Paul Smith
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: spindrift on 30 Dec 2007 05:08 On 29 Dec, 01:38, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: > spindrift <newty...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > On 28 Dec, 14:34, %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: > > > spindrift <newty...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Graveyards are full of arrogant twunts, and their victims, who took > > > > Smith's advice. > > > > What absolute, baseless cobblers. > > > The essential mindset > > Yes, amusing rant, but you failed to address your lie above. Go on, > provide the names of the individuals who are buried in the same > graveyard to the exclusion of any further burials, who have been killed > in traffic accidents as a direct consequence of Paul Smith's argument > that speed cameras do not achieve their stated objective. > > Just one graveyard full will do, I won't even hold you to your plural. I already have, the headless biker above, please don't barge into threads you haven't read properly. Smith was a liar, a charlatan and a coward- he fled from argument when he was alive and delted posts from his forum that highlighted his stupidity (Such as claiming speed bumps kill 500 people a year, or that cyclists are more dangerous to pedestrians than light domestic vehicles. This is not a joke, this claim is STILL on the safespeeding website). There are two (deeply flawed) theories why cameras "kill".. 1. People slowing down to the speed limit when they see a camera (panic braking) can claim accidents. The flaws are that it would be unneccessary if they were at the correct speed, and that the accident would occur if any other event like road debris was present.... However its much easier to blame the cameras than accept that speeding is at fault. 2. Cameras cause people to check their speedometer when they see cameras, thus distracting them. The flaws being that this actually takes less time than checking the mirror, and is also far quicker than any of the other distractions in your car like the SatNav, stereo, and other guages that infest modern cars.. and of course the deep flaws in the theroetical and practical aspects of the "research" used to verify this theory. Pointed out and ignored earlier.
From: JNugent on 30 Dec 2007 06:26 spindrift wrote: > %ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: >>spindrift <newty...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>%ste...(a)malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: >>>>spindrift <newty...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Graveyards are full of arrogant twunts, and their victims, who took >>>>>Smith's advice. >>>>What absolute, baseless cobblers. >>>The essential mindset ... >>Yes, amusing rant, but you failed to address your lie above. Go on, >>provide the names of the individuals who are buried in the same >>graveyard to the exclusion of any further burials, who have been killed >>in traffic accidents as a direct consequence of Paul Smith's argument >>that speed cameras do not achieve their stated objective. >>Just one graveyard full will do, I won't even hold you to your plural. > I already have, the headless biker above, please don't barge into > threads you haven't read properly. That's simply untrue and everyone here knows it to be untrue. So far from illustrating your assertion "Graveyards are full of arrogant twunts, and their victims, who took Smith's advice" with a single case (let alone a single graveyard), you have completely failed to show that any individual you cite had ever even heard of Paul Smith, let alone taken his advice. > Smith was a liar, a charlatan and a coward- he fled from argument when > he was alive and delted posts from his forum that highlighted his > stupidity I don't know that to be true (mainly because I never have read his website or his articles), but we *do* know of someone else who posts rather dubious (if not false) claims and runs away from debate about them, preferring to ignore awkward requests for clarification or examples, don't we? That person posts under the name "spindrift" and one example of their suspect claims is the assertion: "Graveyards are full of arrogant twunts, and their victims, who took Smith's advice". Wouldn't it be nice if spindrift didn't just flee from argument about that claim, and/or was prepared to share (for peer-review) the "research" which led him to make it? [spindrift rant snipped] Are you going to provide an example of a single deceased driver who had taken Paul Smith's advice (or even someone killed by such a driver), including evidence that the driver had ever even *heard* of Paul Smith? Now's your chance not to flee from debate. Now's your chance not to avoid awkward questions. You won't fail us, I'm sure.
From: The Luggage on 3 Jan 2008 08:27 On 21 Dec 2007, 11:58, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Peter Clinch wrote: > > MrBitsy wrote: > > >> I am trying to instill a sense of logic - when all looks bad, get > >> out of the way and forget blame for as long as it takes you to stay > >> alive. > > > Fine. > > > But most of Good Practice is about how to stop it going wrong in the > > first place. The point I keep trying to get across is that avoiding > > unpleasantness in the first place with lorries is down to more than > > "keep clear". Nothing more, but nothing less. I'm not trying to > > apportion blame, or go on about rights, or the various IQs of anyone > > on the road, just saying that "keep clear of lorries" is not actually > > very helpful and could do with a lot of work to rectify that. > > Hence I prefaced it with "the main thrust is". It was also in the context of > someone putting themselves into a potentially hazardous situation. > > Most other people understood that it was a starting point for action, why > didn't you Because, as Pete and others have keopt pointing out, keeping clear is not the starting point for action. It's actually the final option, for when other best practice options (such as primary road position) have failed to prevent a potential conflict. TL
From: Brimstone on 3 Jan 2008 08:32 The Luggage wrote: > On 21 Dec 2007, 11:58, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> > wrote: >> Peter Clinch wrote: >>> MrBitsy wrote: >> >>>> I am trying to instill a sense of logic - when all looks bad, get >>>> out of the way and forget blame for as long as it takes you to stay >>>> alive. >> >>> Fine. >> >>> But most of Good Practice is about how to stop it going wrong in the >>> first place. The point I keep trying to get across is that avoiding >>> unpleasantness in the first place with lorries is down to more than >>> "keep clear". Nothing more, but nothing less. I'm not trying to >>> apportion blame, or go on about rights, or the various IQs of anyone >>> on the road, just saying that "keep clear of lorries" is not >>> actually very helpful and could do with a lot of work to rectify >>> that. >> >> Hence I prefaced it with "the main thrust is". It was also in the >> context of someone putting themselves into a potentially hazardous >> situation. >> >> Most other people understood that it was a starting point for >> action, why didn't you > > Because, as Pete and others have keopt pointing out, keeping clear is > not the starting point for action. It's actually the final option, > for when other best practice options (such as primary road position) > have failed to prevent a potential conflict. > Just woken up have you?
From: The Luggage on 4 Jan 2008 03:53
On 3 Jan, 13:32, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > The Luggage wrote: > > On 21 Dec 2007, 11:58, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> > > wrote: > >> Hence I prefaced it with "the main thrust is". It was also in the > >> context of someone putting themselves into a potentially hazardous > >> situation. > > >> Most other people understood that it was a starting point for > >> action, why didn't you > > > Because, as Pete and others have keopt pointing out, keeping clear is > > not the starting point for action. It's actually the final option, > > for when other best practice options (such as primary road position) > > have failed to prevent a potential conflict. > > Just woken up have you? Was that really the best reply you could think of? I've been away. Now I'm back. Get over it. Try answering the comments. TL |