Safe Speed Forums

You claimed that certain, un-named people oppose any road safety advice given to road users. I merely asked if you can name them. Since you decline to do so, I draw my own conclusions.

No you used it as a diversionary tactic to guide the conversation away from the fact that people like you oppose education to any other road users apart from motorists!

Welcome back by the way - try not to get banned again, or is that your intention this time as well?

Would you like to show me where I opposed road education to any other road user apart from motorists?

First you declined to say who has made this bizarre claim, now you admit you meant me, it's reasonable to ask on what you base this strange assertion, but since this is the thrid time with no sensible response I don't hold out much hope.

Argue with what I said please, not these strange invented arguments you keep coming out with.

I was referring to In-Gear's insistence that cycling offences can be punished by penalties points on ones driving licence.

Laughable.

Still avoiding the questions I see, answer the point first and then I will deal with yours. Do you deny or confirm that you would approve education to all road users?

Answer that and I will answer your point. I suspect you will once again dodge the point.

Confirm.

Maybe it would have saved time had you asked the question BEFORE ascribing to me views I don't hold?

That leads to another interesting point- the repeated assertion that speeding is the exclusive factor in road safety initiatives.

It isn't.

To argue otherwise you would neeed to examine the resources applied to all aspects of road safety- drunk driving, uninsured vehicles, lorry checks, advice to teenagers using mobiles as they cross the road, checking for motorcyclists, passing horses safely etc etc etc.

As far as I can see nobody's done this, yet the oft-repeated mantra is that road safety policy is almost exclusively directed toward imposing and enforcing lower speeds.

It isn't!

My god! I am extremely surprised, your views almost exactly mirror those of safe speed.

We all want more education and sensible enforcement of all aspects of the law.


This is based upon the same deductive process you used, traffic police are being reduced countrywide. Speed camera patrols replace them. SPECs cameras popping up all over the place. I drive over 1,000 miles every week, it has been nearly 2 months since I saw a policeman enforcing the law. I have seen many mobile speed cameras. A road that I frequently drive down, has had nearly all of it NSLs replaced by 30mph limits, it is a straight rural road! Draw your own conclusions.

No doubt, that's why it's best to ask what a person's views are, not simply invent them, you'll find you'll be surprised far less frequently!

For the record I wasn't directing the initial point at you, but you can continue to think so if you wish. Which is why I only said people like you.

stevegarrod said:

or was it greenshed or perhaps Tom123 or LucyW ?

Old tactics!

set up multi users I.D. and then "FLAME YOURSELF = discredits forums!"

Also throw a bit of mud at Safespeed in my asides!

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=19452&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Tom123 starts a sympathetic topic: Lucy W takes Tom123 on.
Members try to inform rationally.
LucyW, despite warnings from mediators keeps up the tirade.
LucyW gets banned: Tom 123 dissappears.
He never did tell us how he went on with his FPN Saga! I'm sure i would!

Multi users Flamethrowers here guys!

Just as an afterthought there seems to be a few people dishing out the claptrap who ALL seem to get out of bed at the same time to continue the tirade!
I'll just watch for a while and observe!

p.s.Brave people taking on I.G. over the law.
However that shows just how little respect Safespeed contributors have for the police: added bonus!
More discredit for Safespeed!

Stevegarrod:

He's on here now!
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=19852&p=199701#p199701

He's spreading like swine flue!

If you look carefully at my posts in threads you have participated in, you will notice that I flag that fact that overlapping factors have not been shown; however, I do give a reasoned estimate for a qualitive feel of these overlaps.


I “selectively quoted” by giving a screenshot of an entire table, including the small print within it – right!
The report I use covers all speed related factors, I believe I gave you a screenshot of that too…..
Speeding is not implicated in the 1100 deaths last year, the figures which contribute to that are merely speed related (failure to judge speed).
I have told you this at least two times, both times you haven’t even acknowledged that explanation. Do you care to do it now:

"You see, what they did was mix other speed related contributory factors, such as "failure to judge the speed or path" into the group "speed is a factor", then misspoke (a la Hilary Clinton) the words to include 'excessive' - even though excessive speed (however it is defined) had nothing to do with these other factors."
Here and here. Are you going to ignore this for a third time?


Nope. I have answered this in the new thread you have started.
The only think that is dishonest mendacious and pretty disgusting is the implication that anyone has said that pedestrians are “thronged with lemming-like children anxiously waiting for a vehicle to appear under whose wheels they may throw themselves, can you see now how your 85% twaddle is dishonest, mendacious and pretty disgusting?”.


No I didn’t. That’s an entirely illogical argument to make.
Speeding of the joyriders boyracers type is never safe, for you to continue to ignore this differentiation is in itself staggeringly ignorant.
The majority of instances of exceeding the speed limits are mere technical infringements and were done in complete safety, especially those in non-residential areas.


