all motorists are criminals until proven otherwise
Discussion
This is nonsense.
So far the response to any dissent on this forum has been;
1/
Abuse of the most unpleasant personal kind. All the terms of abuse directed at me have been allowed to stand.
2/
Blatant misrepresentations of what I have said. "All motorists are criminals". Absurd. Why lie about what I've said?
3/
Threads which make the point that safety cameras work are locked and further discussion is banned.
I've insulted no-one, I've backed up my claims, I've sourced my data , I've verified any statistics.
Why so terrified of debate?
So far the response to any dissent on this forum has been;
1/
Abuse of the most unpleasant personal kind. All the terms of abuse directed at me have been allowed to stand.
2/
Blatant misrepresentations of what I have said. "All motorists are criminals". Absurd. Why lie about what I've said?
3/
Threads which make the point that safety cameras work are locked and further discussion is banned.
I've insulted no-one, I've backed up my claims, I've sourced my data , I've verified any statistics.
Why so terrified of debate?
Because if anyone makes a good point that isn't backed up by sources (and a lot of your sources consist of 3rd party websites rather than hard data) you answer them by saying "source please" rather than addressing the point raised. You then go on to use stupid and purile analogys that put everyones back up.
Have you ever in your driving career strayed a few MPH over the posted limit? If you have, just once, then you are by your own admission a criminal! Of course you might argue that being 2mph over the limit on an empty road is of no risk to anyone and you'd be right
p.s. 8 children a year drown in garden ponds. Are people who build garden ponds the same as peadophiles?
here's a source to stop you getting in a tiz
www.rospa.com/waterandleisuresafety/factsheets/watersafety.htm
>> Edited by MilnerR on Monday 11th July 12:37
Have you ever in your driving career strayed a few MPH over the posted limit? If you have, just once, then you are by your own admission a criminal! Of course you might argue that being 2mph over the limit on an empty road is of no risk to anyone and you'd be right
p.s. 8 children a year drown in garden ponds. Are people who build garden ponds the same as peadophiles?
here's a source to stop you getting in a tiz
www.rospa.com/waterandleisuresafety/factsheets/watersafety.htm
>> Edited by MilnerR on Monday 11th July 12:37
IST ALSO CRIMINAL ACT TO CHEAT YOUR BOSS BY POSTING IN HIS TIME
Or else - you are some unemployed person mit too much time on hands. Fortunately the fact you are posting on all these sites mean you are nor cycling or driving on road und causing accidents by your petty stupidity (und I did read a taberbacle post on C plus whereby you supported kicking a car which had stopped at traffic lights but which was just in the advance cycle lane ...ist violence und road rage - both of which are criminal acts.... which makes you a criminal for supporting such nonsense - nicht?
By the way - do not have my e-mail listed on this site - so you cannot do what you did to my cousins Klarissa - who has since changed her e-mail address - but bear in mind from the other thread - you are traceable und there are BiB in this family who may just use their powers on such matters. Und if you persist - I shall ask Klarissa if I can post the e-mail you sent to her too. in public so that people can see what a vile individual you really are - as if they do not know already.
By the way - ist common knowledge in C + community that you also sent similar vile e-mail to poster known as zimzum - she complained about it und C plus banned your BWF account...und you now post there as tabernacle. This ist large family - und various family members look to these sites for fun and light banter - given we all have stressful jobs - unlike you who ist clearly not employed.
Und you are on this site as martincrowe - and others as spindrift ... und Cathy Browne - und tabernacle und when you are losing argument you set up another account to back your arguments.
Or else - you are some unemployed person mit too much time on hands. Fortunately the fact you are posting on all these sites mean you are nor cycling or driving on road und causing accidents by your petty stupidity (und I did read a taberbacle post on C plus whereby you supported kicking a car which had stopped at traffic lights but which was just in the advance cycle lane ...ist violence und road rage - both of which are criminal acts.... which makes you a criminal for supporting such nonsense - nicht?
