Slower speeds attacks 'flawed' anti-cam claims
Discussion
They are starting to feel the backlash and are despratly trying to counter it.
Yes, I think it's obvious they've been reading every critisism and composing counter arguments. The trouble for them is, is that to add "strength" to their cause, they have to make up a load of waffle, mixed in with emotion, attempts at insinuation and incorrect statistics.
They're clearly worried, but what I wonder is "why do they pursue a cause that is clearly so wrong?",
the fact that speed is not the problem and that it is such a minor part no, an infitesimal part of accident causation is clear (this is surely proven, given they make-up / contrive figures and use dodgy methods of arriving at their conclusions), what are they actually trying to achieve? What do they really believe? How can they believe in a cause where the "facts" that they use are invalid?
They're clearly worried, but what I wonder is "why do they pursue a cause that is clearly so wrong?",
the fact that speed is not the problem and that it is such a minor part no, an infitesimal part of accident causation is clear (this is surely proven, given they make-up / contrive figures and use dodgy methods of arriving at their conclusions), what are they actually trying to achieve? What do they really believe? How can they believe in a cause where the "facts" that they use are invalid?
james_j said:
Yes, I think it's obvious they've been reading every critisism and composing counter arguments. The trouble for them is, is that to add "strength" to their cause, they have to make up a load of waffle, mixed in with emotion, attempts at insinuation and incorrect statistics.
They're clearly worried, but what I wonder is "why do they pursue a cause that is clearly so wrong?",
the fact that speed is not the problem and that it is such a minor part no, an infitesimal part of accident causation is clear (this is surely proven, given they make-up / contrive figures and use dodgy methods of arriving at their conclusions), what are they actually trying to achieve? What do they really believe? How can they believe in a cause where the "facts" that they use are invalid?
Unfortunately for us "normal" folks, theyre only interested in controlling others. Thats the real motivation behind what they do.
A kind of "dont do as we do, do as we say" mentality.
I for one will never comply...in fact ill see you all later, im off out to go and exceed the speed limits........safely.
james_j said:
Yes, I think it's obvious they've been reading every critisism and composing counter arguments. The trouble for them is, is that to add "strength" to their cause, they have to make up a load of waffle, mixed in with emotion, attempts at insinuation and incorrect statistics.
They're clearly worried, but what I wonder is "why do they pursue a cause that is clearly so wrong?",
the fact that speed is not the problem and that it is such a minor part no, an infitesimal part of accident causation is clear (this is surely proven, given they make-up / contrive figures and use dodgy methods of arriving at their conclusions), what are they actually trying to achieve? What do they really believe? How can they believe in a cause where the "facts" that they use are invalid?
Hi James
You ask what is their real purpose and, at the risk of repetition, if you look at this:
www.myflorida.com/fdi/edesign/news/9708/reviews/mobility.htm
and note the last paragraph, you will realise that the current bunch of Commies want us out of our cars. They hate the freedom represented by the car and one of them has been reported as saying, " The car is a major cause of social exclusion and it's use must be curtailed by all means possible"
So now you know.............
The trouble is that the half-baked rubbish, spin and pseudo-logic spun out by these people actually seems plausible to the average numpty in the street.
For example, look at the following statement. (It's not a quote, by the way.)
"If you are doing 40mph and a child runs out in front of you, there's no way you can stop and you'll kill them. But if you were driving really, really slowly then you'd have been able to stop, and they'd still be alive"
Yes, I know, it's all emotive stuff, over-simplified to the point of being ridiculous.
But if you take it at face value and don't apply your brain, it makes sense! This is what we are up against - we are up against arguments that to your average A-to-B cars-are-for-transport couch potato who believes everything the media spoon-feed them SEEM TO MAKE SENSE.
It is their strength, but also their weakness. All we need to do is educate people and get them to use their brains and they will see the fallacy of these arguments. Unfortunately this is a big job - how do you get people to use their brains when all around us the government and media are intent on dumbing everthing (and everybody) down to the level of a moronic cabbage?
For example, look at the following statement. (It's not a quote, by the way.)
"If you are doing 40mph and a child runs out in front of you, there's no way you can stop and you'll kill them. But if you were driving really, really slowly then you'd have been able to stop, and they'd still be alive"
Yes, I know, it's all emotive stuff, over-simplified to the point of being ridiculous.
But if you take it at face value and don't apply your brain, it makes sense! This is what we are up against - we are up against arguments that to your average A-to-B cars-are-for-transport couch potato who believes everything the media spoon-feed them SEEM TO MAKE SENSE.
It is their strength, but also their weakness. All we need to do is educate people and get them to use their brains and they will see the fallacy of these arguments. Unfortunately this is a big job - how do you get people to use their brains when all around us the government and media are intent on dumbing everthing (and everybody) down to the level of a moronic cabbage?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff