Do you want the Road Tax system to change? Do you have thoughts on the potential changes to the Road Tax system? | No thanks
Beeb Balanced - Survey? - IO
rogerb and I posted responses to the following, and I've not seen either published.

Anyone else responded?

Anyone else had their response published?

See:

Speed cameras: Effective deterrent or added danger?

Talking Point

newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid...m
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Vin
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....


To be honest, Bogush/Independent Observer/IO/Who Knows What Other Pseudonyms, if you posted the kind of aggressive diatribe that you post here (and that I flick past without reading these days) it doesn't surprise me if it's not been published.

Odd, really, because in general I happen to agree with your viewpoints on speed. Unfortunately, you regard anyone with a different viewpoint from yours as some kind of imbecile or enemy to be attacked.

I await an interminable post from you which involves cutting and pasting sections of this post with a textual exegesis of each individual sentence, followed by a protracted whine about free speech.

V

PS. Sorry if this sounds bitter, but I'm in an awful mood after having to follow someone into work for about three miles at 27mph (!) at half past six in the morning on deserted roads (but that weren't quite safe enough to overtake on due to pelican crossings, traffic lights, parked cars, etc)
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - IO
Vin wrote:
>
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
>
>
> To be honest, Bogush/Independent Observer/IO/Who Knows What
> Other Pseudonyms,

The rants of Mary Longford/Rose were me too.

And who knows what other rants!


> if you posted the kind of aggressive
> diatribe that you post here

Errrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I do try to tailor my posts to the medium, forum, and circumstances.

> (and that I flick past without
> reading these days)

Unfortunately a lot of people flick past the polite, reasoned initial post of information (usually official).

But still manage to respond with an agressive anti motoring diatribe couched in personal insults.

Yup, and after a few repetitions of that I do go into S-P-E-L-L-I-N-G I-T O-U-T M-O-D-E.

Having said that, exactly how non-aggressive a response do you feel is warranted in reply to people who call motorists (ie me) murderers ?

By the way: does that mean you missed the post about how I finally found the online version of the article about how a senior RAC PR officer was moonlighting as a Lib-Dem anti car candidate (allegedly)?

Or the one about how an "official" animal rights organisation representative managed to present a "condemnation" of an animal rights activist nailbombing in such a way that it effectively excused it, publicised their own and the bombers' agenda, and condemned the government?

Or the one about the anti car campaign group and how it had co-ordinated the dissemination of its views, and the collection and compilation of favourable responses to its position from the public to present to parliament. (Now I wonder where you see a lot of that going on ?:-(


> it doesn't surprise me if it's not been
> published.
>
> Odd, really, because in general I happen to agree with your
> viewpoints on speed.

Yes, but there is no point telling me that.

Tell T-H-E-M !

Before we have blanket 20mph urban, 40mph rural and 50mph motorway limits, even higher taxes, and a speed/parking tax camera on every corner.

> Unfortunately, you regard anyone with a
> different viewpoint from yours as some kind of imbecile or
> enemy to be attacked.

Again, if you read my posts you would see that I am more than happy to (yes, passionately - wot unlike the anti car brigade then!) argue a point with someone who has a reasonable and sincerely held belief, notwithstanding the fact that I don't agree with it. Ermmmmmmm. Actually, I'd have to disagree with it for that to make any sense.

But yes, eventually, I will get wound up by the insulting presentation of sanctimonious spin, peppered with personal insults.

Especially when "motorists" then insist that I back off and let the spinners have even more free advertising for their position. As though the government aren't already the country's biggest advertiser, more than adequately aided and abetted by a myriad of taxpayer, lottery tax, charity and public transport fare/subsidy funded "independent" anti-motoring lobby groups.

And, yes, because you can't see or hear me getting wound up by that, I do take the effort to present my mono media posts in such a way as to make that obvious.

> I await an interminable post from you which involves cutting
> and pasting sections of this post with a textual exegesis of
> each individual sentence, followed by a protracted whine
> about free speech.

Always happy to oblige: I'm that kind of public spirited and personally helpful guy ;-)


> V
>
> PS. Sorry if this sounds bitter, but I'm in an awful mood
> after having to follow someone into work for about three
> miles at 27mph (!) at half past six in the morning on
> deserted roads (but that weren't quite safe enough to
> overtake on due to pelican crossings, traffic lights, parked
> cars, etc)

And being that kind of public spirited and personally helpful guy I'm quite happy to take the blame for that too.

