Nuxx:0fe59ae4-4a5f-462c-a9f4-a8f9324deaf5@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <0fe59ae4-4a5f-462c-a9f4-a8f9324deaf5@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Speeding Fines Up By 400 Per Cent Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 07:38:21 -0700 (PDT) References: <979ff286-12ac-4e1d-9516-b18ca0133114@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>   <5de8b38c-2c56-488a-a76b-474b892f9e59@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <79d4d50f-3d64-4640-bee0-4465d48c0810@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> Lines: 84 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.129.172 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1218033502 12762 127.0.0.1 (6 Aug 2008 14:38:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 14:38:22 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.129.172; 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: 5217 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:661237

On Aug 6, 2:08=A0pm, Squashme  wrote: > On 6 Aug, 13:55, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > > > > On Aug 6, 11:23 am, judith  wrote: > > > > On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 00:13:32 +0100, "Brian Robertson" > > > >  wrote: > > > > > > > > >We don't hate cars. We hate you. > > > > >Brian. > > > > What a prat =A0- leaves in 120 odd lines to sum up his intellect in t= wo > > > sentences. > > > I guess that if they didn't do that kind of thing, people like him > > wouldn't be trolls. =A0There's simply no reasoning with them. =A0I coul= d > > come on here and post irrefutable proof that cameras cost lives, and > > the trolls would simply reply with generalised abuse. > > Please post the irrefutable proof.

In the same way that there's no irrefutable proof that God doesn't exist, there's none that cameras cost lives. But you can be pretty certain of both.

> > Not one of them > > would say "My goodness, you're right, I'm going to stop supporting > > cameras and I hereby apologise for my abuse of Safe Speed, and for > > advocating something which kills people." > > My goodness, if you are right, who knows what I might say. I generally > do not like advocating killing people.

You're the exception rather than the rule here. Most of the regulars here are so in love with cameras' motorist-banning properties that they couldn't care less whether they save lives. Nothing else would explain their utterly shameful attitude towards Paul Smith and anyone else who dares to propagate anti-camera opinions and/or facts.

> > Old man Brian and co are incapable of debating properly, they will > > *never* concede a point or admit that they're wrong, they are truly > > nasty people, and worst of all, they are utterly blas=E9 about the > > thousands of deaths that are occurring unnecessarily on the roads. > > Thousands? Over what time period do they take place? A decade, a year?

It's now up to over a thousand a year (a THIRD of all fatalities). Road deaths were falling at the same rate, extremely reliably, year on year until cameras came in. Since cameras and the obsession with "speed kills" were inflicted on us, that fall has been dramatically slowed, and the number of road deaths we now have each year is about a thousand more than it would have been had the loss of trend not occurred.

The introduction of cameras is the only explanation for this which would agree: rubbish about mobile phones, plateauing of safety benefits and other spurious nonsense is simply the result of desperate clutching at straws by those who refuse to say anything against cameras, because they want to keep cameras, because they see cameras as an effective anti-motorist tool, and they want the motorist scum off the roads. And they see the anti-motorist effort as being so important that they don't care about the thousand lives a year being lost. Incredible but true, and *now* you understand why Chapman is such an arsehole towards *anyone* who opposes cameras: he doesn't like people exposing his support of cameras as unscientific and for anti- motorist reasons, nor does he like people exposing him as someone who is so callous that he doesn't care about the huge number of deaths that cameras are causing. If I was in his position, I'd be pretty annoyed with anyone who dared to tell the truth as well.
 * remotely* stacks up, as anyone with an open mind and no hidden agenda

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/fatality.html (You could either read it with an open mind, or you could refuse to read it and dismiss it out of hand simply because it comes to the "wrong", non-anti-motorist conclusion, which is what the trolls here generally do.)