Forum home Road cycling forum Campaign

Portsmouth = 1st city with a blanket 20mph limit

1293031323335»

Posts

  • Speed kills. That's why, when you're on a motorway, you have 2.33 times the chance of dying that you do on an urban road. And that's why, when you're on an aeroplane, you have 10-20 times the chance of dying that you do on an urban road.

    Speed is intrinsically bad. Every time you accelerate, you can just feel the risk of dying increasing. Ideally we would not travel at all and just all stay completely still. I think that's an ideal that we should all work towards. Even when I walk around the house I'm conscious that I'm at infinitely higher risk than when I'm just sitting there.

    And of course the moon landing, and all other space probes, are fakes. Travelling to moons and other planets entails some serious speed, and that's just not an option, because speed itself kills; other factors are utterly irrelevant.
  • http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/408103.stm

    Brown Pledges To "Scrap Most Cameras"

    In an extraordinary U-turn, the prime minister Gordon Brown today promised an immediate review of all speed cameras. "I anticipate that 80-90% of speed cameras will be removed following the review. For too long, the vast majority of cameras have been positioned in places where revenue rather than safety is unquestionably the priority. We want to win back the trust of motorists and implement genuine life-saving policies."

    Paul Smith, the famous Safe Speed road safety campaigner, welcomed the news. "This day has come far too late, but at least it is finally here. Speed cameras have been a disaster. My only criticism is that the review does not go far enough. We will not be able to return to the safest roads in the world until every last camera is ripped out."

    But Mary Williams, of the fake road safety campaign Brake, was less optimistic. "Everyone will die if any safety cameras are removed. They work so very well, as one can see from looking at the road deaths over the last 15 years. I'm really pi<i></i>ssed off about this."

    The prime minister will also be ordering a review of certain cycling-related websites. "It is my belief that particular web forums are counterproductive and dangerous. There are some boards where, unfortunately, the regular contributors consider their ideals to be more important then people's lives. I consider this to be extremely dangerous, and although free speech is crucially important, this has to be balanced with people's freedom not to be killed. Therefore those who continue to advocate death-causing policies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary will have their sites shut down, and the posters concerned will face lengthy jail terms for crimes against humanity."

    Spindrift, a patient at a hospital in London innit, said: "I'm really annoyed about my forum possibly being shut down. I have a right to campaign for people to keep dying on our roads if that's what I want. Anyway surely it's a small price to pay for persecuting motorists. You've got to see it in proportion; it's for the greater good."

    A moderator at one of the affected cycling forums said: "We try very hard to make sure that only one side of the argument is presented. Anyone who argues in any way is immediately banned. However it is clear that we're not fooling anyone. Perhaps I'll go and moderate in a proper, balanced forum, but thereagain my admin skills are so rubbish that I'll probably just sulk."


    Oh dear, looks like Cycling Plus and its associated trolls may have to go underground....
  • CunobelinCunobelin Posts: 11,792
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">To answer your question first I must understand what your current driving skills are. So to paraphrase, answer the question.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    I have had the courtesy to answer your question, yet still we have the waffle.

    No-one questions the fact that you don't "value" the IAM test, this is quite clear in the claims you have made about your driving standards.


    The challenge you are still avoiding is the claims you have made about the speeding during your test which could invalidate it and your pathetic refusal to support your own claims by accepting the challenge.


    Why will you simply not answer?

    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
  • <b>A typical exchange between a Cycling Plus troll and a sensible person</b>

    Cunobelin (or other generic Cycling Plus troll): [Question A]
    Sensible Person: [Answer to question A]
    C: You haven't answered question A.
    SP: Yes I have, look above.
    C: Why won't you answer question A?
    SP: I already have, but here it is again. [Answer to question A]
    C: The fact that you won't answer question A shows that I'm correct.
    SP: I've answered it a number of times. [Question B]
    C: I'm not answering question B until you've answered question A.
    [...and so on, ad infinitum]

    <b>Analysis:</b> This tedious and repetitive line of "debate" is all too often employed by the core Cycling Plus trolls. By consistently drawing attention to their "question A" whether or not it has actually been answered, they can avoid having to answer "question B" or indeed any other awkward questions themselves.

    Just one of the many dubious strategies employed to stifle genuine debate and stop the truth from surfacing. A shame that it is so transparent, simplistic and obviously pathetic. Still, this forum will be shut down soon, so that'll be nice.
  • JadedJaded Posts: 6,663
    <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tourist_Tony</i>

    Still, this forum will be shut down soon, so that'll be nice.
    <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

    You'll be able to cancel your bulk order from Kleenex then.

    --
    <font size="1">[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one</font id="size1">
  • CunobelinCunobelin Posts: 11,792
    A typical exchange between a Cycling Plus troll and a sensible person

    Cunobelin (or other generic Cycling Plus troll): [Question A]
    Sensible Person: [Answer to question A] - <b>Actually avoided question A by claiming it "wasn't important anyway"</b>
    C: You haven't answered question A.<b>Accurate observation and hence valid pint</b>
    SP: Yes I have, look above.<b>referring to the avoidance aabove, knowing the actual question hasn't been answered</b>
    C: Why won't you answer question A?<b>FAir comment given the avoidance</b>
    SP: I already have, but here it is again. [Answer to question A]<b>Repeating the avoidance in question A and now stating that this is not the only test butthere are others - more avoidance</b>
    C: The fact that you won't answer question A shows that I'm correct.<b>Obvious supposition as the answer is being avoided</b>
    SP: I've answered it a number of times. [Question B] <b>Facing the fact that the original question is still being avoided, the question is answered in full (see above)</b>
    C: I'm not answering question B until you've answered question A.<b>Question B has in fact been answered, the request is now the same - that an answer is given to the original question</b>
    [...and so on, ad infinitum]<b> or as longas the original quetsion is avoided</b>

    Analysis: This tedious and repetitive line of "debate" is all too often employed by the core Cycling Plus trolls<b> MAinly due to the refusal to give an honest and valid answer</b>. By consistently drawing attention to their [bunaswered and avooided<b>"question A" whether or not it has actually been answered <b>{which it hasn't)</b>, they can avoid having to answer "question B" <b>which has actually been answere in full detail</b>or indeed any other awkward questions themselves -bb] as the question HAS been answered an invalid comment</b>.

    Just one of the many dubious strategies employed to stifle genuine debate and stop the truth from surfacing<b>Please explain - this si waht we are trying to establish - a claim was made that a driver was speeding throughout the IAM test with the approval of the examiner. This contravenes IAM Policy. In order to reach the truth - a challenge was set.Ask the organisation to comment. Now will you support this method of reaching the "truth" ?</b>. A shame that it is so transparent, simplistic and obviously pathetic. <b>I presume you at referring to the avoidance tactics from the person who refuses to verify his claims - I couldn't agree more</b> . Still, this forum will be shut down soon, so that'll be nice.

    <b>PS - you forgot the "invent another pseudonym and support your own argument yourself" ploy.



    <i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
    <b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
    He that buys flesh buys many bones.
    He that buys eggs buys many shells,
    But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
    (Unattributed Trad.)
  • Mister PaulMister Paul Posts: 719
    Admin, can you lock this thread?

    __________________________________________________________
    <font size="1">What we need is a new, national <b>White Bicycle Plan</b></font id="size1">
    __________________________________________________________
    <font>What we need is a new, national <b>White Bicycle Plan</b></font>
Sign In or Register to comment.