Hello


The fight for the motorist suffered a major catastrophe on Thursday evening.


Paul Smith died of a major heart attack on Thursday evening.

As most on all these motoring sites know - he was seriously dedicated campaigner for common sense motoring policies and will be very sadly missed.


Sincere Condolences to his family and wife.


RIP Paul Smith

Thanks, if that's the right word in the circumstances, for passing on the tragic news, Lucy.

 

I've had my disagreements with Paul in the past but you can't deny the hard work, time, effort and passion that he put into fighting for truth and justice in this crazy world.

 

His was an all too uncommon voice for common sense.

 

Sadly all too many of them, such as Stuart Beatty, founder of the Road Users Forum, Steven Thorburn, the Metric Martyr, die tragically young.

 

My condolences and deepest sympathy go out to his family, friends and all who his work touched.

 

 

Paul Smith

Paul Smith, founder of SafeSpeed, and ABD Highland Local Co-ordinator has passed away at the age of 52.

Paul joined the ABD in May 2001, and founded his SafeSpeed website less than a month later, a rapid development that highlighted the effort that Paul would put into campaigning over the next 6 1/2 years.

Paul believed road safety should be based upon properly collected evidence, not the contrived statistics promoted by the government.

"British road safety was the best in the world. Now it is institutionally incompetent at the highest level."
Paul Smith
2006-08-30

Paul recently proposed a 100 word highway code:

* Drive on the left. Make sure you can see and be seen. Keep a constant look out all around. Be aware of signs and regulations and why they are there. Be predictable.

* Recognise and anticipate danger and keep clear space from it. Always ensure that you can stop within the distance that you know is clear. Develop your skills.

* Give courtesy, co-operation and space to others. Don't obstruct them.

* Never take risks, drive unfit or compete with others.

* Safety is paramount and far more important than priority. Take personal responsibility for your safety and the safety of those nearby.

* Enjoy.

Brian Gregory, Chairman of the Association of British Drivers, said: "Everyone in the ABD who knew Paul would like to offer their sincere condolences to his partner and family."

 

Why so prescriptive in his 100 word "highway code?" Why should I drive on the left? Since other motorists are keeping an eye out and can stop in time, surely I should be given the freedom to drive on whichever side of the road I feel naturally inclined to drive. After all, it is far safer to allow me to drive in the way that I am most comfortable than to force me to drive on a side of the road I am not naturally inclined to, thus making me concentrate fixedly on sticking to the left side of the road rather than allowing me to relax into the natural safe rhythm of motoring.

The 100 word highway code idea is too wordy.

It should read:

1.Drive on the left in France.
2.Press the right hand pedal of your vehicle to the floor at all times.
3.Cyclists are prospective roadkill.

You really are an idiot, as well as a troll, FW

Firstly, where have I ever said, or even suggested that:

"it is far safer to allow me to drive in the way that I am most comfortable"

 

Which bit of the oft repeated:

"Speed limits should be used to facilitate the prosecution of those who drive markedly in excess of the safe speed for the road"

Do you struggle with?

 

In fact, did I not originally say "speed limits should be used to facilitate the prosecution of those who drive markedly in excess of the safe speed for the road and the conditions"?

Until YOU pointed out that this wasn't what the official guidelines for policing the limits said?!

 

And how does my saying that excessively slow drivers, who, like excessively fast drivers, account for six times as many accidents as the typical driver (away from junctions where everybody has to slow down) equate to me saying:

"it is far safer to allow me to drive in the way that I am most comfortable"

 

And one of the reasons for having sensible limits, based on the speeds below which most sensible drivers drive, is that that gives you the most compliance with the limits and the narrowest spread of speeds (without the lethal effects of draconian enforcement).

Which means that you are least likely to meet an unexpected situation.

And have the least number of variables to deal with.

And so have more capacity to process the unexpected situations you should be looking out for.

And that the chances of colliding with another car are minimised.

