Nuxx:MPG.2552b3d08ee9907c989688@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news2.euro.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: "Just zis Guy, you know?"  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Appeal (another) against URCM moderation decision (on Re: cycling improves driving..) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:03:02 -0000 References: <7ko8u5F38n5mjU1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 44 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.13 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 091028-0, 28/10/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: ccad82fc.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=7Z24aj]]SC?8oWObf_;Ua>nok4Z\_4KE=9lfi9En X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 3648 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:24515

In article <7ko8u5F38n5mjU1@mid.individual.net>, matt.bourke@nospam.london.com says... > > In fact, I'd go one stage further and say that speed limits are > generally /ignored/. If there is strict enforcement activity, then > things will change. Drivers' speed choice, at the population level, > isn't generally influenced by the prevailing speed limit, but by the lay > of the road and the "message" it gives them. > > This is apparent form observation... In towns with blanket 30 mph speed > limits you'll find places, say on wide boulevards, where speeds of 40+ > mph are common. In other locations, say in narrow streets with parked > cars each side, nothing exceeds 15 mph. The same speed limit applies - > the difference is the road message.

Seems entirely accurate and sensible to me. But unfortunately it also exposes the total inadequacy of overzealous speed enforcement, which is a big no-no on URCM, run as it is by the sorts of car-haters who see speed cameras as such a wonderful weapon against motorists that they must be encouraged even though they kill thousands of people a year (apparently that's a small price to pay for something that's such an effective means of bullying law-abiding motorists).

The above post is exactly the reason why URCM was created: the clique was fed up with people talking sense about road safety and exposing the short-sightedness of anti-motorist measures such as automated speed enforcement, and they knew they couldn't argue with such posts, so they decided to censor them instead. And that's exactly what they're doing. (After all, no-one in their right mind would attempt to argue that there was anything untrue about the above post: it's just unpalatable to fuckwit car-haters, that's all. All I can say is thank god that it *is* true, and that drivers have the sense to choose their speeds according to the conditions, and not some stupid politically motivated number on a sign.)

I'd love to see one of the car-haters attempt to argue that 40mph debated in an honest fashion (which is a big assumption I know), they'd very quickly and hilariously tie themselves up in all sorts of knots. Then you could *really* annoy them by reminding them that the 85th-90th percentile speeds are statistically the safest, and criminalising them is absurd. The truth hurts when you're a fuckwitted car-hater, but it's hard to be sympathetic towards those who've decided to persecute 32 million people at all costs just for trying to get around.
 * isn't* a common speed on 30mph dual carriageways. Assuming that they