Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Brimstone on 28 Dec 2007 13:54 spindrift wrote: > On 28 Dec, 18:34, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> spindrift wrote: >>> "Surely it is better we >>> concentrate on driver skills, rather than making drivers believe >>> they are >>> safe if they go below a number on a pole? " >> >>> Any driver who assumes that driving below the speed limit makes >>> accidents impossible would be an idiot. Can you name any driver who >>> thinks something so stupid? Thought not. >> >>> This is just another plank of your argument that makes no sense, >>> THERE ARE NO DRIVERS WHO THINK LIKE THIS. >> >>> This follows on from bogus claim #132 above- that 95% of police >>> resources are devoted to speeding. >> >>> Got a source for that claim yet? >> >>> I make that seven questions the pro-speeders are unable to respond >>> to, the spirit of Smith lives on! >> >> Whilst you can't answer one very simple question. If the person you >> cite as >> having been speeding and then colliding with a cyclist had stopped >> at the >> red light would the collision (and resulting death) have happened?- >> Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Would the driver have jumped the light had she not been speeding? > > Almost certainly not. Plenty do, and not all of them are in cars. > Would the injuries inflicted on the child have been less severe at a > lower speed? > > Indubitably. > > A child died, and you are seriously unable to condemn speeding, even > now? > > Sheesh. If the driver had been travelling at 45mph and had stopped at the red light, as she was supposed to, what would the outcome have been?
From: spindrift on 28 Dec 2007 14:02 On 28 Dec, 18:54, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > spindrift wrote: > > On 28 Dec, 18:34, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >> spindrift wrote: > >>> "Surely it is better we > >>> concentrate on driver skills, rather than making drivers believe > >>> they are > >>> safe if they go below a number on a pole? " > > >>> Any driver who assumes that driving below the speed limit makes > >>> accidents impossible would be an idiot. Can you name any driver who > >>> thinks something so stupid? Thought not. > > >>> This is just another plank of your argument that makes no sense, > >>> THERE ARE NO DRIVERS WHO THINK LIKE THIS. > > >>> This follows on from bogus claim #132 above- that 95% of police > >>> resources are devoted to speeding. > > >>> Got a source for that claim yet? > > >>> I make that seven questions the pro-speeders are unable to respond > >>> to, the spirit of Smith lives on! > > >> Whilst you can't answer one very simple question. If the person you > >> cite as > >> having been speeding and then colliding with a cyclist had stopped > >> at the > >> red light would the collision (and resulting death) have happened?- > >> Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Would the driver have jumped the light had she not been speeding? > > > Almost certainly not. > > Plenty do, and not all of them are in cars. > > > Would the injuries inflicted on the child have been less severe at a > > lower speed? > > > Indubitably. > > > A child died, and you are seriously unable to condemn speeding, even > > now? > > > Sheesh. > > If the driver had been travelling at 45mph and had stopped at the red light, > as she was supposed to, what would the outcome have been?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So you agree that speed is the crucial factor in the severity of injuries inflicted. Finally. Speeding makes accidents more likely and increases their severity. Now, want to answer my questions please?
From: Brimstone on 28 Dec 2007 14:12 spindrift wrote: > On 28 Dec, 18:54, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> spindrift wrote: >>> On 28 Dec, 18:34, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> spindrift wrote: >>>>> "Surely it is better we >>>>> concentrate on driver skills, rather than making drivers believe >>>>> they are >>>>> safe if they go below a number on a pole? " >> >>>>> Any driver who assumes that driving below the speed limit makes >>>>> accidents impossible would be an idiot. Can you name any driver >>>>> who thinks something so stupid? Thought not. >> >>>>> This is just another plank of your argument that makes no sense, >>>>> THERE ARE NO DRIVERS WHO THINK LIKE THIS. >> >>>>> This follows on from bogus claim #132 above- that 95% of police >>>>> resources are devoted to speeding. >> >>>>> Got a source for that claim yet? >> >>>>> I make that seven questions the pro-speeders are unable to respond >>>>> to, the spirit of Smith lives on! >> >>>> Whilst you can't answer one very simple question. If the person you >>>> cite as >>>> having been speeding and then colliding with a cyclist had stopped >>>> at the >>>> red light would the collision (and resulting death) have happened?- >>>> Hide quoted text - >> >>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>> Would the driver have jumped the light had she not been speeding? >> >>> Almost certainly not. >> >> Plenty do, and not all of them are in cars. >> >>> Would the injuries inflicted on the child have been less severe at a >>> lower speed? >> >>> Indubitably. >> >>> A child died, and you are seriously unable to condemn speeding, even >>> now? >> >>> Sheesh. >> >> If the driver had been travelling at 45mph and had stopped at the >> red light, as she was supposed to, what would the outcome have >> been?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > So you agree that speed is the crucial factor in the severity of > injuries inflicted. > > Finally. I've never said any different. > Speeding makes accidents more likely and increases their severity. > > Now, want to answer my questions please? No, because you have yet to answer mine. I'll repeat it, just in case you've forgotten. If the driver had been travelling at 45mph and had stopped at the red light, as she was supposed to, what would the outcome have been?
From: Jeff York on 28 Dec 2007 14:16 spindrift <newtyres(a)hotmail.com> wrote: <snipped, an exact, unamended copy of my posting..> Follwed by:- > >http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sobriquet ??? Something of a non sequitur, but it probably makes more sense than what you'd normally write.
From: Brimstone on 28 Dec 2007 14:20
spindrift wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobriquet > > http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sobriquet > > http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0082809.html > > Sobriquet is an assumed name. > > Smith called himself a "road safety expert and engineer". > > He was neither. > > > He held no qualifications, was a member of no trade organisations and > was essentially a charlatan, fraud and liar. > > That's a sobriquet for you!! > > LOL!! <Capt Mainwaring impersonation> Stupid Boy!! </ Capt Mainwaring impersonation> |