 

While I have given you plenty of reasons for why setting the speed limit at just above the speed most safe and sensible drivers would drive the road (which in no way equates giving all drivers the freedom to drive at whatever speed they feel naturally inclined to drive at, or saying it is far safer to allow them all to drive at the speed that they are most comfortable) you have given me no sensible reasons for why:

"surely I should be given the freedom to drive on whichever side of the road I feel naturally inclined to drive. After all, it is far safer to allow me to drive in the way that I am most comfortable than to force me to drive on a side of the road I am not naturally inclined to, thus making me concentrate fixedly on sticking to the left side of the road rather than allowing me to relax into the natural safe rhythm of motoring."

Clearly having traffic approaching from  both sides of the road, and maybe even the middle.

And having no clue as to which way one in the middle is likely to go.

Cannot be safe.

 

And can in no way be compared with having nearly all drivers driving along with you at the same speed because the limit is appropriate, including those who would otherwise drive a bit slower or faster, but who will automatically follow the herd following the sensible limit.

And having the few who drive markedly slower or faster sticking out like a sore thumb.

And being easily picked up by police who aren't distracted by, or even targetted on, those creeping perfectly safely over an arbitrary, and too low, artificial limit.

 

Can it, FW!

 

I'm hardly surprised that you supported a man who suggested that a criminal should impersonate a deceased person in order to get off. I'm sure there must be a law against that sort of encitement.

It is curious how some people do not even have the decency to show respect for the man. Not that I agreed with all of his claims, but many claims are now accepted even by the speed camera partnerships. This country thrives on honest debate, not the sort of nasty petty put downs shown by some here. People like Paul Smith are an asset, whether or not they are always right.

It is curious why one should suddenly be expected to show respect for this one-track campaigner whose selfish attitude offends me intensely, simply because he has died.

The fact that he had himself advocated intruding on the grief of those recently bereaved (Sorry, "mentioned that some people (not him of course) had advocated this idea, and giving tips on how to implement it in practice") to evade responsibility for the criminal act od speeding would make it even more hypocritical to suddenly gush praises for this offensive little man.

 

 

--------------------

 

Try looking in the mirror, FW!

 

"It is curious why one should suddenly be expected to show respect for this one-track campaigner whose selfish attitude offends me intensely, simply because he has died."

Because he has friends and relatives who are still alive, and such comments as yours show gross insensitivity, and suggest to me that you are a rather nasty unpleasant person. I hope I do not run into you, because I would not want to meet you.

"The fact that he had himself advocated intruding on the grief of those recently bereaved (Sorry, "mentioned that some people (not him of course) had advocated this idea, and giving tips on how to implement it in practice") to evade responsibility for the criminal act od speeding would make it even more hypocritical to suddenly gush praises for this offensive little man."

Whilst I do not accept all (or possibly even most) of his ideas, they do have wide spread support. Recent government studies have shown that in a 30mph area regression to the mean accounts for at least half of the supposed reduction in casualties previously attributed to speed cameras. Without campaigning by Smith and others, it is doubtful that the research would have been done. It may well be that some/most of his ideas will be shown to be misguided, but he has made a valid contribution to the debate.

Secondly even senior experts such as the ex head of the Met Police Traffic Division have expressed concerns at the over use of speed cameras.

Your rather nasty personalised attacks on Paul Smith do nothing but discredit yourself, and frankly put you in the same league as Mann i.e. an extremist who resorts to personal abuse.

> Your rather nasty personalised attacks on Paul Smith do nothing but
> discredit yourself, and frankly put you in the same league as Mann
> i.e. an extremist who resorts to personal abuse.
>
Like most people, I have done some fairly nasty things in my life. None, however, quite stack up with Mr Smith's passing on the idea that people might evade a speeding ticket by trawling the obituaries for a dead person and claiming that the deceased was driving at the time of the offense, thus ensuring that the recently-bereaved will have an unwelcome visit from the police at a most difficult time in their lives. You will perhaps understand why this means that I find the idea of passing sincere condolences to this man's family somewhat hypocritical.

"Like most people, I have done some fairly nasty things in my life. None, however, quite stack up with Mr Smith's passing on the idea that people might evade a speeding ticket by trawling the obituaries for a dead person and claiming that the deceased was driving at the time of the offense, thus ensuring that the recently-bereaved will have an unwelcome visit from the police at a most difficult time in their lives. You will perhaps understand why this means that I find the idea of passing sincere condolences to this man's family somewhat hypocritical."

