Nuxx:E0a44fb3-a4cb-4dcf-baf7-000967270556@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Labyrinthine paranoia Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:51:20 -0700 (PDT) References:  <55ed3ca7-b0fd-4e2b-bfb4-fd336e888dfc@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 60 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.145.93 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217425881 6848 127.0.0.1 (30 Jul 2008 13:51:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:51:21 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.145.93; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4211 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:659708

On Jul 30, 12:20=A0pm, Roger Thorpe  wrote: > Nuxx Bar wrote: > > =A0 When have any of > > > the trolls here ever provided the slightest evidence that exceeding a > > speed limit is "unsafe driving"? =A0etc. > > To Nuxx > I have never read any "proof" that exceeding a speed limit is *not* > unsafe driving that cannot also be applied to (say) exceeding the blood > alcohol limit or driving while on the 'phone.

I think you'll find that the burden of proof is on the pro-camera lot, not the anti-camera lot. Would you be happy if the government made cycling without a helmet illegal, started dishing out automatic fines and cycling bans to those who didn't comply, and then said "We're going to keep doing it until someone proves that cycling without a helmet is not unsafe"? What if they did the same thing regarding cycling while listening to earphones? How about cycling above 5mph, or at night, or at all?

Absolute proof that exceeding the speed limit was unsafe, AND that cameras' side effects wouldn't outweigh any lives that were saved, should have been produced before *any* cameras were put up (and why would anyone who really cared about road safety argue with that?)  The fact that that still hasn't happened (obviously, because such a thing would be impossible) is a disgrace. Cameras are a road safety disaster and need to be scrapped NOW (and yes, Crapman, "road safety disaster" is Paul Smith's phrase, but I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your accusations that I've been passing off other people's words as my own).

As for drink-driving or being on the phone, they are unlike speeding in many ways; for example, you need a certain amount of speed to drive at all, but the same does not apply to drinking or being on the phone. (So when a troll says "speed kills", what they really mean is "driving kills", which may explain why they don't like cars.)

> You may be able to get away with it on occasion without causing an > accident, but that does not make it acceptable.

"on occasion"? Are you 'avin' a laff? Is he 'avin' a laff? If you compared the number of incidents of speeding to the number of accidents caused by otherwise law-abiding drivers who were exceeding the speed limit, the utter inaccuracy of your statement would soon become extremely obvious.

> To the rest of us, > Have a look at uk.transport to see what happens when you get a dedicated > =A0 and disruptive poster (Doug) and take him so seriously that a vendett= a > starts with bullying, publishing of personal information, and name > calling. If we want to reply rather than ignore him it's probably best > to avoid making it personal.

I wasn't aware that it had gone that far, but Doug is so unreasonable and determined to provoke drivers that I'm not surprised. Although unlike Chapman and co, he does at least admit to hating motorists.