National slow hoon it day

[black-k1]

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

2. Accidents, by their nature, are random events that can not be predicted. All that can hope to be achieved is to influence the likelihood of such random events.

Actually, there has been quite a lot of time and money spent over the years doing exactly that; predicting road accidents. There are now detailed models telling us who is most likely to crash, where and how, as well as the probable outcomes!
Car manufacturers have been using them for years to design impact protection into their vehicles.

However, to describe them as "accidents" is slightly incorrect. An accident is more accurately described as "an un-planned, uncontrolled event leading to injury or loss."

I’m happy to call them "an un-planned, uncontrolled event leading to injury or loss" if you wish (though accidents is easier to type )

Rubin215 said:

While road traffic collisions are seldom actually planned (other than the fraudulent ones) few of them are truly "random" in that most could be predicted as likely to happen given the combination of factors leading up to them (a drunk, one eyed, sleep apnoeiac, driving a poorly maintained car with bald tyres and only one headlight at 120 mph on an icy "B" class road at 3 am in fog while sending angry text messages to his estranged wife is unlikely to get home safely now is he? ).

I agree that there is an increased likelihood of an "an un-planned, uncontrolled event ……" (is it OK if I just call it an accident?), the randomness point is we don’t know where or when on the journey it will happen (if it is going to happen at all). The mere fact that the person in your rather extreme example managed to achieve 120 mph on an icy "B" class road at 3 am in fog while sending angry text messages to his estranged wife whilst being drunk, suffering from sleep apnea, having only one eye and driving a poorly maintained car with bald tyres and only one headlight shows in itself that whilst contributing factors may increase the likelihood of an accident they don’t necessarily guarantee one is going to happen.

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

3. Human beings are not machines and make mistakes.

It is precisely because humans make mistakes that we need to plan to mitigate their effects.

Agreed. I think you and I just disagree as to how that is best achieved.

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

It all depends on how you interoperate the figures. ABD have looked at the same figures and The ABD has read TRL511 in detail and has found that the initial assessment of 174 rural roads showed that accidents FELL with higher speeds rather than rose, because there were fewer hazards on the roads where people drove faster.http://www.abd.org.uk/trl511.htm

Yes, I had a look at the ABD website; they appear to have forgotten the smileys too...

"TRL 421 and TRL511 are the illegitimate love twins of "Finch et al", dealing with urban and rural roads respectively."

Oh come on now; do you really want me to take them seriously?

But the ABD also say

[i] Evidence to support the ABD's assertion that the analysis in TRL511 is fatally flawed comes from the TRL itself. TRL's Published Project Report PPR026 (Accident Analysis on Rural Roads — a technical guide), contains the following statement in paragraph 4.15:
"The relationship between accidents and vehicle flows is not a linear one (e.g. see Walmsley and Summersgill, 1998). For this reason, it is recommended that roads with very different flow levels are not studied together." [/i]

Hmmm! Does this possibly show that the TRL are perhaps breaking their own rules in order to produce reports that meet the requirements of their political masters?

Check out http://www.safespeed.org.uk/trl421.html

Rubin215 said:

And who gave them the right to title themselves "The voice of the driver?"
I'm a driver and they certainly don't speak for me.

You’ll have to take that one up with the ABD.

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

If only Britain had the same attitude!

Agreed, but also a government who encouraged it’s drivers to take those attitudes.

Have you ever seen anything from the government encouraging you otherwise?

But absence of a negative does not make a positive. Until very recently I have not seen any government encouragement aimed at improving a drivers concentration and encouraging drivers to improve their driving skills. I have seen endless government propaganda telling drivers that by exceeding the posted speed limit they will kill 80% of children and be the biggest cause of accidents on the road. ( Slightly over exaggerated for dramatical effect ) Only recently, have I seen encouragement to drivers suggesting they avoid tiredness. In the mean time, I have seen a dramatic reduction in traffic police (those able to enforce ‘good driving’ by ‘nicking’ bad drivers and providing advice to marginal cases) with the police being replaced by cameras that can ONLY catch drivers traveling above the posted speed limit, regardless of how safe or how dangerous that may be.

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

And if everyone drove more slowly in the first place, that "magic" 85th percentile would also be slower.

To establish the 85th percentile you need to start with free traffic flow, not a traffic flow that is already artificially restricted to an arbitrary maximum speed. I’m surprised at you Rubin215, that’s pretty basic stuff!

Yes, very basic actually.
So basic that the safespeed website can't even get it right; "The 85th percentile speed is the speed which 85% of the vehicles are not exceeding."
No mention of "free traffic flow" or "arbitrary maximum speed" (however, according to you, everyone pretty much drives as fast as they like anyway... ).

I think you need to read the Safe Speed site in more detail! It points directly to the Canadian research which explains things clearly.

Rubin215 said:

And, as already stated, if everyone drove more slowly in the first place then the speed which 85% never exceeded would be slower.

Please read the research relating to the 85th percentile rule (which is internationally accepted as a valid safe approach to speed limits and speed related safety – do a google on it or check out Wikipedia) but it requires an unrestricted free flowing traffic group on which to obtain the calculations. Restricting the traffic flow by an artificial limit does not give a true 85th percentile result thus does not allow for limits to be set according to the safest speed.

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

Okay, I'll be honest; I took one look at the irrational ramblings on the home page and went no further.You should not need research to know that this view is true.
There may well be some useful info there somewhere (in every extremist's mind is a glimmer of reason) but I have better things to do than go look.

I hope that’s meant as humor (no smily again!) as if it’s not it's a pretty ignorant statement! To be involved in a debate on something as important as road safety on a public form and then to state I have better things to do than go look when someone suggests that there is key information available is arrogant and immature.

Okay, I admit, I have read more than just the homepage, and the more I read, the more I laugh.

How poorly written, how many assumptions, how much claimed proof;

"Plenty of research has shown..."
"Research shows that..."
"You should not need research to know that this view is true."
"There is ample scientific research to support the view too."

and all from just one page.

Really Black-k1, would you buy double glazing from a website that can't even list their research or their proof?

As long as the subsequent pages of the double glazing website explained where that proof came from then, yes, I would buy double glazing from them (if I needed double glazing). If you read more of the Safe Speed web site you will see that they do link to the research and they do provide the proof where it exists. What they also do is show that there are many situations where no proof exists either to support or contradict existing UK road safety policies and there they call for detailed independent research to be undertaken.

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

It is worth mentioning something from the Safe Speed site, their editorial policy. It states:
We have a strict editorial policy regarding factual content. If any fact anywhere on this web site can be shown to be incorrect we promise to remove it or correct it as soon as possible. This is stated on just about every page on the site.

And I'm supposed to believe that am I?
Just how quickly do you expect a site which doesn't list their research sources yet openly mocks the work of others to correct their mistakes?

Given that Safe Speed publish their correspondence with the likes of BRAKE, TRL, Richard Brunstrom (and many more) and challenge these people/groups to provide their evidence, then I am personally satisfied that if there were factual errors on the Safe Speed web site that were pointed out but were then not removed, the publicity around that would be enormous. Safe Speed are a ‘thorn in the side’ of the political establishment that wish to support the proliferation of speed camera enforcement and I think the establishment would not pass up any opportunity to ‘bad press’ the work done by Safe Speed and Safe Speed not removing factual inaccuracies from their web site would be just such an opportunity.

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

If your vehicle will avoid ‘self destruction’ simply because you are traveling 10mph slower then your vehicle is not road worthy and there are rules regarding the road worthiness of vehicles.

Actually there aren't, there are laws and regulations (but that's splitting hairs).
The only regular check of a vehicles "roadworthiness" is the mot test, and this only takes place once a year for a vehicle once it is three years old.
There are thousands of vehicles less than three years old which I would consider unsafe, and many more with valid mot's in similar condition.

The mot test itself is a very basic test of the main components of a vehicle and does not in any way guarantee the mechanical condition of the engine and gearbox beyond simple emission tests and a visual for excessive oil leaks. I have previously mot'd a trike which had a "pot of soup" gearbox where you simply stirred it until a gear went home and an escort which would only run for twenty minutes from cold before the engine siezed again; neither of them exactly safe yet not covered in any way by any laws or regulations.
I still maintain (little pun there ) that running any machine at a slower speed will prolong it's safe useable life; from printing press's to battleships.

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

one potential way of reducing the incidence of RTC's is for everyone to reduce their speed.

Simply re-stating an opinion does not suddenly make it fact. The actual research done on this subject (that produced the 85th percentile rule) disagrees with you.

So where is this research? When was it carried out and by whom?
My evidence for the statement is backed up by the TRL studies quoted previously; it is not just an opinion, there is adequate research to prove it.

The link is clearly available from the Safe Speed web site but as you seem to have difficulty in finding it:

http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/eng_publicati...

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

German autobahns are, on average, much faster than UK motorways and are not significantly more dangerous which proves reducing the speed does not necessarily make things safer.

And can you show me the figures to back this claim up?

http://cemt.org/IRTAD/IRTADPUBLIC/graphs/p130.pdf

http://cemt.org/IRTAD/IRTADPUBLIC/graphs/p128.pdf

http://cemt.org/IRTAD/IRTADPUBLIC/graphs/p138.pdf

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

While it is not a justification I would suggest that the majority of road users are ‘habitual speeders’ as independent surveys have shown that most drivers/riders regularly exceed the speed limit.

And when my dad was my age, the majority of road users were drink drivers.
Times change, move on.

The difference is that it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that alcohol increases the danger to all road users and alcohol serves no benefit in road usage. As has already been stated, speed is a necessity. The question is simply what is the safest speed? (What speed would you like me to move on at? )

And as previously shown, several reports prove beyond all reasonable doubt that excessive speed increases the danger to all road users!

But the key word above is excessive. I have NEVER disagreed that excessive speed is dangerous. (Nor has Safe Speed or other groups such as the ABD). You are doing exactly what the government have been trying to do for many years which is confusing excessive speed (which is very dangerous) with reasonable speed that happens to be above a posted limit and are making the naive and incorrect assumption that less speed = more safety. Lets be absolutely clear here. I am working from the assumption that the majority of drivers will, if left to their own devices, drive at a speed that is not excessive and is in fact pretty safe. This is backed up by the research linked too above and has created the 85th percentile rule.

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

Rather than the majority of drivers not getting enough mental stimulation I would argue that the majority of drivers do not pay enough attention to the task they are performing; driving or riding!

Agreed, but the question is why are they not concentrating? I would suggest that it is at least partly because they have been conditioned over the last 15 years to believe that road safety is measured on their speedometer and that as long as they remain within the limit they are safe and don’t need to concentrate further. In fact, if they reduce their speed by another 10mph they will be even safer and will have to concentrated even less!

Concentration does not depend upon speed; try Tai Chi.
I think we are in agreement that the current standard of vehicle training is poor, however until that can be raised so that road users are more observant, focussed and skilled, the easiest way to temper the inept, ignorant dullard is to slow him down.

I disagree that reductions in speed are a solution and would ask again where your evidence is that slowing people down will improve safety? The short term answer is to get more traffic police on the road who can make objective judgments based on all the prevailing conditions and can enforce good driving standards by ‘nicking’ bad motorists. In the meantime, the government can accept that its’ speed based traffic enforcement is not aiding road safety and introduce policies that will start to save lives.

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

Rubin215 said:

Driving at 10 mph below the speed limit certainly improves you chances of not being killed or seriously injured in a road accident today or any other day.

As evidence I quote Taylor, Baruya and Kennedy (quoted above);

"The percentage reduction in accident frequency per 1mile/h reduction in mean speed implied by the relationship developed for total accidents depends on the mean speed. It ranges from 9% at a mean speed of 27 miles/h to 4% at a mean speed of 60 miles/h."

But more recent statistics have shown this to be wrong.

Which, where, when and who?

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel/acidents.html

Key quote from the analysis In summary, the results of this analysis, and the findings of other investigators indicate that lowering speed limits on nonlimited access roadways does not reduce accidents nor does raising speed limits increase accidents. Contrary to popular belief, the results indicate that lowering speed limits well below the 85th percentile speed does not decrease accidents.

Rubin215 said:

black-k1 said:

Ride safe and enjoy.

And you brother, and you.

I think you and I could spend many more hours/days/months going around in the same circles on this subject. Road safety is a very complex subject that requires significant further research and investigation. Because of this complexity I honestly believe that there will never be any form of ‘simple solution’ that, if implemented, will result in a significant reduction in accident rates.

I firmly believe that the ONLY way to significantly influence road safety is through driver education and responsibility but responsibility includes allowing drivers to make their own decisions (within a set of clear, fair, accepted and understood rules).

[supersingle]

thewurzel said:

supersingle said:

Thewurzel, would you like drivers to consider every aspect of their driving environment and come to a considered decision on the speed at which they travel or would you prefer drivers to stick rigidly and unthinkingly to speed limits with no consideration for their surroundings?

You can't have it both ways.

Having a speed limit does not mean that you have to drive at that speed, but you can choose a safe speed at or below it. In every day driving, it is never necessary to exceed the speed limit on the grounds of safety.

Why can't you make a considered decision about what non speed limit exceeding speed to drive at?

So you are asking people to carefully examine their surroundings to make a considered decision about their speed, then ignore their decision if it exceeds the speed limit?

You have no understanding of human psychology. If you remove responsibility, you remove the need for people to think for themselves. That means drivers religiously sticking to speed limits whatever the conditions. Take a look outside!!!

I wonder what other responsibilities you would like to take away from people? How do you feel about speed limiters, minimum mpg standards, zero alcohol limits?

[thewurzel]

supersingle said:

So you are asking people to carefully examine their surroundings to make a considered decision about their speed, then ignore their decision if it exceeds the speed limit?

If I am on a 50mph road, which I consider that it might be safer to drive at 60mph, I (and most other drivers) wouldn't have a problem sticking to the 50. There may be something that I don't know about that requires the 50 limit.

It's never safer (in every day driving) to exceed the posted speed limit than not.

supersingle said:

If you remove responsibility, you remove the need for people to think for themselves.

People have a responsibility to drive at a safe speed now. If you can't see that the number on the sign is a limit, not a target, perhaps some extra driving lessons are in order?

[GPSHead]

thewurzel said:

GPSHead said:

Do you speed? Do you do it more than 4 times every 3 years? Just a "yes" or a "no" will do.

No, why do you ask?

You either don't drive or you're a liar. Simple as that.

Going at 31mph in a 30mph zone just before passing an NSL sign is speeding, as is anything else as marginal. Anyone who drives regularly and claims never to do anything like that is talking utter rubbish. No-one is that "perfect", which is just as well in a way, because proper driving isn't about 100% adherance to speed limits, and anyone doing so would be severely distracting themselves from more important tasks.

Any regular driver who claims never to speed makes themselves look ridiculous, and you're no exception.

thewurzel said:

GPSHead said:

And you know perfectly well that the stuff on Safe Speed stacks up.

It's been pretty well disproved by everyone who doesn't wish it to be true. Most Safe Speed supporters either don't understand the facts (and are easily confused by the graphs etc taken out of context), or just need a way to justify their own speeding, a site with out of context statistics does that nicely.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080/web/public.ns... should start you off

Chapman is well-known as a lying odious motorist-hating troll, a lot like you really. He has a hidden agenda to bully motorists off the road, and he's hardly likely to admit it. Safe Speed members only want proper road safety measures (which cameras absolutely are not), despite your ilk pretending that they "Just want to be able to speed even though they know it's dangerous". Why the hell would anyone do something that they knew was unacceptably dangerous? Anyone who thinks that speeding is always dangerous is barmy (how would a sign know what the maximum safe speed was?) But neither you nor your troll-friends really do think that speeding is always dangerous, you just claim to. It's just lies all the way with you lot.

I bet you can't come up all by yourself with a single real example of anything that's actually wrong with the Safe Speed pages. Apart from anything else, it's pretty clear from the rest of what you post that you're hopelessly out of your depth when reading detailed analysis like that on Safe Speed, so I rather think that it's you who "wishes" the Safe Speed stuff not to be true. And why would you wish such a thing? Because you don't like cars and the freedom from state interference that they give people. You're one of the idiots referred to in paragraph 2 of p4 of this document, and as it says, "Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly". I wonder why.

thewurzel said:

GPSHead said:

You know perfectly well that going too fast and exceeding the speed limit are completely different

They are completely different concepts, but are often essensially the same - that is why speed limits exist - but to admit that would be to admit that exceeding them can be dangerous.

What utter crap. You don't really know what you're talking about do you? Why not just admit that you want all motorists off the road, other than important ones like you, and that's why you support cameras? I can't see why else you'd support cameras despite obviously knowing so little about road safety. You're pro-camera because you want cameras to be there, and you don't bother looking into the facts or figures any further than that.

Why do you think 95% of accidents take place within the speed limit? Do you care? Thought not. That's just one of a huge number of statistics on the Safe Speed site which you lot purposely ignore, because you know how absurd it makes cameras look.

thewurzel said:

GPSHead said:

You're just another sad extremist cycling forum nutter who wants to see most motorists bullied off the roads, and you think that a saturation of cameras is the most realistic way of achieving that in the short term, since every driver speeds.

Bullying drivers off the roads wouldn't make driving very easy, so I'd be shooting myself in the foot there. Bullying dangerous/illegal drivers off the road, now that's another thing entirely.

You want the majority of motorists off the road so that only the "important" ones like you are left. That's if you actually drive at all.

thewurzel said:

Every driver does not speed, and "everyone does it" is not an excuse for breaking a law. It's a 10 year old's excuse when they've been caught doing something they shouldn't.

Give me strength. SPEEDING IS NOT DANGEROUS PER SE, and simply repeating that people "shouldn't do it" does not change that one iota. And it's the same with every driver speeding: pretending that it doesn't happen is a really pathetic way of trying to win an argument. Doesn't it tell you something about the absurdity of your stance when you constantly have to lie about the facts just to keep it afloat?

thewurzel said:

GPSHead said:

Why do you suppose that we, Safe Speed and other camera opponents

I think that people who enjoy speeding try to discredit cameras so that they can speed where they like without being caught. The same people would complain, if there were more traffic police (marked or unmarked cars), that their time could be better spent catching "real" criminals.

GPSHead said:

whereas Brake, SCPs and Labour politicians are constantly and fraudulently ignoring it?
They know the effect exists, so why do we keep hearing this "accidents down x% at camera sites" rubbish?

Probably because accidents are down x% at camera sites. They don't just make these figures up, you know.

In other words, you don't understand RTTM. It's just "being clever" and you can't be bothered with it. Why not just admit it? Why not admit that you don't understand any of the more involved concepts like it, because you don't really care whether cameras actually save lives? Even your idol Chapman grudgingly admits that RTTM exists. He may be a complete wr but he does at least know the facts, even if he then deliberately misuses them for his own ends. He's a callous git who doesn't care about all the lives that are being lost, but he is at least more cunning and intelligent than you (along with most of the rest of the world).

thewurzel said:

I'm impressed with the organisation of this conspiracy, charities, councils, MPs all involved... With no personal gain for any of them.

And "no personal gain" is at least the third lie that you've told in a single post. You honestly expect us to believe that you don't see how SCP employees, camera manufacturers and many others gain from the use of cameras? Wouldn't it be easier to assume a position where you didn't have to keep telling ludicrous lies?

thewurzel said:

GPSHead said:

Why do these people keep deliberately mixing up going too fast and exceeding the speed limit?

If you are exceeding the speed limit, you are going too fast to comply with the laws of the land.

You really do talk even more st than almost any other troll, and that's really saying something. I can see what others mean about it being completely futile engaging with you, because when you're beaten you just make up rubbish. If you do drive, it's to the detriment of all of us, because none of us should have to share the roads with someone who doesn't know what "too fast" means, and is evidently completely lost unless he knows the speed limit. Scary.

thewurzel said:

GPSHead said:

Why do they keep committing these various frauds and exaggerating the benefits of cameras, and why do you accept it? Answer: because both they and you have your own selfish reasons why you want cameras to proliferate

What is my selfish reason for supporting cameras then? I don't find wanting safer roads selfish at all.

As above: you don't want safer roads, you just have an anti-motorist agenda, and you've decided that cameras are the best way to persecute motorists, since every motorist speeds (and lying about that doesn't change it). You're hijacking road safety for your own benefit, and in campaigning to focus efforts on cameras rather than real life-saving measures, you're actually making the roads more dangerous. It makes me sick that you and your fellow trolls claim to care about saving lives when the polar opposite is true.

And I notice you purposely avoided answering the question. Why do camera proponents in the media constantly and deliberately commit various types of statistical fraud, while camera opponents do no such thing, and instead try to expose the spin? There are countless examples of this fraud and spin in countless news articles, and if you actually understood RTTM and the like, you'd know that. It's not just "my opinion", it's there in black and white: they purposely don't account for well-known statistical biases in favour of cameras' apparent effectiveness, and it happens time and time again. If cameras worked so well, their proponents in the media wouldn't always be trying to con the public into thinking that they were doing a better job than they actually were. Even if a person does support cameras, they cannot plausibly deny that this has been occurring.

thewurzel said:

GPSHead said:

It's pathetic and it's outrageous, and you should be utterly ashamed.

Why do you think that not having the right to go as fast as you want with no comeback to you is pathetic and outrageous? There isn't a country in the world where it's acceptable to think so selfishly.

It's not "as fast as you want", you stupid fking pillock. It's a safe speed, which may or may not be above the speed limit, because the speed limit doesn't dictate what is too fast. I don't know why I'm bothering to explain really. It's totally futile trying to reason with you, because your reasons for supporting cameras are all wrong and there's no changing your mind about them with evidence that they don't save lives.

I should have listened to Andy Zarse, and I will from now on. I will systematically be ignoring your posts, and I hope you're banned before long. I utterly detest you and your extremist car-hating buddies, and the way that after all this time you're STILL deliberately holding back road safety (which you've shown that you know nothing about) to get what you want. Well you won't get it, so give up now and save us all some grief. Just let people drive and mind your own fking business.

There are so many camera proponents on the Internet who are exactly like you: disingenuous, idiotic, vacuous, irritating, thick, agenda-driven, lying trolls who make the same tired, irrelevant, dishonest comments about Safe Speed and camera opponents while deliberately avoiding any real debate on cameras' effectiveness. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same nasty little group of people the whole time. It's always the same and it's getting exceptionally boring. The decent-minded, genuine, well-meaning, all-out camera proponent who knows the facts in detail, actually tries to advance the debate, really wants to save lives, and can put together a proper argument is incredibly rare, if he exists at all, and that fact in itself is so very telling.

Now bugger off.

[piwilts]

Back to the OP...

Sorry to poo poo, but are you bonkers?? Surely you are not proposing that getting a gang of people to drive 10mph BELOW the speed limit for an afternoon and then hailing: "There you go, we killed just as many people since lunch as people going faster would have done" is going to return us to the glory days of cheap fuel and no Gatso?

Then say "and there's more, wait. Look, the camera's have made no money today, so there. Oh, except from those that didn't play along, and they smell. So please take them all down"

And then finally say: "And if you don't let us all have cheap petrol, drive as fast as we like with free tax, I'll make sure another 18 people drive sensibly next week, and you wouldn't like that would you? Just imagine the disruption"

Seriously though, I'll bet my sandwich that there will be no "Big Day" Try another avenue with this one.



"Im out"

[supersingle]

Must not feed troll.

:note to self:

[thewurzel]

GPSHead said:

Anyone who drives regularly and claims never to do anything like that is talking utter rubbish.

A key safe speed "fact". Complete rubbish, of course, but most of their claims are

GPSHead said:

Chapman is well-known as a lying odious motorist-hating troll, a lot like you really.

I find it a bit of a paradox to be a motorist hating motorist, for the same reason you don't see many black people joining the KKK.

GPSHead said:

He has a hidden agenda to bully motorists off the road, and he's hardly likely to admit it.

For what reason?

Why would he not simply admit it, if it were true. Even if he didn't drive a car (which he does), he is both a pedestrian and a cyclist (both road users), giving him an equal right to an opinion on speed enforcement. (As a non cyclist has a right to an opinion on the enforcement of FPNs for cyclists jumping red lights)

GPSHead said:

Safe Speed members only want proper road safety measures

Some of them may, and these are the ones that have been misled as to the intentions of the campaign.

Don't let the name fool you, Safe Speed has very little to do with safety. Look at Paul Smith's signature in the forums, it links not to a petition to improve road safety, but to a petition to scrap speed cameras.

GPSHead said:

despite your ilk pretending that they "Just want to be able to speed even though they know it's dangerous".

I don't think they do "know" that it's dangerous. I think they "think" that it isn't - because accidents happen to other people, and they are safe drivers in their own eyes.

GPSHead said:

Why the hell would anyone do something that they knew was unacceptably dangerous?

See above.

GPSHead said:

Anyone who thinks that speeding is always dangerous is barmy

Firing a gun at a target in a town centre isn't always dangerous, but that's no reason to allow people to legally do it.

The majority of people know that allowing people to choose where they consider it safe to fire a gun would be very unwise - however convinced the person holding the gun was of it's safety.

GPSHead said:

(how would a sign know what the maximum safe speed was?)

The signs don't just spring out of the ground, you know There is a process for deciding on what speed limits should apply where, and "revenue raising" doesn't come in to it.

GPSHead said:

But neither you nor your troll-friends really do think that speeding is always dangerous, you just claim to. It's just lies all the way with you lot.

Exceeding the posted speed limit is always going to be more dangerous than not exceeding it, in every day driving situations.

GPSHead said:

I bet you can't come up all by yourself with a single real example of anything that's actually wrong with the Safe Speed pages.

I also havn't invented any wheels recently.

GPSHead said:

Apart from anything else, it's pretty clear from the rest of what you post that you're hopelessly out of your depth when reading detailed analysis

Pretty graphs, pretty graphs!

GPSHead said:

I rather think that it's you who "wishes" the Safe Speed stuff not to be true.

How would that benefit me? (I don't work for an SCP, or anything else that may be seen as benefiting from speed enforcement (unless you count being a motorist who benefits from safer roads))

GPSHead said:

And why would you wish such a thing? Because you don't like cars and the freedom from state interference that they give people.

Hating law breaking drivers = hating all cars?

GPSHead said:

"Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly".

I'm perfectly open about my prejudice against people who can't drive at or below the speed limit.

GPSHead said:

What utter crap. You don't really know what you're talking about do you?

When is it safer to drive at 60mph instead of 50mph in every day driving? Understanding this is important.

GPSHead said:

Why not just admit that you want all motorists off the road, other than important ones like you, and that's why you support cameras?

Sure, that's it, you got me. I'm in on the conspiracy that has been arranged by thousands of government and council employees, in order to create roads just for me.

GPSHead said:

I can't see why else you'd support cameras

Because cameras slow people down, making the roads safer.

GPSHead said:

despite obviously knowing so little about road safety.

But you love people who don't know anything about road safety, and often refer to their websites

GPSHead said:

You're pro-camera because you want cameras to be there

Obvious statement of the year.

GPSHead said:

and you don't bother looking into the facts or figures any further than that.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist. Increased speed = worse results after an accident. To dismiss this as "Drive more carefully then" is stupid. When we eliminate accidents on the road, then you can drive as fast as you want.

But it won't be as fun when it's legal. No more "sticking it to the man"

GPSHead said:

Why do you think 95% of accidents take place within the speed limit?

Assuming that statistic is true, it's because most drivers drive at the speed limit, meaning you've just contradicted the point you made at the top of your post.

GPSHead said:

of a huge number of statistics on the Safe Speed site which you lot purposely ignore, because you know how absurd it makes cameras look.

Pretty graphs!

There are also a large number of government published statistics (much like the few selected for SS) which were dismissed as Paul Smith as lies, what makes the ones he's selected more valid than the rest, other than the fact that they support his point when presented in a certain way.

GPSHead said:

You want the majority of motorists off the road

The majority of motorists are safe and law abiding, I want the minority who think that the law does not apply to them off the road.

GPSHead said:

so that only the "important" ones like you are left. That's if you actually drive at all.

Make your mind up about my intentions at least.

GPSHead said:

Give me strength. SPEEDING IS NOT DANGEROUS PER SE

See previous shooting gun example.

GPSHead said:

, and simply repeating that people "shouldn't do it" does not change that one iota.

You're right, just saying it does nothing - hence enforcement.

GPSHead said:

And it's the same with every driver speeding: pretending that it doesn't happen is a really pathetic way of trying to win an argument.

Now we're starting to agree, and I'm glad you have recognised your mistakes. Many drivers do not speed, just a vocal minority.

GPSHead said:

Doesn't it tell you something about the absurdity of your stance when you constantly have to lie about the facts just to keep it afloat?

Once again, you like people like that, and often refer to their websites.

GPSHead said:

In other words, you don't understand RTTM. It's just "being clever" and you can't be bothered with it. Why not just admit it? Why not admit that you don't understand any of the more involved concepts like it, because you don't really care whether cameras actually save lives?

They do, but it wouldn't especially bother me if they didn't - because they still catch people flouting the law.

GPSHead said:

He's a callous git who doesn't care about all the lives that are being lost

I genuinely thought you were talking about Paul Smith for a second Oh dear, lives being lost because of cameras? Surely you must be laughing as you type these words by now.

GPSHead said:

And "no personal gain" is at least the third lie that you've told in a single post. You honestly expect us to believe that you don't see how SCP employees, camera manufacturers

Camera manufacturers don't produce the government statistics, or force the installation of cameras. If there wasn't a demand for them, they wouldn't be able to sell them.

While I can't speak for individual SCP employees, I would very much doubt they have any interest in the money raised by the cameras. They don't work on commission, and if people obeyed the law and the cameras stopped making money, they'd get a fat council redundancy payoff.

GPSHead said:

Wouldn't it be easier to assume a position where you didn't have to keep telling ludicrous lies?

It's a bit late for him to do that from 6 feet under.

GPSHead said:

thewurzel said:

GPSHead said:

Why do these people keep deliberately mixing up going too fast and exceeding the speed limit?

If you are exceeding the speed limit, you are going too fast to comply with the laws of the land.

You really do talk even more st than almost any other troll, and that's really saying something.

O.K, what other laws should it be optional to obey, in your opinion?

GPSHead said:

unless he knows the speed limit. Scary.

If you drive around not knowing the speed limit, maybe you should consider some additional driving lessons, the instructor will be able to explain the signs to you.

GPSHead said:

As above: you don't want safer roads, you just have an anti-motorist agenda, and you've decided that cameras are the best way to persecute motorists

The anti motorist motorists are back

I have to laugh when I hear about motorists being "persecuted". Nearly everyone in the country (of legal driving age) is a motorist. What would be the purpose of the conspiracy to persecute... everyone?

GPSHead said:

, since every motorist speeds (and lying about that doesn't change it).

You're right, lying doesn't change it - so why continue?

GPSHead said:

campaigning to focus efforts on cameras rather than real life-saving measures, you're actually making the roads more dangerous.

I don't campaign to focus efforts on cameras.

I don't like burglary, but don't think that the police should focus all their efforts on burglars. This also does not mean that they should let burglars get away with their crimes, should an automated "burglar camera" ever be available.

GPSHead said:

It makes me sick that you and your fellow trolls claim to care about saving lives when the polar opposite is true.

I'm sure many criminals feel pretty sick when faced with the prospect of being caught for their crimes.

GPSHead said:

And I notice you purposely avoided answering the question. Why do camera proponents in the media constantly and deliberately commit various types of statistical fraud, while camera opponents do no such thing

I have yet to see an example of this happening. I have seen many examples of it happening from the anti camera camp, though - start at http://www.safespeed.org.uk

GPSHead said:

If cameras worked so well, their proponents in the media wouldn't always be trying to con the public into thinking that they were doing a better job than they actually were.

To appease you for a minute, let's imagine that cameras really didn't improve road safety.

They are self funding (and the people who pay the fines were breaking a law, whether they like it or not - you can't choose which laws you obey and which you don't), so there is zero cost to the honest taxpayer.

There are still no negatives.

GPSHead said:

It's not "as fast as you want", you stupid fking pillock.

As fast as you decide is safe is as fast as you want to go. You wouldn't want to drive at a speed that you didn't decide was safe, would you?

