P**L Sm***
Helen Deborah Vecht
--
Helen D. Vecht: helen...@zetnet.co.uk
Edgware.
W K
"Helen Deborah Vecht" <helen...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200311251...@zetnet.co.uk...
> Is being panned on Radio 4 at present.
Not enough though.
It is being made out to be some sort of anti-democratic thing that the
police don't want to cooperate.
Its just a 21st century version of Police officers not to be drawn into
arguments with loons on soap boxes in hyde park corner.
They didn't give the obvious answer as to why he was described as "fringe".
Just zis Guy, you know?
> Is being panned on Radio 4 at present.
Next step: the book. The wit and wisdom of P**l Sm*th, 2 pages, lavishly
illustrated.
--
Guy
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
"Sic hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter educatus et nimis
propinquus ades"
Michael MacClancy
news:p6kc91-...@chapmancentral.demon.co.uk...
> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>
> > Is being panned on Radio 4 at present.
>
> Next step: the book. The wit and wisdom of P**l Sm*th, 2 pages, lavishly
> illustrated.
>
website. Skip through to 22 minutes.
Unfortunately this piece will have done P**l Sm*th more good than harm. The
effect of the police letter is to make him look like an innocent campaigner
put upon by the politically motivated police. He'll get all sorts of
support from well-meaning civil rights people that will only fuel the flames
of his nonsensical campaign.
___
Michael MacClancy
rifleman
news:bq07t7$imr$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
Can someone enlighten me about this person?
Paul - xxx
He's a twat.
With dangerous ideas about speeding on the roads ..
--
Digweed
.... ;)
Just zis Guy, you know?
> Is being panned on Radio 4 at present.
Available no the web, http://www.bbc.co.uk/pm/, click "forward" to about
minute 20.
Notable that even the Monster Raving Tory Party transport spokesman trotted
out to defend Sm*th's right to lambast Chief Constables for enforcing the
law couldn't bring himself to support Sm*th's loony claims.
Just zis Guy, you know?
> Can someone enlighten me about this person?
<http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/SafeSpeed>
W K
"Michael MacClancy" <her...@REMOVECAPITALSo2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bq07t7$imr$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Unfortunately this piece will have done P**l Sm*th more good than harm.
The
> effect of the police letter is to make him look like an innocent
campaigner
> put upon by the politically motivated police. He'll get all sorts of
> support from well-meaning civil rights people that will only fuel the
flames
> of his nonsensical campaign.
They didn't make quite as much of his crankyness as they could, but I liked
the way how his claim that 1/3 of road deaths are caused by speed cameras
was mentioned more than once.
Mentioned too was "his method of debate".
Perhaps they should have asked him whether he would advocate people going up
to 150 mph on A roads. (for the pedantic, on one particular A road in the
right conditions).
His views on disabled parking are a laugh too.
Paul Smith
wrote:
>Can someone enlighten me about this person?
See for yourself.
--
Paul Smith
Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk
please remove "XYZ" to reply by email
One third of roads fatalities are now caused by speed cameras
W K
"Paul Smith" <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message
news:9kb7svs0uepl98907...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:52:47 -0000, "rifleman" <m...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Can someone enlighten me about this person?
>
> See for yourself.
I liked the self restraint when they asked you "speed kills doesn't it".
I heard the pause.
You didn't _actually_ say "no" did you?
21 feet eh?
Ian
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:52:47 -0000, "rifleman" <m...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Can someone enlighten me about this person?
>
> See for yourself.
Who woke up the troll?
--
Ian
Just zis Guy, you know?
> Who woke up the troll?
He came along to see if any of us heard him being trashed on the radio (I
did) and if anybody noticed that even the Monster Raving Tory Party didn't
find him credible (I noticed that, too).
I found the BBC gave me a much easier ride, but that was a Long Time Ago.
Vincent Wilcox
>
> Can someone enlighten me about this person?
>
Drop the "me about" from above and you've got it!
JohnB
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>
> > Is being panned on Radio 4 at present.
>
> Available no the web, http://www.bbc.co.uk/pm/, click "forward" to about
> minute 20.
I wonder if he will place it on his SS site?
John B
Steve McGinty
<outloo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>
>> Is being panned on Radio 4 at present.
>
>Available no the web, http://www.bbc.co.uk/pm/, click "forward" to about
>minute 20.
>
>Notable that even the Monster Raving Tory Party transport spokesman trotted
>out to defend Sm*th's right to lambast Chief Constables for enforcing the
>law couldn't bring himself to support Sm*th's loony claims.
I don't agree he was being "panned."
You might not like what he says, but he should have the right to say
it. The worry is that the action against him is being taken because he
does not agree with government policy.
Regards!
Stephen
David Hansen
<mcginty_REV...@ntlworld.com> wrote this:-
>You might not like what he says, but he should have the right to say
>it.
Of course. It has the added advantage of being entertaining.
>The worry is that the action against him is being taken because he
>does not agree with government policy.
No action is being taken against him. One police bod has written a
letter to other bods suggesting that they don't waste too much time
in detailed arguments with Mr Smith.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Colin Blackburn
<her...@REMOVECAPITALSo2.co.uk> wrote:
> If anyone wants to listen to the PM piece it's available on the Radio 4
> website. Skip through to 22 minutes.
>
> Unfortunately this piece will have done P**l Sm*th more good than harm.
Yes, his website has already been mentioned in the Archers newsgroup!
Colin
--
Michael MacClancy
news:kcq8svsg70keejh6u...@4ax.com...
>
> >The worry is that the action against him is being taken because he
> >does not agree with government policy.
>
> No action is being taken against him. One police bod has written a
> letter to other bods suggesting that they don't waste too much time
> in detailed arguments with Mr Smith.
>
>
No action in terms of prosecution, yes, but the police _are_ trying to take
action to reduce the flow of oxygen to his campaign. Otherwise why write
the letter?
The word 'time' doesn't appear in the letter so you are incorrectly
inferring that its purpose is to suggest that the police should stop wasting
time.
Obviously the authorities do have a problem with campaigns such as
'safespeed'. The Internet provides campaigners with a forum which they
previously never had. In the past Smith would have needed to get the
support of an MP or a newspaper to obtain the profile he has achieved.
Smith has a right to campaign against cameras just as others, including the
police, have the right to campaign for them. However, he also has other
rights, including the right to receive information from civil servants, and
the letter tries to prevent this happening.
The letter's a bit of an own goal. If it had limited itself to telling
people what he does with the information he receives it would have been more
effective.
___
Michael MacClancy
marc
> His views on disabled parking are a laugh too.
Which are?
--
Marc. Please note the above address is a spam trap, use marcc to reply
Printing for clubs of all types http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk
Stickers, banners & clothing, for clubs,teams, magazines and dealers.
Arthur Clune
: No action is being taken against him. One police bod has written a
: letter to other bods suggesting that they don't waste too much time
: in detailed arguments with Mr Smith.
Which is perfectly fair enough in the same way that professors of physics
don't bother replying to all the people they get trying to talk to them
about perputual motion.
Ignoring someone because they are totally wrong does not infringe their
civil liberties. They are free (and indeed he does frequently) to spread
their views however they want. I just see no point in taking up police
time to argue with a loon.
