Apparently we are antisocial bastards...

[Prof Beard]

moparmick said:

Perhaps we could put him in a room with David Starkey, that might be interesting

With what choice of weapons?

[Parrot of Doom]

greg2k said:

*father christmas www.monbiot.com/archives/1998/12/04/pester-power/ ('an enemy of the people') >> Edited by greg2k on Tuesday 20th December 15:51

On this, I agree with him. The peer-pressure advertising aimed at children is destructive to society. I think advertising aimed at children should be banned as it is in Scandanavian countries.

[8Pack]

Oi! You! Monbiot! I SAID NO!............

Listen.........I, a REAL "socialist" (unlike you) worked all my fechin' life to have a good car and travel Europe, You an' your kind ain't gonna fech it up for me now. My, "peoples car".... (4ltr V8 Jaguar)....was built at Browns lane and I'm proud of it, just like the Germans are proud of theirs, (it does around 5-6000 miles/year only). British people built it, they Export them, they earn our nation export sales, It's a quality product. Why are you intent on sinking it?

It's strange that I, a REAL "socialist" agrees with say: Deristrictor" on this: (sorry Der, )...as we differ politically. Don't you realise Monbiot that wealth enables people to own two cars, and choose to use the 1000cc model to travel to work and leave the biggy at home until it's needed? hence the "road tax" should be scrapped to enable this.......

If YOU Monbiot want to talk green.......first you've got to talk sense!..

I'm sure he reads this y'know!..................PILLOCK!

[Parrot of Doom]

www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5277

Debate with Safespeed on Irish Radio, realplayer or winamp to listen to it.

[STEW-TYPER]

this moron bloke, sorry, monboit seems to not have a clue about whats really going on. i wonder if he chose to be so blinkered or was brainwashed into it? either way, he nees help.

[JMGS4]

This antisocial liberalist bastard is of course really called Monbigot.... one of the products of an obviously spurious union of hate, envy and liberalistic spite joined in one despicable nutcase!

[grayme]

Monbigot in the Gruniad said:

Well last week the Department for Transport published the results of the study it had commissioned into the efficacy of its speed cameras. It found that the number of drivers speeding down the roads where fixed cameras had been installed fell by 70%, and the number exceeding the speed limit by more than 15mph dropped by 91%. As a result, 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured in those places than were killed or injured on the same stretches before the cameras were erected. The number of deaths fell by more than 100 a year. The people blowing up speed cameras have blood on their hands.

Clearly speed cameras will reduce speeding where they are. I am interested (genuinely) what the anti-speed camera argument is against the 42% reduction in deaths?

Is it that cameras are going up everywhere, even where speed limits are already 'too slow'? Can people have issues with all cameras or just those that are 'unnecessary'?

>> Edited by grayme on Wednesday 21st December 13:13

[maxrider]

grayme said:

Is it that cameras are going up everywhere, even where speed limits are already 'too slow'? Can people have issues with all cameras or just those that are 'unnecessary'? >> Edited by grayme on Wednesday 21st December 13:13

They are all 'unnecessary'. We managed just as well before they appeared, the casualty rate hasn't changed. If you believe the twisted, cherry-picked figures that are presented to justify them then you really are

[james_j]

maxrider said:

grayme said: Is it that cameras are going up everywhere, even where speed limits are already 'too slow'? Can people have issues with all cameras or just those that are 'unnecessary'? >> Edited by grayme on Wednesday 21st December 13:13 They are all 'unnecessary'. We managed just as well before they appeared, the casualty rate hasn't changed. If you believe the twisted, cherry-picked figures that are presented to justify them then you really are

Exactly...nail on head.

[Parrot of Doom]

grayme said:

Monbigot in the Gruniad said: Well last week the Department for Transport published the results of the study it had commissioned into the efficacy of its speed cameras. It found that the number of drivers speeding down the roads where fixed cameras had been installed fell by 70%, and the number exceeding the speed limit by more than 15mph dropped by 91%. As a result, 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured in those places than were killed or injured on the same stretches before the cameras were erected. The number of deaths fell by more than 100 a year. The people blowing up speed cameras have blood on their hands. Clearly speed cameras will reduce speeding where they are. I am interested (genuinely) what the anti-speed camera argument is against the 42% reduction in deaths? Is it that cameras are going up everywhere, even where speed limits are already 'too slow'? Can people have issues with all cameras or just those that are 'unnecessary'? >> Edited by grayme on Wednesday 21st December 13:13

According to Paul Smith on www.safespeed.com, the actual benefit is more like 5% once RTTM is taken into account. This is actually confirmed in the appendices of the official report itself, but tucked away so people don't see it.

[silversun]

What a shame that a generally good paper like the Guardian chooses to print this ill-thought out tripe.

[off_again]

[redacted]

[Mr Whippy]

Gazboy said:

I got a reply! It seems the fact that 3400 trees were sacraficed to make this shyte every night has stopped him in his tracks, and is 'quite worried' about it, and do I have any more information. I'd wager that making a newspaper a night is more harmful to the environment that a GP weekend at Silverstone.

Exactly.

Cars are about the last thing on my list of personal gripes regarding the environment. A car journey *may* be considered waste, but for the majority of all road usage, it's quite necessary, or at least of some use to society.

However, the impact of pure and simple needless waste is astonishing still, in many areas of industry. How much of our rubbish is still not recycled, how much food do we waste. Importing food from huge distances in far away countries to save money, but impact the enviornment much more!

The hostility to cars is pure ignorance to the real problems with our way of life in every way. If we had a clear picture of the real impacts of things to the environment, I bet your average car would be right near the bottom! Why persecute something which hardly makes a difference to anything?
I think we should start having a go at people who buy the daily rag, and not invest in a computer which can display endless amounts of information quite cheaply after the initial investment and environmental cost.

Dave

[grayme]

maxrider said:

grayme said: Is it that cameras are going up everywhere, even where speed limits are already 'too slow'? Can people have issues with all cameras or just those that are 'unnecessary'? >> Edited by grayme on Wednesday 21st December 13:13 They are all 'unnecessary'. We managed just as well before they appeared, the casualty rate hasn't changed. If you believe the twisted, cherry-picked figures that are presented to justify them then you really are

I don't have any other figures to go off (which is why I asked the question)....

[Witchfinder]

Whoa, hang on a moment. Is everyone missing the point here? If Gazboy's not pulling our legs, he's actually given Mr Monbiot second thoughts about his career choice! Aim for the heart!

IIRC, a most newspapers are made from at least a certain amount of recycled paper, but the entire process is presumably quite dirty. Does anyone have any more info to send to him?

[grayme]

If we don't we could just make it up!

[Mr Whippy]

Gazboy said:

Mr Whippy said: I think we should start having a go at people who buy the daily rag I'd rather you didn't, it puts food on my table.

Of course it does.

Every facet of industry and commercial activity put food on our tables. Just a shame car drivers seem to be the ONLY target of environmental destruction, while happily the Monbiot helps sell papers which must be very "costly" to create in both energy (printing etc, paper resource, recylcling) to distribution EVERY day across the whole country!


It would be good to show the impact of an entire car over 5 years on the environment, a NEW one, average car, with recyclable parts etc. Ie, new Civic perhaps doing average miles and meeting the combined cycle?

VS buying a newspaper every day.

I bet they are closer than you think...

Dave

[bor]

silversun said:

What a shame that a generally good paper like the Guardian chooses to print this ill-thought out tripe.

Yes.My feelings also. Similar to Off Again, what I dislike about this guy is not his "hatred" of cars, he's entitled to his opinion just like any of us, but as a journalist he really SUCKS. Regurgitating the speed cameras save lives statistics without questioning them or looking at the other side of the argument shows a distinct lack of journalistic integrity.

His comments about JC confirm my view that he wants to be the "green" equivalent of Clarkson - a celebrity with opinions that get him headlines, fame and fortune.

I'm left-wing, pinko filth and even I don't give any credibility to his flawed, ego massaging bullsh.t

[Code Monkey]

Mr Whippy said:

Gazboy said: Mr Whippy said: I think we should start having a go at people who buy the daily rag I'd rather you didn't, it puts food on my table. Of course it does. Every facet of industry and commercial activity put food on our tables. Just a shame car drivers seem to be the ONLY target of environmental destruction, while happily the Monbiot helps sell papers which must be very "costly" to create in both energy (printing etc, paper resource, recylcling) to distribution EVERY day across the whole country! It would be good to show the impact of an entire car over 5 years on the environment, a NEW one, average car, with recyclable parts etc. Ie, new Civic perhaps doing average miles and meeting the combined cycle? VS buying a newspaper every day. I bet they are closer than you think... Dave

And why stop at using a new car, use something old, well looked after and cared for but because of its age perceived to be highly polluting. these would after all be less likely to cause a percentage damage to environment as the worst time fo a cars life cycle is in its production.

[Twincam16]

What annoys me most about Monbiot is the fact that the BBC think he's a scientist and treat his opinions as scientific fact, including all the fatuous statistics he dreams up to bolster his bigoted rantings. The guy's never written a paper or conducted any kind of accurate research in his life FFS! It's like treating Tony Robinson as the foremost British archaeology expert because he presents Time Team.