Paul Smith

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

Quoted message said:

I saw him just now on the news.

He looks like a tramp. His hair is unkempt, he has bags under his
eyes and his teeth look rotten.

The news presenter, bless him, mocked Smith's views.

Now he appears to have fallen to the lowest level of society, I see no
reason to blank out part of his name. At last he is fully exposed for
the worthless person he has been for a great many years.

His appearance does not alter the fact that he's used by a range of
organisations as their anti-speed camera mouthpiece or source of knowledge
about aforementioned items in written articles. Nor does his appearance
affect the validity of his arguments in the eyes of those who want to
believe what he's saying.

Too many organisations pay him money (however little that might be) as a
consultant for him to be perceived as worthless.

Some of your assertions, like his, are opinions masquerading as facts ;-)

P.S. What the link with cycling?

On 5 Dec, 12:43, Tom Crispin <[email hidden]>
wrote:
At last he is fully exposed for

Quoted message said:

the worthless person he has been for a great many years.

Still widely quoted though.

""Speed cameras," he says, "have changed the things we pay attention
to and the things we regard as important." Instead of focusing on the
dangers ahead, motorists feel that they have been relieved of
responsibility for managing their own driving, and have ceded it
instead to the mechanical intervention of the camera and other traffic
signals."

From yesterdays Times in an article where Magnus Linklater moans about
a forthcoming driving ban after being caught several times by cameras.
The tactic of driving within the speed limit not having occurred to
him.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/magnus_linklater/article3000968.ece

Iain

vernon said:

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

Quoted message said:

I saw him just now on the news.

He looks like a tramp. His hair is unkempt, he has bags under his
eyes and his teeth look rotten.

The news presenter, bless him, mocked Smith's views.

Now he appears to have fallen to the lowest level of society, I see no
reason to blank out part of his name. At last he is fully exposed for
the worthless person he has been for a great many years.

His appearance does not alter the fact that he's used by a range of
organisations as their anti-speed camera mouthpiece or source of knowledge
about aforementioned items in written articles. Nor does his appearance
affect the validity of his arguments in the eyes of those who want to
believe what he's saying.

Too many organisations pay him money (however little that might be) as a
consultant for him to be perceived as worthless.

Some of your assertions, like his, are opinions masquerading as facts ;-)

Four paragraphs, first is a fact, second starts with "looks like" (an
opinion), third has a clause, "bless him" inserted so also an opinion,
and the final paragraph starts with "he appaears to", again an
opinion. Having defined the start of a paragraph as an opinion,
sebsequent sentences do not need to be so defined. :p

Quoted message said:

P.S. What the link with cycling?

No direct link, but general road safety.

On 12ÔÂ6ÈÕ, ÉÏÎç4ʱ43·Ö, Tom Crispin <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I saw him just now on the news.

He looks like a tramp. His hair is unkempt, he has bags under his
eyes and his teeth look rotten.

The news presenter, bless him, mocked Smith's views.

Now he appears to have fallen to the lowest level of society, I see no
reason to blank out part of his name. At last he is fully exposed for
the worthless person he has been for a great many years.

good!!!!!

In message <[email hidden]>

Tom Crispin said:

I saw him just now on the news.

[snip personal comments]

Is this post really from Tom Crispin?

--
Charles
Brompton P6R-Plus; CarryFreedom -YL, in Motspur Park
LCC; CTC.

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>

Tom Crispin said:

I saw him just now on the news.

[snip personal comments]

Is this post really from Tom Crispin?

Yes. Paul Smith is no friend of cyclists. He treats them with the
same contempt as he gives to speed cameras. In his opinion roads are
the domain of the motor car and he'll be damned before he admits equal
rights to other road users.

He treated the recent conviction of the speeding Chief Constable of
Yorkshire as proof that 90 mph is a perfectly safe speed for the
national speed limit on roads shared with pedestrians, cyclists and
equestrians. His argument was that the Chief Constable made a
conscious decision to drive at that speed, and as the errent copper is
a reasonable man, it must therefore be safe.

Paul Smith is not worthy to have his name treated in the same way as
the P*nct*r* F**ry.

vernon said:

P.S. What the link with cycling?

He linked himself to urc and made himself a subject of discussion here
with his absurd posts here a few years ago.

But anyway, speeding motorists are a danger to cyclists, therefore
discussion of speeding motorists is relevant to cycling.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

spindrift said:

Smitb is an irrelevance, nobody pays him any money or attention.

No road safety group endorses Smith's views.

The IAM disagree with him and encourage adherence to speed limits to
save lives, 1200 people a year killed by speeding drivers.

Despite issuing pompous PR's referring to himself in the third person
and describing himself as a "Road Safety Expert" or "engineer"- Smith
refuses to state which professional organisations he belongs to, exams
passed or qualifications gained.

And also refuses to submit his research for peer review...

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

Quoted message said:

I saw him just now on the news.

He looks like a tramp. His hair is unkempt, he has bags under his
eyes and his teeth look rotten.

The news presenter, bless him, mocked Smith's views.

Now he appears to have fallen to the lowest level of society, I see no
reason to blank out part of his name. At last he is fully exposed for
the worthless person he has been for a great many years.

I thought his comments on the banned speed cop were sheer hypocrisy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2222632,00.html

In other media he welcomed the ban which the plod got due to being caught by
speed cameras.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Cheeky said:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 03:07:10 -0800 (PST), spindrift

Quoted message said:

Smitb is an irrelevance, nobody pays him any money or attention.

Quoted message said:

No road safety group endorses Smith's views.

Quoted message said:

The IAM disagree with him and encourage adherence to speed limits to
save lives, 1200 people a year killed by speeding drivers.

Quoted message said:

Despite issuing pompous PR's referring to himself in the third person
and describing himself as a "Road Safety Expert" or "engineer"- Smith
refuses to state which professional organisations he belongs to, exams
passed or qualifications gained.

And also refuses to submit his research for peer review...

Neither does Brake, Transport 2000, nor the Slower Speed [censored]......

Sir Jeremy said:

Cheeky said:

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 03:07:10 -0800 (PST), spindrift

Quoted message said:

Smitb is an irrelevance, nobody pays him any money or attention.

Quoted message said:

No road safety group endorses Smith's views.

Quoted message said:

The IAM disagree with him and encourage adherence to speed limits to
save lives, 1200 people a year killed by speeding drivers.

Quoted message said:

Despite issuing pompous PR's referring to himself in the third person
and describing himself as a "Road Safety Expert" or "engineer"- Smith
refuses to state which professional organisations he belongs to, exams
passed or qualifications gained.

And also refuses to submit his research for peer review...

Neither does Brake, Transport 2000, nor the Slower Speed [censored]......

Two wrongs...

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 11:21:41 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Sir
Jeremy <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And also refuses to submit his research for peer review...

Neither does Brake, Transport 2000, nor the Slower Speed [censored]......

Can't comment on the first and last. However the middle group's
research is published in full with all the references should one
wish to chase it up.

Not peer review in the form that science journals do, but rather
different from Mr Smith's approach.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Here's your chance to demonstrate the "Open review" policy Smith
boasts exists on his website Sir jeremy!

Post this link:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dmh7ipW47Uo

and see how long it takes for you to get banned.

Smith's paranoia and megalomania are so entrenched that he not only
deletes criticism, he uses his power as a moderator of his won forum
to tamper with OTHER peoples' posts to change the meaning!.

See:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5354

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:32:10 -0000, vernon
<[email hidden]>

was popularly supposed to have said:

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

Quoted message said:

I saw him just now on the news.

He looks like a tramp. His hair is unkempt, he has bags under his
eyes and his teeth look rotten.

The news presenter, bless him, mocked Smith's views.

Now he appears to have fallen to the lowest level of society, I see no
reason to blank out part of his name. At last he is fully exposed for
the worthless person he has been for a great many years.

His appearance does not alter the fact that he's used by a range of
organisations as their anti-speed camera mouthpiece or source of knowledge
about aforementioned items in written articles. Nor does his appearance
affect the validity of his arguments in the eyes of those who want to
believe what he's saying.

This doesn't alter the observed facts that he points out, though.

Personally, I disagree with his assumption that the decrease in road
accidents prior to the introduction of speed cameras was linear; I think
it was an exponential die-off curve instead which were it so would
substantially reduce the lack of reduction in road accidents that he
points out.

However, the man does still have a point: car drivers tend to drive at
the speed they feel safe at, and all the experiments done with speed
limiter devices, speed cameras and so on all point to such systems being
ineffective at best, and counterproductive in quite a few cases.

The other problem is that the road policing budget is fixed. You cannot
have traffic police AND lots of speed cameras; you have to have one or
the other. Most places have lots of speed cameras; Durham and North
Yorkshire have few speed cameras and more traffic officers, and there
seems to be little obvious difference between these two police areas and
the rest of the country.

So, whilst I am not particularly fond of him, Paul Smith does have the
salient difference from most of the speed-related commentators that he
has a certain amount of intelligence on his side, and he makes some
fairly well reasoned arguments in favour of his point of view.

--
Dan Holdsworth PhD [email hidden]
By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, By the beans of Java
do thoughts acquire speed, hands acquire shaking, the shaking
becomes a warning, By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion

Quoting Dan Holdsworth <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

The other problem is that the road policing budget is fixed. You cannot
have traffic police AND lots of speed cameras; you have to have one or
the other.

Funny; Mr Toad is always telling us speed cameras _make_ money.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!
Today is Olethros, December - a weekend.

spindrift said:

Here's your chance to demonstrate the "Open review" policy Smith
boasts exists on his website Sir jeremy!

Post this link:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dmh7ipW47Uo

and see how long it takes for you to get banned.

Smith's paranoia and megalomania are so entrenched that he not only
deletes criticism, he uses his power as a moderator of his won forum
to tamper with OTHER peoples' posts to change the meaning!.

See:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5354

Plenty of open debate on that thread, I don't know what you're on
about. You've been banned for being an offensive little [censored].

"Plenty of open debate on that thread".

Read it again.

Smith altered the wording of a critic's post and changed the meaning.
Six people get banned from that thread for daring to challenge Smith's
lies and highlighting Smith's dishonest misrepresentations of data .
The man's a paranoid megalomaniac, he not only bans dissent he even
goes into other peoples' posts and changes the words!

All published evidence shows that speed cameras, even allowing for
RTTM, have a worthwhile positive effect. These were also the findings
of Linda Mountain, whose work was peer-reviewed. Smith could not stand
this fact so you know what he did? He actually perverted Mountain's
findings, he lied about what Mountain's report said and skewed her
results to fit his preconceived agenda. This is pretty serious, a
respected academic has her work trampled on and perverted by Smith so
it appears as though she agrees with him. Why would he do that if he
was so sure of his position? Why, when he spends all day every day on
his forum (allowing posts that call police officers "nazis" but
deleting dissent) does he claim he has "no time" to submit a single
word of his research to scrutiny?

Smith claims his work is subject to "open review" and anyone can
challenge his work on the website.

Look at that link again, six different people asked Smith awkward
questions so he deletes their postings and bans them.

That's a pretty robust open review process he's got there.

Dan Holdsworth said:

The other problem is that the road policing budget is fixed. You cannot
have traffic police AND lots of speed cameras; you have to have one or
the other.

Of all the bollocks spouted by the apologists for his anti-social
rubbish, this is the biggest.

In one breath we're told that speed cameras are so costly they've
cut down the police numbers to pay for them. In the next, we're told
speed cameras are nothing but revenue-raising boxes bleeding the poor
cash-cow motorist dry.

Quoted message said:

So, whilst I am not particularly fond of him, Paul Smith does have the
salient difference from most of the speed-related commentators that he
has a certain amount of intelligence on his side, and he makes some
fairly well reasoned arguments in favour of his point of view.

Yeah, right. You'll have to point that out to me. Is it like the
argument above? They are bad because they cost so much money and do
nothing but raise revenue?

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

Dan Holdsworth said:

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:32:10 -0000, vernon
<[email hidden]>

was popularly supposed to have said:

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

Quoted message said:

I saw him just now on the news.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

He looks like a tramp. His hair is unkempt, he has bags under his
eyes and his teeth look rotten.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The news presenter, bless him, mocked Smith's views.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now he appears to have fallen to the lowest level of society, I see no
reason to blank out part of his name. At last he is fully exposed for
the worthless person he has been for a great many years.

Quoted message said:

His appearance does not alter the fact that he's used by a range of
organisations as their anti-speed camera mouthpiece or source of knowledge
about aforementioned items in written articles. Nor does his appearance
affect the validity of his arguments in the eyes of those who want to
believe what he's saying.

This doesn't alter the observed facts that he points out, though.

Personally, I disagree with his assumption that the decrease in road
accidents prior to the introduction of speed cameras was linear; I think
it was an exponential die-off curve instead which were it so would
substantially reduce the lack of reduction in road accidents that he
points out.

However, the man does still have a point: car drivers tend to drive at
the speed they feel safe at, and all the experiments done with speed
limiter devices, speed cameras and so on all point to such systems being
ineffective at best, and counterproductive in quite a few cases.

The other problem is that the road policing budget is fixed. You cannot
have traffic police AND lots of speed cameras; you have to have one or
the other. Most places have lots of speed cameras; Durham and North
Yorkshire have few speed cameras and more traffic officers, and there
seems to be little obvious difference between these two police areas and
the rest of the country.

So, whilst I am not particularly fond of him, Paul Smith does have the
salient difference from most of the speed-related commentators that he
has a certain amount of intelligence on his side, and he makes some
fairly well reasoned arguments in favour of his point of view.

--
Dan Holdsworth PhD [email hidden]
By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, By the beans of Java
do thoughts acquire speed, hands acquire shaking, the shaking
becomes a warning, By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Speeding is involved in almost twice as many deaths as drink driving,
and in 12 times as many deaths as gun crime.

9 UK studies have evaluated speed cameras and found them to be
effective.

The public have consistently supported speed cameras; speeding traffic
was listed the top anti-social behaviour problem in a recent British
Crime Survey.