Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: spindrift on 28 Dec 2007 10:11 "Linda Mountain was eventually forced to agree, albeit reluctantly and in somewhat bad grace, that the work Paul Smith had done was a lot nearer reality than anything previously published by the TRL and DfT." Your evidence for this, or a retraction and apology sharpish. Ms Mountain has re-affirmed her findings- that even after allowing for RTTM speed cameras offer worthwhile results. You claim she said something very different and cite an accredited road safety researcher as having vindicated Smith's work. She. Never. Did. Any. Such. Thing. You're a liar, and the despicable Smith habit of lying about the work of serious road safety experts in a futile attempt to lend credence to his own campaign has not died with him, sadly.
From: spindrift on 28 Dec 2007 10:13 On 28 Dec, 15:08, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > spindrift wrote: > > On 28 Dec, 15:00, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> spindrift wrote: > >>> On 28 Dec, 14:34, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> spindrift wrote: > >>>>> On 28 Dec, 14:04, Jeff York <ra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > >>>>> "Speed cameras don't have any relevance to bicycles " > > >>>>> If you cycled, you'd know that speeding traffic is extremely > >>>>> relevant to cyclists. > > >>>>> A young woman who drove her Smart car through a red light at > >>>>> speed, hitting and killing a cyclist, has been jailed for 21 > >>>>> months. > > >>>>> Sobbing Kerry Smith, 24, who had no previous convictions and a > >>>>> clean driving licence, drove west along Talgarth Road at 45mph in > >>>>> the 30mph limit and failed to stop at the red light on the > >>>>> junction with Gliddon Road, prosecutor Charles Burton told > >>>>> Isleworth Crown Court. > > >>>>> "It was 9pm and the defendant failed to notice the lights were red > >>>>> and collided with cyclist Charlotte Morse, who was riding her > >>>>> bicycle from north to south across the junction with the lights at > >>>>> green in her favour," he said. > > >>>>>http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1822947.m... > > >>>> What has someone driving through a red light got to do with > >>>> "speeding"?- Hide quoted text - > > >>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>> Read the article, the driver claimed the light was green. > > >> A working link would be useful. > > >> So reading as much of the article as you've posted she made no such > >> claim > >> but I'll accept that she misread the lights. How is speed relevant?- > >> Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Accept my invitation to drive into you at various speeds and you'll be > > disabused of your wild contention that the speed of the vehicle has no > > bearing on the injuries inflicted on the speeder's victim. > > If she had complied with the red light there would have been no collision > and no injuries and death. How is speed relevant to passing a red light? > > (Third time of asking.)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - "How is speed relevant to passing a red light? " How many people die in a collision with a car travelling at 4mph? The woman killed a child whilst she was speeding. Had she not been speeding the child would have had a much greater chance of survival. Had she not been speeding she may have noticed the lights had changed. She sped, killed a child, and you claim her speed was irrelevant! Accept my invitation, or read up on the subject: Driving just a few miles over the limit vastly increases the risks if you crash. If a driver hits a pedestrian at 20 mph, the pedestrian has a 95% chance of survival. At 30 mph the survival chance is 80% and if a driver hits a pedestrian at 40 mph, the pedestrian's survival chances fall to just 10%. And speeding increases the likelihood of an accident as well - an average car travelling at 35 mph will need an extra 21 feet (or six metres) more to stop, than one travelling at 30 mph. As David Jamieson, Minister for Transport said: 'We know that two thirds of all accidents in which people are killed or injured happen on built-up roads, and speed plays a part in a great many of these crashes. Sticking to the speed limit makes the roads safer for everyone. 'I'm pleased that there will be a national poster campaign to remind people of the speed limits. Knowing and sticking to them will improve road safety and reduce the number of people who are caught by speed cameras.'
From: Brimstone on 28 Dec 2007 10:18 spindrift wrote: > On 28 Dec, 15:08, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> spindrift wrote: >>> On 28 Dec, 15:00, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> spindrift wrote: >>>>> On 28 Dec, 14:34, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> spindrift wrote: >>>>>>> On 28 Dec, 14:04, Jeff York <ra...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>>>> "Speed cameras don't have any relevance to bicycles " >> >>>>>>> If you cycled, you'd know that speeding traffic is extremely >>>>>>> relevant to cyclists. >> >>>>>>> A young woman who drove her Smart car through a red light at >>>>>>> speed, hitting and killing a cyclist, has been jailed for 21 >>>>>>> months. >> >>>>>>> Sobbing Kerry Smith, 24, who had no previous convictions and a >>>>>>> clean driving licence, drove west along Talgarth Road at 45mph >>>>>>> in the 30mph limit and failed to stop at the red light on the >>>>>>> junction with Gliddon Road, prosecutor Charles Burton told >>>>>>> Isleworth Crown Court. >> >>>>>>> "It was 9pm and the defendant failed to notice the lights were >>>>>>> red and collided with cyclist Charlotte Morse, who was riding >>>>>>> her bicycle from north to south across the junction with the >>>>>>> lights at green in her favour," he said. >> >>>>>>> http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/mostpopular.var.1822947.m... >> >>>>>> What has someone driving through a red light got to do with >>>>>> "speeding"?- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>>>> Read the article, the driver claimed the light was green. >> >>>> A working link would be useful. >> >>>> So reading as much of the article as you've posted she made no such >>>> claim >>>> but I'll accept that she misread the lights. How is speed >>>> relevant?- Hide quoted text - >> >>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>> Accept my invitation to drive into you at various speeds and you'll >>> be disabused of your wild contention that the speed of the vehicle >>> has no bearing on the injuries inflicted on the speeder's victim. >> >> If she had complied with the red light there would have been no >> collision and no injuries and death. How is speed relevant to >> passing a red light? >> >> (Third time of asking.)- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > "How is speed relevant to passing a red light? " > > How many people die in a collision with a car travelling at 4mph? Irrelevant. > The woman killed a child whilst she was speeding. Only after passing a red light. > Had she not been speeding the child would have had a much greater > chance of survival. Had she stopped at the red light the survivla of the cyclist would not have been in question. > Had she not been speeding she may have noticed the lights had changed. > People travelling below the speed limit fail to notice that the lights have chnaged. How is the fact of her exceeding the speed limit relevant to the death of the cyclist?
From: JNugent on 28 Dec 2007 11:04 spindrift wrote: [ ... ] [Well up to his usual standards, I see.] > 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. Now, I'm not going to ask you to show us an instance of one of these graveyards full of people who took Paul Smith's advice. I'm not even going to ask you to show us ten instances of dead people who took Mr Smith's advice (whatever it may have been). I'm not asking five, not four, not three, not even two. To you, squire, just one. One single instance. That's all. Go on - show us just *one* instance of a driver who can be shown to have taken Paul Smith's "advice" (whatever it might have been) and to have either killed himself or another person by so doing. I can't say fairer than that, can I? Out of all those (alleged) "Graveyards ... full", you'll easily be able to find and cite one. Just one. That's all that's needed. > Once again: > > 1/ > > Smith claimed to be an "engineer". This sobriquet Do you mean a "soubriquet"? And do you actually know what a soubriquet is (without looking it up)? [Hint: it is not a mere description, nor yet even an alternative description - but a learned chap like you, not given to Malapropism or Hyacinth Bouquetisms - much - should know that.]
From: TripleS on 28 Dec 2007 11:50
Steve Firth wrote: > spindrift <newtyres(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Graveyards are full of arrogant twunts, and their victims, who took >> Smith's advice. > > What absolute, baseless cobblers. But at least it is consistent with practically everything else posted by the disgusting little twerp known as spindrift. Just what, may one ask, have you, spindrift, done that might remotely be regarded as constructive effort in the cause of road safety - even for cyclists - let alone any other road user groups? Best wishes all, Dave. |