OT: Paul Smith down

elyob said:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/229652/

Paul Smith, a respected campaigner against speed cameras and founder
of safespeed.org.uk, died yesterday aged 52.

Smith was well known for his belief that speed cameras reduced road
safety, and that safe driving wasn't just about speed, but about
improving road safety through measures such as better driver training.

The specific cause of Smith's death is not known, though it's believed
he died of a heart attack or stroke.

His partner of 22 years, Claire Armstrong, has already said she will
continue his work.

let's hope his partner doesn't have the same vitriolic stance he had
against speed cameras and cyclists, etc

Pete Whelan said:

elyob said:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/229652/

Quoted message said:

Paul Smith, a respected campaigner against speed cameras and founder
of safespeed.org.uk, died yesterday aged 52.

Quoted message said:

Smith was well known for his belief that speed cameras reduced road
safety, and that safe driving wasn't just about speed, but about
improving road safety through measures such as better driver training.

Quoted message said:

The specific cause of Smith's death is not known, though it's believed
he died of a heart attack or stroke.

Quoted message said:

His partner of 22 years, Claire Armstrong, has already said she will
continue his work.

let's hope his partner doesn't have the same vitriolic stance he had
against speed cameras and cyclists, etc

The man was an apologist for boy racers and speeding idiots. he
misrepresented proper road safety research, lied about the findings of
peer-reviewed authors and moderated a forum where police officers were
called "nazis" and posters expressed the desire to burn policemen to
death.

He was a grown man, he chose his path and chose to lie, cheat and
deceive and make the roads more dangerous for cyclists and anyone
else.

The below post appeared briefly on the Safespeeding website:

It read:

"I'm sure this is a very sad time for all those close to Paul.
Perhaps you could publish Paul's address so people can send cards
and/
or flowers. Then in a few months' time, when the rawness of his loss
has begun to subside, some of my friends could use his details to
avoid a few speeding tickets. I'm sure Paul wouldn't mind ... would
he?"

This, of course, refers to Smith's recommendation of trampling on
peoples' grief to duck speeding fines here:

Paul Smith Sep 3 2001, 11:01 am
You don`t even need to know the deceased. Just picking a name for
the

local newspaper`s obituary column has been known to work nicely.
With
a bit of care in your choice, there`s no one to call you a liar.
(It`s on my web site :-) -- Paul Smith Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk

http://tinyurl.com/cnun3

http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed
/avoid%20the%20points.htm

http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed/countermeasures.htm

http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed/non%20cooperation.htm

spindrift said:

Pete Whelan said:

elyob said:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/229652/

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Paul Smith, a respected campaigner against speed cameras and founder
of safespeed.org.uk, died yesterday aged 52.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Smith was well known for his belief that speed cameras reduced road
safety, and that safe driving wasn't just about speed, but about
improving road safety through measures such as better driver training.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The specific cause of Smith's death is not known, though it's believed
he died of a heart attack or stroke.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

His partner of 22 years, Claire Armstrong, has already said she will
continue his work.

Quoted message said:

let's hope his partner doesn't have the same vitriolic stance he had
against speed cameras and cyclists, etc

The man was an apologist for boy racers and speeding idiots. he
misrepresented proper road safety research, lied about the findings of
peer-reviewed authors and moderated a forum where police officers were
called "nazis" and posters expressed the desire to burn policemen to
death.

He was a grown man, he chose his path and chose to lie, cheat and
deceive and make the roads more dangerous for cyclists and anyone
else.

The below post appeared briefly on the Safespeeding website:

It read:

"I'm sure this is a very sad time for all those close to Paul.
Perhaps you could publish Paul's address so people can send cards
and/
or flowers. Then in a few months' time, when the rawness of his loss
has begun to subside, some of my friends could use his details to
avoid a few speeding tickets. I'm sure Paul wouldn't mind ... would
he?"

This, of course, refers to Smith's recommendation of trampling on
peoples' grief to duck speeding fines here:

Paul Smith Sep 3 2001, 11:01 am
You don`t even need to know the deceased. Just picking a name for
the

local newspaper`s obituary column has been known to work nicely.
With
a bit of care in your choice, there`s no one to call you a liar.
(It`s on my web site :-) -- Paul Smith Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk

http://tinyurl.com/cnun3

http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed
/avoid%20the%20points.htm

http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed/countermeasures.htm

http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed/non%20cooperation.htm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You utter sicko, I hope he comes back to haunt you

Sir Jeremy said:

On 14 Dec, 17:32, spindrift <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The below post appeared briefly on the Safespeeding website:

It read:

"I'm sure this is a very sad time for all those close to Paul.
Perhaps you could publish Paul's address so people can send cards
and/
or flowers. Then in a few months' time, when the rawness of his loss
has begun to subside, some of my friends could use his details to
avoid a few speeding tickets. I'm sure Paul wouldn't mind ... would
he?"

This, of course, refers to Smith's recommendation of trampling on
peoples' grief to duck speeding fines here:

Paul Smith Sep 3 2001, 11:01 am
You don`t even need to know the deceased. Just picking a name for
the

local newspaper`s obituary column has been known to work nicely.
With
a bit of care in your choice, there`s no one to call you a liar.
(It`s on my web site :-) -- Paul Smith Scotland, UK

Quoted message said:

You utter sicko, I hope he comes back to haunt you

I'm sure Paul Smith would be proud to find people following his advice
to avoid speeding fines.

Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

"Sir Jeremy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

spindrift said:

On 14 Dec, 17:23, Pete Whelan <[email hidden]> wrote:>>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This, of course, refers to Smith's recommendation of trampling on
peoples' grief to duck speeding fines here:

Paul Smith Sep 3 2001, 11:01 am
You don`t even need to know the deceased. Just picking a name for
the

local newspaper`s obituary column has been known to work nicely.
With
a bit of care in your choice, there`s no one to call you a liar.
(It`s on my web site :-) -- Paul Smith Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk

http://tinyurl.com/cnun3

http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed
/avoid%20the%20points.htm

http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed/countermeasures.htm

http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost/SafeSpeed/non%20cooperation.htm-
Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You utter sicko, I hope he comes back to haunt you

Wrong. The sicko was Paul Smith.

elyob said:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/229652/

Paul Smith, a respected campaigner against speed cameras and founder
of safespeed.org.uk, died yesterday aged 52.

Smith was well known for his belief that speed cameras reduced road
safety, and that safe driving wasn't just about speed, but about
improving road safety through measures such as better driver training.

I am sure it has no connection at all, but I was interested to see
yesterday that upd8 had released a new activity to help in the
teaching of "How Science Works" to 14-16 year old kids exploring the
concept of "validity". Although mainly based on "Healthy Chocolate"
one part of the exercise involved looking at

Speedsafely
We represent drivers against unfair speed cameras. Since the 1970's
the number of road deaths has been falling. But in the 1990's the
figures levelled off. This is when speed cameras were
introduced.............Out latest research shows that cameras actually
increase the number of deaths......

Kids are asked to challenge the claims if
they didn't investigate the right variables to answer the question
the experiment was done in a way which doesn't match the real life
situation
they didn't control the variables which might affect the outcome
they didn't collect sufficient data to be sure about the pattern
they did something which altered the outcome
the conclusion exaggerates what the data show

More at
http://www.upd8.org.uk/activity/251/Healthy-Chocolate.html
in the Powerpoint Part 2 Explore (registration - free- to Upd8 may be
needed to access it )

TimHenderson said:

elyob said:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/229652/

Quoted message said:

Paul Smith, a respected campaigner against speed cameras and founder
of safespeed.org.uk, died yesterday aged 52.

Quoted message said:

Smith was well known for his belief that speed cameras reduced road
safety, and that safe driving wasn't just about speed, but about
improving road safety through measures such as better driver training.

I am sure it has no connection at all, but I was interested to see
yesterday that upd8 had released a new activity to help in the
teaching of "How Science Works" to 14-16 year old kids exploring the
concept of "validity". Although mainly based on "Healthy Chocolate"
one part of the exercise involved looking at

Speedsafely
We represent drivers against unfair speed cameras. Since the 1970's
the number of road deaths has been falling. But in the 1990's the
figures levelled off. This is when speed cameras were
introduced.............Out latest research shows that cameras actually
increase the number of deaths......

Kids are asked to challenge the claims if
they didn't investigate the right variables to answer the question
the experiment was done in a way which doesn't match the real life
situation
they didn't control the variables which might affect the outcome
they didn't collect sufficient data to be sure about the pattern
they did something which altered the outcome
the conclusion exaggerates what the data show

More athttp://www.upd8.org.uk/activity/251/Healthy-Chocolate.html
in the Powerpoint Part 2 Explore (registration - free- to Upd8 may be
needed to access it )

14-16 are asked to display a deeper understanding of statistics,
trends and data than Smith ever managed.

