Nuxx:458b4bf5-40a0-476f-a30b-3c188aa01876@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <458b4bf5-40a0-476f-a30b-3c188aa01876@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Labyrinthine paranoia Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:54:28 -0700 (PDT) References:  <55ed3ca7-b0fd-4e2b-bfb4-fd336e888dfc@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>    <6fbgldFanc9cU1@mid.individual.net>  Lines: 52 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 1217436869 2884 127.0.0.1 (30 Jul 2008 16:54:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:54:29 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: k30g2000hse.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: 4331 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:659741

On Jul 30, 4:53=A0pm, Roger Thorpe  wrote: > Matt B wrote: > > Roger Thorpe wrote: > > >> I will look forward to your next campaign for drivers to set their own > >> blood-alcohol limits instead of the arbitrarily imposed one from a > >> car-hating government. > > > IIRC, over recent years, various (perhaps all) police forces have > > undertaken "drink drive" campaigns, often around Christmas time, which > > have included randomly stopping and sampling motorists who have not had > > a crash or been suspected of committing an offence. =A0The published > > results tend to show that motorists tested following a crash were less > > likely to be over the limit than motorists tested randomly. =A0Could it= be > > that those who are over the limit are actually safer drivers, or are > > they just being extra careful so that they don't get caught? > > Now all we need is someone to set up a website using the special > statistical techniques developed by the selfless and idealistic paragon > known as Paul Smith to defend drink driving.

With people like you, it seems to be a case of "Speeding is illegal, therefore it *must* be dangerous, otherwise it wouldn't be illegal". Simply because speeding is illegal, no amount of logic will ever persuade you that it's anything but unsafe. It worries me that anyone could think that arbitrary, manmade laws were so utterly sacred and beyond reproach. What of all the historic laws which have been long since repealed? Presumably you don't agree with them now, but presumably you *would* have agreed with them, absolutely unquestioningly, had you lived at the time that they were in force. And if everyone was like you, they would never have been repealed, because no-one would ever have dared to question them.

It's very worrying that you apparently refuse to think for yourself about whether speeding is *really* dangerous, preferring instead to assume that it must be, "because the legislation says so". Very worrying indeed. Would you have been happy to go along with your government's new laws had you been a German in the late 1930s? This worshipping of the law without giving any thought as to whether it's necessary is deeply unsettling.

There is nothing dangerous about going at 35mph when conditions allow, whether the speed limit is 30mph or 40mph, and no-one has ever shown otherwise. The idea that a number on a sign has any influence over whether a particular speed is safe or not is potty, and anyone who is able to think independently (and doesn't have an anti-motorist agenda or similar) must surely have come to the same conclusion. Can Crapman or anyone else show otherwise? No, they can't, and they attempt to cover up their inability to show that cameras work with non-specific slurs and general trolling.