Arthur
--
Arthur Clune
Michael MacClancy
news:1g50z7f.1ffp78pnkauaiN%ma...@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk...
The following gives you a flavour:
>From: Paul Smith (psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk)
>Subject: Re: Judge urges curbs on car clamp bullies
>Newsgroups: uk.legal, uk.community.policing, uk.transport, uk.rec.driving
>Date: 2003-06-13 05:22:21 PST
>On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:40:37 +0100, "Shelley" shel...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>> I suppose this will go on as long as some motorists have the attitude
>>> that they can park where they like as their convenience is more
important
>>> than anyone else's.
>>Don't get me started on the shamefulness of drivers who use disabled
spaces,
>>leaving genuinely disabled people unable to park!!!
>Why? Are you genuinely disabled?
>Personally I don't see why disabled folk should get special treatment.
>If it goes on like this we'll just have to cripple everyone to bring
>them down to the level of the disabled - it's only fair.
>[flame proof suit on]
>--
>Paul Smith
___Michael MacClancy
W K
"marc" <ma...@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1g50z7f.1ffp78pnkauaiN%ma...@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk...
Well, in brief he cannot see the point, and that they should have no special
treatment.
But slightly more bizarre is that he thought that if everyone could park
there they would sit there empty for his convenience.
Rather than being full of other able bodied motorists that got there first.
JohnB
marc wrote:
> W K <hyag...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
> > His views on disabled parking are a laugh too.
>
> Which are?
Make your own mind up over these P**l Sm*th quotes:
"I can't think of a good reason why a disabled driver is more entitled
than anyone else to a town centre parking space."
and
"Personally I don't see why disabled folk should get special treatment."
or
"If it goes on like this we'll just have to cripple everyone to bring
them down to the level of the disabled - it's only fair."
This man has a particularly nasty trait.
John B
Ian
--
Ian
Dave Larrington
> Next step: the book. The wit and wisdom of P**l Sm*th, 2 pages,
> lavishly illustrated.
With foreword by Steve Firth...
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
marc
> marc wrote:
>
> > W K <hyag...@tesco.net> wrote:
> >
> > > His views on disabled parking are a laugh too.
> >
> > Which are?
>
> Make your own mind up over these P**l Sm*th quotes:
>
> "I can't think of a good reason why a disabled driver is more entitled
> than anyone else to a town centre parking space."
Well apart from the obvious distaste against "crip bashing" he does have
an increasingly salient point. With the number of Blue badges increasing
year on year and the number of spaces for disabled car parking not ,
there must come a time when it needs to be looked at. My LA for instance
has given up a whole floor of the nearest car park to the town centre to
a scheme where blue badge holders can hire those scooter things that
lazy fat women use to run people off the pavement with, but why does it
have to be the car park nearest the town centre, once on the scooter
distnce is no more relevant to the rider than anyone else. BTW to bring
this back on topic , from what I can see of the main use of the scooters
the Giant leccie bike I treid last month would make more sense, I'm
trying to sell my mum on the idea.
Ian
> BTW to bring
> this back on topic , from what I can see of the main use of the scooters
> the Giant leccie bike I treid last month would make more sense, I'm
> trying to sell my mum on the idea.
>
Is that the only way you can afford one? By selling your mum, ungrateful
child!
--
Ian
Colin Blackburn
Come on, wouldn't we all sell our mothers for the right bike? I would.
Colin
--
JohnB
marc wrote:
> JohnB <nos...@here.com> wrote:
>
> > marc wrote:
> >
> > > W K <hyag...@tesco.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > His views on disabled parking are a laugh too.
> > >
> > > Which are?
> >
> > Make your own mind up over these P**l Sm*th quotes:
> >
> > "I can't think of a good reason why a disabled driver is more entitled
> > than anyone else to a town centre parking space."
>
> Well apart from the obvious distaste against "crip bashing"....
Quite.
> BTW to bring
> this back on topic , from what I can see of the main use of the scooters
> the Giant leccie bike I treid last month would make more sense, I'm
> trying to sell my mum on the idea.
'orrible, 'orrible things.
One day while climbing a leg-sapping drag I saw this 'cyclist' in front of
me and I put on the customary spurt to try and catch up.
Something was wrong, as I gained little but saw it was an elderly lady in
bonnet, skirt fappling and shopping bag on bars.
What was very disconcerting was she was not pedalling.
She stopped at the top of the hill and gave a friendly "hello" as I puffed
past, secretly cursing her elecrically assisted bike.
They should be banned ;-)
John B
marc
> > BTW to bring
> > this back on topic , from what I can see of the main use of the scooters
> > the Giant leccie bike I treid last month would make more sense, I'm
> > trying to sell my mum on the idea.
>
> 'orrible, 'orrible things.
> One day while climbing a leg-sapping drag I saw this 'cyclist' in front of
> me and I put on the customary spurt to try and catch up.
> Something was wrong, as I gained little but saw it was an elderly lady in
> bonnet, skirt fappling and shopping bag on bars.
> What was very disconcerting was she was not pedalling.
>
> She stopped at the top of the hill and gave a friendly "hello" as I puffed
> past, secretly cursing her elecrically assisted bike.
>
> They should be banned ;-)
I defy anyone to ride one without a huge grin!
David Hansen
MacClancy" <her...@REMOVECAPITALSo2.co.uk> wrote this:-
>The letter's a bit of an own goal.
It might be. Time will tell.
Ian
> JohnB <nos...@here.com> wrote:
>
>>> BTW to bring
>>> this back on topic , from what I can see of the main use of the scooters
>>> the Giant leccie bike I treid last month would make more sense, I'm
>>> trying to sell my mum on the idea.
>>
>> 'orrible, 'orrible things.
>> One day while climbing a leg-sapping drag I saw this 'cyclist' in front of
>> me and I put on the customary spurt to try and catch up.
>> Something was wrong, as I gained little but saw it was an elderly lady in
>> bonnet, skirt fappling and shopping bag on bars.
>> What was very disconcerting was she was not pedalling.
>>
>> She stopped at the top of the hill and gave a friendly "hello" as I puffed
>> past, secretly cursing her elecrically assisted bike.
>>
>> They should be banned ;-)
>
> I defy anyone to ride one without a huge grin!
>
I rode one of the first Powabykes (spelling?) shortly after starting to walk
again following my accident, it promptly tried to fall apart, it was poop,
hope they have improved now.
--
Ian
Thomas
take
> action to reduce the flow of oxygen to his campaign. Otherwise why write
> the letter?
>
> The word 'time' doesn't appear in the letter so you are incorrectly
> inferring that its purpose is to suggest that the police should stop
wasting
> time.
>
> Obviously the authorities do have a problem with campaigns such as
> 'safespeed'. The Internet provides campaigners with a forum which they
> previously never had. In the past Smith would have needed to get the
> support of an MP or a newspaper to obtain the profile he has achieved.
>
> Smith has a right to campaign against cameras just as others, including
the
> police, have the right to campaign for them. However, he also has other
> rights, including the right to receive information from civil servants,
and
> the letter tries to prevent this happening.
>
> The letter's a bit of an own goal. If it had limited itself to telling
> people what he does with the information he receives it would have been
more
> effective.
