Road safety(children) in The Times

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

I never stated, nor suggested, that Professor McKenna or Dr Poulter had received bribes for anything, why repeatedly suggest that I have?

The cracks are really starting to show.

I see you have made no (relevent) reference to my last posts, presumably because I have shown that you are both a liar and an idiot, and prefer to use the "la la la la la, fingers in ears" method of discussion.
A cunning plan.... :idea:
:roll:

rothbook wrote:

Another pro-speeding troll

Yet on this very thread I have shown support for the enforcement of speed limits.

You're an idiot!

The pro-speeding lobby can see it, the cyclists here can see it, I wouldn't be surprised if you knew it as well, and just continue to post out of some demented fanatical habit!


Let's see if this works this time:
You post the entire report, with questions asked, and background demographic stated, and once I've had a read, I'll comment specifically on it's legitimacy.
Or can't you prove that the findings that you want to use are of any value?
I'm sure using your logic that makes you a liar.

John Stevenson

<brandishes big key>

Less of the name calling from both sides, please. You're all grown-ups and capable of doing 'heated' without doing 'abusive'.

Play the ball, not the man.

rothbook

once I've had a read, I'll comment specifically on it's legitimacy.

Its.

So when you claimed that the report was "skewed" and that financial incentives can sway research and corrupt results you were talking generally since you now admit you know nothing about this report and haven't even read it?

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Still grasping, eh rothbook?
One grammatical typo, is that the best you can come up with? :roll:
I won't point out the errors you have made in your typing, it doesn't help the discussion.

Once again, you rely on lying.
I never claimed that the report was skewed, stop lying. I realise your credibility can't get any lower, but that doesn't mean you should try and maintain your rock-bottom status.

My first post in this thread was to point out my concern about the seeming lack of road safety education, a genuine concern, but why worry about that when rothbook can save the day with his army of speed cameras?
As I have mentioned before, you don't seem concerned at all with any other method of improving road safety, which is probably why you have never commented on my original post, or that of pigman.

All I intended to do in my subsequent post was to introduce doubt in the findings of the study you posted as it is not indicative of the feelings of my friends, family, and colleagues.
It is uncanny how you will try and pick holes in any study or research that doesn't support your views, yet you do not stop to question any evidence that does support them, no matter how seemingly biased it is.

It is only after your fanatical replies that I looked just a little deeper into the study, and it does from what I gather, as you are yet to post the study in its entirety, presumably because you don't have it, show some instantly obvious methods of bias, which I have demonstrated nice and simply for you.

Here's another example:

Alcohol drunk in pubs:

Wine: 43%
Stout: 12%
Ale: 10%
Lager: 24%
Bitter: 11%

Now what conclusion do we come to?
That most people in pubs drink wine, after all, it is the biggest category?
Or do we actually point out that beer in general is in fact the most common drink?

Personally, I would point out that beer was of course the most common drink, though I am in no way financially linked to wine sales.

Is that a simple enough demonstration for you to understand?

And look! After more detailed analysis, it appears that wine was actually made of three categories; white wine (20%), red wine (18%) and fortified wine (5%).

Can you understand what has happened there?

Do you see how these things can be manipulated?

Are you going to legitimize your posts by posting the study in its entirety?

:arrow:


I have never stated that people should be allowed to drive as fast as they like.
I have stated that we should enforce speed limits.
I have never defended idiot boy racers.
Yet you continually ignore these three facts, and have in your mind a conclusion of my views that is a total lie.

Why do you do that rothbook?

rothbook

MattBlackBigBoysBMX Posted: 01 Aug 2007 08:52



I never claimed that the report was skewed,


MattBlackBigBoysBMX Posted 31 Jul 2007 07:39

A quick straw poll at work shows that the number one anti-social concern amongst my colleagues is scrotes causing trouble on the streets safe in the knowledge that they will get away with it.
No-one mentioned driving, but then I didn't hand out an easily skewed multiple choice questionnaire, I just asked the question.


Further comment superfluous.


As I have mentioned before, you don't seem concerned at all with any other method of improving road safety,


Would you like to summarise my posts on road safety that don't mention speed cameras?

you do not stop to question any evidence that does support them, no matter how seemingly biased it is.


Here we go again. You claim bias. I ask for evidence of bias. You run away. What larks.


It is only after your fanatical replies that I looked just a little deeper into the study, and it does from what I gather, as you are yet to post the study in its entirety, presumably because you don't have it, show some instantly obvious methods of bias, which I have demonstrated nice and simply for you


Your evidence of bias is?

Fifth time of asking, feel free to answer the question or waffle on about what karen in the typing pool said.

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

Still struggling eh rothers?

MattBlack wrote:

I didn't hand out an easily skewed multiple choice questionnaire, I just asked the question.

This is not a claim about something that someone has done, it is a statement about what I did.
Of course the inference is there, that was the point of my second post in this thread as I have already stated nice and clearly for you, which was that the study summary you posted might not be as solid and unbiased as you would like it to be.
Just trying to encourage a little thought, but you seem incapable of this.

rothbook wrote:

Would you like to summarise my posts on road safety that don't mention speed cameras?

So now you want me to disprove my points for you?
That's not normally how this works rothers. :idea: :roll:

rothbook wrote:

I ask for evidence of bias. You run away.

That is another lie.
As I have already alluded to, it would appear from a quick google that one of the analysts
of the report receives financial gain from speed enforcement.
I'm not saying it is biased, merely that the incentive is there.

When you post the entire report as I have requested several times (though I'm not sure if it was five times or some other figure), perhaps we can have a more detailed look and come up with some more conclusive opinions.
:idea:


ps, we don't have a typing pool at work, and I employ no-one called Karen.

rothbook

it would appear from a quick google that one of the analysts
of the report receives financial gain from speed enforcement.

Sixth time.

Your evidence for this is?

Keep avoiding the question banjo, it does wonders for your credibility.

So now you want me to disprove my points for you?

Nope, I want you to back up the claims you keep plucking from thin air. You claimed I only ever cite speed cameras as a road safety tool. This is untrue. For you to demonstrate otherwise you'd need to summarise all the posts I've made on road safety that don't even mention cameras. You can't, which makes you a liar.

Now, seventh time, stop pussyfooting aroung and post your evidence of corruption or withdraw your silly lies.

Professor McKenna or Dr Poulter accepted bribes?

Skewed the questionnaire?


Have a financial connection to cameras?

What?


Another pro-speeding troll made the same allegation but sadly ran away when he was asked for evidence.

I'm sure you won't run away bigblackboys.


Post your evidence here please, or admit you're a liar, as you prefer.

rothbook

I never claimed that the report was skewed,


MattBlackBigBoysBMX Posted 31 Jul 2007 07:39




Of course the inference is there,

MattBlackBigBoysBMX Posted 01 Aug 2007 11:12

MattBlackBigBoysBMX

rothbook wrote:

I never claimed that the report was skewed,


MattBlackBigBoysBMX Posted 31 Jul 2007 07:39




Of course the inference is there,

MattBlackBigBoysBMX Posted 01 Aug 2007 11:12[/quote

A subtle, yet important difference.
Congratulations for ignoring the complete context.

John Stevenson

Right.

Rothbook, you seem to be incapable of sustaining a discussion without resorting to playground name-calling. Tone it down. We will not tolerate it here.

Thread locked.