UK and Europe · Public discussion

P**l Sm*th

Started by Just zis Guy, you know? · · Last activity · 97 posts · 2,066 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
8 July 2005
Last activity
12 July 2005
Original author
Just zis Guy, you know?
Posts
97
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,066
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 61–80 of 97
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. At Sat, 9 Jul 2005 11:30:48 +0000 (UTC), message
    <[email hidden]> was posted by
    "Peter B" <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
    following:

    Quoted message said:

    Not only the stupid but also victims of the stupid who happen to be in
    vehicles with secondary safety systems, I can't see a problem with that.

    Speaking as one whose vehicle has no secondary safety system, I can
    see at least one obvious flaw...

    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

  2. Just zis Guy said:

    At Sat, 9 Jul 2005 11:30:48 +0000 (UTC), message
    <[email hidden]> was posted by
    "Peter B" <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
    following:

    Quoted message said:

    Not only the stupid but also victims of the stupid who happen to be in
    vehicles with secondary safety systems, I can't see a problem with that.

    Speaking as one whose vehicle has no secondary safety system, I can
    see at least one obvious flaw...

    Guy

    Me too.

    And a not so obvious one. By allowing the stupid to survive maybe we
    are forcing evolution in an undesireable direction. 🙂

  3. At 09 Jul 2005 11:31:27 GMT, message
    <[email hidden]> was posted by Geoff Lane
    <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
    following:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Ah, so you say the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Traffic Safety
    are lying? While Smith, a serial abuser of statistics is telling the
    truth? Sorry, I'm not buying that.

    Quoted message said:

    Consider a scenario where speed cameras do not exist and ask how are we
    to enforce traffic laws.

    False premise. Speed cameras do exist. The idea that speed
    enforcement and enforcement of other traffic laws are mutually
    exclusive is also false.

    Quoted message said:

    Consider now the current scenario where several constabularies no longer
    even have a traffic division, and those that do have greatly reduced the
    number of officers.

    As shown earlier, the idea that this is related to cameras lacks an
    evidential basis. I am happy to hear calls for more traffic police;
    this has no relevance at all to the number of cameras on the roads,
    especially now they are mainly serviced by civilian personnel.

    Quoted message said:

    IOW, we have the last of the three alternatives of
    the previous scenario.

    False. The three options were based on a false premise, and the "no
    policing" claim is manifestly not true even in those areas which have
    no dedicated traffic division. Apart from anything else, speed
    cameras *are* an enforcement activity!

    Quoted message said:

    It is the existence of speed cameras - or more
    correctly, speed camera partnerships - that has allowed this to happen.

    False. It is the removal of traffic policing form the core duties of
    forces which has allowed this to happen. All cameras have done is
    arguably limit - to some extent - the damage.

    Quoted message said:

    You claim there is no link between the rise of the camera partnerships
    and the decline of the traffic police? ROFLMA.

    No, *I* don't claim that, the Parliamentary Advisory Council on
    Traffic Safety claim that. You have any actual firm evidence to the
    contrary? Such as a table of number of cameras vs. traffic police
    numbers, broken down by forces with and without camera partnerships,
    over the period 1980-present?

    Or are you, like Smith, relying on proof by assertion?

    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

  4. Just zis Guy said:

    Honestly? No. People agree or disagree according to the issue under
    discussion and the extent to which I make an [censored] of myself by talking
    complete bollocks.

    Blimey. Is that darkside anatomy?

    --
    Not me guv

  5. At Sat, 09 Jul 2005 13:49:54 +0100, message
    <[email hidden]> was posted by Nick Kew
    <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
    following:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Honestly? No. People agree or disagree according to the issue under
    discussion and the extent to which I make an [censored] of myself by talking
    complete bollocks.

    Quoted message said:

    Blimey. Is that darkside anatomy?

    Don't get me started on anatomy and dark side / upwrong comparisons.
    Now is *really* not a good time for that, trust me! ;-)

    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

  6. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    At Sat, 9 Jul 2005 11:30:48 +0000 (UTC), message
    <[email hidden]> was posted by
    "Peter B" <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
    following:

    Quoted message said:

    Not only the stupid but also victims of the stupid who happen to be in
    vehicles with secondary safety systems, I can't see a problem with that.

    Speaking as one whose vehicle has no secondary safety system, I can
    see at least one obvious flaw...

    My bicycles also have no secondary safety systems and in my role as a ped I
    haven't any but my car has and I'm sorry but can't see a lot wrong with that
    (the cars systems that is).

