Camera advocates: Please be completely honest with yourselves in
answering this. If you saw proof beyond reasonable doubt that cameras
were making the roads less safe, which of these would you do?
1. I would admit that I had been wrong all this time. I would stop
campaigning for cameras and instead start campaigning against them. I
would apologise to Safe Speed's members for any comments that I had
made against the organisation or its members. I would also apologise
to road users collectively for putting them in unnecessary danger by
advocating dangerous policies.
2. I would stop campaigning for cameras, but I would not campaign
against them. Nor would I explicitly admit that I had been wrong all
this time; I never admit to having been wrong about anything as I am
too proud and arrogant. I would simply stop commenting on matters of
speed camera policy. I would not apologise to the road users whose
lives I had been endangering; I never apologise, because only weak
people do that.
3. (otherwise known as "The Spindrift & Chapman Option"😉 I would carry
on campaigning for cameras exactly as before. Cameras are an
excellent way of forcing motorists off the road, and forcing motorists
off the road is more important than saving lives. It is worth
sacrificing the people who are dying as a result of speed cameras;
they and their families should understand that their lives are not as
important as the need to make all but the most important people stop
driving.
Sadly I don't think that many, if any, of the trolls here would choose
Option 1, or even Option 2. Indeed, it could be argued that anyone
who is interested enough in camera policy to be posting about it on a
newsgroup like this has already seen proof beyond reasonable doubt
that cameras are making the roads less safe. So the fact that so many
of the trolls are still stubbornly campaigning for cameras just as
much as ever should indicate that Option 3 is unfortunately what they
are choosing. Monsters or what?
What did road users ever do to these people to have their lives held
in such casual regard? It's unbelievable. "Trolls" isn't the half of
it. "Callous [censored] who should be permanently locked up for the
overall good of humanity" is closer to the mark. They're the sorts of
impossibly hate-filled extremists who have ended up running the world
in those nightmare dystopian futures that you read about in novels.
Unfortunately it appears that such miserable excuses for human beings
really do exist. Some of them have already wormed their way into
positions of power, e.g. admins on Wikipedia. We have to stop them
ruling the world at all costs.
No wonder they're so incredibly offensive and unreasonable towards
anyone who dares to expose the truth about cameras. They don't want
people finding out what despicable, motorist-hating, all-road-user-
hating sacks of [censored] they really are. Well, too bad, because
everyone's going to find out eventually. Maybe it's time to stop the
motorist-hating nonsense now and campaign for something worthwhile
before the [censored] really hits the fan? But no, the campaign to force
people to stop driving must go on at all costs. Well trolls, don't
say I didn't warn you. Sooner or later truth will out, and you'll get
what's coming to you. Suck on that.