By the way - do not have my e-mail listed on this site - so you cannot do what you did to my cousins Klarissa - who has since changed her e-mail address - but bear in mind from the other thread - you are traceable und there are BiB in this family who may just use their powers on such matters. Und if you persist - I shall ask Klarissa if I can post the e-mail you sent to her too. in public so that people can see what a vile individual you really are - as if they do not know already.
By the way - ist common knowledge in C + community that you also sent similar vile e-mail to poster known as zimzum - she complained about it und C plus banned your BWF account...und you now post there as tabernacle. This ist large family - und various family members look to these sites for fun and light banter - given we all have stressful jobs - unlike you who ist clearly not employed.
Und you are on this site as martincrowe - and others as spindrift ... und Cathy Browne - und tabernacle und when you are losing argument you set up another account to back your arguments.
The dictionary says 'Debate' means "To deliberate on; consider". These threads debate a number of motoring related topics where people of different views come to respect each other's viewpoint (mostly!)
I'm afraid Martin, that you don't seem to consider any other views than your own, so by your own means, the debate ends up not being a debate at all and just an attack on your views.
I think speed cameras are a good thing, in the right place with the desire to lower accidents rather than raise revenue. I would imagine most of us on here are of the same opinion, so let's debate the contrasting figures out there and how some of us interpret them differently - but please be a little more flexible in listening to others' ideas.
I'm afraid Martin, that you don't seem to consider any other views than your own, so by your own means, the debate ends up not being a debate at all and just an attack on your views.
I think speed cameras are a good thing, in the right place with the desire to lower accidents rather than raise revenue. I would imagine most of us on here are of the same opinion, so let's debate the contrasting figures out there and how some of us interpret them differently - but please be a little more flexible in listening to others' ideas.
Martin
I don't think anyone could accuse the PH collective of being afriad to debate. The trouble is that you appear to have a closed mind and simply want everyone to stick to the speed limit.
I am sorry but I don't want people driving past my kids school at the speed limit - I want them driving past so that they can stop in the distance they can see to be clear. Kids DO run into the road, so drivers need to be prepared for that.
Speed cameras simply encourage people to stick to the limit and they'l be "safe" - Safe from prosecution, maybe but not any safer in terms of their driving standard.
I have little sympathy with people who get caught speeding in a residential area. You pays your money and you takes yer chance.
There is little unbiased cedible evidence to suggest that speed cameras are capable of doing a better job that Traffic Police. THAT is the issue we should be debating. People who support speed cameras are perhaps not aware that Traffic deaprtments have slowly and quietly been disbanded over the years.
How many people were prosecuted last year for non-speeding motoring offences? How many in 1994? What are the casuation factors for K accidents?
Can you not see that you are hitting the easy target rather than the real target?
I don't think anyone could accuse the PH collective of being afriad to debate. The trouble is that you appear to have a closed mind and simply want everyone to stick to the speed limit.
I am sorry but I don't want people driving past my kids school at the speed limit - I want them driving past so that they can stop in the distance they can see to be clear. Kids DO run into the road, so drivers need to be prepared for that.
Speed cameras simply encourage people to stick to the limit and they'l be "safe" - Safe from prosecution, maybe but not any safer in terms of their driving standard.
I have little sympathy with people who get caught speeding in a residential area. You pays your money and you takes yer chance.
There is little unbiased cedible evidence to suggest that speed cameras are capable of doing a better job that Traffic Police. THAT is the issue we should be debating. People who support speed cameras are perhaps not aware that Traffic deaprtments have slowly and quietly been disbanded over the years.
How many people were prosecuted last year for non-speeding motoring offences? How many in 1994? What are the casuation factors for K accidents?
Can you not see that you are hitting the easy target rather than the real target?
Because you don't understand the difference between trolling & a debate.
Many here advocate advanced driver training, hazard awareness courses for all, eyetests for all on a regular basis, DRL's etc etc.
