Nuxx:1c735732-ce3e-4593-9d56-252c6f004e94@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <1c735732-ce3e-4593-9d56-252c6f004e94@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: OT: Safespeed perceptions Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:14:41 -0700 (PDT) References:      <488e0635$0$2914$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk> <731fdeee-e9ff-498e-86dd-3c1e2937804d@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> Lines: 123 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 1217286882 26720 127.0.0.1 (28 Jul 2008 23:14:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:14:42 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: b1g2000hsg.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: 7712 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:659424

On Jul 28, 8:03=A0pm, spindrift  wrote: > In a way it's a shame smith didn't live long enough to realise > speeding is never a victimless crime

Or rather it is victimless 99.9999999% of the time, but I can see that since you're anti-motorist, you feel the need to lie and pretend otherwise.

> I can see the doddery old bugger > standing terrified at the side of the road as motorists follow his > mantra of driving at whatever speed they like...

Spindrift dishonestly equates speeding with "driving at whatever speed they like". Of course an elderly person wouldn't like someone driving too fast, but he can't even tell the difference between someone going at 30 and someone going at 32. Spindrift knows this perfectly well.

> His oft-repeated claim was that if you speed and there's no accident > that proves it's safe, totally ignoring the effect on other people > even when the speeding driver succeeds in not killing anyone

What "effect" exactly? Who except a busybody or a motorist-hater would care whether someone else was driving at 30 or 31? Now driving too fast or driving aggressively are different matters, but they're not speeding. And saying "even" implies that it's rare that the "speeding" driver doesn't kill anyone, when in reality, billions of incidents of speeding occur every day without anyone coming to harm, and it's extremely rare that any accidents are caused by otherwise law- abiding drivers exceeding a speed limit. But of course, Spindrift knows all this. He just pretends not to because he wants cameras to stay, and he wants cameras to stay because he has an anti-motorist agenda.

It's bad enough having such an agenda at all, but the fact that he continues to lie about it is what makes him a scumbag who cares more about punishing motorists than saving lives. This is where he differs from people like David Damerell, who are very misguided in hating motorists, but not malicious or dishonest.

> the noise,

The reason that the offence of speeding carries points is that it's supposedly dangerous. Noise violations are not dangerous, so noise should never be used as a reason for lowering or enforcing a speed limit.

> the overt aggression,

So 31mph is "overtly aggressive", but 30mph isn't, even though no-one can tell the difference? Once again, Spindrift the crazed motorist- hater deliberately confuses exceeding a speed limit with genuinely aggressive and dangerous offences.

> the pollution,

Now he's getting really desperate. AFAIK 40mph is a more economical speed than 30mph. But motorist-haters like Spindrift are used to using words like "pollution" at the drop of a hat, without even thinking about their meaning. Unless, of course, he means that motorists in general are polluting, and therefore it's a good idea to bully them off the roads with cameras? That's a lot closer to Spindrift's real agenda.

> the side effect of bullying vulnerable road users out of the way,

completely different actions with exceeding a speed limit. Exceeding an arbitrary limit in no way entails bullying anyone out of the way, and bullying people out of the way in no way entails exceeding a speed limit. By so desperately clutching at straws and trying to invent problems with "speeding" that don't exist, Spindrift is just making it more obvious that the real reason for his "hatred of speeding" (and therefore love of cameras) is that he hates motorists and wants them all to be banned.
 * Yet again* Spindrift deliberately and disingenuously equates

> tye anti social aspects of using public roads as a race track etc etc.

And for the umpteenth time in this post alone, Spindrift knowingly equates something genuinely dangerous (racing on the public highway) with exceeding a speed limit. It really is a disgrace that he hasn't long since been disowned by members of this newsgroup. How can anyone who cares about real road safety possibly accept the blatant lies, and deliberate distortion of what really causes accidents, that Spindrift perpetrates time after time? Unless you're a motorist-hater who therefore likes cameras, how can it possibly be a good thing to pretend that exceeding a speed limit causes so many more problems than it actually does?

> Claire, his partner, has now taken over the reigns. She doesn't share > his no-sleep desperation with getting a tag on every story, but when > she does she has no idea what she's talking about. Sad really because > she tries, but just doesn't have it.

How many news articles have featured your poisoned invective? Thankfully for the human race, I believe it's none. The papers know a real crank when they see one...they have to deal with thousands of calls a day from weirdos like Spindrift. I bet Spindrift's tried on many occasions to get journalists to print his hateful, anti-motorist, murderous rubbish, but luckily, such journalists have become adept at picking out real stories from agenda-driven lies.

> The positive is that these days SS isn't even the minor irritation > that the authorities saw it as 12 months ago.

Unfortunately for the lying motorist-haters like you, even if that was true then it wouldn't make any difference to the awkward fact that cameras are costing lives, and will eventually be scrapped, because no amount of government spin or dishonest trolling can cover up the unacceptable numbers of deaths which have occurred since the obsession with cameras began.

You might as well accept that even if you don't care about road users dying, other people do, and so cameras are going to have to go, no matter how much you love them for their motorist-bullying properties. Instead of telling desperate lies about "speeding" being far more dangerous than it is, you might as well accept that cameras are going to be scrapped, and after you've had a good cry, think about what the next great assault on those evil motorists could be.

"But there'll never be anything that's as effective an anti-motorist measure as cameras! Why couldn't cameras just have worked in saving lives, then it'd be game, set and match to the motorist-haters!  It's not fair!" My heart bleeds.