Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: DavidR on 24 Dec 2007 08:48 "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote > DavidR wrote: >> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote >>> >>> There may not be, but I would not cross a red light for the reasons >>> given. You can't understand this for some reason, so we will have to >>> disagree. I can understand your view on this, but I don't share it. >> >> So, as I said elsewhere, traffic lights are the ultimate dumbing down >> devices for drivers. So much whingeing about a dumbing effect of >> other rules that I find it remarkable that this one goes totally >> unnoticed. > > Dumbing down? I had promised an essay after you had told us why it was dangerous to cross red lights. I did but perhaps it got lost somewhere. Yes, it is dumbing down and you are prime evidence of it. Remember the original exchange? You > Many cyclists, like pedestrians, seem oblivious in very simple ways to > keep themselves safe - not obeying red lights for instance. Me > Is this dangerous? Are there any figures to bear it out? The starting point was that not obeying red lights is not safe, or dangerous, if you like. You gave it as if it was a bold fact and still you haven't\explained why - I doubt you have ever considered otherwise. Nobody else has been able/bothered to support you other than to remind people that is a point of law. Traffic lights are primarily congestion controlling tools and the only way for them to work is to dictate that the red light is obeyed. Because traffic lights have got such a long history, somewhere, somehow the idea of danger has got into many peoples' heads. That's rather dumb, isn't it? Also consider pedestrian crossings. We used to have zebra crossings but many drivers have trouble with these so we now have congestion causing lights because we know that, mostly, drivers will obey them. 'Scuse me, but what is the difference between a person in the road and a red light? Dumbing? Of course it is.
From: MrBitsy on 24 Dec 2007 12:27 DavidR wrote: > "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote >> DavidR wrote: >>> "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote >>>> >>>> There may not be, but I would not cross a red light for the reasons >>>> given. You can't understand this for some reason, so we will have >>>> to disagree. I can understand your view on this, but I don't share >>>> it. >>> >>> So, as I said elsewhere, traffic lights are the ultimate dumbing >>> down devices for drivers. So much whingeing about a dumbing effect >>> of other rules that I find it remarkable that this one goes totally >>> unnoticed. >> >> Dumbing down? > > I had promised an essay after you had told us why it was dangerous to > cross red lights. I did but perhaps it got lost somewhere. > > Yes, it is dumbing down and you are prime evidence of it. Remember the > original exchange? > > You >> Many cyclists, like pedestrians, seem oblivious in very simple ways >> to keep themselves safe - not obeying red lights for instance. > > Me >> Is this dangerous? Are there any figures to bear it out? > > The starting point was that not obeying red lights is not safe, or > dangerous, if you like. You gave it as if it was a bold fact and > still you haven't\explained why - Driver attitude. > I doubt you have ever considered otherwise. You must be right - the subject couldn't possibly have come up in many years in conversations at the IAM, RoSPA, DSA or while training for the PCV. > Nobody else has been able/bothered to support you other > than to remind people that is a point of law. I respect their views - I respect your view. > Traffic lights are primarily congestion controlling tools and the > only way for them to work is to dictate that the red light is obeyed. > Because traffic lights have got such a long history, somewhere, > somehow the idea of danger has got into many peoples' heads. That's > rather dumb, isn't it? No. I drive into and out of London everyday and see the consequences of drivers not obeying the danger aspect. -- MrBitsy
From: DavidR on 26 Dec 2007 18:21 "MrBitsy" <ray(a)nowhere.com> wrote > >> Traffic lights are primarily congestion controlling tools and the >> only way for them to work is to dictate that the red light is obeyed. >> Because traffic lights have got such a long history, somewhere, >> somehow the idea of danger has got into many peoples' heads. That's >> rather dumb, isn't it? > > No. I drive into and out of London everyday and see the consequences of > drivers not obeying the danger aspect. Which is the same as going across any junction without checking it's clear. Anyway, I did originally respond to your suggestion that it was "Many cyclists, like pedestrians, seem oblivious in very simple ways to keep themselves safe - not obeying red lights for instance." It was the reference to pedestrians and cyclists that made me respond and the driver issue is a bit of an aside. I did ride through a red light the other day - about half a second late - when I would have stopped had I been in the car. The judgements to be made over safety are definitely not the same, ie, in the car, I could have done the same thing without risk but, importanly, there would have been no increased risk by obeying the law.
From: spindrift on 28 Dec 2007 08:05 On 23 Dec, 10:51, Huge <H...(a)nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: > On 2007-12-22, Clive George <cl...(a)xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: > > > "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > >news:pK2dnSMMpqo4pPDanZ2dnUVZ8u6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > >> "Steve in Herts" <nos...(a)invalidaddress.blob> wrote in message > >>news:h8dqm3hbv67qrr9cn35oba2k9c60n4ghvh(a)4ax.com... > > >>> It sounds like this guy has something personal against the late Paul > >>> Smith with the way he's ranting on. > > >> What's really sick is that he waits until the guy is dead and can't argue > >> for himself. There;s no honour in destroying a dead man. > > > Spindrift? You're talking bollocks - he's been arguing with/about Paul Smith > > for several years now. Paul Smith consistently avoided arguing with him > > Who can blame him? Do you you argue with the unwashed, spittle flecked loon with > the big circular stain round his crotch when he approaches you in the street? > Same thing. > > -- > "Be thankful that you have a life, and forsake your vain > and presumptuous desire for a second one." > [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk] Smith ran away from awkward questions, deleted posts on his site that raised questions about his work and banned posters who asked questions he was unable to answer. Smith made the roads more dangerous and encouraged the idiot boy racers who place vulnerable road users at risk. As such I've a vested interest in highlighting exactly what a foolish coward he was. The people who have inherited his work and are currently running his website have issued no disclaimers, corrections or apologies for Smith's lies so it appears the fight isn't over- the Safespeeding message (which was always, by Smith's own admission, car-centric with zero consideration for other road users) is that drivers should be able to pick and choose which laws to obey. Graveyards are full of arrogant twunts, and their victims, who took Smith's advice. Once again: 1/ Smith claimed to be an "engineer". This sobriquet obviously lends weight to his beer mat scribbles, I mean research. So why did he make such an effort to conceal the fact that his qualifications were in COMPUTER engineering? Nothing to do with road safety, that's why he made so many laughable howlers. 2/ Your evidence that the general public oppose speed cameras? Fifth time of asking. 3/ Your research that shows your campaign has been effective in one, single, solitary aspect of road safety? Smith claimed for SIX YEARS that his work would lead to speed cameras being removed, there are now more than ever. His abject failure is his monument. 4/ The names of the "independent experts" Smith claimed validated his work? One name? One single, accredited researcher who concurred with Smith? Answer these without shrill mud slinging and you'll help dispel the image of the pro-speeding brigade being nothing other than a small, irrelevant band on internet bods whining and snivelling about how law enforcement is so unfair. The ball's in your court, this is your chance, don't blow it. Here's another example of Smith's dishonesty. Smith drew pretty graphs which, he claimed, showed cameras had no effect. He never, once, ever, allowed for traffic growth. It's smoke and mirrors, he mislead the gullible by inventing facts, twisting data misrepresenting proper research. His rank lies about Linda Mountain's work, for instance. Smith claimed her research was a plank of evidence against cameras. It was nothing of the kind, Professer Mountain demonstrated nothing more than the efficacy of speed cameras. When i asked Smith why he was lying about this he claimed to have private emails from Ms Mountain that backed up what he said. He was asked to show a shred of evidence for this. We're still waiting.
From: Steve Firth on 28 Dec 2007 09:34
spindrift <newtyres(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Graveyards are full of arrogant twunts, and their victims, who took > Smith's advice. What absolute, baseless cobblers. |