Care to provide some evidence for that allegation of criminal behaviour? The fact that he is dead means that libel/slander laws do not apply, luckily for you.

Had he done as alleged, he could have been prosecuted for encouraging others to commit a criminal act, and pervert the course of justice. If you cannot provide evidence, then I suggest that you either shut up, or learn some civility.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.legal/browse_thread/thread/593a778e1e833c09/a44aa07eaf4b48f7?lnk=st&q=local+newspaper+obituary+column&rnum=1&hl=en#a44aa07eaf4b48f7

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: uk.legal, uk.transport
From: Paul Smith <psm...@XYZsafespeed.org.uk>
Date: 3 Sep 2001 06:01:02 -0500
Local: Mon 3 Sep 2001 11:01
Subject: Re: Students sell car licence points
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Mon, 03 Sep 2001 11:22:25 +0100, Alasdair Baxter <9...@mail.com>
wrote:

>>I'd have thought that pensioners would have been a very good source of
>>punters, as well. So many of them hard up, perfectly good driving
>>licence, and no chance of ever wanting to use it again.
>>In fact if you've got an elderly relative in this position, who needs a
>>broker?
>Take this one stage further, ha, ha.
>What about the deceased?
>AFAIK, there is no compulsion on the executors of a deceased person to
>return their driving licence to DVLA.

You don't even need to know the deceased. Just picking a name for the
local newspaper's obituary column has been known to work nicely. With
a bit of care in your choice, there's no one to call you a liar.

(It's on my web site :-)
--
Paul Smith
Scotland, UK
http://www.safespeed.org.uk
please remove "XYZ" to reply by email

As it says, it's on his website.

 

And as you've been told before, it's on his website along with a whole host of other ways of avoiding being scammed.

 

Along with sticking to the speed limit.

 

Are you now going to start claiming that he supported sticking to speed limits?

 

No?

 

You DO surprise me.

 

NOT!

 

He was just making a factual statement in response to an earlier post.

 

He may, or may not, have supported doing it.

 

But he doesn't say either way.

 

And you have NO way of knowing.

 

You obnoxious little twerp.

 

Sadly I have to agree with Bogush J Mann. That thread is a discussion of the legality of what they call 'points brokering', which is not something that I would condone. It certainly does not provide a reason for your rather venemous posts. I have had discussions with people about various illegal practices in various fields of life, and never engaged in or condoned them.

I have been to Safe Speed quite a few times, and never come across any such ideas, which goes to show how well he went about encouraging possibly illegal behaviour i.e. not at all well. Much of the information on that web site is encouraging safe driving (and not speeding). In fact I would have thought the general effect of the site would be beneficial, as he discusses issues such as hazard perception, observation, appropriate speed (which might be less than the limit) and so on.

Hi Anon ---

I described "Mr Smith's passing on the idea that people might evade a speeding ticket by trawling the obituaries for a dead person and claiming that the deceased was driving at the time of the offense, thus ensuring that the recently-bereaved will have an unwelcome visit from the police at a most difficult time in their lives."

You asked me to provide evidence that he had passed on such an idea, which, as you say, could well be considered a criminal act of incitement. (I know it is beyond BJ to understand, but the fact that he doesn't say "and I recommend that you give it a try" is neither here nor there, nor is the question of whether he "invented" it in the first place -- passing on the idea is quite enough).

I did exactly that. In fact, he not only describes it. He embellishes it to point out that no-one is going to call you a liar for doing it if you are careful. Not really consistent with a scenario in which he is simply have an academic discussion about ways that the law could in principle be broken, is it?

No, FW, you claimed he was: ".........ensuring that the recently-bereaved will have an unwelcome visit from the police at a most difficult time in their lives".

You were asked to: "provide some evidence for that allegation of criminal behaviour".

And all you did was provide proof he had confirmed that a certain procedure was a possible way of avoiding getting points on a license.

Along with staying within the limit.