Can't have the majority of polite motorists getting a guilt complex for sitting back and doing nothing.

While the anti motorists get off their butts and organise things like:

www.stopesso.com/index.php

(Compare that with the motorists response to the Boycott the Pumps campaign)

and eg:

www.realfuelcrisis.co.uk/

or:

alt.venus.co.uk/weed/roads/#rplinks

You won't find any of them spending their time knocking the anti car brigade for suggesting that the anti car brigade should try to ensure that its voice is heard (and acted upon) at all levels.


Motorists might also find it instructive to search out the ranting posts refered to above that non of them can be bothered to read.
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Jud
Does anyone understand this message previuos?
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - IO
So basically what you are saying is that in future I should restict myself to posting things like:

"As chairman of a council committee that finances the installation and maintenance of speed cameras - and gets no financial payback from them - I would like to comment on this issue. Drivers are not being victimised by the use of cameras. The only people who should be afraid of them are lawbreakers. The speed limits are introduced for a reason - usually the safety of the people who are using the roads. Drivers who exceed the speed limits are a danger to other road users, especially pedestrians and cyclists. If we want to see an end to the use of cameras the solution is to drive within the speed limits and their use will become unnecessary.
Mark F, UK"

or:

........This is laughable. The point of a speed camera is to make sure drivers uphold the law, that they respect the speed limit. As such, it should be okay for them to be hidden anywhere. Even better, they should not be visible at all.........

.............What does your father want? Sympathy? If he exceeded the speed limit then he is guilty and deserves punishment..............

from: newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid...m

So the opposite, but a bit less insulting, was a bad idea then?
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - IO
"Oh. Well, I never read anything of his over a couple of lines long, so I missed that. I am consumed with guilt"

Apologies, but the truth never did come nicely packaged and in easily digestible chunks.

As a lawyer you should know that.

Or are all the contracts you deal with a couple of lines long?

And this is why, very shortly, we are going to have blanket 20mph urban speed limits (except for the 10mph home zones), blanket 40mph rural speed limits (except for the 15mph village through route zones), and blanket 50mph motorway limits, policed by speed/parking/pollution tax cameras on every corner.

No one can be bothered to read anything longer or more intelectually demanding than "Speed Kills", or, at a very big push, "Kill Your Speed".
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Mark (Brazil)
I am *SO* going to regret this.

Whilst it may be misleading, and certainly not fair, surely the problem for the motorist is that there would be less accidents and less severe accidents if everybody drove around at 10 mph.

Now, of course this would cripple everything from the economy to supermarket deliveries and I would never support that.

However, it is probably true. I know that the correct approach would be educating pedestrians, educating drivers improving roads, subjective laws, but that is politically harder.

The govt. is likely to be much more concerned with appearing to reduce accidents than it is actually reducing them.

It will come down to vote power and that takes a long time.

> Apologies, but the truth never did come nicely packaged and in easily digestible chunks.

Actually I think it normally does. Thinking about it, I'd probably goes as far as to say it always does.

Its lies and misrepresentations that normally take all of the text.

> As a lawyer you should know that.

Thank you. Now I know where I have been going wrong all these years. I feel fulfilled with a new wealth of self-knowledge and purpose coursing through my veins.

> Or are all the contracts you deal with a couple of lines long?

I wish. But at least there is interest and value in reading them.
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - IO
Did you manage to sample any Fish and Chips







Now that I've grabbed your attention with a short n snappy on-topic soundbite:

Mark (Brazil) wrote:
>
> I am *SO* going to regret this.

Yup ; - )


> Whilst it may be misleading, and certainly not fair, surely
> the problem for the motorist is that there would be less
> accidents and less severe accidents if everybody drove around
> at 10 mph.

Yes, obviously, they would be less severe at 10mph.

Did you collar the pilot and insist that he throttled back to 10 knots on your flight back?!


> Now, of course this would cripple everything from the economy
> to supermarket deliveries and I would never support that.
>
> However, it is probably true.

Nope. As I have repeatedly, and boringly attempted to point out, along with others, in the past:

The optimum safe speed is that at, or below, which 85% of drivers would travel in the absence of speed limits.

Go above, OR BELOW that, and accidents rise!

Currently, on improved roads, speed limits are being reduced below the previously safe ones. The actual limits are being hidden in one way or another. Speed trap cameras erected. And safe motorists taxed.

The unsafe ones (figures given elsewhere in other long boring posts by myself and other old farts) have fake plates/stolen cars, etc.

There is no safety, or other, justification for this, excluding revenue.

And it INCREASES accidents by firstly forcing drivers to travel at a dangerously slow speed, and secondly by diverting their attention from safety issues to keeping their license safe.


> I know that the correct
> approach would be educating pedestrians, educating drivers
> improving roads, subjective laws, but that is politically
> harder.

That doesn't make it right.

Drivers ARE educated.

They need a certain amount of sense to start with.

They do a written test.

Receive training.

Get tested.

And, by definition, are licensed as qualified to safely pilot a car on the public roads.

Not only are pedestrians none of the above: but the government is training them to believe that they have the "right of way" viv a vis a ton of metal doing 30.

And that if the step onto the road the car "must" stop.

In addition they are now going to train children that streets are for playing in, and for addults to stop and chat in.

Currently 84% of pedestrian accidents are caused by the pedestrians themselves.

0.3% caused by excessive (though potentially below the limit) speed.

Again posted numerous times by numerous loonies.


> The govt. is likely to be much more concerned with appearing
> to reduce accidents than it is actually reducing them.

And that is a justification for the above?

Or just for, at best, refusing to read my long and boring posts?

At worst for banning me from posting them?


> It will come down to vote power and that takes a long time.

It takes forever if no one is interested in the truth, or worse, tries to silence it.


> > Apologies, but the truth never did come nicely packaged and
> in easily digestible chunks.
>
> Actually I think it normally does. Thinking about it, I'd
> probably goes as far as to say it always does.

So would you like to paraphrase the above into a nice soundbite for me.

I'm always willing to learn.

And I've often asked for suggestions on how to make my style more acceptable.

To date no one has been able to rise to the challenge.

Perhaps you can succed where the rest failed?


> Its lies and misrepresentations that normally take all of the
> text.

Like "Kill your Speed"?

Or the even more verbose "Speed Kills"!


> > As a lawyer you should know that.
>
> Thank you. Now I know where I have been going wrong all these
> years. I feel fulfilled with a new wealth of self-knowledge
> and purpose coursing through my veins.
>
> > Or are all the contracts you deal with a couple of lines
> long?
>
> I wish. But at least there is interest and value in reading
> them.


Yeah?

And you find my posts boring and lacking value!
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Mark (Brazil)
> Did you collar the pilot and insist that he throttled back to
> 10 knots on your flight back?!

No, why would I do that ?

> Nope. As I have repeatedly, and boringly attempted to point
> out, along with others, in the past:

I disagree. Than safest speed is stationery. The slower, the safer, assuming people obey. Any increase in speed must have an impact on frequency and severity of accidents.

> And safe motorists taxed.

This is a different point. I would agree that there is a revenue motivation, but that was not my point.

> And it INCREASES accidents by firstly forcing drivers to
> travel at a dangerously slow speed, and secondly by diverting
> their attention from safety issues to keeping their license
> safe.

Overstated rubbish. I don't like driving at 30, but I can do it safely. If everybody is doing it, it isn't a dangerously low speed. If driving at 30 is beyond you, drive at 25 and then even if your speed does vary, you'll still be legal.

> That doesn't make it right.

That wasn't my point, neither did I say it did.

> > The govt. is likely to be much more concerned with appearing
> > to reduce accidents than it is actually reducing them.

That wasn't my point, neither did I say it did.

> And you find my posts boring and lacking value!

Yes.

Two points;

You'll never win anything, or even maintain anybody's interest, if you alienate everybody who doesn't have exactly the opinion you would like them to have.

Secondly, like it or not, you would like to do something [increase speed limits] which *will* result in more, and more severe, accidents. You will probably need to find something a little more convincing then repeating the same arguments over and over.

Since you are open to suggestions, then why don't you try a less combative method of discussion. I don't know if it will help you to get people to agree with you, but it will help you to get them to listen to you, which is a start.
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Alwyn
I had the same accusation. Boring! Your writings sound just like mine on many things but are clearly put more betterer.

On the speed kills thing, did you know that the first pedestrian to walk in front of a car and be killed was Bridget Driscoll. The collision took place on a terrace in the grounds of the Crystal Palace London on August 17th 1896.

The car was reported to be travelling at 4 mph!
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - IO
And even worse to post this aggressive diatribe when the first didn't appear:

> I'm fed up with people who think that ............... is just a technical offence and that .............. are a breach of their civil liberties.

> The point of a ................ is to make sure ................ uphold the law, that they respect the ............

