For those of you who don't read The Spectator, here's Mr Smith's response to having his reputation as a "serious researcher and road-safety campaigner" so sullied.
The statements attributed to me by Ross Clark (‘Speed cameras are good for you’, 10 January) are not a true or fair representation of my position. These statements first appeared in the Times on 16 December 2003 and are the subject of a complaint (PCC ref: 033602). In particular, no credible or serious death threats had been made against Mary Williams. The comments referred to were later described by the police as follows: ‘The comments made did not constitute a threat to kill and no further action will be taken.’ Ben Webster (Times journalist) was fully aware that my statement depended entirely on contextual factors: a) I didn’t believe for a second that the ‘death threats’ were serious. b) I’m aware that many of the users of the Pistonheads site believe (as I do) that speed-camera policy is causing a great deal of loss of life. c) To make joke threats about Mary Williams is indeed a mild reaction considering that she is vocal in support of a policy which is responsible for much loss of life. I am extremely sorry that you have been caught up in this, and I quite understand that you are entirely innocent victims of incorrect information published elsewhere, but my reputation, as a serious researcher and road- safety campaigner, is important to me and I must defend it.
For those of you who don't read The Spectator, here's Mr Smith's response to having his reputation as a "serious researcher and road-safety campaigner" so sullied.
Sorry, I couldn't resist it:
"Sir,
I note that Paul Smith of SafeSpeed has asked for a correction on the grounds that "my reputation, as a serious researcher and road-safety campaigner, is important to me and I must defend it."
He might like to start by removing from his website the page in which someone claiming to be him asserts that we could have the same level of road fatalities with a rigidly applied 12mph speed limit. An idea of such staggering stupidity advanced in the name of any serious road safety researcher would, after all, be a fatal blow to their credibility.
Especially if it misrepresented the work of an internationally respected researcher in a way which previously prompted a request for removal of all references to his name."
b) I’m aware that many of the users of the Pistonheads site believe (as I do) that speed-camera policy is causing a great deal of loss of life.
The phrase I'm thinking of rhymes with "cooking fat".
And in relation to said PS quote, here was me just thinking of the term "[censored]"
Cheers, helen s ;-)
--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame & fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
b) I'm aware that many of the users of the Pistonheads site believe (as I do) that speed-camera policy is causing a great deal of loss of life. c) To make joke threats about Mary Williams is indeed a mild reaction considering that she is vocal in support of a policy which is responsible for much loss of life.
" I know a road not far from here (60 limit) where I could expect to use 150mph in complete safety in good conditions" Paul Smith
Not the words of a road safety campaigner, never mind the misuse of stats that gets him to his crazy conclusions.
" I know a road not far from here (60 limit) where I could expect to use 150mph in complete safety in good conditions" Paul Smith
Not the words of a road safety campaigner, never mind the misuse of stats that gets him to his crazy conclusions.
Where excatly does the PS quote above originate from - I could use it in a letter to the editor of the Norfolk newspaper which has an article supporting PS
Cheers, helen s
--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame & fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
In "]news:[email hidden], W K <[email hidden]> typed:
Quoted message said:
"[Not Responding]" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
b) I'm aware that many of the users of the Pistonheads site believe (as I do) that speed-camera policy is causing a great deal of loss of life. c) To make joke threats about Mary Williams is indeed a mild reaction considering that she is vocal in support of a policy which is responsible for much loss of life.
" I know a road not far from here (60 limit) where I could expect to use 150mph in complete safety in good conditions" Paul Smith
Presumably it has a gravel trap, etc, etc, in case of mechanical failure. Still, that's not complete safety, it's just what most places where you can drive 150mph have.
Where excatly does the PS quote above originate from - I could use it in a letter to the editor of the Norfolk newspaper which has an article supporting PS
In my view the best way to expose him for the loony he is is to refer to the 12mph page. Second best may be to expose the statistical gymnastics in his "cameras cost lives" argument, including the fact that the loss of trend he is so worked up about is visible only on those roads least likely to have cameras.