    And forgive me if I'm wrong Guy but don't you drive a Volvo, a car whose
    marketing success owes more to its safety features than its styling?
    --
    Pete
    http:[email hidden]/P

  7. At Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:07:06 +0000 (UTC), message
    <[email hidden]> was posted by
    "Peter B" <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
    following:

    Quoted message said:

    And forgive me if I'm wrong Guy but don't you drive a Volvo, a car whose
    marketing success owes more to its safety features than its styling?

    I do indeed. If you want me to go into the reasons for that choice I
    will, but suffice it to say that a Series 3 Land-Rover Safari was also
    on the list of possibilities when we bought the Volvo.

    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

  8. On 9 Jul,

    Peter B said:


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

    Quoted message said:

    One of those counties /does/ have speed cameras. An ex colleague was done
    /twice/, in different places by the same mobile team.

    This points to the need for either compulsory sight testing or better
    hazard perception training. What else does someone who misses seeing a
    static or mobile speed camera miss?

    I always thought the police speed checks were to see if you were awake
    enough to see them. When talking to an officer operating a local one (where
    speed is a problem, and I was a pedestrian at the time), he said they came
    down the hill like lemmings, (he was in a high visibility jacket with
    visible eciloP car further on), not reacting to the evidence clearly visible
    ahead, but just following their noses into the abyss. This I agreed with
    after watching for not many minutes.
    --
    BD
    Change lycos to yahoo to reply

  9. On 07/09/2005 11:05:50 Mark Thompson said:
    Quoted message said:

    You must have noticed your little entourage of nay sayers by now.

    Quoted message said:

    Wouldn't that mean his posse disagrees with him?

    No, it means they disagree with anyone who disagees with him.

    --

    Buck

    I would rather be out on my Catrike

    http://www.catrike.co.uk

  10. you know? said:

    At Sat, 09 Jul 2005 09:26:59 GMT, message
    <[email hidden]> was posted by Buck
    <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
    following:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Ah, the Blood Fire Posse. That takes me back and no mistake :-D

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    You must have noticed your little entourage of nay sayers by now.

    Quoted message said:

    Honestly? No. People agree or disagree according to the issue under
    discussion and the extent to which I make an [censored] of myself by talking
    complete bollocks.

    I'm sure you and Smith are one in the same, some sort of Jeckyll and
    Hyde, except more Hyde and Hyde.
    --

    Buck

    I would rather be out on my Catrike

    http://www.catrike.co.uk

  11. Peter B said:

    "wafflycat" <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Back in the dim and distant recesses of time, this driver was, and knows

    of

    Quoted message said:

    others who were. I and these other drivers are and were ordinary people,
    nothing special, just ordinary people driving. I wonder when it changed

    *so

    Quoted message said:

    much* to the current bad situation?

    But have things got worse? I don't think they have as regards driving
    standards, what has changed is the sheer number of motor vehicles plus, as
    has been said, society's deference to them.

    I think I was brought up in unususal circumstances, but it all seemed normal to
    me at the time so I really don't know for sure. As a child in the East Midlands
    in the 50's I lived in a house that only had gas, there was no family car and
    very few people I knew had access to one (Although most of my friends had
    eletrickery in their houses). There is a point to all this, bear with me.

    Most of the people living on the street moved around by public transport or
    bicycle, this was perceived as 'Normal'. At that time being able to drive was
    unusual, being able to afford an actual car was even more so.

    I was the first person in my immediate family to actually pass a driving test
    and , a year or so later, buy a car. This would have been in the late 60's. The
    cars in which I learned to drive had no safety devices apart from seat belts and
    you weren't even obliged to wear them if I remember correctly. The first car I
    actually owned was almost as old as me and had a 0 to 60 time measured in days
    and an unintentional anti-lock braking system.

    The point (see, I said I was getting there) of all this rambling is that driving
    instruction had to be geared towards driving machines that didn't go too fast
    and were difficult stop once you got them moving. It was always in the back of
    the driver's mind that any sort of accident would be as dangerous for the driver
    as for anyone else inside or outside of the car. Add to this the fact that
    heaters were pitiful and seats were generally poor and you end up with a driving
    experience that was less than comfortable, you had to concentrate.

