Bad road safety policy

On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:12:08 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

snip


I take that as being a close equivalent to Judith calling someone a
"****wit" at the end of one of her posts.


I am extremely careful who I call a ****wit.

It is not an accolade I dish out lightly.

Wm.. is a ****wit
Chapman is a ****wit (in spades)
KeithT is a ****wit.
Simon Brooke is a ****wit.
Rudi is a ****wit.

I don't think that you are - you are just daft.


I bet they cannot resist rising to this post - which sort of sums it
up.

--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:44:32 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

Who is the troll?

You.

If you feel that, I refer you back to my earlier advice. Lighten up.

The discussion point I raised was legitimate. Is the Tory policy on
restricting further installation of fixed speed cameras sound policy?

That you chose to deviate from that central point to abuse, swearing
and insults says much about you.

Since the answer to my question is plainly "yes", you can **** off
and have the last word.

I take that as being a close equivalent to Judith calling someone a
"****wit" at the end of one of her posts.

Tom, whatever the motives behind your post the fact is that you have annoyed
a lot of people with it and it you would get far more respect if you just
admitted that it was ill judged and apologized instead of resorting to self
justification.

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 00:53:08 +0100, "Adam Lea"
wrote:

Tom, whatever the motives behind your post the fact is that you have annoyed
a lot of people with it and it you would get far more respect if you just
admitted that it was ill judged and apologized instead of resorting to self
justification.

I am sorry for any distress I have caused be my original post. It was
designed to amuse while raising a serious point. Clearly it failed in
both those aims and has annoyed a lot of people. For that I am sorry.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message .. .
Dr Zoidberg wrote:
"Tom Crispin" wrote in
message
news
The car-hugging Tories look set to announce a policy that will be
the
worst news for road safety since the Locomotives Act of 1865 was
amended in 1878.

No more fixed speed cameras.

In 1966, before speed cameras were intoduced, there were 7,985
killed
on British roads. In 2007, after speed cameras had been
introduced,
the death toll had been more than halved to 2,943.


And there were absolutely no changes to anything else that might
affect road safety in that period , were there?

What, like the Anglia 105E I passed my test in? That had non servo
drum brakes & took several miles to stop?


You had it easy. Try rod brakes as fitted to the Standard 8 .....
front brakes were interesting when cornering......

Stopped fairly quickly, though. Probably because it didn't go very
fast in the first place (the fastest I ever had out of mine was around
55mph....)

On 2009-10-06, Roger Merriman wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:44:32 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

Who is the troll?

You.

If you feel that, I refer you back to my earlier advice. Lighten up.

The discussion point I raised was legitimate. Is the Tory policy on
restricting further installation of fixed speed cameras sound policy?

That you chose to deviate from that central point to abuse, swearing
and insults says much about you.

Since the answer to my question is plainly "yes", you can **** off and have
the last word.

I take that as being a close equivalent to Judith calling someone a
"****wit" at the end of one of her posts.

your post had nothing about cycling was cross posted to a driving group,
it was trolling pure and simple.

It has a lot to do with cycling-- some cyclists do believe that 50
limits on country roads would make cycling more pleasant and/or safer.

It's perceived as a "troll" because it's a contentious subject that
results in a lot of ranting, like helmets.

But this was never supposed to be a genteel dinner party. Why avoid
subjects just because they're contentious? Seems like throwing the baby
out with the bath water.

Just flame away until someone mentions Hitler then start another thread.
It's a system that works.

Ben C wrote:

On 2009-10-06, Roger Merriman wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:44:32 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

Who is the troll?

You.

If you feel that, I refer you back to my earlier advice. Lighten up.

The discussion point I raised was legitimate. Is the Tory policy on
restricting further installation of fixed speed cameras sound policy?

That you chose to deviate from that central point to abuse, swearing
and insults says much about you.

Since the answer to my question is plainly "yes", you can **** off and
have the last word.

I take that as being a close equivalent to Judith calling someone a
"****wit" at the end of one of her posts.

your post had nothing about cycling was cross posted to a driving group,
it was trolling pure and simple.

It has a lot to do with cycling-- some cyclists do believe that 50
limits on country roads would make cycling more pleasant and/or safer.

cars have very little to do with cycling, really do. is that really what
cycling is about? taking about cars?


It's perceived as a "troll" because it's a contentious subject that
results in a lot of ranting, like helmets.

it's tone and content plus it's cross post. was a pure and simple troll
post.


But this was never supposed to be a genteel dinner party. Why avoid
subjects just because they're contentious? Seems like throwing the baby
out with the bath water.

Just flame away until someone mentions Hitler then start another thread.
It's a system that works.

in other places people talk about bike stuff, yes cars to get talked
about but only as a side mostly bikes. not here.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On 2009-10-07, Roger Merriman wrote:
Ben C wrote:

On 2009-10-06, Roger Merriman wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:44:32 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

Who is the troll?

You.

If you feel that, I refer you back to my earlier advice. Lighten up.

The discussion point I raised was legitimate. Is the Tory policy on
restricting further installation of fixed speed cameras sound policy?

That you chose to deviate from that central point to abuse, swearing
and insults says much about you.

Since the answer to my question is plainly "yes", you can **** off and
have the last word.

I take that as being a close equivalent to Judith calling someone a
"****wit" at the end of one of her posts.

your post had nothing about cycling was cross posted to a driving group,
it was trolling pure and simple.

It has a lot to do with cycling-- some cyclists do believe that 50
limits on country roads would make cycling more pleasant and/or safer.

cars have very little to do with cycling, really do. is that really what
cycling is about? taking about cars?

How to share the road with cars is relevant and quite an interesting
question. Actually Tom's post wasn't about 50 limits-- that was my
troll-- his was about speed cameras.

On 6 Oct, 07:25, Tom Crispin
wrote:
The car-hugging Tories look set to announce a policy that will be the
worst news for road safety since the Locomotives Act of 1865 was
amended in 1878.

No more fixed speed cameras.

In 1966, before speed cameras were intoduced, there were 7,985 killed
on British roads. *In 2007, after speed cameras had been introduced,
the death toll had been more than halved to 2,943.

There are now about 3,500 fixed speed cameras across the UK. *Over
4,000 lives per year have been saved since 1966, before fixed speed
cameras were introduced.

That is over one life per year per fixed speed camera.

And with the cost of each speed camera being £20,000, that puts the
cost of saving each life at under £1,200 if spread over the 17 years
since speed cameras were introduced.

And that ignores the excellent revenue raising device of a fixed speed
camera, some of which, opponents to speed cameras claim, raise up to
£840,000 per week.

In hard times like we are now facing, we should be investing heavily
in speed cameras to milk drivers, so flush with cash that they drive
at illegal speeds, of their money so teachers and their like can be
paid.

Not to worry. Firstly, election promises are seldom honoured.
Secondly, it is unlikely that the Tories would dare to do anything to
make matters even worse on our roads. If they do away with cameras
they will probably crack-down somewhere else instead.

Of course the underlying problem is that they, like the NuLabs, are
mainly motorists with a motorists agenda, in which cyclists are very
poorly represented, nay even castigated. And you can't change that by
voting!

At the moment their greenwash is in favour of cyclists but if their
climate change bubble ever collapses watch out! Cycling will become
unpopular again, because it dares to delay motorists.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Ben C wrote:

On 2009-10-07, Roger Merriman wrote:
Ben C wrote:

On 2009-10-06, Roger Merriman wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:44:32 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

Who is the troll?

You.

If you feel that, I refer you back to my earlier advice. Lighten up.

The discussion point I raised was legitimate. Is the Tory policy on
restricting further installation of fixed speed cameras sound policy?

That you chose to deviate from that central point to abuse, swearing
and insults says much about you.

Since the answer to my question is plainly "yes", you can **** off and
have the last word.

I take that as being a close equivalent to Judith calling someone a
"****wit" at the end of one of her posts.

your post had nothing about cycling was cross posted to a driving group,
it was trolling pure and simple.

It has a lot to do with cycling-- some cyclists do believe that 50
limits on country roads would make cycling more pleasant and/or safer.

cars have very little to do with cycling, really do. is that really what
cycling is about? taking about cars?

How to share the road with cars is relevant and quite an interesting
question. Actually Tom's post wasn't about 50 limits-- that was my
troll-- his was about speed cameras.

tom's post was nothing of the sort, it was yet another attempt to troll.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Dr Zoidberg wrote:
"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
news
The car-hugging Tories look set to announce a policy that will be the
worst news for road safety since the Locomotives Act of 1865 was
amended in 1878.

No more fixed speed cameras.

In 1966, before speed cameras were intoduced, there were 7,985 killed
on British roads. In 2007, after speed cameras had been introduced,
the death toll had been more than halved to 2,943.

And there were absolutely no changes to anything else that might
affect road safety in that period , were there?

What, like the Anglia 105E I passed my test in? That had non servo drum
brakes & took several miles to stop?


Several miles? Pah!

My 105E had Czechoslovakian tyres that were like the nylon Chang
Shin(sp) bike tyres. They never wore out and had very little grip in the
rain.
Never managed to run in to anything but drifting at roundabouts was
expected in the damp - none of yer Top Gear dramatics with smoking tyres
though - more like driving on ice when you got a wee bit of fuel
spillage to contend with.

--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle