Nuxx:05d05eec-e1b9-4f8e-afe0-a9df68c85144@t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <05d05eec-e1b9-4f8e-afe0-a9df68c85144@t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Barbara Ellen in the Observer. Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:01:59 -0700 (PDT) References: <6d6ed4f4-6bd1-4617-8feb-466143c36245@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com> <5a88da95-a032-46a6-a672-6a48aa6cdd54@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>   Lines: 32 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.145.66.20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1242327719 7542 127.0.0.1 (14 May 2009 19:01:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 19:01:59 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: t10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.145.66.20; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3154 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:701451

On May 14, 4:21=A0pm, David Damerell  wrote: > Quoting =A0Brimstone :>If speed were the s= ole factor in the number of collisions then motorways > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0^^^^ > > Obvious straw man. Must you keep recycling this Safe Speed drivel?

But you've admitted that you're anti-motorist, so you're obviously going to have a prejudice against any anti-camera campaign. After all, you're going to be reluctant to entertain any criticism of cameras due to the fact that they make things unpleasant for motorists, aren't you? Much better to pretend that cameras save lives even though you know really that they don't: as soon as you admit that cameras kill people, you're forced to choose between killing people (by keeping the cameras) and making things easier for motorists (by scrapping the cameras), and you're not sure you'd choose the latter, are you? So it's better that you don't have to choose at all, by kidding yourself about cameras' safety record. That way you can continue your hatred of motorists without it getting on your conscience.

(If that's "bollocks", then how come *every* person who's anti- motorist claims to think that cameras save lives? They're so obviously dangerous that many people, whether anti-motorist or not, must realise that they kill people.  So why do none of the anti- motorist crowd ever admit to thinking that?  Either they're in denial, or they are cold, calculating bastards, like Chapman, who know exactly what the score is, and have made a clinical, clear-headed decision that it's worth killing tens of thousands of people if it means that motorists are given grief.  It's scary.)