GPSHead said:

It's a safe speed, which may or may not be above the speed limit

Please provide an example of a situation in every day driving where going above the speed limit would be safer than not.

GPSHead said:

, because the speed limit doesn't dictate what is too fast.

It dictates the maximum allowed speed, based on more than "It looks safe enough to go faster"

GPSHead said:

I should have listened to Andy Zarse

Does that mean you'll start following me around the forum, picking out my posts to respond to?

GPSHead said:

I hope you're banned before long.

It's an interesting situation where you would expect somebody who supports the law to be banned before somebody who routinely breaks it, and is proud of that fact. The expectation wouldn't be there in any other aspect of life than driving. Persecuted motorists indeed...

GPSHead said:

I utterly detest you and your extremist car-hating buddies, and the way that after all this time you're STILL deliberately holding back road safety

Are you seriously suggesting that people who support cameras do so to make the roads more dangerous on purpose?

GPSHead said:

(which you've shown that you know nothing about) to get what you want. Well you won't get it, so give up now and save us all some grief. Just let people drive and mind your own fking business.

I am quite happy to "just let people drive" if they are happy to obey the law.

I am quite happy to "just let people walk down the street" if they are happy not to punch random people.

GPSHead said:

I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same nasty little group of people the whole time.

Most people in the country support speed cameras, so it's a pretty big little group

Edited by thewurzel on Monday 7th April 21:48

[Kawasicki]

thewurzel said:

GPSHead said:

Anyone who drives regularly and claims never to do anything like that is talking utter rubbish.

A key safe speed "fact". Complete rubbish, of course, but most of their claims are

GPSHead said:

Chapman is well-known as a lying odious motorist-hating troll, a lot like you really.

I find it a bit of a paradox to be a motorist hating motorist, for the same reason you don't see many black people joining the KKK.

GPSHead said:

He has a hidden agenda to bully motorists off the road, and he's hardly likely to admit it.

For what reason?

Why would he not simply admit it, if it were true. Even if he didn't drive a car (which he does), he is both a pedestrian and a cyclist (both road users), giving him an equal right to an opinion on speed enforcement. (As a non cyclist has a right to an opinion on the enforcement of FPNs for cyclists jumping red lights)

GPSHead said:

Safe Speed members only want proper road safety measures

Some of them may, and these are the ones that have been misled as to the intentions of the campaign.

Don't let the name fool you, Safe Speed has very little to do with safety. Look at Paul Smith's signature in the forums, it links not to a petition to improve road safety, but to a petition to scrap speed cameras.

GPSHead said:

despite your ilk pretending that they "Just want to be able to speed even though they know it's dangerous".

I don't think they do "know" that it's dangerous. I think they "think" that it isn't - because accidents happen to other people, and they are safe drivers in their own eyes.

GPSHead said:

Why the hell would anyone do something that they knew was unacceptably dangerous?

See above.

GPSHead said:

Anyone who thinks that speeding is always dangerous is barmy

Firing a gun at a target in a town centre isn't always dangerous, but that's no reason to allow people to legally do it.

The majority of people know that allowing people to choose where they consider it safe to fire a gun would be very unwise - however convinced the person holding the gun was of it's safety.

GPSHead said:

(how would a sign know what the maximum safe speed was?)

The signs don't just spring out of the ground, you know There is a process for deciding on what speed limits should apply where, and "revenue raising" doesn't come in to it.

GPSHead said:

But neither you nor your troll-friends really do think that speeding is always dangerous, you just claim to. It's just lies all the way with you lot.

Exceeding the posted speed limit is always going to be more dangerous than not exceeding it, in every day driving situations.

GPSHead said:

I bet you can't come up all by yourself with a single real example of anything that's actually wrong with the Safe Speed pages.

I also havn't invented any wheels recently.

GPSHead said:

Apart from anything else, it's pretty clear from the rest of what you post that you're hopelessly out of your depth when reading detailed analysis

Pretty graphs, pretty graphs!

GPSHead said:

I rather think that it's you who "wishes" the Safe Speed stuff not to be true.

How would that benefit me? (I don't work for an SCP, or anything else that may be seen as benefiting from speed enforcement (unless you count being a motorist who benefits from safer roads))

GPSHead said:

And why would you wish such a thing? Because you don't like cars and the freedom from state interference that they give people.

Hating law breaking drivers = hating all cars?

GPSHead said:

"Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly".

I'm perfectly open about my prejudice against people who can't drive at or below the speed limit.

GPSHead said:

What utter crap. You don't really know what you're talking about do you?

When is it safer to drive at 60mph instead of 50mph in every day driving? Understanding this is important.

GPSHead said:

Why not just admit that you want all motorists off the road, other than important ones like you, and that's why you support cameras?

Sure, that's it, you got me. I'm in on the conspiracy that has been arranged by thousands of government and council employees, in order to create roads just for me.

GPSHead said:

I can't see why else you'd support cameras

Because cameras slow people down, making the roads safer.

GPSHead said:

despite obviously knowing so little about road safety.

But you love people who don't know anything about road safety, and often refer to their websites

GPSHead said:

You're pro-camera because you want cameras to be there

Obvious statement of the year.

GPSHead said:

and you don't bother looking into the facts or figures any further than that.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist. Increased speed = worse results after an accident. To dismiss this as "Drive more carefully then" is stupid. When we eliminate accidents on the road, then you can drive as fast as you want.

But it won't be as fun when it's legal. No more "sticking it to the man"

GPSHead said:

Why do you think 95% of accidents take place within the speed limit?

Assuming that statistic is true, it's because most drivers drive at the speed limit, meaning you've just contradicted the point you made at the top of your post.

GPSHead said:

of a huge number of statistics on the Safe Speed site which you lot purposely ignore, because you know how absurd it makes cameras look.

Pretty graphs!

There are also a large number of government published statistics (much like the few selected for SS) which were dismissed as Paul Smith as lies, what makes the ones he's selected more valid than the rest, other than the fact that they support his point when presented in a certain way.

GPSHead said:

You want the majority of motorists off the road

The majority of motorists are safe and law abiding, I want the minority who think that the law does not apply to them off the road.

GPSHead said:

so that only the "important" ones like you are left. That's if you actually drive at all.

Make your mind up about my intentions at least.

GPSHead said:

Give me strength. SPEEDING IS NOT DANGEROUS PER SE

See previous shooting gun example.

GPSHead said:

, and simply repeating that people "shouldn't do it" does not change that one iota.

You're right, just saying it does nothing - hence enforcement.

GPSHead said:

And it's the same with every driver speeding: pretending that it doesn't happen is a really pathetic way of trying to win an argument.