This single report is the holy grail all other reports are derived. It is the only one that gives the raw data, everything else is a summary (be it misrepresented) of this. Prove me wrong by giving a government approved report giving more detail, more scope and more raw data.

OK, now you’re getting close to moderator action for continued misrepresentation, no - outright lying, in a very distasteful manner. I have specifically said that minors are not to blame for accidents where their actions are a contributory factor; any blame should be directed at their parents. You even quoted me on the matter:

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Nice reply Steve.
I reckon you have upset stevegarrod with the word"SCIENCE" in your logo.
He doesn't seem to understand it!
He seems to be a very angry frustrated individual.
Perhaps he has suffered some way in the past because Safespeed allows the TRUTH (again something else he seems to fail to understand) and perhaps he has lost out in some way because of this.
Who knows........................................

I thought I recognized SteveGarrod. His complete misunderstanding of the 1100 deaths figure gave it away.

I've just been reading some of his posts on another forum, where he applauds a cyclist for criminal damage to a taxi. I personally find this attitude distasteful, and as such I will not continue any further discussion with him.

Odin writes:

THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS! COMPLETE DISRUPTION OF THE FORUMS.
God nows what new viewers will think if they can only read "The Thoughts of Chairman Stevegarrod"!
I'm sure the moderators are watching this guy's antics very closely.
Don't let bigots stop you posting! Just don't drop down to this guy's level.
He's known to fold under pressure! OFTEN!

Steve:



1/

Why did you claim your graph shows that pedestrians are to blame in 74% of accidents when you now concede the graph shows nothing of the kind?

2/

If a death is 'speed related' then speed is indeed implicated, that's why the word 'speed' is mentioned, above or below the posted limit, as the citation makes clear.

3/

I don't continually ignore your repeated 'boy-racer/joy rider' argument, I instead make it clear that the only person to claim that only these drivers are annoying is you. The distiction does not appear in the BCR, it does not appear in the concerns of residents, it is only you who claims that only stolen cars or your , or the actions of your as yet undefined definition of 'boy racers, ' have an adverse effect. You repeatedly claim only your loose definition of boy racers contribute to the problem, your evidence for this is pure anecdotal.

4/

You , again, repeat your claim that most speeding offences are 'merely technical' Aside from the fact that all speeding above the limit is breaking the law, and sex with a girl who is 15 years and 364 days old would similarly be against the law and no mere technical offence, you have STILL not provided any evidence that this is true. To do so you would have to demonstrate that:

a) Most speeding penalties are for minor infractions

and

b) People are not annoyed by drivers who speed

I've demonstrated that b) is untrue, you'be been asked five times now to show that a) is correct.

Still waiting.

Odin:


I thought I recognized SteveGarrod. His complete misunderstanding of the 1100 deaths figure gave it away.

I've just been reading some of his posts on another forum, where he applauds a cyclist for criminal damage to a taxi

That's twice now you've lied about what I've said.

I've never mentioned cyclists or taxis, apologise and retract please.

Interestingly, 'boy racers', howsoever defined, do not even appear to be the worst culprits:

Economically active male drivers aged between 35 and 50 with larger car engines are most likely to activate a speed camera.

A research project conducted in the Midlands reveal s that the more times you have been caught by a speed camera, the more likely you are to be involved in a crash.

The independent research project shows that 64% of motorists with points on their licence have been involved in a collision, compared with 42% who have no points.

The study, developed by Prof Stradling at the Transport Research Institute, Napier University, Edinburgh on behalf of eight Midlands’ safety camera partnerships, will also show an alarming 72% of drivers with four or more points on their licence have been in a crash.

Stradling warns that drivers with penalty points for speeding are far more likely to have an accident than those with a clean licence.

http://www.roadsafe.com/news/article.aspx?article=18

I will not apologise or retract. This is the last reply you will recieve from me.

Exactly the attitude I would expect from a man who admits punching nuns and nicking their dinner money.

What's that?

Made-up allegations irritate you?


Don't dish it out if you can't take it sweetie.

So far I've been accused of being a retired copper, a sh1t-stirrer, a taxi-cab attacker and a violent cyclist, is that's what's meant by 'All views are welcome here'?

I am glad he didn't deny it, I doubt even he could be that dishonest. I'm sure he'll prove me wrong though.


Sound familiar?

stevegarrod wrote;

SO JUST WHO ARE YOU ?
I think you will find that it is all REASONABLE views are welcome here!

Now there's taking advantantage of a lax & free opinion forum and THERE'S TAKING THE P*SS!!!
Your choice is obviously the latter!
p.s. NOT A RETIRED COPPER! Thank god you were never let loose on the roads with your attitude!
It was an EX CTO MANAGER and not accused, just likened to him!
I think it's time to stop your antics and insulting members and accusing I.G. as not being a REAL COPPER!
A REAL Copper in your book would probably have to be a member of a secret society to qualify!
Disgraceful!