I will send £50 to the first regular pro-camera poster on here who:

- admits to being anti-motorist;
- admits that they are attracted to speed cameras solely or mostly
because of their anti-motorist stance, and that is more important to
them than whether or not speed cameras save lives;
- promises to look properly at the facts and figures to find out
whether speed cameras actually save lives, and if they don't, stop
supporting them, in recognition of the fact that saving the lives of
road users is infinitely important than silly, small-minded prejudices
against people who use the "wrong" modes of transport;
- admits that they think that the sick Chapman is anti-motorist, and
that his whole road "safety" campaign is driven exclusively by that
rather than any genuine wish to save lives.

Easy money, if you'll only be honest for a minute.  Can any of the
trolls stop lying for that amount of time, or is it beyond them, even
for £3000/hour?  We shall see.

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
 wrote:

>I will send £50 to the first regular pro-camera poster on here who:
>
>- admits to being anti-motorist;
>- admits that they are attracted to speed cameras solely or mostly
>because of their anti-motorist stance, and that is more important to
>them than whether or not speed cameras save lives;
>- promises to look properly at the facts and figures to find out
>whether speed cameras actually save lives, and if they don't, stop
>supporting them, in recognition of the fact that saving the lives of
>road users is infinitely important than silly, small-minded prejudices
>against people who use the "wrong" modes of transport;
>- admits that they think that the sick Chapman is anti-motorist, and
>that his whole road "safety" campaign is driven exclusively by that
>rather than any genuine wish to save lives.
>
>Easy money, if you'll only be honest for a minute.  Can any of the
>trolls stop lying for that amount of time, or is it beyond them, even
>for £3000/hour?  We shall see.

I admit to it all.

How are you going to get the cash to me?

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar wrote:

Quoting  Tom Crispin  <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>:
> wrote:
>>I will send £50 to the first regular pro-camera poster on here who:
>>- admits to being anti-motorist;
>I admit to it all.

Second anti-motorist, if we need someone else to prove Nuxxy's a liar,
although if anyone hasn't noticed that in my case, they may also be
confused about the Pope's religious affiliation...
-- 
David Damerell  Kill the tomato!
Today is Friday, September.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:06:48 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> said in
:

>I admit to it all.
>How are you going to get the cash to me?

Ooooh, you tart! ;-)

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

On Sep 24, 12:06 pm, _ 
wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar wrote:

Yes, I know, you're a cunt.

On Sep 24, 7:06 am, Tom Crispin
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >I will send £50 to the first regular pro-camera poster on here who:
>
> >- admits to being anti-motorist;
> >- admits that they are attracted to speed cameras solely or mostly
> >because of their anti-motorist stance, and that is more important to
> >them than whether or not speed cameras save lives;
> >- promises to look properly at the facts and figures to find out
> >whether speed cameras actually save lives, and if they don't, stop
> >supporting them, in recognition of the fact that saving the lives of
> >road users is infinitely important than silly, small-minded prejudices
> >against people who use the "wrong" modes of transport;
> >- admits that they think that the sick Chapman is anti-motorist, and
> >that his whole road "safety" campaign is driven exclusively by that
> >rather than any genuine wish to save lives.
>
> >Easy money, if you'll only be honest for a minute.  Can any of the
> >trolls stop lying for that amount of time, or is it beyond them, even
> >for £3000/hour?  We shall see.
>
> I admit to it all.

Admit it all explicitly, and in your own words, so that readers
actually believe that you mean it, and that you're not just being a
trolling fuckwit who thinks he's much cleverer than he is, as per.
Why have you denied those things up to now?  Is £50 all it takes for
you to admit what a motorist-hating scumbag you are?  If it's so easy
to make you admit it, why have you been so hellbent on denying it
until now?

You also need to promise that you're going to look properly at the
facts and figures to find out whether speed cameras really save lives,
as it says quite clearly (and, of course, implicit in such a promise
is an admission that you haven't so far looked properly at the facts
and figures, instead choosing to assume that cameras work, because it
suits you and your anti-motorist outlook).

> How are you going to get the cash to me?

I'm not even going to think about that until the above is
accomplished.  You really think I'm going to send £50 to someone who
simply types five insincere-looking words, especially when they have a
track record of posting replies to my messages which don't further the
discussion in any way and are designed simply to distract from the
awkward truths contained in my anti-camera, anti-anti-motorist posts?

By the way, this is a time-limited offer.  It'll end sometime in the
next week.

On 24 Sep, 23:58, Nuxx Bar  wrote:

> By the way, this is a time-limited offer.  It'll end sometime in the
> next week.

Don't worry, Nuxxy. No one seriously thought you had any intention of
honouring your word.

--
Dave...

Nuxx Bar wrote:

8<...

                                _____________________
                    /|  /| |   |                     |
                    ||__|| |   |  Please don't feed  |
                   /   O O\__  |   the trolls...     |
                  /          \ |         thank you.  |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

-- 
My hearts numbered beat            |       Greetings from Birmingham, UK
Still echoes in this empty room    |All about me: www.nervouscyclist.org
Fear wells in me, but nothing seems|      Is your ISP pimping your data?
Enough to defend      Dave Matthews|                  www.badphorm.co.uk

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:06:48 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
>  wrote:
> 
>>I will send £50 to the first regular pro-camera poster on here who:
>>
>>- admits to being anti-motorist;
>>- admits that they are attracted to speed cameras solely or mostly
>>because of their anti-motorist stance, and that is more important to them
>>than whether or not speed cameras save lives; - promises to look properly
>>at the facts and figures to find out whether speed cameras actually save
>>lives, and if they don't, stop supporting them, in recognition of the
>>fact that saving the lives of road users is infinitely important than
>>silly, small-minded prejudices against people who use the "wrong" modes
>>of transport; - admits that they think that the sick Chapman is
>>anti-motorist, and that his whole road "safety" campaign is driven
>>exclusively by that rather than any genuine wish to save lives.
>>
>>Easy money, if you'll only be honest for a minute.  Can any of the trolls
>>stop lying for that amount of time, or is it beyond them, even for
>>£3000/hour?  We shall see.
> 
> I admit to it all.
> 
> How are you going to get the cash to me?

Now look what you made the loser say. 

-- 
   ___  _______   ___    ___  ___  __  ____
  / _ \/ __/ _ | / _ \  / _ \/ _ |/ / / / /
 / // / _// __ |/ // / / ___/ __ / /_/ / /__
/____/___/_/ |_/____/ /_/  /_/ |_\____/____/

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:52:21 +0100, judith 
wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:06:51 GMT, _
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar wrote:
>


Did you see the latest figures from the DfT?


Seriously Injured 2007 cf 2006

All road users : down 13%

Pedestrians:  down:  2%

Pedal Cyclists:  up 6%

Now what was that about cycling  being comparable to being a
pedestrian?

It looks like cycling is becoming even more dangerous.


--   

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

"judith"  wrote in message 
news:e2knd4dkpa8cc58qtfcgon5ceghbga9946@4ax.com...
>
> Did you see the latest figures from the DfT?
>
> Seriously Injured 2007 cf 2006
>
> Pedal Cyclists:  up 6%
>
> Now what was that about cycling  being comparable to being a
> pedestrian?
>
> It looks like cycling is becoming even more dangerous.

Er ... is that up 6% per mile, or per journey, or per hour, or what? How is 
it factored for whatever change there might have been in the number of 
cyclists and the number and type  of journey they undertake?

-- 
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

On Sep 24, 6:21 pm, David Damerell 
wrote:
> Quoting  Tom Crispin  <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>:
>
> > wrote:
> >>I will send 50 to the first regular pro-camera poster on here who:
> >>- admits to being anti-motorist;
> >I admit to it all.
>
> Second anti-motorist

Err, you have to admit everything there, not just one thing, hence the
lack of any occurrences of the word "or" between the bullet points, or
any equivalent notation.  Still, well done for being honest.  Crapman
should take a leaf out of your book.  Perhaps I will send you £50 if
no-one manages to (genuinely) admit everything on the list, as despite
the fact that I don't think much of your posts in general, I think
it's brave of you to stick your neck out and admit to being anti-
motorist when the other anti-motorist posters around you are too
unbelievably cowardly and spineless to do so.

