Re: Well Done!

On Apr 16, 9:59 am, Nuxx Bar <derderderder...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 15, 2:16 pm, spindrift <newty...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Apr 15, 1:15 pm, Sir Jeremy <pete.a...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 14 Apr, 21:23, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:43:30 -0700 (PDT), Sir Jeremy
<pete.a...@xxxxxxxxxx> said in
<d3c2ce5e-229c-496e-937b-418063733...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

Why did Which interview you about Safespeed?

They searched the web and usenet and noted that I had long exchanges
with Smith, and had a detailed rebuttal of his one in three
fatalities bullshit on my website.  They submitted it to their own
statisticians for review, I believe, and they also looked at the
12mph comedy web page.  If any professional road safety researcher
had ever dignified Smith with a published rebuttal, I am sure they
would have called them instead, but the professional road safety
community did not, as far as I can tell, ever take any notice of his
argument, because it was not published in any peer-reviewed
journals, and of course because it was complete bollocks.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

So they were looking to do a hatchet job and you provided some ready
made ammunition.

For all the whining from such as yourself and Spindrift about
Safespeeds work not being peer reviewed (not that Brakes anal
dribblings are peer reviewed) it turns out that Which use the non-peer
reviewed anti-car and anti-driver bollocks from someone with personal
antipathy towards Paul Smith.

I've had my doubts abouts the alleged research that Which do for a
while, but this shows their stuff is about as convincing as Alistair
Campbell's evidence for weapons of mass destruction which was also
ripped off the net- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You have evidence that Which had a pre-determined conclusion? They
have no axe to grind, they impartially review products and claims, in
fact their reputation relies on their impartiality!

You have evidence that Paul Smith had a pre-determined conclusion when
he started his research?  He had no axe to grind.

Why do you hate motorists?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"You have evidence that Paul Smith had a pre-determined conclusion
when
he started his research? He had no axe to grind. ""

Yep
Smith allowed posters on his forum to call the police "cxnts".

He allowed posters to say it would be good to burn police officers to
death.

He allowed posts that fantasised about killing cyclists.

He encouraged people to pervert justice and break the law with
immunity.

Had I or Guy done any such things then any post mortem attacks would
be entirely justified on the grounds that eulogies needn't be
hagiographies.

Your leader was an unpleasant, blinkered, dangerously ignorant man who
rarely stepped outside his domain at the safespeeding website where
his ringpiece could be polished by the fake policemen he allowed on
his site.

Can't offer any counterarguments?

Only a complete idiot would claim using a mobile whilst driving isn't
dangerous.



Oh, look:

Paul Smith, of campaign group Safe Speeding, said careless driving -
the current charge - is not an offence that most drivers commit
deliberately.

Mr Smith said extreme care should be taken when deciding to prosecute
a driver.


"You cannot say because someone had a mobile phone they were driving
dangerously. There must be evidence they were actually posing a danger
to other people."



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770



Humans rely on lots of non-verbal clues in face to face conversation.
Telephones remove these, so people concentrate more on the
conversation, making drivers on mobiles 4 times as likely to crash.:



http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bruzcOyIGeg#

.

Relevant Pages

  • Cases tied to Ontario pathologist under review
    ... Smith was the chief forensic pathologist at Toronto's Hospital for Sick ... Mullins-Johnson in the sexual assault and murder of his four-year-old ... But a recent review by Ontario's chief pathologist rejected Smith's ... after evidence in their client's case went missing earlier this year. ...
    (soc.men)
  • Re: "Drunkards and Cheats!! ... Captain describes his teammates"
    ... if Waugh were not Australian. ... The "review" of Waugh's mentioned that he was ... >England players with Smith calling them things like "homo" and the ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Well Done!
    ... statisticians for review, I believe, and they also looked at the ... had ever dignified Smith with a published rebuttal, ... "Information that was once on the website about avoiding speeding ... but for some reason the trolls ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Linda Smith & Pam Ayres (Similar Deadpan Delivery Styles)
    ... Linda Smith ... her deadpan diatribes ... AYRES talking for a whole minute at midday today about her five-toed ... Source: Daily Telegraph review ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: Well Done!
    ... statisticians for review, I believe, and they also looked at the ... had ever dignified Smith with a published rebuttal, ... You have evidence that Which had a pre-determined conclusion? ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)