Now we're starting to agree, and I'm glad you have recognised your mistakes. Many drivers do not speed, just a vocal minority.

GPSHead said:

Doesn't it tell you something about the absurdity of your stance when you constantly have to lie about the facts just to keep it afloat?

Once again, you like people like that, and often refer to their websites.

GPSHead said:

In other words, you don't understand RTTM. It's just "being clever" and you can't be bothered with it. Why not just admit it? Why not admit that you don't understand any of the more involved concepts like it, because you don't really care whether cameras actually save lives?

They do, but it wouldn't especially bother me if they didn't - because they still catch people flouting the law.

GPSHead said:

He's a callous git who doesn't care about all the lives that are being lost

I genuinely thought you were talking about Paul Smith for a second Oh dear, lives being lost because of cameras? Surely you must be laughing as you type these words by now.

GPSHead said:

And "no personal gain" is at least the third lie that you've told in a single post. You honestly expect us to believe that you don't see how SCP employees, camera manufacturers

Camera manufacturers don't produce the government statistics, or force the installation of cameras. If there wasn't a demand for them, they wouldn't be able to sell them.

While I can't speak for individual SCP employees, I would very much doubt they have any interest in the money raised by the cameras. They don't work on commission, and if people obeyed the law and the cameras stopped making money, they'd get a fat council redundancy payoff.

GPSHead said:

Wouldn't it be easier to assume a position where you didn't have to keep telling ludicrous lies?

It's a bit late for him to do that from 6 feet under.

GPSHead said:

thewurzel said:

GPSHead said:

Why do these people keep deliberately mixing up going too fast and exceeding the speed limit?

If you are exceeding the speed limit, you are going too fast to comply with the laws of the land.

You really do talk even more st than almost any other troll, and that's really saying something.

O.K, what other laws should it be optional to obey, in your opinion?

GPSHead said:

unless he knows the speed limit. Scary.

If you drive around not knowing the speed limit, maybe you should consider some additional driving lessons, the instructor will be able to explain the signs to you.

GPSHead said:

As above: you don't want safer roads, you just have an anti-motorist agenda, and you've decided that cameras are the best way to persecute motorists

The anti motorist motorists are back

I have to laugh when I hear about motorists being "persecuted". Nearly everyone in the country (of legal driving age) is a motorist. What would be the purpose of the conspiracy to persecute... everyone?

GPSHead said:

, since every motorist speeds (and lying about that doesn't change it).

You're right, lying doesn't change it - so why continue?

GPSHead said:

campaigning to focus efforts on cameras rather than real life-saving measures, you're actually making the roads more dangerous.

I don't campaign to focus efforts on cameras.

I don't like burglary, but don't think that the police should focus all their efforts on burglars. This also does not mean that they should let burglars get away with their crimes, should an automated "burglar camera" ever be available.

GPSHead said:

It makes me sick that you and your fellow trolls claim to care about saving lives when the polar opposite is true.

I'm sure many criminals feel pretty sick when faced with the prospect of being caught for their crimes.

GPSHead said:

And I notice you purposely avoided answering the question. Why do camera proponents in the media constantly and deliberately commit various types of statistical fraud, while camera opponents do no such thing

I have yet to see an example of this happening. I have seen many examples of it happening from the anti camera camp, though - start at http://www.safespeed.org.uk

GPSHead said:

If cameras worked so well, their proponents in the media wouldn't always be trying to con the public into thinking that they were doing a better job than they actually were.

To appease you for a minute, let's imagine that cameras really didn't improve road safety.

They are self funding (and the people who pay the fines were breaking a law, whether they like it or not - you can't choose which laws you obey and which you don't), so there is zero cost to the honest taxpayer.

There are still no negatives.

GPSHead said:

It's not "as fast as you want", you stupid fking pillock.

As fast as you decide is safe is as fast as you want to go. You wouldn't want to drive at a speed that you didn't decide was safe, would you?

GPSHead said:

It's a safe speed, which may or may not be above the speed limit

Please provide an example of a situation in every day driving where going above the speed limit would be safer than not.

GPSHead said:

, because the speed limit doesn't dictate what is too fast.

It dictates the maximum allowed speed, based on more than "It looks safe enough to go faster"

GPSHead said:

I should have listened to Andy Zarse

Does that mean you'll start following me around the forum, picking out my posts to respond to?

GPSHead said:

I hope you're banned before long.

It's an interesting situation where you would expect somebody who supports the law to be banned before somebody who routinely breaks it, and is proud of that fact. The expectation wouldn't be there in any other aspect of life than driving. Persecuted motorists indeed...

GPSHead said:

I utterly detest you and your extremist car-hating buddies, and the way that after all this time you're STILL deliberately holding back road safety

Are you seriously suggesting that people who support cameras do so to make the roads more dangerous on purpose?

GPSHead said:

(which you've shown that you know nothing about) to get what you want. Well you won't get it, so give up now and save us all some grief. Just let people drive and mind your own fking business.

I am quite happy to "just let people drive" if they are happy to obey the law.

I am quite happy to "just let people walk down the street" if they are happy not to punch random people.

GPSHead said:

I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same nasty little group of people the whole time.

Most people in the country support speed cameras, so it's a pretty big little group

Edited by thewurzel on Monday 7th April 21:48

Seriously, have you driven at 70mph on a motorway? How can you say that most people stick to speed limits?

Assuming that there is a scientific risk assessment used when setting speed limits, if a new risk weighting showed that a limit of 40mph was reasonable on a motorway, would you adhere to this new limit? Where would you draw the line?

[gilberninvader]

piwilts said:

Back to the OP...

Sorry to poo poo, but are you bonkers?? Surely you are not proposing that getting a gang of people to drive 10mph BELOW the speed limit for an afternoon and then hailing: "There you go, we killed just as many people since lunch as people going faster would have done" is going to return us to the glory days of cheap fuel and no Gatso?

Then say "and there's more, wait. Look, the camera's have made no money today, so there. Oh, except from those that didn't play along, and they smell. So please take them all down"

And then finally say: "And if you don't let us all have cheap petrol, drive as fast as we like with free tax, I'll make sure another 18 people drive sensibly next week, and you wouldn't like that would you? Just imagine the disruption"

Seriously though, I'll bet my sandwich that there will be no "Big Day" Try another avenue with this one.



"Im out"

Is this the other avenue you want me to try? I found this an interesting topic, it might sound MAD but it just might work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/sep/07/transport...

Apparently fixed or for that matter mobile speed cameras will no longer have to be visible or marked or even placed near accident blackspots to warn motorists about hazardous areas. Speed Cameras can now be painted to match their surroundings, hidden behind hedges and signs or even used from inside a Horse box, as shown on the Welsh news in use in North Wales.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7322582.stm

Is this an attack on all motorists including police officers too, who also get caught out and fined.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/dec/06/ukcrime.r...

Who was it who said,

'The best way to take control over a people and control them
utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode
rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible
reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights
and freedoms being removed until past the point at which
these changes cannot be reversed.'


(scroll down to find the answer)




yes it was Adolf Hitler and this Government is being run my them too!

[thewurzel]

gilberninvader said:

Is this an attack on all motorists

No, just the ones who think that the law doesn't apply to them.

[gilberninvader]

thewurzel said:

gilberninvader said:

Is this an attack on all motorists

No, just the ones who think that the law doesn't apply to them.

Hi Thewurzel
Its obvious from your postings what your intentions are!In another form your not VH by any chance?

Whatever your views are, the direct action going on will continue bit by bit i'm sure, until the injustices going on in Britain are stopped.

If you cannot yet compehend our day to day lives are being more and more controlled I pity you!

Can you honestly say that you are now financially better off than say 15-25 years ago, we probably are the most taxed nation in Europe, are you happy with that?(including excessive speeding fines)
ps
Have you ever exceeded any speed limit yourself or had a car/motorbike/vehicle accident in your driving experience? If so was it your own fault or due to yours/someone elses excessive speed?

[thewurzel]

gilberninvader said:

Its obvious from your postings what your intentions are!In another form your not VH by any chance?

Not sure what that is?

gilberninvader said:

Whatever your views are, the direct action going on will continue bit by bit i'm sure, until the injustices going on in Britain are stopped.

I don't agree with your stated goals, but you have a right to your protest

gilberninvader said:

we probably are the most taxed nation in Europe, are you happy with that?

If your or I are not happy with that, we're welcome to move to an EU country with more agreeable taxation tomorrow if we want.

gilberninvader said:

(including excessive speeding fines)

Speeding fines are not a tax, they are optional fines.

gilberninvader said:

Have you ever exceeded any speed limit yourself or had a car/motorbike/vehicle accident in your driving experience? If so was it your own fault or due to yours/someone elses excessive speed?

I have never been in an accident where excessive speed was an issue, no. I've never had cancer either, but I can make up my mind on whether or not that's a bad thing without experiencing the results of it myself

[Andy Zarse]

thewurzel said:

GPSHead said:

I should have listened to Andy Zarse

Does that mean you'll start following me around the forum, picking out my posts to respond to?

You flatter yourself sunshine. I don't follow you round n here; on the contrary, you simply turn up on threads in which I take an interest and I'd like nothing more than to never see or hear from you again.

Nor do I have the oft stated "chip on my shoulder" as you imply. Indeed you don't appear to even understand the meaning of the phrase, so quite why you think anyone is going to listen to your childish attitude to road safety is beyond me. You really are as dumb as dogst.

What's troubling me most is where you come from and why. We've done the Terminator/dystopian motoring future analogy, and we have rumbled your forum name (for those who don't know, wurzels are the staple food of trolls, wiki it if you don't believe me, but how neat is that hey?)

You've a very good line in prevarication, and often repeat that you have no axe to grind other than safe roads. Well mate, I'm calling bks on you. You are either a plant or you have some other reason, professional or otherwise, to post on here the way you do. I'm going to make it my business to learn where your vested interest lies; you will be part of some insidious organisation and I'm going to try and out you. And if I catch you telling lies I will have you. It's going to be like playing twenty questions, only without the animal/vegetable/mineral bit because we all know that thewurzel is a big thick boring vegetable. It has no imagination, no soul and no feelings. It never concedes a point. It knows the value of nothing. It exists simply as cattle food, to be digested and excreted then shovelled into a slurry pit with the other crap.

Oh and wasn't there a turnip who managed the England football side once, so branded after a series of disasterous decisions?

Edited by Andy Zarse on Tuesday 8th April 09:36

[thewurzel]

Andy Zarse said:

You flatter yourself sunshine. I don't follow you round n here; on the contrary, you simply turn up on threads in which I take an interest and I'd like nothing more than to never see or hear from you again.

Andy Zarse said:

I'm going to make it my business to learn where your vested interest lies; you will be part of some insidious organisation and I'm going to try and out you. And if I catch you telling lies I will have you.

Also, Andy, have a read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_on_shoulder

Wikipedia said:

The phrase chip on one's shoulder means having a harboured grievance or sense of inferiority and being quick to take offence.

Seems like a textbook description of your attitude to my posts.

I now have a fantastic mental image of you with a big chart of "Thewurzel's Views On Road Safety" on your wall, looking for inaccuracies

Edited by thewurzel on Tuesday 8th April 11:17

[slim_boy_fat]

And breathe............................

[Busamav]

slim_boy_fat said:

Busamav said:

slim_boy_fat said:

Keep speeding to sensible limits on sensible roads is my take on it.

and it only luck that stops us having an accident.

I came round a bend once a couple fo years ago to find a cow in the middle of the road, fortunately i was only going at 40mph in a car, but i could have easily been doing 60 on the bike and the outcome may have been very different.

That was dumb and lucky .

Most riders I go out with dont ever put luck in the equation

Edited by Busamav on Sunday 6th April 09:51

Which part was dumb, the driving a car part or only doing 40mph.

You make no sense.

Luck pays a massive part in everything we do in life, if you dont recognise this then you are a tw@t or must be about 12 years old.

Edited by slim_boy_fat on Sunday 6th April 18:14

If you rely on luck when you ride a bike , your days are numbered.

Theres enough trolls on here as it is .

In your eyes I probably am a tt and make no sense ,thats not a problem for me , crack on as you were sunshine .

fyi I am 53

[slim_boy_fat]

Busamav said:

If you rely on luck when you ride a bike , your days are numbered.

Theres enough trolls on here as it is .

In your eyes I probably am a tt and make no sense ,thats not a problem for me , crack on as you were sunshine .

fyi I am 53

Yet again (sonny jim pmsl) you miss the point, can you read?

I didnt say i rely on luck. NO where did i say that, but lets not let what i said get in the way of your trolling.

If your lucky you will see 54, if your not you wont. Its that simple.

I would have thought by your age you would have realised this...

[Poledriver]

[Busamav]

slim_boy_fat said:

Yet again (sonny jim pmsl)

you miss the point, can you read?

dont get upset , i am not having a go at you , theres enough ste in this thread already that has made it unreadable for me

btw , I am up to book 7 now , so getting there .

[Biker's Nemesis]

Kin Hell.