Everyone is entitled to their view, and subsequent representation. However
I'm rather reminded of the US patent office refusing flat out to grant
patents on perpetual energy machines. Some things in life just aren't going
to happen, and whilst you're welcome to try, it's a waste of evereyone's
time to carry on the charade.
Thomas.
Thomas
"Arthur Clune" <aj...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bq1ufe$kt2$1...@pump1.york.ac.uk...
> David Hansen <SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : No action is being taken against him. One police bod has written a
> : letter to other bods suggesting that they don't waste too much time
> : in detailed arguments with Mr Smith.
>
> Which is perfectly fair enough in the same way that professors of physics
> don't bother replying to all the people they get trying to talk to them
> about perputual motion.
Hehehe, just wrote a post regarding the patent's office stand on such
machines before reading yours.
Funny how some things keep going round and round :)
Thomas.
Tony W
"Helen Deborah Vecht" <helen...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200311251...@zetnet.co.uk...
> Is being panned on Radio 4 at present.
Which programme? It might be fun to listen to it later.
T
Michael MacClancy
news:bq25jg$1t0sto$1...@ID-161007.news.uni-berlin.de...
It was Tuesday's PM. Scroll forward to about 20mins. You'd better do it
soon because I think they replace the online edition daily.
___
Michael MacClancy
Richard Bates
<bq26dl$rfj$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk>, "Michael MacClancy"
<her...@REMOVECAPITALSo2.co.uk> wrote:
>It was Tuesday's PM. Scroll forward to about 20mins. You'd better do it
>soon because I think they replace the online edition daily.
I've saved it as mp3 and filed it under d:\mp3\humour
I'll make it available if you don't have any luck on the BBC site.
--
Sig got lost during a reinstall
Peter Clinch
> I rode one of the first Powabykes (spelling?) shortly after starting to walk
> again following my accident, it promptly tried to fall apart, it was poop,
> hope they have improved now.
There are electrics and electrics, of course, with Powabykes at the
lower end of the market. Try one of Darth Ben's from Kinetics and I
think you'd be pleasantly surprised how good they are, but with extra
quality comes a lighter wallet...
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Dave Larrington
> Funny how some things keep going round and round :)
There you are then. Perpetual motion /is/ possible.
W K
> Which is perfectly fair enough in the same way that professors of physics
> don't bother replying to all the people they get trying to talk to them
> about perputual motion.
I'd also compare it to conspiracy theorists and other assorted loons.
Niel Armstrong doesn't talk to any of them, Buzz Aldrin punches them.
from the SS - "speed cameras increase paranoia" ... err not for most of us.
Just zis Guy, you know?
> No action in terms of prosecution, yes, but the police are trying to take
> action to reduce the flow of oxygen to his campaign. Otherwise why write
> the letter?
Seems entirely reasonable. The police don't give additional credibility to
the campaigns of other lunatic fringe groups, either.
--
Guy
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
"Sic hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter educatus et nimis
propinquus ades"
Just zis Guy, you know?
>> Next step: the book. The wit and wisdom of P**l Sm*th, 2 pages,
>> lavishly illustrated.
> With foreword by Steve Firth...
That accounts for 1.5 of the 2 pages...
Just zis Guy, you know?
> Well apart from the obvious distaste against "crip bashing" he does have
> an increasingly salient point. With the number of Blue badges increasing
> year on year and the number of spaces for disabled car parking not ,
> there must come a time when it needs to be looked at.
Salient point? Smith? I think not. Instead of bleating about the
increasing elderly population (which is essentially what the increase in
blue badges is about) he should be grateful he can still walk. My father
was fit and active until he had a series of strokes brought on by
undiagnosed polycythaemia. He can now walk about twenty yards at most,
slightly further with a walking frame, and often uses a wheelchair. The
gits who do a Smith and park in the blue badge spaces at the places he
visits make his life substantially harder, and gain themselves so little
benefit as to be pretty close to unmeasurable. They are selfish arseholes
and should be shunned. It's not just that the spaces are closer to the
door, they have room for unloading wheelchairs and are wide enough to open
the doors and use the handles he's had fitted to lift himself out of the
car.
Obviously the more you cycle the less likely you are to end up disabled, but
I wouldn't wish a disability on anyone. It's difficult enough with the
thoughtless design of lots of public buildings without making a marathon
out of getting there in the first place.
Tony W
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outloo...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:jn1f91-...@chapmancentral.demon.co.uk...
>
> Salient point? Smith? I think not.
Oh I don't know. He is a complete prick. Surely that is a salient.
I'll get my coat :~)
reply@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk marc
outloo...@microsoft.com says...
> The
> gits who do a Smith and park in the blue badge spaces at the places he
> visits make his life substantially harder, and gain themselves so little
> benefit as to be pretty close to unmeasurable. They are selfish arseholes
> and should be shunned.
>
badge holder?
I'm not supporting his rants or stance just pointing out that it's not as
simple as blue badges good /rest of people bad not every one can get
close to the door/wider spaces and it's not going to be long before the
system needs re-thinking.
Michael MacClancy
news:jn1f91-...@chapmancentral.demon.co.uk...
> gits who do a Smith and park in the blue badge spaces ......
His views might be objectionable but do you have any evidence for your
assertion that PS does what you accuse him of? In the thread in question he
states that he has never done such a thing.
___
Michael MacClancy
Just zis Guy, you know?
> What difference does it make to your dad if it's Smith or another blue
> badge holder?
I read the original thread in uk.tosspot - my memory may be playing tricks,
but Sm*th seemed at the time to be treading the wrong side of the fine line
between "making a salient point" ansd plain old-fashioned bigotry.
Tony Raven
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:33:23 -0000 someone who may be "Michael
> MacClancy" <her...@REMOVECAPITALSo2.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
>> The letter's a bit of an own goal.
>
> It might be. Time will tell.
Or Newsweek ;-)
Tony
Ian Smith
> Everyone is entitled to their view, and subsequent representation. However
> I'm rather reminded of the US patent office refusing flat out to grant
> patents on perpetual energy machines. Some things in life just aren't going
> to happen, and whilst you're welcome to try, it's a waste of evereyone's
> time to carry on the charade.
Well, Paul Smith is a prat, 'tis true, but teh US patent office also
refused flat out to grant a patent on what they plainly considered to
be an obviously nonsensical application for a negative feedback system
in amplification, on teh same grounds as they did perpetual motion
machines.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
JohnB
Michael MacClancy wrote:
Doesn't "to do a Smith' mean to give sod all thought to anyone else?
John B
Graham Arden
>
> I'd also compare it to conspiracy theorists and other assorted loons.
> Niel Armstrong doesn't talk to any of them, Buzz Aldrin punches them.
>
>
Yes, I knew there was a reason I preferred Buzz!
--
----------------------------------------------------
Graham Arden
Llangernyw, North Wales
www.trigfa.co.uk
----------------------------------------------------
Thomas
"Ian Smith" <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnbsa1v...@phlegethon.smithnet...
Awww, give over :)
I think it's fair to say that were a machine run for a year, all the while
running at over 100% efficiency, they'd give over. But then, it's not gonna
happen - someone watching a vacuum energy machine might swear blind that
it's running at over 100%, but the energy's still coming from somewhere.