 

If you argue that what he did amounted to encouraging people to commit a criminal act, then he was also recommending that they stuck within the speed limit, by YOUR argument.

If, by YOUR argument, he was recommending people stayed within the limit, how could he at the same time be recommending they didn't.

OR ARE YOU SAYING HE WAS RECOMMENDING PEOPLE STAYED BELOW THE LIMIT,

BUT WHEN THEY WERE ILLEGALLY SCAMMED THEY SHOULD TRY TO OFFLOAD THE POINTS THEY WOULD GET FOR STAYING BELOW THE LIMIT?!?!?!

 

 

FW: Regardless of arguing about what PS did and did not do, you are without doubt a hypocrite, since you are potentially hurting the feelings of the bereaved, which is exactly what you criticise PS for doing. Maybe you had better get your own house in order. I can't say I care much for the 'points brokering' idea, but PS is not around to defend himself is he. So it is hardly fair to give the dead a kicking as you do.

As for Mann's posting, well I am not going to comment, except that he is correct in stating that PS does often refer to staying within the speed limit. Unfortunately it is not always possible to do so what with speed limit signs either missing, or damaged, or hidden by vegetation. There is also much that I regard as dubious on the SS site.

Sorry Anon, but I think you have that back-to-front. It would, indeed, by hypocritical to express sympathy to the relatives of someone who pointed out a scam that would ensure that others suffering bereavement would face the extra trauma of a visit from the police (and even crowed that you could get away with it if you were smart).

Hi guys, I'm back to say hi! It's been a while. Can hardly believe this place is still ticking along.

I'm glad to see Bogush is still completely insane, it's nice in life to know some things dont change.

But I was so pleasantly surprised to read your work here FW. Your posts are reasoned, sensible, well founded and Bogush totally cant handle it. But how do you keep it up, faced with his absurd rants, meaningless drivel and "Errrrmmmmmmmmmmmm" starters? Post after post you rip his "arguments" to shreds and he either doesnt notice, care, or both. By the way Bogush, I remember a time you didnt do that all the time.. "Errrmmmmmmmmmmm" etc, then a few years ago it started and you're still doing it. Is this a sign of pending senility? Another sign?

I love driving up north on the M6 Toll, the fee keeps the poor people on the old road and I get the nice, fast, smooth, cam free road almost to myself Let's have more road charging!!

TPG - FIGHTING FOR ROAD TOLLS - FIGHTING FOR YOU!!!

Thanks TPG. Not entirely sure why I do it, since it is not exactly an intellectual stretch. It's a bit like doing the quick crossword once in a while rather than the cryptic one: mildly satisfying to fill in the squares, and rather relaxing to tackle such a trivial problem. It is a bit naughty, though, to indulge such a simple pleasure at the expense of someone who clearly has such serious personal issues.

Yes,

it's nice in life to know some things dont change.

As he's proved yet again:

You can always rely on TPG to to be totally and utterly wrong every single time.

Just one example out of the many in his post:

By the way Bogush, I remember a time you didnt do that all the time.. "Errrmmmmmmmmmmm" etc, then a few years ago it started and you're still doing it. Is this a sign of pending senility? Another sign?

Yes, of yours, TPG

From the earliest page you can see on the page index.

On the aptly named The Opposite View:

Errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmm August 20 2001, 9:49 AM

Double Errrrrrrrrrmmmmmm August 20 2001, 9:57 AM 

Triple Errrrrrrrmmmmmmmm August 20 2001, 10:21 AM

 

And back on the very first page:

 

The tanker theft...

Hmmmmmmmm January 9 2001, 7:05 PM

 

And:

 

Air pollution from cars kills more 5 times people than die in road accidents

A Fine catch of red herrings you're trying to dump on me Robert January 24 2001, 12:45 PM 

Errrm, yes the do

Double Errrrrrrmmmmmmmmm

 

What's it like always being wrong TPG?

 

Ooh, and look who's agreeing with the TPG:

FW!!!!!!

 

What a pair?!?!?!?

 

 

Having to "win" the argument by proving that you have always had your current spastic "errrrrrrrrmmm" tic? You just get sadder and sadder, BJ.

How terribly, terribly un-PC of you, FW.

