Forum home Road cycling forum Campaign

Is Safespeed a charity?

«1

Posts

  • alfabluealfablue Posts: 8,497
    I don't think it is a charity, but it should be...and it should invest in various secure residential establishments for its supporters. :twisted:
  • number9number9 Posts: 440
    isn't pretending to be a charity rather naughty?
  • downfaderdownfader Posts: 3,686
    Safespeed are one of the groups who have campaigned to have the charity Brake stripped of its charity status, funnily enough (check out the no10 petitions website)

    The guy who started it died of a heart attack iirc. Perhaps too much driving and not enough exercise..? :?
  • number9 wrote:
    isn't pretending to be a charity rather naughty?

    Naiive question, how does poor journalism equate to being pretending to be a charity?
  • CrookyCrooky Posts: 604
    Bob if you read the SS forum thread you’ll see SS were also referred to as a charity in the Daily Mail. Now I can imagine one “honest” mistake but two, by different organisations? I think you’d have to be naive to think that could happen.

    Has anybody read the SS forum thread? 999Oliver wipes the floor with them.
  • Mike HealeyMike Healey Posts: 1,023
    According to the Charities Commission, ain't no such animal
    Organising the Bradford Kids Saturday Bike Club at the Richard Dunn Sports Centre since 1998
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/eastbradfordcyclingclub/
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/eastbradfordcyclingclub/
  • number9number9 Posts: 440
    There are some very odd, unpleasant people on that site- check out the safespeed supporter pretending to be a copper who says cyclists who misbehave can get points on their licence! What, TV licence?


    Another bod says the "corporate nazis" want lower traffic speeds so that brain-dead RTA victims can be legally killed in old peoples' homes or something.

    What a bunch of sad sack apologists for criminal behaviour.
  • downfaderdownfader Posts: 3,686
    I'm pretty sure pretending to be a copper is an offence (unless you're an actor), lol!

    I've read through those forums a few times before.. a few of them claim to be cyclists and spew out info about why its safe for people to do very high speeds and cycle on the same roads. :?

    The ABD are pretty much along the same lines, twisting the truth to get what selfish thing it is they want. Having said that news that their speed camera stickers were being confiscated by the Police seems a bit off if true (apparently reported in The Mirror, but hey)

    Then again to put things in perspective we have Critical Mass, dont we. :wink::lol:
  • Has anybody read the SS forum thread? 999Oliver wipes the floor with them.
    Erm no, I have seen 30 pages of Oliver getting his censored kicked and refusing to answer questions, and generally making a complete censored of himself. I hope he isn't anyone on here, I'd hate to think any bikers were so ignorant!
  • number9number9 Posts: 440
    Which questions weren't answered please?

    Posts on safespeed were highlighted that fantasised about killing cyclists.

    No answer was given as to why the lack of cyclist accidents on motorways "proved" that speeding near cyclists was safe.

    No explanation was given for Smith's manipulation of TRL research in silly made-up graphs.


    No explanation was given for how speed being reduced in Hull led to fewer accidents.

    No explanation was given for how speed being reduced in Sweden led to fewer accidents.


    No explanation was offered as to why safespeed supporters say people who disagree with them should die of Aids or cancer.

    Maybe you could answer these points?
  • CunobelinCunobelin Posts: 11,792
    I find the "Road Safety" reference more worrying than the charity one....


    Any organisation that suggests the following as acceptable has no real interest in road safety
    :
    1.Dead driver

    I heard suggested that on receiving the notice of intended prosecution you could pick a recently deceased person mentioned in the local paper and name them as the driver at the time.

    2. Overseas driver

    If the person who was driving at the time of the offence was a visitor from overseas then this would be a very good thing. Feel free to give the driver's name and address on the form. If the driver is outside the UK but within the EEC there's an outside chance that they might hear about the offence. If the driver was from a third world country, then you can be pretty sure that that will be an end to the matter.

    3. Underage owner

    Register the vehicle in the name of a two year old child. We think this is perfectly legal, and they will not prosecute the two year old. Your can remain the owner, but be sure to inform the insurance company.

    4. Friend takes the points

    If you have a friend with a clean licence, they might agree to admit that they were driving and allow you to pay their fixed penalty notice and any (small!) motor insurance increases. This works even better if you have a relative who no longer drives. If you have a friend who never intends to drive, make sure they get a provisional licence to receive points for you. At the time of writing there are no insurance or other checks when a fixed penalty notice is paid.

    Other "delights" included faking your plates and claiming it was an honest mistake because you were dyslexic, altering your plates and claiming local kids did it.



    Absolutely shining examples of the tpe of responsible drivers we want on our roads.
    <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.)
  • Sorry for the delay, I have just re-read the entire 31 pages. to get the answers for you:
    Posts on safespeed were highlighted that fantasised about killing cyclists.
    This was never raised in the thread.
    No answer was given as to why the lack of cyclist accidents on motorways "proved" that speeding near cyclists was safe.
    This was raised as a strawman argument by Oliver999 to couter an argument that hadn't been raised.
    No explanation was given for Smith's manipulation of TRL research in silly made-up graphs.
    The graphs are a direct representation of the data, only a fool with no understanding of stats would claim otherwise - I am beginning to suspect that you are Oliver999
    No explanation was given for how speed being reduced in Hull led to fewer accidents.
    It was but the answer wasn't liked by oliver
    No explanation was given for how speed being reduced in Sweden led to fewer accidents.
    No evidence is offered by Oliver that the speed reduction led to fewer accidents,

    The big question is why whenever Oliver is questioned about anything, he dissolves into a swearing ranting loon - I just think he is a total loser.
  • CunobelinCunobelin Posts: 11,792
    The errors in the SafeSpeed argument are lmultiple and legendary.

    Hans Joksch demanded that this name be removed when they cited his work on the site, as it was a total misinterpretation of his findings on impact speed. All that happened was that they removed his name, but maintained the same flawed claims.

    The TRL also dispute the simplistic interpretation of their work which underpins SafeSpeed claims about speed related deaths. They point out that the author had been "literal" and only accepted speed as a factor where it was the only factor, whereas other factors imply or include speed - a flawed interpretation like much of the sites claims.
    <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.)
  • downfaderdownfader Posts: 3,686
    Cunobelin wrote:
    The errors in the SafeSpeed argument are lmultiple and legendary.

    Hans Joksch demanded that this name be removed when they cited his work on the site, as it was a total misinterpretation of his findings on impact speed. All that happened was that they removed his name, but maintained the same flawed claims.

    The TRL also dispute the simplistic interpretation of their work which underpins SafeSpeed claims about speed related deaths. They point out that the author had been "literal" and only accepted speed as a factor where it was the only factor, whereas other factors imply or include speed - a flawed interpretation like much of the sites claims.

    You know, people have ended up in court over similarly dodgy claims.,.. Holocast deniers anyone? I wonder how long it will be before they end up in court.... :?
  • number9number9 Posts: 440
    This was never raised in the thread.

    http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... &start=600
    This was raised as a strawman argument by Oliver999 to couter an argument that hadn't been raised.

    http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... &start=600

    The graphs are a direct representation of the data, only a fool with no understanding of stats would claim otherwise - I am beginning to suspect that you are Oliver999

    The graphs are a perversion of the real data.
    It was but the answer wasn't liked by oliver

    No answer was supplied.
    No evidence is offered by Oliver that the speed reduction led to fewer accidents,

    See the thread. 31 pages of evidence are given. Tell me which parts you dispute.
    The big question is why whenever Oliver is questioned about anything, he dissolves into a swearing ranting loon - I just think he is a total loser.


    Um, where.

    On that thread I was called a nazi, a loser, a lame dog, a troll etc etc, all for asking awkward questions.

    Look at that thread. Read it, then tell me why safespeed supporters fantasise about killing cyclists and then express the desire that I die of Aids and cancer.

    They're your mates, bob?



    [/quote]
  • number9number9 Posts: 440
    My last post, in response to this claim:

    , I meant that finding posts expressing vitriol towards non-cyclists or taking pleasure in the misfortune of non-cyclists would not be hard to find. I would place a counter bet that there is a post on bike radar expressing pleasure at the death/injury of a car driver somewhere





    Tell you what, I'll make if fifty quid. Fifty quid for a post from Bikeradar that laughs at the photo of death of an innocent person.

    Easy money.




    A thread started to highlight the credibility issue of safespeed supporters is probably not best served by linking to a forum used by safespeed supporters who think a drunk driver killing someone is funny. We've already had a post from here that claimed a cyclist without lights deserves to get run over. That post remains on the site, nobody here thought it deserved deleting.


    Scratch a safespeed supporter, get a sociopath, but to what degree is the campaign's credibility enhanced by its supporters fantasising about killing other road users?

    Here's another safespeed supporter sharing his thoughts on me:

    I think I speak for most people on this site when I say I hope you die of a seriously painful, uncurable slow death, like of cancer or aids, so as not to darken any car enthsiasts web sites again!

    http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... 9437&i=380

    You see, it strikes me you want the best of both worlds.

    31 pages in there's still been no response to the gaping flaws in the campaign's logic. No explanation of the citing of motorways having no accidents with cyclists thus "proving" speeding near cyclist is safe. No credible defence of the campaign at all. Plenty of abuse, ad hominem, evasion and bluster, cries of "troll" and accusations of being ignorant but that's it. It's a blown chance for you, you could have taken the initiative, distanced yourself from your more rabid, not to say sociopathic, supporters, explained what you were trying to achieve. Is that not what you want?

    End quote.

    The safespeed moderators have locked the thread and do not allow any further posts from me.


    So, safespeed pop up in the media and make lofty pronouncements on road safety whilst pretending to be a charity. They invite comment on their forum. If they don't like the comments or the questions are a little awkward they censore the debate and silence the dissenter.

    That's their open forum policy, is it?

    Say that people should die of aids and cyclists should be killed- that's fine.

    Point out the glaring errors is ss's logic and get banned.


    What are they so scared of?
  • Tourist TonyTourist Tony Posts: 8,628
    Hmmm. Someone on this site registered since 2007, and with 5 posts....sounds very familiar.
    Bob, here's an example of the SS mentality. Some time ago, a young girl was knocked 100 feet along the road and out of her shoes whilst using a pelican crossing. The driver, amongst other things sucah as already being banned, was speeding. The SS reaction was led by the Great Ponytail himself, and consisted of complaining to the BBC that their report was "evil" because it suggested that speed was involved in her death, which occurred in hospital a little while later.
    The various forum members suggested she was probably drunk, and one in particular came out with the gloating words he now uses as a signature line, culminating in the words "Get my mother to teach me to cross the road properly..."
    When you go back over there, Bob, look him up. He posts as Odin.

    As for their "science".....oh dear.
    If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or censored
    http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/?o=3 ... =3244&v=5K
  • downfaderdownfader Posts: 3,686
    ...I think Bob has come here just to troll, tbh. And thankfully the SS (how approrpiate an abbreviation) viewpoint is quite rare.
  • Tourist TonyTourist Tony Posts: 8,628
    downfader wrote:
    ...I think Bob has come here just to troll, tbh. And thankfully the SS (how approrpiate an abbreviation) viewpoint is quite rare.
    They are so obsessed with this site that they have several "sleeper" members here, registered years ago and never activated. Every so often.....
    Registered 2007, 5 posts. QED.
    If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or censored
    http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/?o=3 ... =3244&v=5K
  • downfaderdownfader Posts: 3,686
    downfader wrote:
    ...I think Bob has come here just to troll, tbh. And thankfully the SS (how approrpiate an abbreviation) viewpoint is quite rare.
    They are so obsessed with this site that they have several "sleeper" members here, registered years ago and never activated. Every so often.....
    Registered 2007, 5 posts. QED.

    They've mentioned Bikeradar a couple of times on their forum I noticed, just as the ABD mention C+ a few times. :lol:
  • Tourist TonyTourist Tony Posts: 8,628
    Are you aware of their attempts to close C+ down? I can give you a PM about it if you want; it's too well-worn to put on here again.
    If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or censored
    http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/?o=3 ... =3244&v=5K
  • ...I think Bob has come here just to troll, tbh. And thankfully the SS (how approrpiate an abbreviation) viewpoint is quite rare.

    I wondered how long that would take. I question a poster, and that makes me a SS car driving, baby killing troll.

    Well I guess it was my fault for posing a question on a discussion forum rather than just agreeing with the masses.
  • downfaderdownfader Posts: 3,686
    ...I think Bob has come here just to troll, tbh. And thankfully the SS (how approrpiate an abbreviation) viewpoint is quite rare.

    I wondered how long that would take. I question a poster, and that makes me a SS car driving, baby killing troll.

    Well I guess it was my fault for posing a question on a discussion forum rather than just agreeing with the masses.

    No, you signed up to a forum account and left it dormant, then came online to attack a person's character (I saw no evidence on SS of them swearing or being abusive). I also never mentioned baby killing. Said user was then banned "rather than just agreeing with the masses", to use your turn of phrase.

    I think SS underestimate many on here's love of cars and the fact most do drive. Many agree with your stand on speed cameras btw, but your members ruin any chance of any political weight you might levy. If you took a more level headed approach to why the roads are unsafe at times (driver behaviour, or indeed cyclist and pedestrian at times) instead of moaning about your "right to speed" you could do a lot of good.

    Sadly I dont think your group is capable of dealing sensibly with these issues.
  • I apologise, I did not realise I had a posting quota to reach.

    I attacked a user on SS, who turned out to be the OP, since I have never posted on SS I find it interesting that you assume I am an SS troll, rather than the OP who has posted on SS.
    If you took a more level headed approach to why the roads are unsafe at times (driver behaviour, or indeed cyclist and pedestrian at times) instead of moaning about your "right to speed" you could do a lot of good.
    How can I possibly have a right to speed? What are you basing this statement on?
    Sadly I dont think your group is capable of dealing sensibly with these issues.
    What is my group exactly?

    I find it intruiging that because I attack a member of SS that makes me their spokesperson
  • Tourist TonyTourist Tony Posts: 8,628
    Well, you could explain why you registered here so long ago and never, ever posted. And describe what you mean by "attacked an SS member".
    Or you could actually say something about cycling.
    You ARE a cyclist, aren't you? I believe the standard debating technique in the SS playpen is to demand details of driving experience; after all, only drivers know anything about the roads.....

    As for "right to speed", when the late geek was here lying about his proposals to pervert the course of justice concerning driving, his mantra was always that the driver was the only person fit to judge. He claimed there was a road near him in Scotland safe at 150mph, though he never identified it.

    So come on, subpontine one; what bikes have you got?
    If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or censored
    http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/?o=3 ... =3244&v=5K
  • Well, you could explain why you registered here so long ago and never, ever posted. And describe what you mean by "attacked an SS member".
    By all means, I have a productive job, and don't spend my entire time on the internet. Only recently have I decided to post here. I have read through the rules, and I can't see anything about posting within a certain time of posting [edit that should be registering].
    I called Oliver9, or whatever the name was (I am not going to go back to SS) a complete censored because he is a complete censored .
    You ARE a cyclist, aren't you? I believe the standard debating technique in the SS playpen is to demand details of driving experience; after all, only drivers know anything about the roads.....
    So only drivers know anything about the road, well that counts me out then. Always best not to make assumptions, I find you can quickly get egg on your face.
    So come on, subpontine one; what bikes have you got?
    Since this question is not directed at me I have no need to answer. Ask me the question and I will answer you.
  • The thread heading is posting as a question: Answer = No

    In the interests of being sociable bobthebuilder, what bikes have you got?
  • In the interests of being sociable bobthebuilder, what bikes have you got?

    I am always sociable, except when I'm not :)

    I have 2, my everyday bike that i use for my commute is a P.O.S. Halfords special, that somewhat suspiciously has the word mountain misspelt on the frame.

    My 'proper' bike is a cannondale - which I love. Somewhat perversly because it is such a nice bike, I don't feel overly inclined to get it dirty. It only comes out at weekends etc.
  • number9number9 Posts: 440
    Hello Bob. Maybe you could tell me which questions you claim I ignored on that thread?

    Or why asking a question makes me a "censored "?

    I went on safespeed to unvover the real nature of the campaign. I think I did a pretty good job, I explained why I support speed cameras and how lower speeds save lives. For my trouble I was labelled a "nazi" "troll" "autistic" and a fascist". I then asked a question of the site's moderator, Claire, Smith's widow. I asked her if she could justify her claim that 90% of road safety policy relies on cameras. I asked because it's a made-up claim. I was banned from the forum for asking the question.

    So, safespeed allow posts that fantasise about killing cyclists, anyone who disagrees with them receives a torrent of abuse, and awkward questions that expose their dishonesty results in a ban.

    I've no idea whether you have a connection to safespeed, although you share their habit of personal attacks and abuse, but I'd be interested why you think my expressing an opinion makes me a "censored "?
  • number9number9 Posts: 440
    Hello Bob. Maybe you could tell me which questions you claim I ignored on that thread?

    Or why asking a question makes me a "censored "?

    I went on safespeed to unvover the real nature of the campaign. I think I did a pretty good job, I explained why I support speed cameras and how lower speeds save lives. For my trouble I was labelled a "nazi" "troll" "autistic" and a fascist". I then asked a question of the site's moderator, Claire, Smith's widow. I asked her if she could justify her claim that 90% of road safety policy relies on cameras. I asked because it's a made-up claim. I was banned from the forum for asking the question.

    So, safespeed allow posts that fantasise about killing cyclists, anyone who disagrees with them receives a torrent of abuse, and awkward questions that expose their dishonesty results in a ban.

    I've no idea whether you have a connection to safespeed, although you share their habit of personal attacks and abuse, but I'd be interested why you think my expressing an opinion makes me a "censored "?
Sign In or Register to comment.