Barbara Ellen in the Observer.

David Damerell wrote:
Quoting Brimstone :
If speed were the sole factor in the number of collisions then
motorways
^^^^

Obvious straw man. Must you keep recycling this Safe Speed drivel?

Do you have any evidence that it's wrong?

Brimstone wrote:
David Damerell wrote:
Quoting Brimstone :
If speed were the sole factor in the number of collisions then
motorways
^^^^

Obvious straw man. Must you keep recycling this Safe Speed drivel?

Do you have any evidence that it's wrong?


Yes. His barmy prejudices. Isn't that enough?

thaksin wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
David Damerell wrote:
Quoting Brimstone :
If speed were the sole factor in the number of collisions then
motorways
^^^^

Obvious straw man. Must you keep recycling this Safe Speed drivel?

Do you have any evidence that it's wrong?


Yes. His barmy prejudices. Isn't that enough?

It's a start certainly.

Phil W Lee wrote:

I think this highlights that for this method to be successful, you
need a system to "level the playing field" like the rules in many
european countries which assume the least vulnerable road user is at
fault in any collision, unless otherwise proven.

An oft repeated erroneous assertion.

What they /do/ have is *no-fault* liability insurance, which compensates
pedestrians and cyclists injured in a collision with a motor vehicle
pending fault being proven (and minors in all cases).

There, like here, criminal fault has to be proven in all cases, based on
evidence.

--
Matt B

On May 14, 4:21*pm, David Damerell
wrote:
Quoting *Brimstone :If speed were the sole factor in the number of collisions then motorways

* * * * * * * * * *^^^^

Obvious straw man. Must you keep recycling this Safe Speed drivel?

But you've admitted that you're anti-motorist, so you're obviously
going to have a prejudice against any anti-camera campaign. After
all, you're going to be reluctant to entertain any criticism of
cameras due to the fact that they make things unpleasant for
motorists, aren't you? Much better to pretend that cameras save lives
even though you know really that they don't: as soon as you admit that
cameras kill people, you're forced to choose between killing people
(by keeping the cameras) and making things easier for motorists (by
scrapping the cameras), and you're not sure you'd choose the latter,
are you? So it's better that you don't have to choose at all, by
kidding yourself about cameras' safety record. That way you can
continue your hatred of motorists without it getting on your
conscience.

(If that's "********", then how come *every* person who's anti-
motorist claims to think that cameras save lives? They're so
obviously dangerous that many people, whether anti-motorist or not,
must realise that they kill people. So why do none of the anti-
motorist crowd ever admit to thinking that? Either they're in denial,
or they are cold, calculating *******s, like Chapman, who know exactly
what the score is, and have made a clinical, clear-headed decision
that it's worth killing tens of thousands of people if it means that
motorists are given grief. It's scary.)

On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:24:52 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Phil W Lee wrote:

I think this highlights that for this method to be successful, you
need a system to "level the playing field" like the rules in many
european countries which assume the least vulnerable road user is at
fault in any collision, unless otherwise proven.

An oft repeated erroneous assertion.

What they /do/ have is *no-fault* liability insurance, which compensates
pedestrians and cyclists injured in a collision with a motor vehicle
pending fault being proven (and minors in all cases).

There, like here, criminal fault has to be proven in all cases, based on
evidence.

You are quite right.

It amazes me just how often responses such of yours have to be made -
and yet people will continue to come out with the same tripe in
another few weeks time's.

I think they do not really believe it - it must be wishful thinking
that it was true.


--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

Keith T wrote:

One floor tom, one mounted tom, one snare, four roto-toms, bass, hi-hat
and three cymbals.Drums don't stack and are all in own cases. Old metal
steamer trunk that just about fits all the bits, case for five cymbals.
PA isn't big, small mixer-amp, half adozen mic stands, 2 main cabs -
1x15" + horn, 2 monitors, 2 passive subs (about 700x500x500) 2 wheeled
tool boxes with mics,and leads and extension leads and stuff. Sometimes
I also find space for 6 PAR64 cans and stands and cables and tiny
controller. Oh, mustn't forget as many extension leads as I can find.

Yeah, just about fits in the camper.
Will need steroids on I.V. drip if transporting by bike
(and I'm not exactly an athletic 25 year old, either)

A bike really not the thing there, especially if it's in the next town.
Though to be fair, with all that a car isn't much use to you either!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

On Thu, 14 May 2009 19:24:52 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Phil W Lee wrote:

I think this highlights that for this method to be successful, you
need a system to "level the playing field" like the rules in many
european countries which assume the least vulnerable road user is at
fault in any collision, unless otherwise proven.

An oft repeated erroneous assertion.

What they /do/ have is *no-fault* liability insurance, which compensates
pedestrians and cyclists injured in a collision with a motor vehicle
pending fault being proven (and minors in all cases).

Who pays for this?

There, like here, criminal fault has to be proven in all cases, based on
evidence.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

Peter Clinch wrote:

(and I'm not exactly an athletic 25 year old, either)

A bike really not the thing there, especially if it's in the next town.
Though to be fair, with all that a car isn't much use to you either!

Pete.


I can get just the kit in the car - ancient hatchback

(Oh pooh, now I've admitted I have two motor vehicles* - do I get
excommunicated or killfiled for that?)


*named driver on six
--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Keith T wrote:

I can get just the kit in the car - ancient hatchback

(Oh pooh, now I've admitted I have two motor vehicles* - do I get
excommunicated or killfiled for that?)

No. Post like judith or other such bozo should you particularly want to
go in the bozo bin...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/