But enough of physics geekery, I say!
Thomas.
Colin Blackburn
re...@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> What difference does it make to your dad if it's Smith or another blue
> badge holder?
It makes no material difference at the time since his dad can't park
there. However, if there are six spaces filled with non-badged cars then
something needs to be done about the policing of the parking spaces. If
the six spaces are filled with badged cars then something needs to be done
about the number of spaces/badges.
> I'm not supporting his rants or stance just pointing out that it's not as
> simple as blue badges good /rest of people bad not every one can get
> close to the door/wider spaces and it's not going to be long before the
> system needs re-thinking.
Probably. With an aging population of people who drive. I remember that
none of my grandparents drove while all my siblings and cousins are
drivers and are likely to continue driving into old age, if they get there.
Colin
--
Mark McN
> I've saved it as mp3 and filed it under d:\mp3\humour
>
> I'll make it available if you don't have any luck on the BBC site.
>
>
perhaps we can hope that P**l Sm*** will put it on his website? ;-)
--
Mark, UK.
If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find
something in them to hang him. - Richelieu
Trevor Barton
> Reply to Richard Bates
>> I've saved it as mp3 and filed it under d:\mp3\humour
>>
>> I'll make it available if you don't have any luck on the BBC site.
>>
>>
> I missed it, and I'd be very grateful if you'd send me a copy - but
> perhaps we can hope that P**l Sm*** will put it on his website? ;-)
Don't be silly, P**l Sm*** will see it as a great victory for his
cause rather than the way it really is, ie the police and even
our glorious Magesty's government labelling him a tosspot.
Trev
Peter Clinch
> Don't be silly, P**l Sm*** will see it as a great victory for his
> cause rather than the way it really is, ie the police and even
> our glorious Magesty's government labelling him a tosspot.
I'd say that nobody really scored (or lost) any Points, at least as far
as Mr & Mrs. A Typical-Listener will be concerned. You really have to
go to the website to see exactly what state of dreamworld he exists in...
al_Mossah
"Ian" <spaman...@greasy.joes> wrote in message
news:BBE98242.174F5%spaman...@greasy.joes...
> Paul Smith scribed with passion and wit:
>
> > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:52:47 -0000, "rifleman" <m...@privacy.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Can someone enlighten me about this person?
> >
> > See for yourself.
> Who woke up the troll?
> --
> Ian
>
> http://www.catrike.co.uk
>
Sorry if this appears twice. I posted it yesterday, but haven't seen it.
By some bizarre coincidence yesterday I scanned this user group around
5.00pm, and got into the thread on the Sunday Times article. Having spent
too long in reading the crazed rantings of P*** S*****, I went out to drive
home (shame on me, I know, but First Great Western in its wisdom has decided
to cancel my train for the next 2 weeks), my thoughts still on the subject
of road safety, speed cameras etc. Imagine my horror when I heard the
dulcet tones of P*** S*** for the first time. He does exist, albeit it in a
twilight world of fantasy. Given the lack of time delay in the interview,
he is also on Planet Earth, which I find particularly disturbing. I had
always assumed that the Universe he lived in had different laws of physics
to those which we have to work within.
I agree that unfortunately the article gave him more credibility than he
deserves (but I guess that the opposite is impossible). It would have been
far better if the North Wales CC had come on and called P**** S****** what
he is.
I love the logic of PS. Drivers exceeding speed limits see a speed camera
and hit the brakes. A resulting accident is obviously the fault of the
camera and not the drivers.
Did anyone see J*****y Cl*******on on Top Gear on Sunday? He had one of his
rants about speed cameras, and showed a graph showing how the number of
deaths on the roads was constant despite the presence of speed cameras.
This had all the hallmarks of lies, damned lies and Smithistics. There is
no source for these figures on the Top Gear Website. I have asked them for
it.
Peter.
Michael MacClancy
news:slrnbsbon...@sheep.isotek.co.uk...
Unfortunately neither the police nor the government have publically labelled
him as anything and this is the problem with the letter. It asks people not
to cooperate with him because he is campaigning against government policy.
The letter doesn't try to justify government policy or repudiate his
arguments. It doesn't say that
P**L Sm*** is a time-wasting irritant who fails to back down in the face of
overwhelming evidence. I don't think he got airtime on the BBC because of
his views about road safety. The BBC picked up the story because of its
civil rights aspects.
___
Michael MacClancy
Trevor Barton
Sadly, yes.
--
Trevor Barton
Paul Smith
Do you doubters know what I'm calling for?
I'm calling for a return to the road safety policies which gave us the
safest roads in the world in the first place.
My entire view is that of the mainstream establishment just over 10
years ago.
Since then there's been an international "conspiracy of stupidity" and
road safety has gone down the wrong path. The elements of the
conspiracy of stupidity?
1) Reduce road safety to something easy to measure.
2) Road accidents are physics. (Wrong, the physics are available to do
the damage for years on end, but the accident only takes place as a
result of a driver failure. Accidents are therefore rooted in
psychology.)
3) Speed kills. A totally useless concept unless one includes a very
clear understanding of what is meant by "speed". Speed in mph is not
help. Speed relative to the conditions is vital.
You guys shouldn't be falling into these traps of oversimplified
thinking.
--
Paul Smith
Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk
please remove "XYZ" to reply by email
One third of roads fatalities are now caused by speed cameras
Clive George
news:odtbsvk9sojn6bmcr...@4ax.com...
> Do you doubters know what I'm calling for?
Yup.
"I have expended a great deal of time and energy in advancing my own
personal driving skills and I demand the right to use those skills to
the full. (I'm passionate about advanced driving which is both fast
and safe.)"
clive
Paul Smith
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Do you doubters know what I'm calling for?
>Yup.
>"I have expended a great deal of time and energy in advancing my own
>personal driving skills and I demand the right to use those skills to
>the full. (I'm passionate about advanced driving which is both fast
>and safe.)"
Since there's very little speed enforcement here in North Scotland
(where I live and also do the vast bulk of my annual mileage) that
doesn't stand the briefest scrutiny.
Neither do I regard advanced driving as "fast". Often it's slow.
Tony W
Yes. Many of us have looked at the Complete Bollox[tm] that you are pushing
and, after due consideration (given that several people here have fairly
high level scientific or engineering qualifications and are well able to
assess the 'quality' of your work) have decided that the evidence that you
are putting forward does not stack up.
This is because you have only a slight grasp of statistics and little or no
grasp of reality.
You are attempting to use quack science to 'prove' your contention.
The recent round robin from the Chief Constable demonstrates that others are
fed up with you tactic of selectively quoting from official and public
information in such a way as to make it appear they are withholding
evidence.
Now bog off back to your cave. You are clearly barking and its been nice
and quiet in here for several months while you have been getting treatment.
T
Peter Clinch
> 3) Speed kills. A totally useless concept unless one includes a very
> clear understanding of what is meant by "speed". Speed in mph is not
> help. Speed relative to the conditions is vital.
OK, so Excessive Speed for the Conditions Kills, as we all know.
Now, given that speed limits are maxima, and there are plenty of places
where even Michael Shumacher guaranteed a clear road would be hard
pushed to keep to the maximum, it follows to Anyone With A Brain that
the maximum posted speeds are not recommendations as to how fast you
*should* travel, and you should still account for the conditions.
All you need to add to that is the realisation that anything *over* the
stated maximum should be considered unsafe, even if only because your
money and license is at risk. A maximum speed limit *in no way*
prevents a driver from slowing to an appropriate speed. On a road with
speed cameras, anyone taking your accidents caused by cameras theory to
heart would be driving at an appropriate speed *inside the limit* as
they would be aware they were adding to the risk by driving faster and
having to slow down suddenly. They don't do that, so why do you think
they'll suddenly grow good sense neurons if they go? (aside from
"because I've decided it will", that is).
Velvet
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:21:27 -0000, "Clive George"
> <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>Do you doubters know what I'm calling for?
>
>
>>Yup.
>
>
>>"I have expended a great deal of time and energy in advancing my own
>>personal driving skills and I demand the right to use those skills to
>>the full. (I'm passionate about advanced driving which is both fast
>>and safe.)"
>
>
> Since there's very little speed enforcement here in North Scotland
> (where I live and also do the vast bulk of my annual mileage) that
> doesn't stand the briefest scrutiny.
>
> Neither do I regard advanced driving as "fast". Often it's slow.
But is your opinion that fast driving is 'advanced'?
Velvet
W K
> Since then there's been an international "conspiracy of stupidity" and
> road safety has gone down the wrong path. The elements of the
> conspiracy of stupidity?
>
> 1) Reduce road safety to something easy to measure.
Which you have done far more stupidly than anyone else has attempted with
you graph fitting nonsense.
> 2) Road accidents are physics. (Wrong, the physics are available to do
> the damage for years on end, but the accident only takes place as a
> result of a driver failure. Accidents are therefore rooted in
> psychology.)
And you are no expert on psychology. In fact, many of your posts make me
wonder whether you have any insight into the mental processes of other
people at all.
> 3) Speed kills. A totally useless concept unless one includes a very
> clear understanding of what is meant by "speed". Speed in mph is not
> help. Speed relative to the conditions is vital.
You have often refused to believe that at all. even when put as simply as on
road X if you went down at 65 mph would it be more dangerous than 55?
I note that when asked "does speed kill" you did not disagree.
Colin Blackburn
<psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:21:27 -0000, "Clive George"
> <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Do you doubters know what I'm calling for?
>
>> Yup.
>
>> "I have expended a great deal of time and energy in advancing my own
>> personal driving skills and I demand the right to use those skills to
>> the full. (I'm passionate about advanced driving which is both fast
>> and safe.)"
>
> Since there's very little speed enforcement here in North Scotland
> (where I live and also do the vast bulk of my annual mileage) that
> doesn't stand the briefest scrutiny.
But it's a quote from you. You said it in Message-ID:
<7ihvfts66c68rssl5...@4ax.com> on 14 May 2001. It was one
answer to the following question:
"Keep below the limit, and you lose absolutely nothing. Why is that
unfair?"
Colin
--
Paul Smith
>> Neither do I regard advanced driving as "fast". Often it's slow.
>But is your opinion that fast driving is 'advanced'?
Absolutely not. No.
Paul Smith
<colin.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> "I have expended a great deal of time and energy in advancing my own
>>> personal driving skills and I demand the right to use those skills to
>>> the full. (I'm passionate about advanced driving which is both fast
>>> and safe.)"
>> Since there's very little speed enforcement here in North Scotland
>> (where I live and also do the vast bulk of my annual mileage) that
>> doesn't stand the briefest scrutiny.
>But it's a quote from you. You said it in Message-ID:
><7ihvfts66c68rssl5...@4ax.com> on 14 May 2001. It was one
>answer to the following question:
>"Keep below the limit, and you lose absolutely nothing. Why is that
>unfair?"
I think "demanding the right" is very important. It's not at all about
my personal experience nor about my personal motivation.
I don't think the bit in brackets stands alone. May be there was some
more context, but I'm not going to take the time to check.
Advanced driving is often fast and safe. Sometimes it's slow and safe.
Paul Smith
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>Paul Smith wrote:
>
>> 3) Speed kills. A totally useless concept unless one includes a very
>> clear understanding of what is meant by "speed". Speed in mph is not
>> help. Speed relative to the conditions is vital.
>
>OK, so Excessive Speed for the Conditions Kills, as we all know.
>
>Now, given that speed limits are maxima, and there are plenty of places
>where even Michael Shumacher guaranteed a clear road would be hard
>pushed to keep to the maximum, it follows to Anyone With A Brain that
>the maximum posted speeds are not recommendations as to how fast you
>*should* travel, and you should still account for the conditions.
>
>All you need to add to that is the realisation that anything *over* the
>stated maximum should be considered unsafe, even if only because your
>money and license is at risk. A maximum speed limit *in no way*
>prevents a driver from slowing to an appropriate speed. On a road with
>speed cameras, anyone taking your accidents caused by cameras theory to
>heart would be driving at an appropriate speed *inside the limit* as
>they would be aware they were adding to the risk by driving faster and
>having to slow down suddenly. They don't do that, so why do you think
>they'll suddenly grow good sense neurons if they go? (aside from
>"because I've decided it will", that is).
Then how is it possible that excessive "speed accidents" are actually
increasing?
http://www.safsepeed.org.uk/burbeck.html
Colin Blackburn
<psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:59:55 -0000, Colin Blackburn
> <colin.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> "I have expended a great deal of time and energy in advancing my own
>>>> personal driving skills and I demand the right to use those skills to
>>>> the full. (I'm passionate about advanced driving which is both fast
>>>> and safe.)"
>
>>> Since there's very little speed enforcement here in North Scotland
>>> (where I live and also do the vast bulk of my annual mileage) that
>>> doesn't stand the briefest scrutiny.
>
>> But it's a quote from you. You said it in Message-ID:
>> <7ihvfts66c68rssl5...@4ax.com> on 14 May 2001. It was one
>> answer to the following question:
>
>> "Keep below the limit, and you lose absolutely nothing. Why is that
>> unfair?"
>
> I think "demanding the right" is very important. It's not at all about
> my personal experience nor about my personal motivation.
>
> I don't think the bit in brackets stands alone. May be there was some
> more context, but I'm not going to take the time to check.
There was no more context. You were asked the question. You gave five
reasons in your answer. The other four were general in that they referred
to all motorists. This one was personal and is quoted fully.
You demand the right to break the speed limit. Clear enough.
Colin
--
Paul Smith
<colin.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
I demand the right to drive at a safe speed for all road users.
If you think you have scored a point by picking apart the exact words
that I wrote in a newsgroup post over two years ago, then please give
yourself a gold star.
Colin Blackburn
It involved no "picking apart", it's there in black and white, or whatever
colours you use. What it does is demonstrate one of your motives, one I
find unsavoury. If you are such a skilled and advanced driver I see no
reason why *you* can't stick below the speed limit---even if you don't
grant the rest of us plebs that ability---up until such time as your
campaign bears fruit.
Colin
--
Paul Smith
<colin.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:46:00 +0000, Paul Smith
><psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:37:32 -0000, Colin Blackburn
>> <colin.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> You demand the right to break the speed limit. Clear enough.
>> I demand the right to drive at a safe speed for all road users.
>> If you think you have scored a point by picking apart the exact words
>> that I wrote in a newsgroup post over two years ago, then please give
>> yourself a gold star.
>It involved no "picking apart", it's there in black and white, or whatever
>colours you use. What it does is demonstrate one of your motives, one I
>find unsavoury. If you are such a skilled and advanced driver I see no
>reason why *you* can't stick below the speed limit---even if you don't
>grant the rest of us plebs that ability---up until such time as your
>campaign bears fruit.
That usenet post you dug out dates to 16/05/2001, which also happens
to be the day I first tested the Safe Speed web site.
Can't you find an issue worth arguing about?
Peter Clinch
> Then how is it possible that excessive "speed accidents" are actually
> increasing?
because too many people are going too fast
Tony W
>
> I demand the right to drive at a safe speed for all road users.
Then pull over, apply the handbrake and turn off the ignition. Zero is the
only safe speed. All others involve a degree of risk.
> If you think you have scored a point by picking apart the exact words
> that I wrote in a newsgroup post over two years ago, then please give
> yourself a gold star.
Can I have a gold star too then. You argued that you could predict when
deer were about to leap into the road from the glints of their eyes -- yet
you do not expect an ordinary driver (who, I accept, may be less talented
and less well trained than you) to notice about 4 sq.ft. of dayglo and
reflective yellow on the back of a camera in time to bring their speed below
the legal limit for the road -- a limit they should not have been exceeding
in the first place.
T
Peter Clinch
> That usenet post you dug out dates to 16/05/2001, which also happens
> to be the day I first tested the Safe Speed web site.
>
> Can't you find an issue worth arguing about?
Why find new ones, when you don't answer the old ones adequately?
Paul Smith
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>Paul Smith wrote:
>> Then how is it possible that excessive "speed accidents" are actually
>> increasing?
>because too many people are going too fast
But the increase in speed camera convictions over 7 years has been
from:
year / proportion of excessive speed accidents in warwickshire
1995 15.3%
2002 20.2%
year / speed camera convictions (England and Wales)
1995 207,000
2002 1,400,000 (estimated)
So that's a 30% increase in excessive speed accidents and a 576%
increase in camera convictions.
David Hansen
<psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote this:-
>I'm calling for a return to the road safety policies which gave us the
>safest roads in the world in the first place.
As defined by the figures produced by the UK road "safety" lobby.
You already know the critique but here it is again:
1) They only considered safety only in relation to those inside
motor vehicles
2) The reduction in casualty figures for some other groups was not
because they were safer, but because they were driven off the roads
by the danger caused to them by 1).
3) The UK road "safety" decided which figures to collect and
publish. They did not collect and publish figures which showed their
policies were failing.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Peter Clinch
> But the increase in speed camera convictions over 7 years has been
> from:
>
> year / proportion of excessive speed accidents in warwickshire
>
> 1995 15.3%
> 2002 20.2%
>
> year / speed camera convictions (England and Wales)
>
> 1995 207,000
> 2002 1,400,000 (estimated)
>
> So that's a 30% increase in excessive speed accidents and a 576%
> increase in camera convictions.
Camera convictions are simply direct evidence of someone breaking a
maximum speed limit. If these exist *at all* is, to quote myself,
"because too many people are going too fast".
If excessive speed accidents exist *at all* it is, to quote myself,
"because too many people are going too fast".
There is no "But" to worry about. Too many people are going too fast,
period. This is the underlying cause of speed accidents, and removing
speed cameras fails to address that.
Paul Smith
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:11:03 +0000 someone who may be Paul Smith
><psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote this:-
>>I'm calling for a return to the road safety policies which gave us the
>>safest roads in the world in the first place.
>As defined by the figures produced by the UK road "safety" lobby.
>You already know the critique but here it is again:
>1) They only considered safety only in relation to those inside
>motor vehicles
Who did that?
>2) The reduction in casualty figures for some other groups was not
>because they were safer, but because they were driven off the roads
>by the danger caused to them by 1).
In same cases real danger, in some cases imagined danger. yes.
>3) The UK road "safety" decided which figures to collect and
>publish. They did not collect and publish figures which showed their
>policies were failing.
This is piffle. The official fatality figures go back to 1950 and are
pretty close to perfect. (30 day standard)
There certainly is not an error greater than 0.5%.
David Martin
"Paul Smith" <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote:
> year / proportion of excessive speed accidents in warwickshire
>
> 1995 15.3%
> 2002 20.2%
Is that accidents solely attributable to excessive speed or all accidents
that were exacerbated by excessive speed?
>
> year / speed camera convictions (England and Wales)
>
> 1995 207,000
> 2002 1,400,000 (estimated)
Convictions per active camera might be a better measure as there is no doubt
that not all the 17 million speeders get a ticket in any one year. Camera
coverage has increased somewhat over those seven years.
> So that's a 30% increase in excessive speed accidents and a 576%
> increase in camera convictions.
So we have a voluntary tax on speeding that people are obviously happy to
pay. Otherwise, being such great drivers, they would be able to control
their vehicles in an appropriate manner to avoid breaking the law (and
risking subsequent punishment).
I have no qualms over seeing the number of speeding fines rise. Like the
national lottery it is a tax on stupidity or carelessness.
..d
Paul Smith
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>Paul Smith wrote:
>
>> But the increase in speed camera convictions over 7 years has been
>> from:
>>
>> year / proportion of excessive speed accidents in warwickshire
>>
>> 1995 15.3%
>> 2002 20.2%
>>
>> year / speed camera convictions (England and Wales)
>>
>> 1995 207,000
>> 2002 1,400,000 (estimated)
>>
>> So that's a 30% increase in excessive speed accidents and a 576%
>> increase in camera convictions.
>
>Camera convictions are simply direct evidence of someone breaking a
>maximum speed limit. If these exist *at all* is, to quote myself,
>"because too many people are going too fast".
where "too fast" = "exceeding the speed limit"
>If excessive speed accidents exist *at all* it is, to quote myself,
>"because too many people are going too fast".
where "too fast" = "too fast for the conditions"
therefore "too fast" does not equal "too fast" :)
>There is no "But" to worry about. Too many people are going too fast,
>period. This is the underlying cause of speed accidents, and removing
>speed cameras fails to address that.
False. Because of a fatally flawed road safety policy drivers are now
less effective at slowing down when necessary and are having more
excessive speed accidents.
Paul Smith
<d.m.a....@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 27/11/03 3:59 pm, in article 077csv4n3n90d0455...@4ax.com,
>"Paul Smith" <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote:
>> year / proportion of excessive speed accidents in warwickshire
>> 1995 15.3%
>> 2002 20.2%
>Is that accidents solely attributable to excessive speed or all accidents
>that were exacerbated by excessive speed?
It would be necessary to ask Warwickshire constabulary to be entirely
certain. Those are the proportion of injury accident reports which
include excessive speed as an accident contributory factor.
There's a reference to the report on:
http://www.safsepeed.org.uk/burbeck.html
Note that "excessive speed" does not necessarily involve exceeding a
speed limit. In Avon and Somerset, only 30% of excessive speed
accidents involved exceeding a speed limit.
http://www.safsepeed.org.uk/aands.html
>> year / speed camera convictions (England and Wales)
>>
>> 1995 207,000
>> 2002 1,400,000 (estimated)
>Convictions per active camera might be a better measure as there is no doubt
>that not all the 17 million speeders get a ticket in any one year. Camera
>coverage has increased somewhat over those seven years.
I think the risk of a ticket is communicated to all drivers every time
they pass a camera, active or otherwise.
>> So that's a 30% increase in excessive speed accidents and a 576%
>> increase in camera convictions.
>So we have a voluntary tax on speeding that people are obviously happy to
>pay. Otherwise, being such great drivers, they would be able to control
>their vehicles in an appropriate manner to avoid breaking the law (and
>risking subsequent punishment).
>I have no qualms over seeing the number of speeding fines rise. Like the
>national lottery it is a tax on stupidity or carelessness.
If fatalities or excessive speed accidents were reducing nicely, I'd
agree. Since neither are, it's the cameras themselves which represent
utter stupidity.
Peter Clinch
> where "too fast" = "exceeding the speed limit"
That's right. Because going over the speed limit invites conviction and
fines and possible license suspension, which is a Bad Thing. Good
driving is about avoiding Bad Things.
> where "too fast" = "too fast for the conditions"
Because you'd crash, which is a Bad Thing.
> therefore "too fast" does not equal "too fast" :)
I don't see why you're smiling. One is stupid and the other is stupid,
which is effectively the same for anyone who isn't stupid. Both should
be avoided, so in both cases it's "too fast for the conditions", because
the conditions always include fines and possible suspension for breaking
the limit. That is *part* of the conditions and failing to realise that
is bad driving.
> False. Because of a fatally flawed road safety policy drivers are now
> less effective at slowing down when necessary and are having more
> excessive speed accidents.
Removing speed cameras does not address the ability of drivers to slow
down when necessary if they are driving properly. What affects that is
if they're going too fast, or rather, not driving properly. If they are
not driving properly they are dangerous, and the presence or otherwise
of speed cameras is irrelevant to that. If they were driving properly
they'd be under the speed limit (see first para for why), but even if
you don't accept that then if they're driving properly they should
certainly notice a bloody great stripy dayglo-clad box if they're paying
attention well up the road in their reasonable slowing distance. If
they're not doing that they're driving badly, and they'll still be
driving badly if the box isn't there.
David Martin
"Paul Smith" <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:12:09 +0000, Peter Clinch
> <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Camera convictions are simply direct evidence of someone breaking a
>> maximum speed limit. If these exist *at all* is, to quote myself,
>> "because too many people are going too fast".
> where "too fast" = "exceeding the speed limit"
>> If excessive speed accidents exist *at all* it is, to quote myself,
>> "because too many people are going too fast".
> where "too fast" = "too fast for the conditions"
> therefore "too fast" does not equal "too fast" :)
>> There is no "But" to worry about. Too many people are going too fast,
>> period. This is the underlying cause of speed accidents, and removing
>> speed cameras fails to address that.
> False. Because of a fatally flawed road safety policy drivers are now
> less effective at slowing down when necessary and are having more
> excessive speed accidents.
I personally find that the design of modern cars insulates the driver from
the surroundings. There is little sensation of speed, and little physical
stimulus to give feedback to the driver. A drivers perception is skewed
dramatically by familiarity. It is almost impossible for a driver to
correctly estimate their speed accurately without considerable practise and
maintaining a constant speed without reference to an objective measure
likewise.
Most drivers dramatically overestimate teh stopping ability of their cars,
especially in poor conditions and drive according to a best case scenario.
Left to their own devices (ie no speed limits, or no enforcement of
appropriate speed limits there will be a massive increase in casualties and
also a massive decrease in the ability of those who need to traverse a road
to do so in safety.
Speed limits provide an absolute fixed point. It may be argued that ' I
didn't crash therefore it was safe' to travel at a particular speed on a
particular road but that misses the point. Most of the time you will be OK,
but some of the time there will be an incident. The trick is to balance
those two at an appropriate level of risk for the traveller and risk for
those in the local environment. Adverse conditions require appropriate
reductions in speed for the same level of risk, and in many cases further
reductions to cope with those who drive on a wet road as if it were dry.
When driving in adverse conditions I will occasionally do a 'brake test' to
see just how long it takes to stop. Usually this results in me slowing down
from my already much slower than the norm speed. Most people cannot be
trusted to determine an appropriate speed so we have limits. If you choose
to exceed them, or do not concentrate hard enough to stay below them (this
gets harder with modern cars and increased pressures on people) then you pay
the consequences.
..d
David Martin
"Paul Smith" <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote:
> I think the risk of a ticket is communicated to all drivers every time
> they pass a camera, active or otherwise.
>
Me:
>> I have no qualms over seeing the number of speeding fines rise. Like the
>> national lottery it is a tax on stupidity or carelessness.
>
> If fatalities or excessive speed accidents were reducing nicely, I'd
> agree. Since neither are, it's the cameras themselves which represent
> utter stupidity.
So drivers see loads of cameras and these remind them to not speed, but then
it is the fault of the cameras that are reminding them to not speed that are
responsible for them speeding.
So reminding someone to not do something is the cause of them doing
something.
Interesting 'logic'.
..d
Paul Smith
You're not accounting for the factor that gave us the safest roads in
the world in the first place.
We had the best safety culture.
Speed camera policy undermines the safety culture and is inexorably
making us more like the Belgians. (The Belgian accident rate is triple
ours)
Paul Smith
<d.m.a....@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>I personally find that the design of modern cars insulates the driver from
>the surroundings. There is little sensation of speed, and little physical
>stimulus to give feedback to the driver. A drivers perception is skewed
>dramatically by familiarity. It is almost impossible for a driver to
>correctly estimate their speed accurately without considerable practise and
>maintaining a constant speed without reference to an objective measure
>likewise.
It's a common complaint, and it may well be worthy. But the changes
have been very steady and progressive over a long period while
accidents were improving nicely.
>Most drivers dramatically overestimate teh stopping ability of their cars,
>especially in poor conditions and drive according to a best case scenario.
If they REALLY did, they could not go 7 days, let alone 7 years
between crashes. Drivers are quite good at stopping at the stop line
for traffic lights for example.
That's not to say there isn't room for improvement. There's ample.
>Left to their own devices (ie no speed limits, or no enforcement of
>appropriate speed limits there will be a massive increase in casualties and
>also a massive decrease in the ability of those who need to traverse a road
>to do so in safety.
I agree we need speed limits. But they should be a small part of the
road safety strategy, and they should be enforced with regard to the
nature of the offence.
>Speed limits provide an absolute fixed point. It may be argued that ' I
>didn't crash therefore it was safe' to travel at a particular speed on a
>particular road but that misses the point. Most of the time you will be OK,
>but some of the time there will be an incident. The trick is to balance
>those two at an appropriate level of risk for the traveller and risk for
>those in the local environment. Adverse conditions require appropriate
>reductions in speed for the same level of risk, and in many cases further
>reductions to cope with those who drive on a wet road as if it were dry.
Absolutely. Regulation of speed to the conditions is a vital skill.
>When driving in adverse conditions I will occasionally do a 'brake test' to
>see just how long it takes to stop. Usually this results in me slowing down
>from my already much slower than the norm speed.
That's a especially excellent idea in winter conditions. Brake 200
yards too early, and you have plenty of time even on sheet ice.
>Most people cannot be
>trusted to determine an appropriate speed so we have limits. If you choose
>to exceed them, or do not concentrate hard enough to stay below them (this
>gets harder with modern cars and increased pressures on people) then you pay
>the consequences.
This point is false. The vast majority (85 to 90%) can be trusted to
set appropriate speeds almost all the time. Asking drivers to "pay the
price" for exceeding the speed limit when their speed was appropriate
to the conditions has negative effects on road safety.
Paul Smith
<d.m.a....@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>> I think the risk of a ticket is communicated to all drivers every time
>> they pass a camera, active or otherwise.
>>
>Me:
>>> I have no qualms over seeing the number of speeding fines rise. Like the
>>> national lottery it is a tax on stupidity or carelessness.
>> If fatalities or excessive speed accidents were reducing nicely, I'd
>> agree. Since neither are, it's the cameras themselves which represent
>> utter stupidity.
>So drivers see loads of cameras and these remind them to not speed, but then
>it is the fault of the cameras that are reminding them to not speed that are
>responsible for them speeding.
>So reminding someone to not do something is the cause of them doing
>something.
>Interesting 'logic'.
<smile>
Try these:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/inattention.html
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html
Clive George
While you're here Paul, how's the cycling going?
Now that you're a full time road safety campaigner, can I suggest you do a
bit more? It's excellent exercise for the heart and limbs which would
otherwise atrophy sitting at a desk all the time, and you will of course be
getting stressed as a result of having to argue with all those people who
don't agree with you. Many people on this group find that a quick bike ride
(20-30 mins, moderately hard effort) provides the perfect way of excising
all those mental stresses, returning you fresh to your task.
cheers,
clive
(And yes, I am being entirely serious)
W K
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 13:53:06 +0000, Peter Clinch
> >pushed to keep to the maximum, it follows to Anyone With A Brain that
> >the maximum posted speeds are not recommendations as to how fast you
> >*should* travel, and you should still account for the conditions.
As any expert on psychology that was as highly qualified as PS would tell
you, "other people have no brains".
Hence whenever anyone sees a "30" sign they stick to that speed even if
heading towards a broken down truck
> Then how is it possible that excessive "speed accidents" are actually
> increasing?
>
> http://www.safsepeed.org.uk/burbeck.html
Your link is broken.
A simple answer. - criteria for recording
Richard Bates
<bq4i1h$6n6$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, Mark McN
<ma...@gesualdo.freeserveMUSTGETABETTERADDY.co.uk> wrote:
>Reply to Richard Bates
>> I've saved it as mp3 and filed it under d:\mp3\humour
>>
>> I'll make it available if you don't have any luck on the BBC site.
>>
>>
>I missed it, and I'd be very grateful if you'd send me a copy - but
>perhaps we can hope that P**l Sm*** will put it on his website? ;-)
It is available at www.suttonbrass.org.uk/pillock/ps-bbc.mp3 for a
short time. Size is 600k
--
Sig got lost during a reinstall
Paul Smith
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Back on topic for this group:
>While you're here Paul, how's the cycling going?
Ooops.
>Now that you're a full time road safety campaigner, can I suggest you do a
>bit more? It's excellent exercise for the heart and limbs which would
>otherwise atrophy sitting at a desk all the time, and you will of course be
>getting stressed as a result of having to argue with all those people who
>don't agree with you. Many people on this group find that a quick bike ride
>(20-30 mins, moderately hard effort) provides the perfect way of excising
>all those mental stresses, returning you fresh to your task.
>(And yes, I am being entirely serious)
I'm absolutely certain that you are correct about the exercise.
Having been ill earlier in the year it's more important than ever for
me to get more exercise.
However, I don't get "stressed" doing this stuff. :)
Thanks for the smile and the sage advice.
W K
> False. Because of a fatally flawed road safety policy drivers are now
> less effective at slowing down when necessary and are having more
> excessive speed accidents.
Yes, that psychological expertise of yours.
People lose all judgement of what speed is appropriate because they
occaisionally stick to the limit.
Have you anything other than your own assertion to support this?
(I'm talking about psycology here, not what you can cobble together from
your crap interpretation of stats)
Paul Smith
wrote:
>> >pushed to keep to the maximum, it follows to Anyone With A Brain that
>> >the maximum posted speeds are not recommendations as to how fast you
>> >*should* travel, and you should still account for the conditions.
>As any expert on psychology that was as highly qualified as PS would tell
>you, "other people have no brains".
>Hence whenever anyone sees a "30" sign they stick to that speed even if
>heading towards a broken down truck
>> Then how is it possible that excessive "speed accidents" are actually
>> increasing?
>> http://www.safsepeed.org.uk/burbeck.html
>Your link is broken.
Sorry. Should be:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/burbeck.html
W K
> You're not accounting for the factor that gave us the safest roads in
> the world in the first place.
>
> We had the best safety culture.
We actually went more slowly and behaved more calmly.
You seem to be hankering for a golden age that did not exist.
> Speed camera policy undermines the safety culture
Complete tripe. When was this golden age of safety culture? when drink
driving was more common, cars were not designed for safety, people didn't
wear seat belts.
> and is inexorably
> making us more like the Belgians. (The Belgian accident rate is triple
> ours)
Many strange assertions there.
Many countries have shown that safety improvements have levelled out, apart
from those where the roads are far far more dangerous anyway.
Paul Smith
wrote:
>"Paul Smith" <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:2r8csvcc365f5p6a8...@4ax.com...
>> False. Because of a fatally flawed road safety policy drivers are now
>> less effective at slowing down when necessary and are having more
>> excessive speed accidents.
>Yes, that psychological expertise of yours.
>People lose all judgement of what speed is appropriate because they
>occaisionally stick to the limit.
No, that's not it. It's the influence of the policy on the culture and
influence of the culture on driver performance.
>Have you anything other than your own assertion to support this?
It's a huge subject that lacks adequate "overall research".
There are supporting fragments everywhere. But as far as I know no one
else has actually assembled the fragments. I haven't tried to write a
scientific paper, but the building blocks are all readily verifiable.
1) Speed kills contributes to distraction and inattention because it
incorporates no practical truth - yet drivers are asked to incorporate
it in almost all driving. This reduces attention to the road ahead by
a fraction.
2) 75% (or so) of accidents result from carelessness or inattention of
one sort or another.
3) Ten times as many near misses result from the same effects and with
a fraction less attention can easily become accidents.
4) Inattention results in less braking before impact and increases
impact speeds.
5) Every single accident and near miss is preceded by an opportunity
to avoid which is missed (possibly excluding mechanical failure).
>(I'm talking about psycology here, not what you can cobble together from
>your crap interpretation of stats)
Ian
>
> Having been ill earlier in the year it's more important than ever for
> me to get more exercise.
>
> However, I don't get "stressed" doing this stuff. :)
>
> Thanks for the smile and the sage advice.
Succumb to the dark side Yoda.
--
Ian