Figures.

Quoting cupra <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

burtthebike wrote:
I am questioning the need to post his address and cause distress to his
partner and family who have lost a loved one.

If that causes them distress they should query why their loved one's
favourite technique causes them distress.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Please feel free to disagree, but if I was you, I wouldn't bother on
this forum.

Are you the spokesman then?

He certainly is saying what I would have said.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!
Today is Wednesday, December.

David Damerell said:

Quoting cupra <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

burtthebike wrote:
I am questioning the need to post his address and cause distress to
his partner and family who have lost a loved one.

If that causes them distress they should query why their loved one's
favourite technique causes them distress.

So it's acceptable to drop down to that level then? That's what I'm talking
about.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Please feel free to disagree, but if I was you, I wouldn't bother on
this forum.

Are you the spokesman then?

He certainly is saying what I would have said.

OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to cause
distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of the views of
said deceased?

cupra said:

OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to cause
distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of the views of
said deceased?

The knowledge that the advice of her late partner is being followed,
through the receipt of a bundle of FPNs in Paul Smith's name, may
bring her great joy at this difficult time.

cupra said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting cupra <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

burtthebike wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am questioning the need to post his address and cause distress to
his partner and family who have lost a loved one.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If that causes them distress they should query why their loved one's
favourite technique causes them distress.

Quoted message said:

So it's acceptable to drop down to that level then? That's what I'm talking
about.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Please feel free to disagree, but if I was you, I wouldn't bother on
>this forum.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you the spokesman then?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He certainly is saying what I would have said.

Quoted message said:

OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to cause
distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of the views of
said deceased?

Absolutely *not*, if it is done deliberately and gratuitously.

OTOH, I expect there'll be a certain amount of tabloid jubilation the
day after (say) Ian Brady pops his clogs, without any offence being
aimed at his surviving relatives (if any).

Tom Crispin said:

cupra said:

OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to cause
distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of the
views of said deceased?

The knowledge that the advice of her late partner is being followed,
through the receipt of a bundle of FPNs in Paul Smith's name, may
bring her great joy at this difficult time.

I'll give you that, if she shares his views fully.

JNugent said:

cupra said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting cupra <[email hidden]>:
> burtthebike wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I am questioning the need to post his address and cause distress to
> his partner and family who have lost a loved one.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If that causes them distress they should query why their loved one's
favourite technique causes them distress.

Quoted message said:

So it's acceptable to drop down to that level then? That's what I'm
talking about.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Please feel free to disagree, but if I was you, I wouldn't bother
>> on this forum.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Are you the spokesman then?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He certainly is saying what I would have said.

Quoted message said:

OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to cause
distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of the
views of said deceased?

Absolutely *not*, if it is done deliberately and gratuitously.

That's my objection to the address posting - after all, who on urc is going
to receiving FPNs to send on to him?

Quoted message said:

OTOH, I expect there'll be a certain amount of tabloid jubilation the
day after (say) Ian Brady pops his clogs, without any offence being
aimed at his surviving relatives (if any).

True.

Quoting cupra <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting cupra <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

burtthebike wrote:
I am questioning the need to post his address and cause distress to
his partner and family who have lost a loved one.

If that causes them distress they should query why their loved one's
favourite technique causes them distress.

So it's acceptable to drop down to that level then?

Don't tell me you actually suppose that a significant number of urcers
drive, speed, and will put this into practice? That's absurd.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Are you the spokesman then?

He certainly is saying what I would have said.

OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to cause
distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of the views of
said deceased?

Two errors there; it's not "regardless" of his views at all, and it won't
cause any distress if, as seems likely, his relatives are not in the habit
of reading urc.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!
Today is Wednesday, December.

cupra said:

David Damerell said:

If that causes them distress they should query why their loved
one's favourite technique causes them distress.

OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to
cause distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of
the views of said deceased?

I have, on occasion, participated in some form of celebration /
memorial of a recently deceased person that I would not have chosen
for myself. On occasion such memorials might seem inappropriate
or irreverent to others but if the deceased actually believed it was a
good thing to do, I would tend to respect their wishes and go along
with the request.