    You don't need me to tell you how different the modern car is. Comfortable,
    warm, cocooned in safety features and so much more powerful than that 1954
    Morris Minor which was my personal transport in the late 60's. The main
    differences between that Morris and my current car are the vastly increased
    comfort which allows the driving process to become a secondary process, and the
    perception of speed. In the Morris I was forced to concentrate all the time and
    would be elated on reaching speeds in excess of 50 mph. Nowadays I can listen to
    the radio and ignore quite large holes in the road as I allow the car to get me
    from A to B at high speeds. My involvement is quite small.

    My current car is 14 years old. Things have moved on a lot since. Heaven knows
    how isolated the driver of a modern car must be from the outside world. How many
    times have you read the words "I drive a big 4x4 because it makes ME feel safe".
    It's basically a case of "I'm alright Jack, bugger you" on the roads today.

    History lesson over.

    --
    Terry Duckmanton.

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/terry.duckmanton
    A website mostly dedicated to cycling

  12. At Sat, 09 Jul 2005 22:26:31 GMT, message
    <[email hidden]> was posted by Buck
    <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
    following:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Honestly? No. People agree or disagree according to the issue under
    discussion and the extent to which I make an [censored] of myself by talking
    complete bollocks.

    Quoted message said:

    I'm sure you and Smith are one in the same, some sort of Jeckyll and
    Hyde, except more Hyde and Hyde.

    So you have said before. But since there are several documented
    examples of my changing my mind in response to evidence and reasoned
    argument, your case is very weak indeed.

    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

  13. you know? said:

    At Sat, 09 Jul 2005 22:26:31 GMT, message
    <[email hidden]> was posted by Buck
    <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of the
    following:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Honestly? No. People agree or disagree according to the issue under
    discussion and the extent to which I make an [censored] of myself by talking
    complete bollocks.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I'm sure you and Smith are one in the same, some sort of Jeckyll and
    Hyde, except more Hyde and Hyde.

    Quoted message said:

    So you have said before. But since there are several documented examples
    of my changing my mind in response to evidence and reasoned argument, your
    case is very weak indeed.

    I think that could be a smoke screen, the physical metamorphosis between
    the two states is quite significant though. 😉

    --

    Buck

    I would rather be out on my Catrike

    http://www.catrike.co.uk

  14. Terry D said:

    My current car is 14 years old. Things have moved on a lot since. Heaven
    knows how isolated the driver of a modern car must be from the outside
    world. How many times have you read the words "I drive a big 4x4 because
    it makes ME feel safe". It's basically a case of "I'm alright Jack,
    bugger you" on the roads today.

    As a part of my job, I drive a Peugeot Boxer. It has a CD player, a
    reasonable heating system (More upmarket models have a bulkhead and an
    air conditioning system. It accelerates better than the Astra that I
    mostly learnt to drive in. It steers better. It's quieter. It drives
    pretty much like a car.

    The principle difference is that it can have a total (legal) weight of
    3.5T. This strikes me as a little dangerous.

    Jon

  15. "Terry D" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    I think I was brought up in unususal circumstances, but it all seemed


    normal to

    Quoted message said:

    me at the time so I really don't know for sure. As a child in the East


    Midlands

    Quoted message said:

    in the 50's I lived in a house that only had gas, there was no family car


    and

    Quoted message said:

    very few people I knew had access to one (Although most of my friends had
    eletrickery in their houses). There is a point to all this, bear with me.

    A nice story Terry and although having similarities to mine is also at
    variance.
    Born in '53 and brought up in a post-war (just) East Mids suburb cars were
    rarer than today but reasonably common, obviously not to the point of today
    where they clog arteries and litter streets when parked.
    Dad learned to drive before he joined up and after touring France, Belgium,
    Holland and Germany in 1944-1947 driving company vehicles supplied by his
    employer, REME, aspired to a car once de-mobbed and except for a couple of
    lean years always owned one. During the lean years he motorcycled and
    cycled.
    (The Army had taught him to drive a variety of vehicles in a precise manner
    which was passed on to me when he taught me to cycle as a bona-fide road
    user, not that he or I was, nor are, perfect).

    So to me cars were a fact of life and indeed as soon as I reached 17 took
    lessons, passed test and obtained car...a Morris Minor!

    (In fact maybe I should add our family is large and Dads cars, although of a
    decent size, were always overloaded with offspring of all ages, and of
    course there were no modern safety systems, it wouldn't be allowed
    nowadays).

    When I drove the Minor it never entered my head that the steering was
    imprecise, brakes [censored], no seatbelts, the column could pierce my chest etc
    because that was the standard pertaining and anyway I wasn't going to have
    an accident.
    It took me all of 3 months to roll it over and write it off, from which I
    walked away!
    Next 2 vehicles were a Hillman Imp van followed by a Mini van, again they
    measured up to the yardstick of their era and no concessions were made to
    their poor occupant protection.
    In these vehicles I drove all over England, believe me after driving from
    Leicester to Newcastle and back home in a single day in the Mini ears were
    buzzing and back was aching :-(

    My current car is a current model, quite large, very comfortable and has a
    whole collection of acronyms for various "safety features".
    None of the these features influenced my decision for obtaining it, size per
    GBP was the main criteria but I'm not about to disable them to prevent me
    falling foul of risk compensation ;-)

    I do take the point that modern cars isolate drivers far more, but they also
    have wipers and demisters that actually work and ABS that compensates for
    mistakes, and because they are easier to drive the driver should be able to
    concentrate more on the road, unfortunately it doesn't mean they do and also
    there may be more demands created by the environment.

    Risk compensation is a funny thing, I'm certain it exists but also know some
    people enjoy risk.
    An example of this is the born again bikers who presumably have been driving
    family cars then buy a powerful bike, the bike must feel terrifying after
    tootling along cocooned in the family car yet it doesn't put them off riding
    fast, rather it seems to encourage it.

    My previous car was a Mondieu (Yes, I know) and at the same time SWMBO had
    an ancient Capri (Yeah, alright, there was sound financial reason for it),
    there was no comparison in the driving experience, roads that the Mondieu
    would glide along were a task in the Capri but I honestly believe that if
    things were to go pear-shaped the occupants and others involved would fare
    better with the Mondieu than Capri.

    Regards,
    Pete

  16. On 07/10/2005 03:59:59 JLB said:

    Buck wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    On 07/09/2005 11:05:50 Mark Thompson <[email hidden]>
    wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > You must have noticed your little entourage of nay sayers by now.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Wouldn't that mean his posse disagrees with him?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    No, it means they disagree with anyone who disagees with him.

    Quoted message said:

    Anyone else see here an embittered soul who is getting all twisted up
    because nobody else will post in support of his opinions?

    Judgemental little character aren't you?

    --

    Buck

    I would rather be out on my Catrike

    http://www.catrike.co.uk

  17. Buck said:


    On 07/10/2005 03:59:59 JLB said:

    Buck wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    On 07/09/2005 11:05:50 Mark Thompson <[email hidden]>
    wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>You must have noticed your little entourage of nay sayers by now.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >Wouldn't that mean his posse disagrees with him?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    No, it means they disagree with anyone who disagees with him.

    Quoted message said:

    Anyone else see here an embittered soul who is getting all twisted up
    because nobody else will post in support of his opinions?

    Judgemental little character aren't you?

    Like you, you mean?

    --
    Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

  18. JLB said:

    Like you, you mean?

    Oh dear, I see the school holidays have started.

    --
    Pete

  19. On 07/10/2005 12:42:04 JLB said:

    Buck wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    On 07/10/2005 03:59:59 JLB <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Buck wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > On 07/09/2005 11:05:50 Mark Thompson
    > <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>> You must have noticed your little entourage of nay sayers by now.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> Wouldn't that mean his posse disagrees with him?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > No, it means they disagree with anyone who disagees with him.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Anyone else see here an embittered soul who is getting all twisted up
    because nobody else will post in support of his opinions?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Judgemental little character aren't you?

    Quoted message said:

    Like you, you mean?

    No, I think you have me beat on that count, I don't take this place
    seriously, and most folk here have the intelligence to read a bit of
    light heartedness, even Guy knows I'm being slightly sarcastic at
    times.

    I don't have many opinions on cycling that are firm, other than it is
    good for your health, fun and 3 wheels are better than 2. Beyond that
    I'm open minded on most stuff.

    I do however choose not to bother with people who persistantly swear
    as I do not believe newsgroups about cycling are the place for bad
    language, kids use these groups.
    --

    Buck

    I would rather be out on my Catrike

    http://www.catrike.co.uk

  20. On 07/10/2005 15:19:29 (Pete) said:

    On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 12:42:04 +0100, JLB <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Like you, you mean?

    Quoted message said:

    Oh dear, I see the school holidays have started.

    Sorry folks, didn't realise he was a juvenile.

    --

    Buck

    I would rather be out on my Catrike

    http://www.catrike.co.uk

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.