Question For Chapman

[Nuxx Bar]

Do you ever speed? If so, how often approximately?

[Nat]

On 16 Apr, 10:53, Nuxx Bar > wrote:
> Do you ever speed? *If so, how often approximately?

Ha ha. I see where you are going with this. Nice try but I am not that
petty thanks. That's just for me and the speed camera to know!

I'm off on a nice ride home. The weather is good and I've got a new
back tyre so can't wait.

[Nuxx Bar]

On Apr 16, 5:09*pm, Nat > wrote:
> On 16 Apr, 10:53, Nuxx Bar > wrote:
>
> > Do you ever speed? *If so, how often approximately?
>
> Ha ha. I see where you are going with this. Nice try but I am not that
> petty thanks. That's just for me and the speed camera to know!
>
> I'm off on a nice ride home. The weather is good and I've got a new
> back tyre so can't wait.

The question wasn't for you, but thanks anyway. The question was for
the impossibly vile, excruciatingly hateful Guy Chapman. You'll
notice that he's declined to give a straight answer, since the answer
is "Yes", and giving that answer would make his pro-camera arguments
look utterly hypocritical and stupid. It's just another example of
him being a slippery, horrible little man of the highest order. And
it's yet more proof that he supports cameras because he hates
motorists (except himself, because he's special). If he really
believed that cameras saved lives, and speeding was as bad as he
claimed, he wouldn't speed.

This is what I don't understand. Surely any genuinely decent person
who supported cameras would realise that Paul Smith was a
fundamentally good, honest person who genuinely wanted to make things
safer for everyone (and improve the lot of motorists at the same
time). He quite clearly didn't have a bad bone in his body. Then you
look at the likes of Spindrift and Chapman: devious, dishonest
*******s who lie about their reasons for supporting cameras and are
absolutely not good, honest people by any stretch of the imagination.
You don't need to know anything about the camera debate to be able to
see the difference. Surely if the lead proponents of one side of the
argument are good people, and the lead proponents of the other side
are utter ****s, it's pretty clear where the truth lies.

So if you're a decent person and you're reading this, and you've
supported cameras up to now, please open your eyes, and be honest with
yourself about the kinds of people that Spindrift, Chapman and their
associates really are. It's impossible to exaggerate what awful
people they are. They don't deserve your support.

[Martin Dann]

Nuxx Bar wrote:
> On Apr 16, 5:09 pm, Nat > wrote:
>> On 16 Apr, 10:53, Nuxx Bar > wrote:
>>
>>> Do you ever speed? If so, how often approximately?
>> Ha ha. I see where you are going with this. Nice try but I am not that
>> petty thanks. That's just for me and the speed camera to know!
>>
>> I'm off on a nice ride home. The weather is good and I've got a new
>> back tyre so can't wait.
>
> The question wasn't for you, but thanks anyway.

In case you have not noticed yet, this is a public forum.

The question was for
> the impossibly vile, excruciatingly hateful Guy Chapman.

So you can't keep the argument to facts, although you have not supplied
any facts yet.


> This is what I don't understand. Surely any genuinely decent person
> who supported cameras would realise that Paul Smith was a
> fundamentally good, honest person who genuinely wanted to make things
> safer for everyone (and improve the lot of motorists at the same
> time).

Smith was extremely dishonest. He lied about road safety by doing bad
science, and producing dishonest results. He misrepresented other
peoples work. He lied about his qualifications, so that he could promote
his other lies. He did this all for thoroughly selfish reasons.


> He quite clearly didn't have a bad bone in his body.

He definitely had a bad heart. Perhaps he should have gotten on a bike
more and cycled, perhaps he would still be alive.

> So if you're a decent person and you're reading this, and you've
> supported cameras up to now, please open your eyes, and be honest with
> yourself

After reading smith's site, I did an analysis of the STATS19 data, and
the truth about speed cameras, is that since they were introduced, road
fatalities have gone down. Not only that, there has been a marked
*decrease* in fatalities since the early 1990's when they were
introduce. A proper analysis of the STATS19 shows this.

[Budstaff]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> > said in
> >:
>
>>Do you ever speed? If so, how often approximately?
>
> I try not to, and if I were ever caught I would not whinge about it.
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

I speed on occasion, and if I'm caught I too won't whinge. Apparently I
should be campaigning for speed limits to be increased and enforcement to be
relaxed to the point where I'm not caught. This will makes things safer for
cyclists.

[Nat]

On 18 Apr, 08:41, "Budstaff" >
wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in messagenews:habc04dciaoju55lmutjsr66jlb7i2dmgg@4ax .com...
>
> > On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> > > said in
> > >:
>
> >>Do you ever speed? *If so, how often approximately?
>
> > I try not to, and if I were ever caught I would not whinge about it.
>
> > Guy
> > --
> > May contain traces of irony. *Contents liable to settle after posting.
> >http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> > 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
>
> I speed on occasion, and if I'm caught I too won't whinge. Apparently I
> should be campaigning for speed limits to be increased and enforcement to be
> relaxed to the point where I'm not caught. This will makes things safer for
> cyclists.

Wny do drivers need to speed anyway? They are only going to end up in
a queue of traffic and be over taken by us on our bikes anyway!

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

"Nat" > wrote in message
...
On 18 Apr, 08:41, "Budstaff" >
wrote:
>> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote in
>> messagenews:habc04dciaoju55lmutjsr66jlb7i2dmgg@4ax .com...
>>
>> > On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:53:34 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
>>> > > said in
>> > >:
>>
>> >>Do you ever speed? If so, how often approximately?
>>
>> > I try not to, and if I were ever caught I would not whinge about it.
>>
>> > Guy
>> > --
>> > May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
>> >http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>>
>> > 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
>>
>> I speed on occasion, and if I'm caught I too won't whinge. Apparently I
>> should be campaigning for speed limits to be increased and enforcement to
>> be
>> relaxed to the point where I'm not caught. This will makes things safer
>> for
>> cyclists.

> Wny do drivers need to speed anyway? They are only going to end up in
> a queue of traffic and be over taken by us on our bikes anyway!

Not all of us have urban commutes.

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:09:08 +0100, "Adam Lea" >
said in >:

>Not all of us have urban commutes.

No indeed. Some of my worst problems with "speed imperative"
drivers was during the time when I cycled 15 miles round trip from
Reading to Henley every day.

I also had massive issues with some utterly selfish and thoughtless
drivers while cycling across country from Reading to Didcot.

Overall, I think I'm glad I'm now going to be riding through London
every day :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound