Now Clarkson is wriggling off the hook...
Comments
-
Cunobelin wrote:MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:Cunobelin wrote:The claim that "everyone speeds" is insupportable ( unless you have evidence to suport this?).
The evidence is in research that you quoted.
I suggest you read your research a little more carefully before you blindly use it next time.
Which one was that - none of the research quoted states that "everyone speeds"
Estimates vary from 33% to 60 % depending on the syetem of reporting.
Well check again, and this time read all of the reports properly instead of your usual frantic googling for any sentance that might support your claim at the time.Cunobelin wrote:The stated and still unproven " unlike speeding" arises again. It would be interesting if you could substantiate this.
Read above, you have done it for me.
Cunobelin wrote:Most research shows that speeding IS a risk, both in the likelihood of having an accident nd the severity of the accident.
The suggestion earlier was that drivers should be prosecuted for "dangerous driving =" or not prosecuted"
Why not accept the same for drink drivers.surely if the driver is experienced and fully assesses the risk then they must be proven to be actually dangerous at the time to be booked - why give them this leeway for one offence and not the other?
Driving is a risk, walking is a risk, watching TV is a risk, what you are failing to do is differentiate between the levels of risk involved, though as someone who can compare driving at 31mph in a 30mph zone on a level field with sexual assault, I'm hardly surprised.
Alcohol removes the ability to successfully assess risk.Cunobelin wrote:Typically 2.4% of accidents involve drink driving, (Loythian Police annual report) hence less of a risk to the general public than speeding!
You fail to take into account the differing numbers of drink drivers versus speeders.
Of course, if you think this is irrelevent, and that we should all be allowed to own fully automatic weapons and bombs (they kill far less than alcohol), then do say so.
Do you have any recent figures for drink driving which substantiate your claim?
I'm yet to find any, and likewise for information regarding the number of convictions compared to the amount of policing. All the guff I've found so far is inconclusive and the stats are being used to prove both opposing claims.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Read above, you have done it for me.
None of the quotes substantiates a claim the speeding does not pose a risk - try again.<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.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Read above, you have done it for me.
None of the quotes substantiates a claim the speeding does not pose a risk - try again.
It's simple maths; almost everyone speeds, but doesn't crash.
Easy, eh? Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
It's simple maths; almost everyone speeds, but doesn't crash.
Easy, eh?
So if not all drunk drivers crash - that is also acceptable - the maths is as "easy"..
The proof is that speeding raises the likelihood of a crash and the severity of that crash, and therefore there is geater risk. The same applies to both drunk driving and speeding.
Add this to the abberant behaviour that speeding is symptomatic and we have a real risk and disbenefit to road safety.
Speeding is dangerous, it is simply the fact that there ere thiose "in denial" over the fact.<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.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:speeding raises the likelihood of a crash and the severity of that crash, and therefore there is geater risk. The same applies to both drunk driving and speeding.
As I said before, you are not taking into account the vastly differing levels of risk increase. It seems to be a running deficiency of yours not to be able to understand this.Cunobelin wrote:Speeding is dangerous, it is simply the fact that there ere thiose "in denial" over the fact.
Speeding in itself is not any more dangerous than driving already is. If it was discerningly more dangerous we would be witnessing a lot more accidents as pretty much everyone who drives does speed from time to time.
Don't quote your incorrect opinion as fact. It isn't, and it seems quite a few people can see this.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
This is straight forward "denial".MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:Cunobelin wrote:speeding raises the likelihood of a crash and the severity of that crash, and therefore there is geater risk. The same applies to both drunk driving and speeding.
As I said before, you are not taking into account the vastly differing levels of risk increase. It seems to be a running deficiency of yours not to be able to understand this.
Nope - the deficiency is that I accept that both are risks, you seem to accept the proven risk in speeding, but refuse to accept any other risk - - there is rthe difference.
Any activity that risks other road users should be unacceptable.
How many do we have to kill or maim before you wil accept the activity as a risk?[/b]Cunobelin wrote:Speeding is dangerous, it is simply the fact that there ere thiose "in denial" over the fact.
Speeding in itself is not any more dangerous than driving already is. If it was discerningly more dangerous we would be witnessing a lot more accidents as pretty much everyone who drives does speed from time to time.
Don't quote your incorrect opinion as fact. It isn't, and it seems quite a few people can see this.
Are you claiming that speeding actually has no effect on road safety!
Please actually give a quote, reference, or any other source that actualy bacjs this up....it would be interesting for you to actually quote any evidence with a link.
Again let's look at your example.....
Speeding in itself is not any more dangerous than driving already is. If it was discerningly more dangerous we would be witnessing a lot more accidents as pretty much everyone who drives does speed from time to time.
The evidence is that there is an increase in drink ( and drug) driving) thererfore:
Drinking in itself is not any more dangerous than driving already is. If it was discerningly more dangerous we would be witnessing a lot more accidents as lage numbers ( from time to time.
Again why accept one behavour proven to be at risk and not the other?[/b]<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.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Nope - the deficiency is that I accept that both are risks, you seem to accept the proven risk in speeding, but refuse to accept any other risk - - there is rthe difference.
So you still think that driving at 31mph in a 30 zone is as risky as doing 30 after drinking 8 pints?Cunobelin wrote:Any activity that risks other road users should be unacceptable.
Driving in itself is a risk, this is proof of your inability to differentiate between the severity of two different circumstances.Cunobelin wrote:Are you claiming that speeding actually has no effect on road safety!
My claim has remained constant, and I have repeated it many times.
Do you really need me to repeat it again? I will gladly make concessions for the hard of thinking.Cunobelin wrote:thererfore:
Drinking in itself is not any more dangerous than driving already is.
Wrong yet again (you should get a medal!). Drinking causes a massive increase in the likelihood of having an accident, unlike speeding.Cunobelin wrote:Again why accept one behavour proven to be at risk and not the other?
Again, it's the differing level of risk; ONE IS SMALL, THE OTHER IS BIG.
Nice and big and bold and simple so maybe you can finally understand it.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Saying one thing is a small increase in risk, and another thing is a large increase in risk is one point of view.
Saying there is no increase in risk is another point of view.
Both statements have been made at various times..... often in the same post.0 -
CarlosFerreiro wrote:Saying one thing is a small increase in risk, and another thing is a large increase in risk is one point of view.
Saying there is no increase in risk is another point of view.
Both statements have been made at various times..... often in the same post.
Insert the word "negligible" where appropriate if it makes you feel better.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Ah, but if you start saying "speeding is more dangerous than not speeding, but perhaps only negligibly, depending on the driver and the situation" then what will be left to argue about? ;-)0
-
Religion? :? Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:Cunobelin wrote:Nope - the deficiency is that I accept that both are risks, you seem to accept the proven risk in speeding, but refuse to accept any other risk - - there is rthe difference.
So you still think that driving at 31mph in a 30 zone is as risky as doing 30 after drinking 8 pints?
Is 31mph an offence where you come from?- it isn't here you would need to be travelling at 35 to be booked. according to ACPO and 50 mph for a summons!
It is worrying that you seem to be unaware of these limits, although it could explain a lot.
Do ou honestly think that 31 mph is an offence likely to be censured?
As for your comparison, the breath test level for 8 pints is typically 300 - 400 ml of alcohol per 100 ml of blood some 4 - 5 times the legal limit. Using the lower estimate.the true comparison is....
So you stil lthink that a driver at 150 mph is as risky as doing 30 mph after drinking 8 pints?
Obviously the answer is yes - would you not be worried about a 150 mph driver?
The equivalence to someone at 31 mph is someone at 36 mg per 100 ml of breath - neither is sanctionable and within "reasonable error" - why inflate the drink driving, unless of course it is necessary to bolster your argument where a fair comparison woudl not.Cunobelin wrote:Any activity that risks other road users should be unacceptable.
Driving in itself is a risk, this is proof of your inability to differentiate between the severity of two different circumstances.
So are many activities. It is a case of managing the risk on a large scale to the benefit of all who drive. Hence the reason why we have laws to obey. Why allow an activity that is proven to increase this risk?
The problem is the denial that this risk is increased by speeding despite the evidence.Why increase the risk by allowing any activity that compromises the safety of road users?Cunobelin wrote:Are you claiming that speeding actually has no effect on road safety!
My claim has remained constant, and I have repeated it many times.
Do you really need me to repeat it again? I will gladly make concessions for the hard of thinking.
SO you accept that speeding has an adverse effect on road safety then?Cunobelin wrote:thererfore:
Drinking in itself is not any more dangerous than driving already is.
Wrong yet again (you should get a medal!). Drinking causes a massive increase in the likelihood of having an accident, unlike speeding.
Why is this wrong?
Both cause an increase - you are simply in deniall of this.
The risk to the random motorist is greater from speeding than drink-driving. you are still
confused in your denial in face of all the evidence that there is no risk from speeding.
The problem is not just the likelihood, but the actual incidence.
Is the number of KSI due to speeding more acceptable than the lesser number caused by drink driving?Cunobelin wrote:Again why accept one behavour proven to be at risk and not the other?
Again, it's the differing level of risk; ONE IS SMALL, THE OTHER IS BIG.
You are so right here - you are more likely to be injured through speeding than drink driving.
Hence the courtesy of making it nice and big and bold and simple so maybe you can finally understand it.<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.)0 -
Getting bored now, so casual readers can have my apologies in advance for any "shortness".Cunobelin wrote:Is 31mph an offence where you come from?- it isn't here
Yes it is you cock, it as an absolute offence. 1mph over and you are guilty.Cunobelin wrote:you would need to be travelling at 35 to be booked according to ACPO
Wrong again. That is the speed that the ACPO state that a FPN is the MINIMUM action.
Get your facts right, just once, please.Cunobelin wrote:It is worrying that you seem to be unaware of these limits, although it could explain a lot.
Explains your sanctimonious tone, even though YOU ARE WRONG.Cunobelin wrote:why inflate the drink driving, unless of course it is necessary to bolster your argument where a fair comparison woudl not.
You've totally missed the point. Your continual inability to distinguish between severity has permanently clouded your level of understanding. Read it again.Cunobelin wrote:Why allow an activity that is proven to increase this risk?
The problem is the denial that this risk is increased by speeding despite the evidence.Why increase the risk by allowing any activity that compromises the safety of road users?
When assessing risk, one looks at the severity and the likelihood. Most speeding transgressions are unlikely to result in an accident, and the consequences are not significant.
Now compare this with drink driving, where the likelihood is massively increased and the consequences are severe.
CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO "RISKS"?
FFS my 5yr old niece can grasp this.Cunobelin wrote:SO you accept that speeding has an adverse effect on road safety then?
No, it doesn't. That has been my whole point. Stop being a prick and deliberately and constantly misquoting me.Cunobelin wrote:Drinking in itself is not any more dangerous than driving already is.MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:Wrong. Drinking causes a massive increase in the likelihood of having an accident, unlike speeding.Cunobelin wrote:Why is this wrong?
Jesus H. fucking Christ, can you actually read? It's there in black and white.Cunobelin wrote:Both cause an increase - you are simply in deniall of this.
Wrong, you are in denial of the massive difference in likelihood and severity, as stated above.Cunobelin wrote:The risk to the random motorist is greater from speeding than drink-driving.
The random motorist who speeds or drink drives? You are deliberately ignoring the massive gulf in quantities of speeding drivers versus drink drivers to try and prove your ridiculous bullshit.Cunobelin wrote:you are more likely to be injured through speeding than drink driving
Let me get this clear, are you:
a) saying that speeding is more dangerous than drink driving?
or
b) deliberately ignoring the massive difference in the frequency of the two offences because you know drink driving is far more dangerous than speeding, but are too much of an imbecilic cock to admit it and just try and avoid the subject like the snivelling worm that you are?
First we had speeding is as bad as the sexual assault of a minor, now we have speeding is as bad as drink driving.
You are full of shit, and 13 pages of you ignoring my questions, changing the subject, constantly and deliberately misrepresenting my posts, and using parts of research to try and prove your opinion whilst ignoring other parts of the same research that go against it is more than enough proof for everyone.
...and I bet you can't even wheelie. :P
I sense a flag and a ban for this post, but then you haven't been man enough to answer my questions, so I doubt you'd skip the opportunity to avoid more of them.
XXX
love Matt.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:Getting bored now, so casual readers can have my apologies in advance for any "shortness".Cunobelin wrote:Is 31mph an offence where you come from?- it isn't here
Yes it is you fool, it as an absolute offence. 1mph over and you are guilty.Cunobelin wrote:you would need to be travelling at 35 to be booked according to ACPO
Wrong again. That is the speed that the ACPO state that a FPN is the MINIMUM action.
Get your facts right, just once, please.
So you are sayimg that 31mph is regularly booked ?
It isn't around here, 35 is the stop off pointCunobelin wrote:It is worrying that you seem to be unaware of these limits, although it could explain a lot.
Explains your sanctimonious tone, even though YOU ARE WRONG.Cunobelin wrote:why inflate the drink driving, unless of course it is necessary to bolster your argument where a fair comparison woudl not.
You've totally missed the point. Your continual inability to distinguish between severity has permanently clouded your level of understanding. Read it again.
You comapred someone five times the drink drive limit with a 1 mph error in speed, why is querying this missing the point?
Of course a drink driver 5 times thelimit is dangeous, but so is a speeding motorist at 5 times the limit, why not compare two like cases?Cunobelin wrote:Why allow an activity that is proven to increase this risk?
The problem is the denial that this risk is increased by speeding despite the evidence.Why increase the risk by allowing any activity that compromises the safety of road users?
When assessing risk, one looks at the severity and the likelihood. Most speeding transgressions are unlikely to result in an accident, and the consequences are not significant.
Form the figures the same can be said of drink driving.However we can state that speeding does cause an increase in both the incidence and severity of accidents - therfore censuring speeding is entirely appropriate as it does increase risk.
Now compare this with drink driving, where the likelihood is massively increased and the consequences are severe.
CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO "RISKS"?
FFS my 5yr old niece can grasp this.
Why can't you accept the proof that speeding also increses the risks.
Cunobelin wrote:SO you accept that speeding has an adverse effect on road safety then?
No, it doesn't. That has been my whole point. Stop being a prick and deliberately and constantly misquoting me.Cunobelin wrote:Drinking in itself is not any more dangerous than driving already is.MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:Wrong. Drinking causes a massive increase in the likelihood of having an accident, unlike speeding.Cunobelin wrote:Why is this wrong?
Jesus H. ******* Christ, can you actually read? It's there in black and white.
Correct - the number of KSI involving speeding is greater than the number of KSI due to drink driving.
Cunobelin wrote:Both cause an increase - you are simply in deniall of this.
Wrong, you are in denial of the massive difference in likelihood and severity, as stated above.
Liklihood of what?
As a road user the chances of me being hit or injured due to a speeding driver is far greater than that of a drink driver, and the severity will increas withte excess speed.Cunobelin wrote:The risk to the random motorist is greater from speeding than drink-driving.
The random motorist who speeds or drink drives? You are deliberately ignoring the massive gulf in quantities of speeding drivers versus drink drivers to try and prove your ridiculous bullshit.
The random motorist usingthe road and is not committing either offence.Cunobelin wrote:you are more likely to be injured through speeding than drink driving
Let me get this clear, are you:
a) saying that speeding is more dangerous than drink driving?
or
b) deliberately ignoring the massive difference in the frequency of the two offences because you know drink driving is far more dangerous than speeding, but are too much of an imbecilic fool to admit it and just try and avoid the subject like the snivelling worm that you are?
Why one or the other?
I recognise tha t both are risks, and to the average road user speeding is a far greater risk. Why not recognise the factthat if you are pootling along at the appropriate speed you are morel likely to be injured or killed by an incident where speed is a causative factor than drink driving.
First we had speeding is as bad as the sexual assault of a minor, now we have speeding is as bad as drink driving.
Comparisons to show that the hypocrisy of not accetingthe risk that speeding causes to other road users.
You are full of shoot, and 13 pages of you ignoring my questions, changing the subject, constantly and deliberately misrepresenting my posts, and using parts of research to try and prove your opinion whilst ignoring other parts of the same research that go against it is more than enough proof for everyone.
...and I bet you can't even wheelie. :P
Classic Type A risk taking behaviour!
Why on earth should one want to?
I sense a flag and a ban for this post, but then you haven't been man enough to answer my questions, so I doubt you'd skip the opportunity to avoid more of them.
XXX
love Matt.<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.)0 -
So I point out that you are wrong about the law, and you continue to ignore that fact.
You continue to ignore that speeding is far, far more prevailent than drink driving to try and disguise the true risk of drink driving.
You continue to ignore the difference in the severity of both offences.
Just to humour you, as you seem to have not thought about this one very carefully:Cunobelin wrote:Of course a drink driver 5 times thelimit is dangeous, but so is a speeding motorist at 5 times the limit, why not compare two like cases?
Ok, let's compare.
How many people have been killed or seriously injured by people driving at around 150mph in a 30 zone?
You go find as many examples as you like, and I will find far more of people killed or injured by drivers around the five times over region.
I doubt you can find any.
Why do you continue to totally ignore the things I have pointed out to you?
It would be far simpler for you to admit you are wrong rather than continue to try and circumnavigate every point I raise.
I'm fairly sure you know exactly what you are doing and are continuing this argument purely to save face, as I simply don't believe you could be that stupid. :idea:Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:So I point out that you are wrong about the law, and you continue to ignore that fact.
You continue to ignore that speeding is far, far more prevailent than drink driving to try and disguise the true risk of drink driving.
You continue to ignore the difference in the severity of both offences.
Just to humour you, as you seem to have not thought about this one very carefully:Cunobelin wrote:Of course a drink driver 5 times thelimit is dangeous, but so is a speeding motorist at 5 times the limit, why not compare two like cases?
Ok, let's compare.
How many people have been killed or seriously injured by people driving at around 150mph in a 30 zone?
You go find as many examples as you like, and I will find far more of people killed or injured by drivers around the five times over region.
I doubt you can find any.
Why do you continue to totally ignore the things I have pointed out to you?
It would be far simpler for you to admit you are wrong rather than continue to try and circumnavigate every point I raise.
