What a thing to say

[puggit]

While hunting around the internet for snippets as I always do I found this quote and thought it really should be published:

Mary Williams said:

“Cameras are there to reduce speed because if you are driving badly but you are going at a slower speed the chances of a crash resulting in a fatality are far less.”

www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2262332

Does anybody else find this simply startling? She is readily admitting that it is ok to drive badly as long as you are below the posted speed limit

I've ummed and ahhhed about posting this so soon after Ted's warning notice - but she's not going to censor reasoned debate. As per Ted's notice - please keep this thread polite and don't personally attack this woman! Sorry Ted - this isn't an attempt to continue Mary Williams bashing under another name.

[deltaf]

No need to say anymore mate, the message is crystal.

[streaky]

No, what she is saying is that bad driving at slower speed produces fewer fatalities. I'm sure that can be substantiated - having an 'accident' at 1 mph is unlikely to be fatal. Of course, bad driving at slower speed might well increase the number of injuries, both serious and minor - but that was ignored, either by Ms Williams or by The Scotsman.

What it demonstrates is the careful choice of words - which the majority of readers/listeners will not differentiate. Paradoxically, it also demonstrates that the careless choice of words (assuming she was quoted correctly) produces a sound-bite that leaves you open to justifiable attack.

Whilst it would be difficult to decry her statement as being "claptrap", nevertheless it does deserve critical comment.

So I say, "Driving slowly but badly is more likely to result in a crash than driving fast and well."

(Note the careful choice of 'crash' there, as if one is driving badly a collision with another object cannot be called an 'accident'.)

Streaky

[Apache]

I remember going over the thread in question when one of our posters said he knew her and she was a nice, well meaning individual, I didn't find anything particularly offensive in it.
Maybe, like CC Brunstom Brake do not like being criticised. Frankly if people publish nonsense they are bound to get adverse comments

>> Edited by Apache on Monday 15th December 18:53

[smokin220]

220

Maybe I missed something on that thread because I saw nothing that any reasonable person, be they, politically motivated, facts and figure malipulating, naive, self serving,and apparently a direct decendent of "Big G", ( he only talks to special people)and to top it all, a self appointed, road safety expert,(joke) could frankly find offensive.


Can I be a road safty expert, go on , please, and next week I'd like to be a Doctor, then a fighter pilot...... ah you need what, Qualifications, ahh shit, that's blown it.

[The Wiz]

puggit said:

While hunting around the internet for snippets as I always do I found this quote and thought it really should be published: Mary Williams said: “Cameras are there to reduce speed because if you are driving badly but you are going at a slower speed the chances of a crash resulting in a fatality are far less.” www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2262332 Does anybody else find this simply startling? She is readily admitting that it is ok to drive badly as long as you are below the posted speed limit I've ummed and ahhhed about posting this so soon after Ted's warning notice - but she's not going to censor reasoned debate. As per Ted's notice - please keep this thread polite and don't personally attack this woman! Sorry Ted - this isn't an attempt to continue Mary Williams bashing under another name.

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest. All people like Brake (who seem to have lost all sense of proportion with regard to this matter), SSI and Transport 2000 are interested in is speed. Its the ultimate evil in the world as far as they are concerned therefore anybody who disagrees with them must be wrong. They are, as I said in another now deleted thread, so convinced that they are right they ignore all other arguments.

Personally I believe that we should keep opposing these people no matter what.

[meldrewlives]

Finally, it seems that politicians and the propagandists like BRAKE are getting the message that the motoring public is fed up with being treated as a convenient cash cow.

Clearly extremist remarks and threats to an individual would be unacceptable, if indeed such have been made.

However, the increasing hysteria and attempts to classify Pistonheads as some group of nutters is an indication of just how worried they are that they are beginning to lose the argument in the public mind.

Disparaging the opposition is a well known technique when you can not rebut their arguments. Fortunately we have not yet reached the point in B Liar's new labour Britain where you can just bully people into shutting up. Nor, I hope, will we ever.

[Richard C]

[quote]Can I be a road safty expert, go on , please, ...... ah you need what, Qualifications, ahh shit, that's blown it. [/quote]

What qualifications to any of our well known, well loved, road safety experts like Begg, Mary Williams, Paige Mitchell etc have ?...... Err yes thats right none.....unless you count paranoia from tragic bereavements that neverthless had nothing to do with speeding ?

[JMGS4]

The anti-car lentilists are now behaving the way the church did in the 1500's.
Vilify (without any knowledge),
threaten (using false statements),
alienate (by using emotive and false arguments),
and now the stocks and burning at the stake because we're non-believers!!!!

I'ts about time that these unelected do-gooders realised that their lies are being refuted by the man in the street, and their positions are no longer tenable!!
RESIGN all of you you're unlected, unwanted, and no use to the world except for the consumption of OUR hard-earned taxes!!!!