Hull speed cameras sites 'picked to make most money'

[vonhosen]

daytona355 said:

Then make the test harder to pass, or restrict rubbish to the inside lane, if we are being facetious

Because the minions want to drive too & there are far more of them when it comes to voting time.

[daytona355]

Facetious

[RobinOakapple]

daytona355 said:

Facetious

Indeed. I've read some of your stuff on other threads too.

[mybrainhurts]

They have cars in Hull? Blimey, they'll be wanting electricity next...

[Rovinghawk]

RobinOakapple said:

Pete317 said:

"So the limits are for safety? Where's the evidence?"

This is no longer a rational discussion.

Asking for evidence to support a position doesn't seem irrational.

[daytona355]

RobinOakapple said:

Indeed. I've read some of your stuff on other threads too.

Yay, another fan....

[RobinOakapple]

Rovinghawk said:

RobinOakapple said:

Pete317 said:

"So the limits are for safety? Where's the evidence?"

This is no longer a rational discussion.

Asking for evidence to support a position doesn't seem irrational.

As a general rule, asking for evidence is good practice. In this particular case though, only a F&N case would suggest suspending or abolishing speed limits (with plenty of publicity) in order to test whether speed limits improve road safety.

[Devil2575]

RobinOakapple said:

Rovinghawk said:

RobinOakapple said:

Pete317 said:

"So the limits are for safety? Where's the evidence?"

This is no longer a rational discussion.

Asking for evidence to support a position doesn't seem irrational.

As a general rule, asking for evidence is good practice. In this particular case though, only a F&N case would suggest suspending or abolishing speed limits (with plenty of publicity) in order to test whether speed limits improve road safety.

He'll be asking next for evidence that the world isn't flat...

[Pete317]

RobinOakapple said:

Rovinghawk said:

RobinOakapple said:

Pete317 said:

"So the limits are for safety? Where's the evidence?"

This is no longer a rational discussion.

Asking for evidence to support a position doesn't seem irrational.

As a general rule, asking for evidence is good practice. In this particular case though, only a F&N case would suggest suspending or abolishing speed limits (with plenty of publicity) in order to test whether speed limits improve road safety.

Show me where I suggested anything of the sort.

You're delusional!

[RobinOakapple]

Pete317 said:

RobinOakapple said:

Rovinghawk said:

RobinOakapple said:

Pete317 said:

"So the limits are for safety? Where's the evidence?"

This is no longer a rational discussion.

Asking for evidence to support a position doesn't seem irrational.

As a general rule, asking for evidence is good practice. In this particular case though, only a F&N case would suggest suspending or abolishing speed limits (with plenty of publicity) in order to test whether speed limits improve road safety.

Show me where I suggested anything of the sort.

You're delusional!

Yeah, sure

It's right there at the centre of the nested quotes.

The only way there could be evidence is a side by side comparison. Roads with speed limits, and the same roads without. How's that going to happen without suspending speed limits? No delusions on this side of the argument.

[Pete317]

RobinOakapple said:

Pete317 said:

RobinOakapple said:

Rovinghawk said:

RobinOakapple said:

Pete317 said:

"So the limits are for safety? Where's the evidence?"

This is no longer a rational discussion.

Asking for evidence to support a position doesn't seem irrational.

As a general rule, asking for evidence is good practice. In this particular case though, only a F&N case would suggest suspending or abolishing speed limits (with plenty of publicity) in order to test whether speed limits improve road safety.

Show me where I suggested anything of the sort.

You're delusional!

Yeah, sure

It's right there at the centre of the nested quotes.

The only way there could be evidence is a side by side comparison. Roads with speed limits, and the same roads without. How's that going to happen without suspending speed limits? No delusions on this side of the argument.

Here's what I actually wrote:

I said:

Brief summary of this thread:

"The cameras are about money"

"No they're not, they're about enforcing the limits"

"So the limits are for safety? Where's the evidence?"

"If you want to discuss the limits, you'll have to start a new thread"

Either your comprehension skills are woefully lacking, or you're just trolling.

Either way, stay off my case!

[singlecoil]

Pete317 said:

Either your comprehension skills are woefully lacking, or you're just trolling.

Either way, stay off my case!

To be fair to Robin, you should have made yourself clearer. Also, calling people you disagree with trolls is becoming somewhat passé.

[RobinOakapple]

Pete317 said:

Brief summary of this thread:

"The cameras are about money"

"No they're not, they're about enforcing the limits"

"So the limits are for safety? Where's the evidence?"

"If you want to discuss the limits, you'll have to start a new thread"

I'll accept that you didn't mean that you personally were asking for evidence that the limits are for safety, but have another look at what you wrote above, and bear in mind that you have already identified yourself with the 'speeders'.

Pete317 said:

You haven't a clue what any of us 'speeders' is actually thinking.

So the way your post is written seems to be a characterisation of the speeders' position in line 2, then the cameras supporters' in line 3, speeders in line 4, and supporters line 5, in a to and fro manner.

So although (we assume) you knew what you meant, your meaning didn't come across in what you wrote.

[jm doc]

RobinOakapple said:

Rovinghawk said:

RobinOakapple said:

Pete317 said:

"So the limits are for safety? Where's the evidence?"

This is no longer a rational discussion.

Asking for evidence to support a position doesn't seem irrational.

As a general rule, asking for evidence is good practice. In this particular case though, only a F&N case would suggest suspending or abolishing speed limits (with plenty of publicity) in order to test whether speed limits improve road safety.

We already have all the evidence we need to show that removing speed limits does not significantly impact on road safety. Every day in Germany thousands of people are doing in excess of double our national speed limit. Only one of the eight countries that share a border with it has lower accident rates (Netherlands). Who's the F&N in this debate??

[RobinOakapple]

jm doc said:

We already have all the evidence we need to show that removing speed limits does not significantly impact on road safety. Every day in Germany thousands of people are doing in excess of double our national speed limit. Only one of the eight countries that share a border with it has lower accident rates (Netherlands). Who's the F&N in this debate??

I assumed we were talking about the UK. However, I understand that Germany has plenty of speed limits. Are they doubting their own evidence?

[Devil2575]

jm doc said:

We already have all the evidence we need to show that removing speed limits does not significantly impact on road safety. Every day in Germany thousands of people are doing in excess of double our national speed limit. Only one of the eight countries that share a border with it has lower accident rates (Netherlands). Who's the F&N in this debate??

What proportion of German roads have no limit?

There is a vast difference between having no speed limits and having some unlimited sections of autobahn.

[Pete317]

RobinOakapple said:

Pete317 said:

Brief summary of this thread:

"The cameras are about money"

"No they're not, they're about enforcing the limits"

"So the limits are for safety? Where's the evidence?"

"If you want to discuss the limits, you'll have to start a new thread"

I'll accept that you didn't mean that you personally were asking for evidence that the limits are for safety, but have another look at what you wrote above, and bear in mind that you have already identified yourself with the 'speeders'.

Pete317 said:

You haven't a clue what any of us 'speeders' is actually thinking.

So the way your post is written seems to be a characterisation of the speeders' position in line 2, then the cameras supporters' in line 3, speeders in line 4, and supporters line 5, in a to and fro manner.

So although (we assume) you knew what you meant, your meaning didn't come across in what you wrote.

Life is too short...

[RobinOakapple]

Pete317 said:

Life is too short...

Hence the need for speed?

[Pete317]

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

Either your comprehension skills are woefully lacking, or you're just trolling.

Either way, stay off my case!

To be fair to Robin, you should have made yourself clearer. Also, calling people you disagree with trolls is becoming somewhat passé.

You can stay off my case and all

[singlecoil]

Pete317 said:

singlecoil said:

Pete317 said:

Either your comprehension skills are woefully lacking, or you're just trolling.

Either way, stay off my case!

To be fair to Robin, you should have made yourself clearer. Also, calling people you disagree with trolls is becoming somewhat passé.

You can stay off my case and all

I trust you are being droll, I would hate to think you were feeling threatened.