Read up on those subjects for yourself, see what difference they might make, then we'll debate those subjects, I'd love to see your opinions on that.
This country has no green cross code training for kids, a very basic & poor driver training system, no compulsory eyesight tests for any road users, few real road safety sytems in place, inapropriate speed is very low on the causation list. Read the fact then come back with your argument.
Many here advocate advanced driver training, hazard awareness courses for all, eyetests for all on a regular basis, DRL's etc etc.
Read up on those subjects for yourself, see what difference they might make, then we'll debate those subjects, I'd love to see your opinions on that.
This country has no green cross code training for kids, a very basic & poor driver training system, no compulsory eyesight tests for any road users, few real road safety sytems in place, inapropriate speed is very low on the causation list. Read the fact then come back with your argument.
Milner - he just surfs the net clutching at straws und quotes the things he wishes to believe - but does not read whole article.
This was evedent from the Linda Mountain thread. Dr Mountain admitted on the floor during seminar when challenged by Durrum who have no cams but lowest death rate that much more research was needed ... und the data she was working on was based on data supplied by the partnerships und subject to flaws as well. I tend to believe first party source who were at the seminars und the e-mail exchanged between Dr Mountain und one family member - who happpen to be a BiB.
This was evedent from the Linda Mountain thread. Dr Mountain admitted on the floor during seminar when challenged by Durrum who have no cams but lowest death rate that much more research was needed ... und the data she was working on was based on data supplied by the partnerships und subject to flaws as well. I tend to believe first party source who were at the seminars und the e-mail exchanged between Dr Mountain und one family member - who happpen to be a BiB.
"you answer them by saying "source please" rather than addressing the point raised. "
But the point raised could be any old trip unless we know it's true!
That's the whole point!
Otherwise it's a free for all of people making unsubstantiated claims!
Three people made claims which support the idea that safety cameras are a bad idea.
One poster admitted there was no supporting evidence, another claimed that Ms Mountain made private, unsupported, unsubstantiated and un-published comments which refuted her entire published research, and another speedophile claimed that his evidence was contained in private correspondence!
See what I mean?
If you can't back up what you say then the whole point is lost.
If I make a claim i source it.
Why are you so opposed to offering the same level of authenticity?
But the point raised could be any old trip unless we know it's true!
That's the whole point!
Otherwise it's a free for all of people making unsubstantiated claims!
Three people made claims which support the idea that safety cameras are a bad idea.
One poster admitted there was no supporting evidence, another claimed that Ms Mountain made private, unsupported, unsubstantiated and un-published comments which refuted her entire published research, and another speedophile claimed that his evidence was contained in private correspondence!
See what I mean?
If you can't back up what you say then the whole point is lost.
If I make a claim i source it.
Why are you so opposed to offering the same level of authenticity?
"I doubted the validity of your statistics and proved as such by using data from the ONS. "
Nope.
You relied on the classic speedophile red herring, TRL 323, not a study of crash causation.
So why discourage debate?
What are you so terrified of?
I'm inviting you to substantiate your claims, I've insulted no-one, so why the venom and the censorship of an important issue?
Do you really want this to be a forum of nodding dogs?
"I doubted the validity of your statistics and proved as such by using data from the ONS. "
Nope.
You relied on the classic speedophile red herring, TRL 323, not a study of crash causation.
So why discourage debate?
What are you so terrified of?
I'm inviting you to substantiate your claims, I've insulted no-one, so why the venom and the censorship of an important issue?
Do you really want this to be a forum of nodding dogs?
martincrowe said:
This is nonsense.
So far the response to any dissent on this forum has been;
1/
Abuse of the most unpleasant personal kind. All the terms of abuse directed at me have been allowed to stand.
You are more than capable of dishing it out - you call people "Liar" rather a lot in all your posts - und the internet is t not gospel. My research which ist on the internet in my own field ist not the fullest report und our site's product list gives outline of drugs' properties - but a medic, pharmacist und person employed in profession will know history und how to interpret that data.