I'm fairly sure you know exactly what you are doing and are continuing this argument purely to save face, as I simply don't believe you could be that stupid. :idea:
Well we can't agree on everything. 0 -
MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:So I point out that you are wrong about the law, and you continue to ignore that fact.
The point is till that there is an error allowed within the guidelines. Your 1 mph is an offence, but as stated within permissible error.The guidelines state 35 mph for issue of a notice, and 50 mph for a summons.
You continue to ignore that speeding is far, far more prevalent than drink driving to try and disguise the true risk of drink driving.
Exactly - hence the reason more people are affected by speeding - both in social terms as well as the numbers of KSI. I have recognised the risks of both behaviours, it is not me suggesting that speeding is not a risk. Its simple more drivers speeding simply increases the exposure to the risk. Hence the reason speeding is more likely to be the cause of a particular incident than drink driving.
You continue to ignore the difference in the severity of both offences.
Killed or seriously injured is severe enough for me, the same for the victims of bith offences, or is being hit by a speeding driver less painful than being hit by a drunk driver under the same impact conditions?
Just to humour you, as you seem to have not thought about this one very carefully:Cunobelin wrote:Of course a drink driver 5 times thelimit is dangeous, but so is a speeding motorist at 5 times the limit, why not compare two like cases?
Ok, let's compare.
How many people have been killed or seriously injured by people driving at around 150mph in a 30 zone?
You go find as many examples as you like, and I will find far more of people killed or injured by drivers around the five times over region.
This was your comparison, not mine. You chose to compare two bizarrely different examples. I simply asked why you chose to use a small excess in speed (1 mph) and compare with a massive excess (5 times the legal limit) in the drinking case. I simply applied the same excess to both cases.
I doubt you can find any.
Why bother?
I simply asked for a reasonable comparison. The fact that you needed to inflate the drink driving and minimise the speeding says more than any example could.
Let's either compare:
A driver at 31 mph and a drink driver at 81 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. i.e. both at or slightly over the statutory limit
Or a driver at 150 mph and the drink driver you suggest where both re excessively over the statutory limit.
Now why not compare the number of people killed by speeding drivers and drunk drivers as a whole group, or do you not do "exposure" ?
Why do you continue to totally ignore the things I have pointed out to you?
It would be far simpler for you to admit you are wrong rather than continue to try and circumnavigate every point I raise.
It is simple - I recognise that speeding is dangerous and increases the risk to other road users. You seem blind that speeding is one of the many risks faced and a signficant one.
I'm fairly sure you know exactly what you are doing and are continuing this argument purely to save face, as I simply don't believe you could be that stupid. :idea: <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.)0 -
cougie wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6982514.stm
Looks like he hired that slippery lawyer to get off the hook. I like Clarkson - he's very entertaining - but he's gone down in my estimation for this. Is there another charge he can be done for ?
Allowing people less talented than him to take his name in vain0 -
Cunobelin wrote:The point is till that there is an error allowed within the guidelines.
Wrong.Cunobelin wrote:Your 1 mph is an offence, but as stated within permissible error.The guidelines state 35 mph for issue of a notice, and 50 mph for a summons.
And wrong again. I have already explained this to you, read it again. How thick can one person be? :roll:Cunobelin wrote:Exactly - hence the reason more people are affected by speeding - both in social terms as well as the numbers of KSI. I have recognised the risks of both behaviours, it is not me suggesting that speeding is not a risk. Its simple more drivers speeding simply increases the exposure to the risk. Hence the reason speeding is more likely to be the cause of a particular incident than drink driving.
Well done Sherlock. If we doubled the number of drivers, we would double the number of injuries/deaths. Would that increase make it less acceptable?
No. It's the same.
It almost sounds like you are accepting the fact that the risk from speeding is very small, and that it only manifests itself in injury because of the millions of times that people do it.Cunobelin wrote:Killed or seriously injured is severe enough for me, the same for the victims of bith offences, or is being hit by a speeding driver less painful than being hit by a drunk driver under the same impact conditions?
An appalling tactic. The fact remains that a driver who is drunk is very likely to hit you, wheras the driver who is speeding is not.Cunobelin wrote:I simply asked why you chose to use a small excess in speed (1 mph) and compare with a massive excess (5 times the legal limit) in the drinking case. I simply applied the same excess to both cases.
It was to get you to admit that there can be differences in the levels of risk, which you know but don't want to admit as it destroys your argument, which is why you never answered the question.
Are you sure you're not a politician? You avoid answering questions and lie like the best of them.Cunobelin wrote:I simply asked for a reasonable comparison.
So I gave you one, 5 times over the drink drive limit, and 150mph in a 30zone.
Did you come up with any examples like I asked?
No, you couldn't.
Instead what we get is this:Cunobelin wrote:Now why not compare the number of people killed by speeding drivers and drunk drivers as a whole group, or do you not do "exposure" ?
Which completely ignores the number of people who speed or drink drive, and therefore totally hides the actual level of risk. Which suits you perfectly, as it is this massively differing level of risk that you are constantly hiding from.Cunobelin wrote:I recognise that speeding is dangerous and increases the risk to other road users. You seem blind that speeding is one of the many risks faced and a signficant one.
No, I recognise all the risks involved in driving, but do not believe that speeding is a significant one.
Because it isn't.
Because millions of people do it without causing accidents.
Because there are far more important aspects of safe driving than checking which direction a needle on your dash is pointing.Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
So I gave you one, 5 times over the drink drive limit, and 150mph in a 30zone.
Did you come up with any examples like I asked?
This is hat we refer to as an "untruth".
Your example was of a driver at 31 mph and a driver after 8 - 9 pints.
The 150 mph was my intervention, asking why you did not wish to compare like to like. to compare like with like as opposed to deliberately underplaying the speeding.
Yet now you claim that this was your example?
If you also wish to claim the comaprison between a 31 mph driver and a a drink driver at 81 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood as being your idea as well - please feel free.No, I recognise all the risks involved in driving, but do not believe that speeding is a significant one.
Because it isn't.
Because millions of people do it without causing accidents.
Because there are far more important aspects of safe driving than checking which direction a needle on your dash is pointing.
All personal opinion and conjecture that you have failed to substantiate.....
