I think time's going to be the only way of making many people realise just how much they're being hoodwinked. The worst thing is that people never seem to learn from these scares coming to nothing, and as long as the new scares are sufficiently different-sounding to the previous ones, they'll be lapped up in just as frenzied a way.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

Ooh, climate change doom-mongering and opposition to Heathrow expansion, two of my "favourite" topics at the moment...

On the Heathrow topic, I'm getting well and truly sick of my local council trying to push its anti-expansion viewpoint down the throats of all its residents - their website has anti-expansion links all over the front page, one of the freebie local weekly papers is filled with anti-expansion articles each week, and when they spammed our letterboxes with several copies of a postcard on which we could let the DfT consultation know our feelings by ticking one of 4 boxes, 3 options to declare opposition were presented in bold text,with the single supportive option shown in smaller text... Bias, oh yes, they've heard of it

_________________
Chris

You've cleverly interpreted my question there. I was not at any point suggesting becomming more energy efficient was harmful.

My question was whether causing mass panic and striking fear into the population - which will result in miss-spent financial and academic resources along with gradual erosion of our rights and freedoms - was more harmful than a non-serious countdown timer of when speed cameras would in a dream world be removed.

I'm glad you've an open mind on Heathrow expansion. I'm not sure about it personally, I think if they expand it anymore then the entire areas traffic system needs a serious re-working to avoid massive gridlock - although if that is a result of expansion then they'll really be laughing as they can then impose congestion charging on the heathrow area or something.

Most people reading the "100 months" (8 and-a-bit years) will have forgotten when it started, never mind when it ends. Most forgot the 1970's "we're going to freeze to death by 2000" scare story. We had a green party scare in a local paper a year (or so) ago....the methane from the rubbish was being collected and burnt to generate power.....the usual crap "the CO2 is going to lead to global warming".....which rapidly disappeared when another letter pointed-out that methane is over 4 times more "greenhouse-ish" than CO2..... but since greens never let a good [badly informed] scare get in the way of publicity.....

As for speed cameras....who really gives a s*** anymore ?

They're here to stay, they raise cash.
The people who put them there tell lies to put them there, so what. Telling lies is ok in public service, it keeps them in work.
They [used to] fiddle the cash to get themselves tellies to watch, now they cannot, so they buy speed humps instead. If they don't get you one way they get you [or your suspension] another way.

Why do people keep voting for these l***** b*****s ?
Maybe because they know no different ?
Or maybe because we have over 600 l***** b******s in parliament and they cannot see any difference ?
Pretty soon the vote will be removed....why bother when it is only possible to tell the difference by the colour of the party poster at election time ?

The lying 600+ versus the stupid 60 million +

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

jomukuk, I only wish I could say "What a load of cynical bollocks", but alas, it's right on the button. It does seem that our elected leaders are constantly trying to deceive us for their own benefit, and just pretending to have our interests at heart, rather than actually giving the people what they want and need. Surely if the system is working as it should then someone should be coming along, really giving everyone what they want, and getting in by a landslide. But no-one ever does. Why not? It's almost like the main parties have "fixed" things to ensure that we always get crap policies that benefit them, in the same way that price-fixing ensures high prices.

Is there any way that we can improve matters? Is there something fundamental about power or the system we have that "corrupts" these MPs? Surely at least some of them must be fundamentally decent people really, not unlike people on this forum. Why isn't that reflected in our policies? Is it particularly bad in the UK or is it like this everywhere? Has it got worse over time? Was it really anything like this in the days of Churchill? As you may have guessed, when it comes to this subject I have far more questions than answers.

You can't please all the people all of the time, but surely you can please people a lot more of the time than our elected leaders currently do. Their attitude towards us seems all wrong to me, and they don't seem to command any respect. We should be able to feel proud of our representatives. They shouldn't be a constant laughing stock. And in the end they should be doing what we want them to do. We instruct them, not the other way round. But you could have fooled me.

Sorry to be so depressing (more so than usual!) jomukuk got me started. I only wish I didn't have any reason to be like this. I'd be very happy for someone to demonstrate that it isn't actually all that bad. But everything I see and hear tells me that it is.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)