> This is not big brother nonsense - the roads are public property and it is the duty of the police to ensure they are safe.

> If he ................ then he is guilty and deserves punishment.


As 84% of pedestrian accidents are caused by the pedestrians themselves, only around 3% of accidents are caused by speeding, and only around 0.3% of pedestrian accidents are caused by speeding (official, but non spun, figures) I take it that the people who made the above comments will give their wholehearted support for a campaign to convert speed cameras to jaywalking cameras.
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - IO
Enough interminable posts from me which involve cutting and pasting sections of posts with a textual exegesis of each individual sentence yet?


Oops, no, still need to follow up with a protracted whine about free speech.

:-(
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - IO
Double Oops

Just noticed: exactly what is the agenda of "Mark F, UK" ;-(
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Vin
Oh dear.
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Martyn, Back Room moderator
Vin wrote:
>
> Oh dear.

I think you asked for that, Vin!
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Mark (Brazil)
>>Just noticed: exactly what is the agenda of "Mark F, UK" ;-(

If that was aimed at me, I have no idea what you meant.
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Martyn, Back Room moderator
Mark (Brazil) wrote:
>
> If that was aimed at me, I have no idea what you meant.

Welcome home, Mark. Pleasant journey?

In fact, in his defence this once, I think IO was quoting something from another source. See here: www.honestjohn.co.uk/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=26118&t...3

I was going to put something else here, too, but bearing in mind my own Back Room code of conduct I thought better of it.
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Mark (Brazil)

> Welcome home, Mark. Pleasant journey?

The best it was ever going to be was survivable, and I guess it was that, at least. Its a looong flight.

I swear I have no idea how people manage a flight that long sat in economy. No doubt when I have to start paying for my own flights one day, I will do the same, but it must be agony.

On the other hand, who on earth would travel in 1st on their own money ? My tickets were 15k pounds - ludicrous, goodness knows how airlines manage to lose money.

Hope all is well with the family now.

> In fact, in his defence this once, I think IO was quoting something from another source. See here:
> www.honestjohn.co.uk/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=26118&t...3

Oh. Well, I never read anything of his over a couple of lines long, so I missed that. I am consumed with guilt.

M.
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Dan J
Glad you got back ok Mark,

Did you not get my email last week? I wasn't sure if you'd be returning to Heathrow at the time...

Dan J
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Mark (Brazil)
Dan,

I'm sorry, I even replied, I'm not sure why you didn't get it.

As it happens, they delivered the replacement car to me and I didn't have to go back to H'row. Next time.

Did I understand that you work for Georgia Pacific ? I did a contract for them some time ago in the US.

M.
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Dan J
I was sure you would have done - one of those mysterious ones that managed to disappear into the ether...

Glad you had a great time over in Blighty though - Did you manage to sample any Fish and Chips whilst here? I see you've been making the most of your mum's cooking as well! Tempted to move back here yet?!

Yes, I work for Georgia Pacific - the company in Europe was Fort James but was bought out by GP in 99 but all part of the same happy family now. Needless to say I don't discuss our products over the dinner table... Was the contract SAP related?
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Martyn, Back Room moderator
Guys -- can you do this by email?
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Martyn, Back Room moderator
Mark (Brazil) wrote:
>

>
> Oh. Well, I never read anything of his over a couple of lines
> long, so I missed that. I am consumed with guilt.
>
> M.

Yeah!
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - IO
Oops, didn't see that till after the post ;-)
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - KB
I've met people who, to quote the phrase, 'like the sound of their own voice'. I hadn't, till now, encountered someone who 'likes the sight of his own typing' and I think that the manner of your submissions, IO, say's something about you as a person.
Yes, IO, you do have a right to express your views and I have much respect for your conviction. You are as entitled as anyone else to make your point. And you're obviously not daft. But I think (and it' s only my opinion, and I'm entitled to it, just like you), that the manner in which you put your points across is more about conflict and attention seeking and anti-establisment related matters, than your genuine concern about road safety, as you purport.

I'm not entirely without interest in these matters. I've driven Emergency Service vehicles professionally for a very long time and passed more advanced driving tests that I can remember and make my contribution in a number of other directions. I don't think you have any good reason to consider your own concern to be more sincere than many others, who exercise their interests, concerns and contributions in other ways. As has been noted, if you were a bit less confrontational and a bit more reasoning, then you would be listened to and your opinons taken more notice of.

I feel sure you'll respond but, for once, how about making your points without giving the impression you want to rip my throat out. You're not the only one with concerns about the issues you refer to. I get the impression you feel a bit self righteous, frustrated that no-one else matches up to your own standards and morally superior in your outlook and you feel that no-one else has your level of integrity. You say that you're always willing to learn, that you've often asked for suggestions how to make your style more acceptable and that, to date, no-one has been able to rise to the challenge. You say to Mark "perhaps you can succeed where the rest failed". I don't think you are 'willing to learn'. Others have suggested an alternative style but you persist with the old one, and your reference to 'rising to the challenge' makes you sound like some world champion boxer, whom no-one has beaten. Anyway, I've said enough. Over to you. I' m sure you can pull this one to shreds and belittle my thoughts and render yourself the definitive authority on all you survey.
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - IO
And they wonder why I get so wound up and combative.


Lets start with:

"why don't you try a less combative method of discussion. I don't know if it will help you to get people to agree with you, but it will help you to get them to listen to you, which is a start."

You mean like the combative post that started the thread?

And where did that get me?


Or how about:

Mark: "Its lies and misrepresentations that normally take all of the text."

IO: "Like "Kill your Speed"? Or the even more verbose "Speed Kills"!"

Now: who is right? You've got a 50:50 chance here, so if you don't know, just guess.

Is your recommendation that I should gracefully accept defeat and bow out?

Or perhaps work to a compromise position somewhere in the middle?


OK, lets move on to:

Mark: "Secondly, like it or not, you would like to do something [increase speed limits] which *will* result in more, and more severe, accidents. You will probably need to find something a little more convincing then repeating the same arguments over and over."

Actually, if you bothered to read them, I have NEVER said "I want speed limits increased", and have often said some need lowering. And I have pointed out that where appropriate increasing speed limits *will* *reduce* accidents (but this is the government's own research/engineering guidelines).

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Are you parodying my style here: demonstrating what a combative style looks like, and how fruitless simply repeating the same unconvincing argument is?


Mark: "I disagree. Than safest speed is stationery. The slower, the safer, assuming people obey. Any increase in speed must have an impact on frequency and severity of accidents."

IO: "The optimum safe speed is that at, or below, which 85% of drivers would travel in the absence of speed limits. Go above, OR BELOW that, and accidents rise!"

This is a more difficult one. You have to be aware that it is basic traffic engineering. But then you would have to have been reading the posts. Maybe even this one :-(


I won't even bother to bring up:

IO: > Did you collar the pilot and insist that he throttled back to
> 10 knots on your flight back?!

Mark: No, why would I do that ?

Errrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmm

Because:

Mark: > Whilst it may be misleading, and certainly not fair, surely
> the problem for the motorist is that there would be less
> accidents and less severe accidents if everybody drove around
> at 10 mph.

Yes, obviously, they would be less severe at 10mph.

Did you collar the pilot and insist that he throttled back to 10 knots on your flight back?!


I think it's what could be refered to as an analogy..............you know.................drawing a parallel......putting things into perspective..............painting a picture................

Perhaps even putting a different view on things rather than "repeating the same arguments over and over".


Oops, I brought it up after all :-(

Why do I bother?



How am I doing Vin?
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Alwyn
See the effect of reducing and raising limits here under FAQ.

www.wsdot.wa.gov/fossc/trafficoperations/rules.htm

And the effect of lowering speed limits here.

www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - IO
OK, lets play a little game shall we.

Which of the following have I argued for, and which against:

bull bars
special licensing for 4x4s, people carriers and limos
special testing for 4x4, people carrier and limo drivers
motorway test
reduced speed limits in residential areas
reduced limits by schools
speed cameras by schools
speed cameras in residential areas
speed cameras at accident blackspots
tailgating cameras
more traffic police
more prosecutions for dangerous driving
prosecutions for excessive speed below the speed limit
murder/manslaughter charges where appropriate for drivers

PS 'rising to the challenge' wasn't in reference to myself ;-)
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - IO
Talking of combative.

As someone who drives Emergency Service Vehicles have you ever had to deal with the victim of an assault, where the assailant had returned to renew his attack on the victim?

Would you have suggested to the victim that he should have invited the returning assailant to join him in a cosy and genteel chat about the way in which the continuing assault should progress?

We currently have a situation where the capacity of major urban roads are MORE than halved (think about the impact on junctions) by 24 hour bus routes (where are the 24 hour buses ?:-(. Minor roads (and in my area even major roads) with traffic calming (what impact would you say that has on public "safety" as an emergency driver?). Speed limits artificially reduced to inappropriate levels. Motorists charged up to another 80p in tax for the "privilege" of buying 20p of petrol.

The government is looking at increasing all of the above.

Plus filling in and extending bus stop lay-bys into the carriageways so that cars can't get past buses where there aren't bus lanes.

Plus reducing motorway speed limits to 62mph if we are lucky, 50 if not.

Plus reducing rural limits to 40 and urban limits to 20 generally.

Plus reducing speed limits through villages to 15 and in residential areas to 10mph, with traffic having no right of way if the locals want to stop and chat in the road.

Plus parking and "pollution" cameras as well as more speed cameras.

Plus........................

And the way to combat this?

Curl up in a ball, cover your head with arms, lie down and get walked all over, and if you *have* to moan: do it as quietly and unobtrusively as possible!
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - IO
Did anyone ever read this post from that other combative bully:

"Four Years Hard Work: Now We Spring The Trap

"Enclosed is Traffic Reduction File No 10. It springs the trap that you have all worked so hard for over the last four years. All your letters; your phone calls; all your lobbying have set this trap. Every response you sent us we filed; every shift you achieved we noted; every promise, every commitment we recorded. TRF10 is the result.

"But a trap is most effective when properly sprung. In the run-up to the Second Reading of the Bill on 30th January we must snap this trap shut as hard as possible. We have this opportunity now to make all this work really bite, and bite hard."

from: Road traffic campaigners' 'trap' revealed

- Letter to supporters shows real attitudes behind Road Traffic Reduction Bill

www.abd.org.uk/pr/127.htm


Association Of British Drivers Press Release Index

www.abd.org.uk/pr/index.htm



There are people out there with an anti motorist/economy/who knows what agenda working VERY hard to achieve their aims.

I sometimes wonder why THEY bother.

Motorists spend most of their time doing their job for them.


Remember that when you have to get to an emergency on the bus.

And it sinks up to it's axles because the loonies who actually want the roads digging up and grassing over have won!
QED - Vin
My case rests m'lud.
Re: QED - IO
"I do try to tailor my posts to the medium, forum, and circumstances."

(Can you still buy mirrors in this country ? ; - )


> I await an interminable post from you which involves cutting
> and pasting sections of this post with a textual exegesis of
> each individual sentence, followed by a protracted whine
> about free speech.

"Always happy to oblige: I'm that kind of public spirited and personally helpful guy ;-)"


And I plead guilty as charged!


PS I don't suppose that you have taken the time to actually study what I have posted on this thread - which is an attempt to summarise a multitude of points I've been trying to get over in lots of others.

Of course I could have simply said: speed doesn't kill.

But that can read as quite aggressive.

Perhaps: I'd welcome any comments on the possibility that the proposition that speed kills might not be 100% accurate in all circumstances.

But of course then someone would only come back with: of course speed kills, any fool knows that, its obvious and self evident, and if you homicidal motorists are too stupid to realise that then you only have to look at the government statistics from the speed camera trials, or the percentage of accidents caused by speeding.

To which I could then respond by taking, say, one issue, eg speed camera trials, and biting my tongue, and ignoring the implication that I am a dumb blind murderer, point out that the trials covered a number of forces with high accident statistics which were at the high end of the expected range the previous year, and so should go down the next, and a few areas with low accident statistics with average/low figures which wouldn't make much of an impact when you trumpeted the number of lives saved the following year, but gave the appearance of "balance".

To which.........................

To which I could respond by bringing up more information on the speed cameras, plus point out that the governments claim that a third of accidents are caused by speeding is obtained by lumping any action involving any variation on speed (in a hurry to cross a junction from a stationary start across the path of a car doing 20, rushing to get through a light before it changes to red, pulling away too quickly into the back of the car in front at 5mph ...............) to boost the actual 3% figure into something ten times more dramatic.

To which...................


And the people in charge, and the anti-car activists who have their ear, will shake their heads, and wonder why I bother, and why they bother, when the nations motorists are determined to throw themselves en mass, lemming like, over the edge of the nearest speed hump : - (
Re: QED - Mark (Brazil)
You win.

I give up.
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Vin
I, too, concede.
Re: Beeb Balanced - Survey? - Bob
io you always were, you remain and you always will be, a pr*t.

can you not confine yourself to your own web site, bogush's lair, or have people stopped coming to see you?
 

Ask Honest John Right column

Value my car