In teh event that the bereaved make it clear that teh deceased's views
were offensive (or deranged, mad, whatever) and that following teh
deceased's wishes will cause distress I would probably follow teh
request of teh bereaved rather than that of teh deceased.

Has Paul Smith's family made a statement that his views were
offensive, and requested that no-one ever comply with them? I haven't
seen any repudiation of his beliefs by the bereaved.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

David Damerell said:

Quoting cupra <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

Quoting cupra <[email hidden]>:
> burtthebike wrote:
> I am questioning the need to post his address and cause distress to
> his partner and family who have lost a loved one.
If that causes them distress they should query why their loved one's
favourite technique causes them distress.

So it's acceptable to drop down to that level then?

Don't tell me you actually suppose that a significant number of urcers
drive, speed, and will put this into practice? That's absurd.

Nope - but it only takes one to cause offence....

Ian Smith said:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:41:48 -0000, cupra <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

David Damerell said:

If that causes them distress they should query why their loved
one's favourite technique causes them distress.

OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to
cause distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of
the views of said deceased?

I have, on occasion, participated in some form of celebration /
memorial of a recently deceased person that I would not have chosen
for myself. On occasion such memorials might seem inappropriate
or irreverent to others but if the deceased actually believed it was a
good thing to do, I would tend to respect their wishes and go along
with the request.

In teh event that the bereaved make it clear that teh deceased's views
were offensive (or deranged, mad, whatever) and that following teh
deceased's wishes will cause distress I would probably follow teh
request of teh bereaved rather than that of teh deceased.

Has Paul Smith's family made a statement that his views were
offensive, and requested that no-one ever comply with them? I haven't
seen any repudiation of his beliefs by the bereaved.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but should we be asking a mourning relative
to let us know so soon?

cupra said:

Ian Smith said:

cupra said:

David Damerell wrote:
>
> If that causes them distress they should query why their loved
> one's favourite technique causes them distress.

OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to
cause distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless of
the views of said deceased?

I have, on occasion, participated in some form of celebration /
memorial of a recently deceased person that I would not have chosen
for myself. On occasion such memorials might seem inappropriate
or irreverent to others but if the deceased actually believed it was a
good thing to do, I would tend to respect their wishes and go along
with the request.

In teh event that the bereaved make it clear that teh deceased's views
were offensive (or deranged, mad, whatever) and that following teh
deceased's wishes will cause distress I would probably follow teh
request of teh bereaved rather than that of teh deceased.

Has Paul Smith's family made a statement that his views were
offensive, and requested that no-one ever comply with them? I haven't
seen any repudiation of his beliefs by the bereaved.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but should we be asking a mourning relative
to let us know so soon?

I thought it was actually suggested that people wait a few weeks
before trying this - though Paul Smith himself advocated doing it
immediately the death was publicised, I believe.

regards, Ian Smith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

cupra said:

Ian Smith said:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, cupra <[email hidden]> wrote:
> David Damerell wrote:
>>
>> If that causes them distress they should query why their loved
>> one's favourite technique causes them distress.
>
> OK, straw poll then - who on urc agrees that it's accptable to
> cause distress to relatives of the recently deceased, regardless
> of the views of said deceased?

I have, on occasion, participated in some form of celebration /
memorial of a recently deceased person that I would not have chosen
for myself. On occasion such memorials might seem inappropriate
or irreverent to others but if the deceased actually believed it
was a good thing to do, I would tend to respect their wishes and go
along with the request.

In teh event that the bereaved make it clear that teh deceased's
views were offensive (or deranged, mad, whatever) and that
following teh deceased's wishes will cause distress I would
probably follow teh request of teh bereaved rather than that of teh
deceased.

Has Paul Smith's family made a statement that his views were
offensive, and requested that no-one ever comply with them? I
haven't seen any repudiation of his beliefs by the bereaved.

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but should we be asking a mourning
relative to let us know so soon?

I thought it was actually suggested that people wait a few weeks
before trying this - though Paul Smith himself advocated doing it
immediately the death was publicised, I believe.

I can't really comment on his advice because I've never really looked into
'safespeed' and don't have a detailed knowledge of what it represents.

The problem I can see is that I am guessing some people in this thread (not
necessarily you) have interpreted my expression of distaste at implied
'revenge acts' as support for the deceased's views.

To restate my point - he's dead, let's leave his relatives alone and attack
anyone who picks up his baton.

If that turns out to be his partner and relatives then so be it, once their
views are stated.