Nuxx:F3994099-2ed9-4670-9f15-3b4f0f9ee968@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: OT: Safespeed perceptions Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:49:39 -0700 (PDT) References:   <0nrt84h40dl22s1cbidt2qlqliunu4qu67@4ax.com> <9f6c557a-f5cf-4301-9691-c4d1b086f17c@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> Lines: 67 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 1217332180 31521 127.0.0.1 (29 Jul 2008 11:49:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:49:40 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 59g2000hsb.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: 4168 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:659499

On Jul 29, 11:55=A0am, spindrift  wrote: > On Jul 29, 11:39=A0am, David Hansen  > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:22:47 -0500 someone who may be Geoff Lane > >  wrote this:- > > > >'We sympathise with them but we don't agree with it - we don't condone= law > > >breaking. I can understand how frustrated someone can be, especially, = say, > > >if they have lost their job for driving a few miles over a set limit.'= " > > > >http://www.lep.co.uk/travel/Vigilantes-attack-24000-speed-camera.4327.= .. > > > Even that statement is, at best, hyperbole. > > > Motorists are not prosecuted for driving "a few miles" over a limit. > > In a reverse of the usual zero tolerance mantra the police have > > stated that they will generally [1] ignore criminals if they only > > break the law "slightly". > > > In addition, people will (generally [2]) not lose their job if they > > are caught breaking the law "more than slightly" once. Rather they > > will have to have been caught more than once, which means they are a > > serial criminal. If their job depends on having a driving licence > > then they have an easy solution to not losing their job for this > > reason, become a law-abiding citizen. > > > [1] I have never heard of a case where the police did, but the > > weasel words are IIRC a response to a court challenge. > > > [2] in theory a motorist could be banned from driving for one event, > > in which speed was just one factor in the charges. However, such > > cases seem to be as rare as those in [1]. > > > -- > > =A0 David Hansen, Edinburgh > > =A0I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents= me > > =A0http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54 > > Exactly, they overstate their case, and claim they "sympathise" with > arsonists.

Only the arsonists who are saving people's lives and livelihoods. If there were cameras to catch cyclists jumping red lights, you would sympathise with those who set fire to them, and it wouldn't be anything to do with saving lives. You're an unbelievable hypocrite.

> Smith's PR skills were non-existent, his widow's are worse, a major > shot in the foot there.

And what about your PR skills? You've managed to get yourself a reputation as the most deranged anti-motorist muppet on the whole Internet, and your only supporters are a handful of trolls who (worringly) seem to look up to you. You won't even be truthful about your anti-motorist agenda. Once again, your pompous and ludicrous criticisms of the Safe Speed road safety organisation demonstrate the utmost hypocrisy.

You hadn't posted for a while, so I had hoped that you had finally been committed. Oh well, one day soon hopefully.