 

But, then again, trendy-lefty woolly-"liberals" like you were always "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrites.

Doh!

 

And why am I not surprised that you cannot distinguish between a deliberately adopted device as a house signature style in a written forum, and an involuntary verbal tic.

In case you're struggling to do the math, it's because I know that, deep down, you're just a common or garden idiot.

With an obsession about me.

 

Would you like a signed piccy?

 

> And why am I not surprised that you cannot distinguish between a
> deliberately adopted device as a house signature style in a written
> forum, and an involuntary verbal tic.

Oh, I can readily distinguish a "house signature style" from a mentally-deranged reflex. The only people who might have trouble telling it was the latter are the deranged...

Don't be shy.

No need to hide behind childish bluster.

If you want a signed piccy, just ask!

 

FW said: "Sorry Anon, but I think you have that back-to-front. It would, indeed, by hypocritical to express sympathy to the relatives of someone who pointed out a scam that would ensure that others suffering bereavement would face the extra trauma of a visit from the police (and even crowed that you could get away with it if you were smart)."

Blimey. That post is as twisted as Mann's finest. Well done.

Feel free to provide a few examples then, Anonymous.

 

> Blimey. That post is as twisted as Mann's finest. Well done.

What can I say? It's a gift...

Sorry Boggie, FW is right. It is a spastic tic.

You may not think it is, but trust us - as other people reading it, it is.

tic

TPG - FIGHTING THE SPASTIC TIC! - FIGHTING FOR YOU!

TPG Fighting against PC?

 

Well, you certainly aren't campaigning for literacy, BJ. Mind you, anyone who has read your interminable screed in the Post would already know that, BJ. The use of the word "spastic" as a noun to generically describe a disabled person is, indeed, generally viewed as unacceptable these days, even by the most idiotic of bigots. The use of the word "spastic" as an adjective describing behaviour characterized by involuntary spasms (such as a "spastic colon"), on the other hand, faces no such deprecation.

FW: Use of spastic as a term of abuse is definitely offensive to most people, not just the object of your venom.

Can't argue with that. However, I was using it in its purely descriptive sense when describing Mr Mann's spastic expostulations.

FW: "Can't argue with that. However, I was using it in its purely descriptive sense when describing Mr Mann's spastic expostulations."

You really are a hyprocritical little shit.

Probably from time to time, but not on this occasion. Had you bothered to read the thread, you would see that I did not refer to the delightful Mr Mann a "a spastic," but rather to his "current spastic "errrrrrrrrmmm" tic." Mr Mann being as educated as he is intelligent failed to realize that the word "spastic" has a completely non-derogatory meaning, and started squawking about how it was "terribly, terribly un-PC" of me, and then you decided to "contribute" with further similarly-ill-informed remarks.

FW: "Probably from time to time, but not on this occasion. Had you bothered to read the thread, you would see that I did not refer to the delightful Mr Mann a "a spastic," but rather to his "current spastic "errrrrrrrrmmm" tic." Mr Mann being as educated as he is intelligent failed to realize that the word "spastic" has a completely non-derogatory meaning, and started squawking about how it was "terribly, terribly un-PC" of me, and then you decided to "contribute" with further similarly-ill-informed remarks."

You really are an evasive weasel.

Mr Mann being as educated as he is intelligent failed to realize that the word "spastic" has a completely non-derogatory meaning, and started squawking about how it was "terribly, terribly un-PC" of me

 

Errrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

F*ck-W!t

 

If you were either educated or intelligent in the true sense of those words you would have spotted that the whole point of objections to PC is that it attacks, condemns and punishes the completely non-derogatory use of words and phrases with completely non-derogatory meaning, regardless of whether the user, or subject, of the words, meant or took offense.

 

Such as the case of the black activist who was forced to resign his position when, shock, horror, he complained about something like an opinion having been "coloured"......

Oops, too late, sack him!

 

Said Mr B:

"Such as the case of the black activist who was forced to resign his position when, shock, horror, he complained about something like an opinion having been "coloured"......"


Are you sure about this?

I mean, is there any actual proof that this happened or did you just make it up?

Surely you wouldn't fib just to make a weak point.

Maybe you were just mistaken.

EO

Am I sure about what?

What he said?

No.

 

That's why I said something like something like.

 

As for it happening, well, I probably heard it on BBC R4, so who knows!

 

Nothing to do with the case in question, but everything to do with the point at issue:

http://mtprof.msun.edu/Fall1995/trout.html

 

Note that many of the real victims are actually B1@ck too!

Or whatever the current politically correct word is!

 

Here'a another classic:

Williams Aide Resigns in Language Dispute

By Yolanda Woodlee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 27, 1999; Page B1

The director of D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams's constituent services office resigned after being accused of using a racial slur, the mayor's office said yesterday.

David Howard, head of the Office of Public Advocate, said he used the word "niggardly" in a Jan. 15 conversation about funding with two employees.

"I used the word 'niggardly' in reference to my administration of a fund," Howard said in a written statement yesterday. "Although the word, which is defined as miserly, does not have any racial connotations, I realize that staff members present were offended by the word.

"I immediately apologized," Howard said. " . . . I would never think of making a racist remark. I regret that the word I did use offended anyone."

When Howard, who is white, noticed the reaction to his use of the word, he apologized to his three-member staff, which is made up of two blacks and another white. It is unclear which two employees he was addressing when he used the word.

Soon after the remark was uttered, the rumor mill started churning that Howard had used the word "nigger."

Howard said he has received numerous telephone calls since Jan. 15 from people in the community who had heard "I had made a racist remark . . . [which is] in fact unquotable here."

The Barnhard Dictionary of Etymology traces the origins of "niggardly" to the 1300s and the words nig and nigon, meaning miser, in Middle English. It also notes possible earlier origins in languages including Old Icelandic, Old English and Middle High German. There is no mention of any racial connotation.

Howard said the rumor that he had used a racial slur "has severely compromised my effectiveness as the District's Public Advocate and in the best interest of my office, I resigned," effective Monday.

Howard is the second mayoral appointee in two weeks to quit, and his resignation comes at a time when Williams's administration is being bombarded with questions regarding race relations -- his "loyalty" to his race as well as the diversity of his staff. Williams (D) is black..............

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/daily/jan99/district27.htm

 

That should do for now.

 

I know someone who was forced to retire early, and lost substantial pension payments, when someone made a complaint of racism against her. The truth is that the many foreign people who know her would not for one minute consider her racist. In fact it was victimisation or bullying under the guise of political correctness.

I know an Indian who was banned from an ice rink. When I asked him why, he said racism. I confronted the door attendant, who refused to comment until I said that it was racism. He got angry, and explained that two women, one of them a rink attendant, had independently made complaints about the Indian's behaviour.

I went to a job interview in England and was interviewed by an Indian. I was told that the English are not good enough to be employed. It was racism pure and simple.

There was a need to counter racism that was everpresent in the past, but these days the pendulum has swung so far in the other direction that racism is now against white middle class males. Indians are laughing at us. I know, because I hear them laughing and joking.

So, one admission that you have no idea whether your original claim is true.

One utterly unsubstantiated essay by an Internet blogger.

And one story about something that may or may not actually have happened in another country.

By Mr B's standards, it seems, conclusive proof of a PC conspiracy that aims to destroy all that is great about Great Britain.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. (To quote someone or other.)

EO

> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. (To quote someone or other.)

I think "errmmmmmmmmm" was actually the spastic tick that you were looking for. (Now we just await Mr Mann's illiterate diatribe on the use of an un-PC word like "spastic," once again revealing his total lack of comprehension of the English language, and his general level of comfort with complete hypocrisy.)

> So, one admission that you have no idea whether your original claim is true.

One "admission" that I couldn't remember the exact quote.

From BBC R4

> One utterly unsubstantiated essay by an Internet blogger.

One essay chock full of references which happened to be by an Internet blogger.

 

> And one story about something that may or may not actually have happened in another country.

And one article from the Washington Post that was reported in the UK too.

 

Even by Mr FW's standards, it seems, conclusive proof that you are even more ignorant, and yet even more arrogant, than him!