You sent a highly offensive e-mail to my eldest cousin after she proved quite conclusively you do not speak one word of German und your reaction bot on and off line was pathetic und I have no respect for you as result of what my cousin fowarded around the family.
martincrowe said:
2/
Blatant misrepresentations of what I have said. "All motorists are criminals". Absurd. Why lie about what I've said?
You say this same nonsense on each site. All cyclists are criminals if you like since some hop on pavemment if no choice - und one did in Derbyshire last week - he had lorry behind him und it was sensible reaction as pavement was empty - but ist still against law. One would hope a BiB would use discretion
He was cycling at some pace though... martincrowe said:
3/
Threads which make the point that safety cameras work are locked and further discussion is banned.
Ist because of your offensive attitude und you have not made any point... just pasted a load of stuff from the internet - und from the partnerships who have vested interest in keeping their jobs.
They do not work. How do you explain Durham's figures? They do not have any und as for slights increasing... ist becaus e people want compo und want to milk insurance companies by claiming for non-existent injuries from routine prangs which do not require police as no one ist really injured.
martincrowe said:
I've insulted no-one, I've backed up my claims, I've sourced my data , I've verified any statistics.
You are just pasting stuff which has already been doubted. Und if anyone posts anything which does not agree with you - ist more pasting from these sites. You are not arguing or proving anything - und we can debate the other side of the coin - but the stats are skewed.
I research drugs und look at cures for diseases. I have an idea und tests prove my idea to be incorrect - but initially I am looking for data which prove my hunch... und I do... und then later on I find something which throws the initial findings into disarray und we have to research further. Ist not conclusive proof und Linda Mountain admitted in her seminar that more work ist needed - und member of this family attended the seminar as interested party .
martincrowe said:
I've sourced my data , I've verified any statistics.
The soucre you quoted for the "533 people killed or injured on pedestrian crossing in the last half year"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/14/newsid_3044000/3044335.stm
was a report about a new type of panda crossing in 1961!
Whilst I'm sure the numbers are correct they are hardly current data that are relevant to the modern debate IMHO.
FG
"was a report about a new type of panda crossing in 1961! "
Yes.
Using currect figures.
That's why it says;
"this year, as compared to 1961".
I'm sure that was a genuine mistake.
Thanks for the courtesy but I'm surprised your position is so fragile that, far from encouraging debate you actually ban it!
Yes.
Using currect figures.
That's why it says;
"this year, as compared to 1961".
I'm sure that was a genuine mistake.
Thanks for the courtesy but I'm surprised your position is so fragile that, far from encouraging debate you actually ban it!
Plotloss said:
You said 10 kids per day, that is without doubt incorrect.
Please prove otherwise.
10 kids a day is approx. right given he was taking into account serious injuries as well as deaths when he quoted that statistic.
said:
www.dft.gov.uk/pns/displaypn.cgi?pn_id=2005_0073
Child casualties fell by 3 per cent. The number of children killed or seriously injured in 2004 was 3,905 (down 5 per cent on 2003). Of those, 2,339 were pedestrians, 2 per cent down on 2003. 166 children died, 3 per cent less than in 2003.
>> Edited by andy21 on Monday 11th July 13:12
"You said 10 kids per day, that is without doubt incorrect.
Please prove otherwise."
Happy to oblige.
Thanks for the courtesy, by the way;
I appear to have slightly underestimated, if anything;
Children
179 children were killed in road accidents in 2002.
4,417 were seriously injured.
www.bristol-city.gov.uk/ptsd_roadsafety/tt_rs_facts.html
Please prove otherwise."
Happy to oblige.
Thanks for the courtesy, by the way;
I appear to have slightly underestimated, if anything;
Children
179 children were killed in road accidents in 2002.
4,417 were seriously injured.
www.bristol-city.gov.uk/ptsd_roadsafety/tt_rs_facts.html
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff