From: JNugent on
Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> considered Thu, 29 Jul 2010
> 09:45:28 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>> "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)> wrote in message
>> news:p7q7a51u9wnb.1doz1057u0lqs.dlg(a)
>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:21:49 +0100, Brimstone wrote:
>>>>> "colloquial" is what we use in everyday speech, it's the dictionary
>>>>> definition. If specialists use it another way, that's a specialists
>>>>> definition for internal use by them.
>>>> "Colloquial" is also what people use when they're uneducated or too lazy
>>>> to
>>>> use correct terminology.
>>> Nonsense. Colloquial language is the everyday language of all people,
>>> educated or not. "Pavement" in everyday english means footway. In legal or
>>> technical conversations it means otherwise. If you use that technical
>>> usage
>>> in everyday speech, it is *you* who are wrong.
>> Nevertheless, to get back to the original point that started this pointless
>> exchange, the footway (pavement as you choose to call it) is a part of the
>> road and cyclists kill more vulnerable users of it.
> Are you seriously trying to claim that there is any type of road user
> who kills less users of the footway than cyclists do?

Do you not understand the phrase "more vulnerable"?
> I'm fairly sure that even pedestrians kill more vulnerable users of
> the footway than cyclists do, although that pales into insignificance
> compared to anything with an internal combustion engine.

I see... you *don't*.

> I suppose if you get pedantic you could claim that cyclists kill more
> vulnerable users of the footway than hovercraft do, or jetski riders.

Or you could re-read what was written - and maybe the penny will drop.
From: Brimstone on

"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)> wrote in message
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:56:10 +0100, Brimstone wrote:
>>> no, the speed alone would be judged dangerous driving
>> There have been cases where someone driving in excess of the speed limit
>> has
>> been charged with "dangerous driving" and has been acquitted.
> as with any charge.
You didn't get the unsaid bit did you?

From: Brimstone on

"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)> wrote in message
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:00:37 +0100, Brimstone wrote:
>>>>> the idea is to drive at the limit if safe to do so,
>>>> What leads you to believe that?
>>> why would you do otherwise?
>> Because what is, or is not, safe varies from person to person.
> so it varies from person to person. Why is that a problem?
If you hadn't snipped the rest of my post it would have been clear. Go back
and reread it.

From: Steve Firth on
Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)> wrote:

> No, you just keep saying "because they're for safety" instead. Despite
> they fact that even you admit they are at best "approximate".

Back when I was involved in transport I requested the raw data from a
much cited study of the effectiveness of speed cameras. I had to pull
rank to get it because the LA that had collected the data was unwilling
to hand the source of their "in depth study" to a third party. As you
may have been able to predict when I got the data it was farcically

The "baseline" year chosen was the year with the highest death rate on
the roads. After that they could have picked any year and have shown a
reduction in deaths. They chose to pick the year after the speed cameras
were installed of course and by an astonishing coincidence "proved" that
speed cameras work. However compared to an average of the three years
preceding the installation of cameras the death rate after speed camera
introduction was slightly higher overall.

The person collecting and reporting the data had no training in
statistics and had no qualifications beyond GCSE.
From: Matt B on
On 30/07/2010 07:12, Chelsea Tractor Man wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:02:15 +0100, JNugent wrote:
>> IOW, road tax (where charged) is a charge for the use of the roads.
> no, its a *tax* on those who use powered vehicles on the roads

ITYM, _yes_, it's a *tax* on _some_ of those who use powered vehicles on
_public_ roads.

Matt B