Just statin "speeding is not a significant cause because It isn't" simply is not good enough - plaese explain why 6 - 8 % of all road deats and KSI is insignificant!<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.)0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Yet now you claim that this was your example?
It's irrelevent who came up with those figures first, it is you that is still refusing to compare them. You came up with the figures, I asked you to give examples based on them.
An exceedingly obvious and very poor diversionary tactic.Cunobelin wrote:If you also wish to claim the comaprison between a 31 mph driver and a a drink driver at 81 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood as being your idea as well - please feel free.
More of the same, spouting irrelevent tosh whilst avoiding the question.
As I said before, you missed the point of my original two examples; it was simply to get you to admit that risks can vary, which is exactly why I used two very differing levels of breaches of respective limits.
Of course, you still haven't done this, for the reasons I have already stated.Cunobelin wrote:All personal opinion and conjecture that you have failed to substantiate.....
Just statin "speeding is not a significant cause because It isn't" simply is not good enough - plaese explain why 6 - 8 % of all road deats and KSI is insignificant!
Except I have substantiated it, and I have never said "speeding is not a significant cause because It isn't", I have always given reason.
Another lie, another mis-quote.
6-8% is it now? Honestly, every time the figure for speed related deaths is quoted it gets lower and lower. I remember not too long ago it was 33%, which must of been true as it was official and everything, eh Cun?
Anyway, it is hardly relevent.
Answer me this: what percentage of transgressions of the speed limit result in death or serious injury?
Find the answer to that and you will realise exactly how insignificant speeding is.
As I have said, it's all about differing levels of risk (which you still refuse to recognise!).
Get on a train and there is the risk that it will crash and you will die.
So why do people still use trains?
Because the risk is very small and at a level that is acceptable.
Millions of people can understand the concept Cunobelin, why can't you?
You really should stop avoiding my questions and actually answer them, otherwise people will start to think that instead of just being a lying cretin and hiding a weak argument, you're actually a bit thick as well. Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:Cunobelin wrote:Yet now you claim that this was your example?
It's irrelevent who came up with those figures first, it is you that is still refusing to compare them. You came up with the figures, I asked you to give examples based on them.
An exceedingly obvious and very poor diversionary tactic.
The figures are simply demonstrating the underhand method you felt you had to use to inflate your argument.
The basic facts are that:
Speeding is dangerous and causes death and injury
Drink driving is dangerous and causes death and injury.Cunobelin wrote:If you also wish to claim the comaprison between a 31 mph driver and a a drink driver at 81 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood as being your idea as well - please feel free.
More of the same, spouting irrelevent tosh whilst avoiding the question.
[
Simply a friendly offer as you were claiming one of my quotes I thought I would throw the other one in for free. Of course you will feel that correcting your bias and tawdry attempt to exaggerate the problem of drink driving is "irrelevant" - that is only to be expected.
As I said before, you missed the point of my original two examples; it was simply to get you to admit that risks can vary, which is exactly why I used two very differing levels of breaches of respective limits.
Of course, you still haven't done this, for the reasons I have already stated.
For the reasons I have stated very clearly.......This is exactly the point - the risk to the average motorist is greater from speeding then drink driving. More accidents occur due to speeding than drink driving. This is of course looking at both activities as behavioural problems. If of course (as before) you wish to limit the speeding to artificially low categories rather than the whole problem - it will of course help, but will nt alter the fact that KSIs from speeding are greater then from drink-driving.
Personally I would rather take the more valid point and look at the problem in both cases as a whole.
There is no need for specific examples - the figures speak for themselves whether it is th 4% you suggest for drunk drivers or the lower figures I present. Both are lower than the percentage of KSI due to speeding
The real answer for road safety of course is zero tolerance for both causes of increased danger to other road users...Cunobelin wrote:All personal opinion and conjecture that you have failed to substantiate.....
Just statin "speeding is not a significant cause because It isn't" simply is not good enough - plaese explain why 6 - 8 % of all road deats and KSI is insignificant!
Except I have substantiated it, and I have never said "speeding is not a significant cause because It isn't", I have always given reason.
Another lie, another mis-quote.
I appear to have misunderstood your statement, my apologies for the "Lie" that has occurred due to this misunderstanding - Of course you have never stated this, especially not in the post above where you posted an entirely different statement that in no way states or implies that speeding is not a significant risk - because it isn't. .....
No, I recognise all the risks involved in driving, but do not believe that speeding is a significant one.
Because it isn't.
Of course I recognise now you didn't actually state this in your post above,it is either imaginary, a conspiracy, (or did someone else steal your password and enter it for you?)I also realise that I have failed to recognise the scientific validity and depth of the quoted statement, and the weight of the evidence in this succinct statement that you now deny having posted
[6 - 8% is it now? Honestly, every time the figure for speed related deaths is quoted it gets lower and lower. I remember not too long ago it was 33%, which must of been true as it was official and everything, eh Cun?
The same error applies to all statistics, it is called "current review", and things change as reporting and analysis methods change..Of course it is still above zero and therefore a risk, and higher than the number of accidents due to drink driving, and hence a greater risk
Of course this will remain inconvenient for you.
Anyway, it is hardly relevent.
Answer me this: what percentage of transgressions of the speed limit result in death or serious injury?
Find the answer to that and you will realise exactly how insignificant speeding is.
{b]Of course once again I accept that in no way are you stating thatt speeding is not significant as a form of danger to other road usersSignificant is any number above zero. People are being killed and injured unnecessarily simply because a few people choose to speed. Ask anyone who has friends or relatives killed by a speeding driver just how insignificant it is.
All road deaths are tragic, especially when so many can be simply avoided.
As I have said, it's all about differing levels of risk (which you still refuse to recognise!).
Differing levels of risk is exactly my point - More people are killed by speeding than drink driving, you are more likely to be killed or seriously injured by a speeding driver than a drunk driver.
Therefore the risk is greater from speeding This is called a higher level of risk and the difference is fully recognised. Please explain how this is a failure to recognize thatt here is a difference between the risk of speeding (higher than drink driving)and drink driving (lower than speeding).
Get on a train and there is the risk that it will crash and you will die.
So why do people still use trains?
Because the risk is very small and at a level that is acceptable.
Millions of people can understand the concept Cunobelin, why can't you?
You really should stop avoiding my questions and actually answer them, otherwise people will start to think that instead of just being a lying cretin and hiding a weak argument, you're actually a bit thick as well.
Train travel is controlled by imposing limits (such as speed limits) to reduce the risk. One wonders if the accident rate would be so low if indiscriminate speeding was allowed on the rail network?
I applaud your example, a network that relies on speed limits to enforce it's safety as an argument that the risk from this activity is insignificant
Perhaps we should take the railway concept of enforced speed limits and apply it to the road network?
However you seem to be again suggesting ( I know of course from your denial above that this could not possibly be the case!) that speeding is an acceptable risk and in some ay justified despite the number of deaths and injuries caused.
PS - Your use of the world "Cretin" is incorrect - this refers to someone disabled through congenital hypothyroidism and is known to most respectable poeople as a "pejorative term". It is unfortunate that you feel the need to use such terms. One presumes it is an attempt to be flagged, but as it really demonstrates more about your personal satandards and morality - please feel free to continue with the personal insults, but do not use terms that are derogatory towards the disabled and handicapped.
If you really must use insults do try and be amusing- try:
http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/shake_rule.html
or
http://www.insultmonger.com/generators/index.htm<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.)0 -
I'm slightly concerned by the fixation with speeding on here. Whilst I do not "condone" speeding (it is a crime after after all) and it is the cause of 14% of fatalities and 5% of all accidents - surely we should concentrate our efforts on those factors which cause most deaths and serious injuries eg failed to look properly (19% of fatalities and 35% of all accidents)? (Figures for 2006)
The 2006 figures indicate that drink driving accounted for 17% of fatalities and 6% of all casualities, so to be fair, that would seem to indicate that drinking driving DOES pose a greater risk than speeding.
I would agree that we should address all causes of accidents, but some of the discussion on here seems elevate speeding as an issue in way that implies some ulterior agenda - why is that?0 -
dynohub wrote:I'm slightly concerned by the fixation with speeding on here. Whilst I do not "condone" speeding (it is a crime after after all) and it is the cause of 14% of fatalities and 5% of all accidents - surely we should concentrate our efforts on those factors which cause most deaths and serious injuries eg failed to look properly (19% of fatalities and 35% of all accidents)? (Figures for 2006)
The 2006 figures indicate that drink driving accounted for 17% of fatalities and 6% of all casualities, so to be fair, that would seem to indicate that drinking driving DOES pose a greater risk than speeding.
I would agree that we should address all causes of accidents, but some of the discussion on here seems elevate speeding as an issue in way that implies some ulterior agenda - why is that?
I hadn't seen the 2006 figures and with the increase in drink driving overt he last few year sit is not a surprise.that they have caught up and overtaken. (Did this figure cover all driving under the influence - do they include drugs and alcohol or just alcohol?)
Drink driving was simply chosen because it is an example of an imposed numerical limit set by "experts" which drivers are expected to adhere to - a situation analogous to speed limits
The emphasis on speeding is a counter to the absurd claim and the sheer denial of the risk and danger that the statement that "speeding is insignificant" as a road safety issue simply " because it is".
The figures quoted vary, but they are all horrendous when speeding is unnecessary, and also compounds and exacerbates many of the other offences. The time or opportunity to correct an observation error, or a minor lapse for instance is reduced as the speed increases, thus exacerbating the original problem.
The "agenda" is the simple case that I find the attempt to reduce any of these factors to "insignificant" , (and in any way reduce the severity, the trauma and the social costs of the behaviour) an unacceptable stance, and a simple case of "denial" - refusing to accept the real risks involved.
Road Safety is complex and needs a "holistic approach" to deal with all aspects with a more robust and where necessary for repeat offenders an almost "Hobbesian" approach to curtail the dangers they pose. These efforts are recklessly undermined by lobbies who see any restriction on motorist freedom as "victimisation"
There are rules and road safety is best served by these being obeyed whether this is speeding, drink driving , cycling on pavements or jumping red lights. Most judgements you make will rely on the fact that you "trust" the other road user to obey those rules and stop at the junction, turn only when they have signalled or be travelling at a certain speed.
We have an efficient way to monitor and deal with this particular aspect of road danger, we need to augment this with other methods as well rather than dismantle or reduce this.
Part of the evidence posted was about the increasing evidence towards Pyscometric (Spelling edited) testing that shows that there are drivers who habitually take risks.
Part of the problem with these drivers is that they do all of these things, they fail to take adequate observation, they drive aggressively, they speed and they take risks.Hence the place for Driver Risk assessment where these proclivities can be assessed, and training applied to correct the aberrant behaviour.
Promoting speeding above others is not the agenda, it is simply to gain the correct and appropriate recognition that it a significant, avoidable and unnecessary contribution to the danger we all face on the roads. The suggestions that it is anything else are absurd and need to be challenged.
Edited - spelling (see note)<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.)0 -
So where were we?Cunobelin wrote:The figures are simply demonstrating the underhand method you felt you had to use to inflate your argument.
Not at all, and I have explained the reason why I used such differing figures. You missed the point, or rather ignored it.Cunobelin wrote:Speeding is dangerous and causes death and injury
Drink driving is dangerous and causes death and injury.
Of course, a more realistic way of phrasing it would be:
Speeding is not very dangerous, and rarely causes death and injury.
Drink Driving is very dangerous, and often causes death and injury.Cunobelin wrote:Of course you will feel that correcting your bias and tawdry attempt to exaggerate the problem of drink driving is "irrelevant"
I haven't exaggerated the problem of drink driving, in deed I haven't really spoken of the social "problem", I have spoken of the massive danger and risk involved.Cunobelin wrote:Of course you have never stated this, especially not in the post above where you posted an entirely different statement that in no way states or implies that speeding is not a significant risk - because it isn't. .....
You total arsehole.
On the very next line I gave example.
So now you lower yourself to selective quoting. You really are utter scum. :idea:Cunobelin wrote:The same error applies to all statistics, it is called "current review"
Actually in that instance, it is called "outright lies".Cunobelin wrote:Of course it is still above zero and therefore a risk, and higher than the number of accidents due to drink driving, and hence a greater risk
That is the mistake you are continuously making. It's not a greater risk, it just occurs with a much greater frequency.Cunobelin wrote:...some utter bollocks about train safety...
Oh yeah, compare our safety record with the high speed Shinkansen trains, they must have far more deaths than us...
Honestly, from the rubbish you wrote it is clear you know nothing of rail safety in this country.Cunobelin wrote:PS - Your use of the world "Cretin" is incorrect
No it isn't, and don't use your poor literary skills to try and take the moral highground.
You have already lost the moral battle by your constant lying, mis-quoting, and avoidance of every pertinent question I have asked.
"Definition
cretin
noun [C] OFFENSIVE
a very stupid person"
"Slang. An idiot."
However, your constant use of the word "censure" is incorrect.
Why not simply use "punish" in the future, it is by far the more correct term and wouldn't show you up as a pseudointellectual. Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
Train: device that operates on separate track. Systems in place to prevent accidents (specifically collisions)
Motor vehicle: device with no control other than input from a driver, Not on a secluded track.
Kinetic energy: increases as the square of vehicle speed at collision. Makes higher speed colisions much, much more dangerous.
Speedophile: petrol addict who will turn backward somersaults through burning hoops in order to be allowed to indulge their "habit". Related to nicotine addicts who KNOW smoking is unconnected to cancer, and flat-earthers.
Cunobelin's definition of cretin is absolutely correct. I note that like all our resident troopers, you descend to personal abuse when you aren't getting anywhere.
What is your username over there?
Never mind. I'm bored with yet another petrolheaded speedophile trying to argue how he is superior to COMMON drivers, and above the law. I'm off to Australia to ride my bike. You go and accelerate out of danger somewhere.If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick
http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/?o=3 ... =3244&v=5K0 -
MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:So where were we?Cunobelin wrote:The figures are simply demonstrating the underhand method you felt you had to use to inflate your argument.
Not at all, and I have explained the reason why I used such differing figures. You missed the point, or rather ignored it.
SO you really don't think that one example five times the ,egal limit and one onl just over was inflating , and was really a "fair comparison"?Cunobelin wrote:"Speeding is dangerous and causes death and injury
Drink driving is dangerous and causes death and injury.
Of course, a more realistic way of phrasing it would be:
Speeding is not very dangerous, and rarely causes death and injury.
Drink Driving is very dangerous, and often causes death and injury.
Both causes of death can be avoided - why try and make one more acceptable. speeding kills, accept it!
Or are we simply supposed to accept these deaths and injuries?Cunobelin wrote:Of course you will feel that correcting your bias and tawdry attempt to exaggerate the problem of drink driving is "irrelevant"
I haven't exaggerated the problem of drink driving, in deed I haven't really spoken of the social "problem", I have spoken of the massive danger and risk involved.
Read the posts (mainly yours) - your choice of comparing a driver at 31 mph with a driver with 8 pints was exaggerating your case. Once again, speeding is dangerous as well why not accept that
Speeding is a massive danger and risk on the grounds that it causes death and injuries?Cunobelin wrote:Of course you have never stated this, especially not in the post above where you posted an entirely different statement that in no way states or implies that speeding is not a significant risk - because it isn't. .....
You total arsehole.
On the very next line I gave example.
So now you lower yourself to selective quoting. You really are utter scum. :idea:
Your post clearly stated:
I recognise all the risks involved in driving, but do not believe that speeding is a significant one.
Because it isn't."
You then deny that you posted this unsubstantaited claims that then try to justify this statement do not mean it is not what was said.!
(Last paragraph - itlic section edited)
No amount of abuse is going to hide or distract from this factCunobelin wrote:The same error applies to all statistics, it is called "current review"
Actually in that instance, it is called "outright lies".
Recording methods change, and criteria change, electronic recording allows better or more accurate analysis - these will change the figures, It is a normal evolution..
You seem to have a problem with anything that shows speeding to cause deaths and injury, but accept the same revised sources for the ones that suit you.
These are either "outright lies" or not. - make up your mind.
Of course whether you recognise this is up to you. An "if I don't agree its all outright lies , but if I agree withthe same source it is now reliable is a much easier stance.Cunobelin wrote:Of course it is still above zero and therefore a risk, and higher than the number of accidents due to drink driving, and hence a greater risk
That is the mistake you are continuously making. It's not a greater risk, it just occurs with a much greater frequency.
]Speeding kills, it is an avoidable and unneccessary risk. Why accept it at all?
If there was no speeding, there would be no "speed related accidents" and no risk at all - the ideal solution.Cunobelin wrote:...some utter bollocks about train safety...
Oh yeah, compare our safety record with the high speed Shinkansen trains, they must have far more deaths than us...
Honestly, from the rubbish you wrote it is clear you know nothing of rail safety in this country.
I didn't - read the post and explain how you came up with his - I would be interested how you came to this conclusion....
The situation is clear - the statement is that these are closed environments with control over speed and exclusion of other users. The true comparison is with a race track or closed road where other users are access controlled or supervised to prevent close proximity.
As you have chosen to mention the Shikansen trains, the tracks are specifically designed for them to travel at these speeds with no other users or conflicts. The train travels at the speed limit of that particular track, it slows down where required and speeds up - this is called obeying a speed limit and probably plays a part in the safety record.Cunobelin wrote:PS - Your use of the world "Cretin" is incorrect
No it isn't, and don't use your poor literary skills to try and take the moral highground.
You have already lost the moral battle by your constant lying, mis-quoting, and avoidance of every pertinent question I have asked.
"Definition
cretin
noun [C] OFFENSIVE
a very stupid person"
"Slang. An idiot."
However, your constant use of the word "censure" is incorrect.
Why not simply use "punish" in the future, it is by far the more correct term and wouldn't show you up as a pseudointellectual.
Cretin - is a medical term in origin as I quoted - the definition you choose is a derivation from the slow mental aptitude of a Hypothyroid individual. The comment stands, if you really feel this is acceptable - then no more needs to be said about moral standards. The fact that you cannot post without abuse speaks for itself.
As for the word "censure" which you also seem to misunderstand...
Censure covers a whole range of options. It covers a whole range from the punitive measures such as a fine r ban to a simple "word in the ear" from an oficial.
For instance - a driving education programme is a form of "censure" addressing a problem with driving attitude or ability. Do you really see education of this type as a "Punishment"?
.<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.)0 -
Tourist Tony wrote:Cunobelin's definition of cretin is absolutely correct.
As was mine. :PTourist Tony wrote:I note that like all our resident troopers, you descend to personal abuse when you aren't getting anywhere.
Yet you also use derogatory terms? Anyway, 'm getting there slowly.Tourist Tony wrote:What is your username over there?
Over where?Tourist Tony wrote:Never mind. I'm bored with yet another petrolheaded speedophile trying to argue how he is superior to COMMON drivers, and above the law. I'm off to Australia to ride my bike. You go and accelerate out of danger somewhere.
You're obviously another one who hasn't actually read any of the things I have written and speak out of prejudice.
Have fun in Oz, I'll have to make do with British soil.
Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
So, let's see...Cunobelin wrote:Half a page of bluff still missing the point about the speeder and the drink driver...
How many times do I have to explain it for you?
The purpose was to show you that whilst two things can both have some risk, the level of risk can be very different.
A very simple concept, I'm surprised you are still struggling.Cunobelin wrote:speeding kills, accept it!
No, why should I?
Speeding can be dangerous, but it doesn't have to be. This is proven by millions of drivers every day who don't crash. Your statement is too simplistic and not true.
Even you have just about admitted that it is possible to drive safely in excess of the speed limit.Cunobelin wrote:Or are we simply supposed to accept these deaths and injuries?
I guess the millions of drivers who speed do.
Not that I am one of them, of course.Cunobelin wrote:You then deny that you posted this unsubstantaited claims that then try to justify this statement do not mean it is not what was said.!
(Last paragraph - itlic section edited)
No amount of abuse is going to hide or distract from this fact
No amount of bluff and bluster is going to hide the fact that you didn't quote the entire paragraph. The very next line gave reason, and you know it.
Like I said, appalling tactics.Cunobelin wrote:You seem to have a problem with anything that shows speeding to cause deaths and injury, but accept the same revised sources for the ones that suit you.
These are either "outright lies" or not. - make up your mind.
So both are either outright lies or not, despite being different?
33% to 7% is not a slight revision. Wakey wakey.Cunobelin wrote:As for the word "censure" which you also seem to misunderstand...
:roll:
I was taking the Michael out of it being ok for you to use the word censure in circumstances not entirely true to it's original strict definition, but it wasn't ok for me to do the same. :roll:
Language is an organic creature; it does evolve you know.Cunobelin wrote:If there was no speeding, there would be no "speed related accidents" and no risk at all - the ideal solution.
Here we have the crux of my contentious bone. This is sadly how people are starting to think. Such is the repetitious nature of the "Speed Kills" mantra that people are slowly starting to think that as along as they stick to the speed limits they will be safe.
I believe this is having a vastly detrimental effect on road safety, and I don't think you are helping.
After Tony's waffle it is probably about time that I restated a few things that quickly seem to be forgotten, what with them not fitting in with your prejudiced views.
I do not break the law.
I do not condone breaking the law.
I have never said we shouldn't enforce speed limits.
Try and keep that in mind. Wheelies ARE cool.
Zaskar X0 -
MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:So, let's see...Cunobelin wrote:Half a page of bluff still missing the point about the speeder and the drink driver...
How many times do I have to explain it for you?
The purpose was to show you that whilst two things can both have some risk, the level of risk can be very different.
A very simple concept, I'm surprised you are still struggling.Cunobelin wrote:speeding kills, accept it!
No, why should I?
Speeding can be dangerous, but it doesn't have to be. This is proven by millions of drivers every day who don't crash. Your statement is too simplistic and not true.
Even you have just about admitted that it is possible to drive safely in excess of the speed limit.
By your argument - Drink driving [can be dangerous, but it doesn't have to be. This is proven by drunk drivers who don't crash[Cunobelin wrote:Or are we simply supposed to accept these deaths and injuries?
I guess the millions of drivers who speed do.
Not that I am one of them, of course.
{b]Does that make it acceptable - I am sure hat many of the drink drivers also acceptthe risks. We should either accept both or not. Both arre risks, both should have zero tolerance.[/b]Cunobelin wrote:You then deny that you posted this unsubstantaited claims that then try to justify this statement do not mean it is not what was said.!
(Last paragraph - itlic section edited)
No amount of abuse is going to hide or distract from this fact
No amount of bluff and bluster is going to hide the fact that you didn't quote the entire paragraph. The very next line gave reason, and you know it.
Like I said, appalling tactics.Cunobelin wrote:You seem to have a problem with anything that shows speeding to cause deaths and injury, but accept the same revised sources for the ones that suit you.
These are either "outright lies" or not. - make up your mind.
So both are either outright lies or not, despite being different?
33% to 7% is not a slight revision. Wakey wakey.
So we cannot accept he figure in either case - if the figures are invalid for this section they must have been invalid for all....Cunobelin wrote:As for the word "censure" which you also seem to misunderstand...
:roll:
I was taking the Michael out of it being ok for you to use the word censure in circumstances not entirely true to it's original strict definition, but it wasn't ok for me to do the same. :roll:
Language is an organic creature; it does evolve you know.Cunobelin wrote:If there was no speeding, there would be no "speed related accidents" and no risk at all - the ideal solution.
Here we have the crux of my contentious bone. This is sadly how people are starting to think. Such is the repetitious nature of the "Speed Kills" mantra that people are slowly starting to think that as along as they stick to the speed limits they will be safe.
I believe this is having a vastly detrimental effect on road safety, and I don't think you are helping.
{b]Two different subjects. Driving safely within the seed limit is one issue, and correctly the standard should be a speed that is within (not at) the limit is exactly the point. The problem is the ones who feel they are able to drive above the limit witht he same poor judgement[/b]
After Tony's waffle it is probably about time that I restated a few things that quickly seem to be forgotten, what with them not fitting in with your prejudiced views.
I do not break the law.
I do not condone breaking the law.
I have never said we shouldn't enforce speed limits.
Try and keep that in mind.
{b] but are still not recognising that speeding is a significant risk to road safety[/b]
And no insults - you can do it - well done!<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.)0