By the way, isn't it astonishing that so many self-confessed anti-
motorist people, like you, Doug, and lots more, frequent and feel part
of this newsgroup in particular, despite it supposedly not being anti-
motorist in any way, shape or form?  It's a bit like Conservative
politicians speaking at the Labour Conference.  Except it's not,
because this IS a bloody anti-motorist newsgroup, containing a
majority of anti-motorist posters, and everyone knows it perfectly
well.  Each denial of that clear-as-day fact just makes it even more
apparent that those who are doing the denying are utterly ashamed of
their anti-motorist stance, and know that it's totally indefensible.
In which case, why have such a stance at all?

And it would be really super if no-one wheeled out the "I drive so I
can't be anti-motorist" cliche yet again.  I've explained quite enough
times already how hypocrisy, self-importance, control freakery, spite,
and all manner of other defects of character (all of which apply to
Crapman) invalidate that statement.  Those who continue to make the
statement know what the score is perfectly well, and only do it
because they know that they have *no* other way of demonstrating that
they're not anti-motorist (whereas someone who was really not anti-
motorist would say things like "I defended motorists in this post", "I
oppose [such-and-such an anti-motorist measure]", etc, which of course
Crapman and co never do, because they can't).

> if we need someone else to prove Nuxxy's a liar,

You'd better have something to back up that potentially libellous
allegation with.  And can you honestly say, hand on heart, that you
*don't* think that others in this newsgroup have claimed not to be
anti-motorist when they actually are (which seems an awful lot like a
lie to me)?  I bet you can't.  Don't you think it's pathetic that
those people won't admit it?  Why don't you call them liars?  Aren't
their lies as bad as any that I've supposedly told?

> although if anyone hasn't noticed that in my case, they may also be
> confused about the Pope's religious affiliation...

Same with Chapman, Spindrift et al, yet the ludicrous charade
continues.  If I were you, I'd find it offensive that others who held
my opinion weren't prepared to admit to it in public.  Don't you find
it as frustrating as I do?  Wouldn't you rather everyone was honest
about what they thought, so that everything was out in the open?
Surely anyone who was genuinely in favour of honest debate, no matter
what their opinions, would agree?

By the way, can I just ask: if you discovered that speed cameras cost
lives, would you continue to support them anyway (being anti-
motorist), start to oppose them, or become "neutral" on the matter?
Would it be fair to say that you are instinctively attracted to speed
cameras because they make life more difficult for the vast majority of
motorists?  Would it also be fair to say that as far as you're
concerned, the more motorists who are fined and banned, the better?
(Those aren't rhetorical questions, I'm genuinely interested in your
answers, especially since you're apparently so concerned with
upholding the truth.)

Oh, and in case anyone was lucky enough to forget who Chapman and/or
Spindrift were, here's the perfect reminder.  (Sorry for the "bad"
language...I realise that it's inappropriate, seeing as we're all
adults and everything.)

Cunt who
Hates
All the
Persecuted
Motorists and is an
Arrogant
Nazi

Sick,
Psychopathic
Individual who wants
No
Drivers on the
Roads and is an
Ignorant
Fucking
Twat

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:01:00 +0100, "Tim Ward" 
wrote:

>"judith"  wrote in message 
>news:e2knd4dkpa8cc58qtfcgon5ceghbga9946@4ax.com...
>>
>> Did you see the latest figures from the DfT?
>>
>> Seriously Injured 2007 cf 2006
>>
>> Pedal Cyclists:  up 6%
>>
>> Now what was that about cycling  being comparable to being a
>> pedestrian?
>>
>> It looks like cycling is becoming even more dangerous.
>
>Er ... is that up 6% per mile, or per journey, or per hour, or what? How is 
>it factored for whatever change there might have been in the number of 
>cyclists and the number and type  of journey they undertake?


I do not think that those stats are factored.

However - if you look at the factored figures - they paint the same
story:


Fatal and serious accidents per
vehicle type for 2007 just released today:

(Number of vehicles/rate per 100 million vehicle kilometres)

There is a real reduction for most classes cf last year except for
motor bikes and cycles
 


All vehicles		-2.83%

Pedal cycles		4.41%

On Sep 25, 12:46 am, Tim Dunne  wrote:
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>
> 8<...
>
>                                 _____________________
>                     /|  /| |   |                     |
>                     ||__|| |   |  Please don't feed  |
>                    /   O O\__  |   the trolls...     |
>                   /          \ |         thank you.  |
>                  /      \     \|_____________________|
>                 /   _    \     \      ||
>                /    |\____\     \     ||
>               /     | | | |\____/     ||
>              /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
>             /  /  \            |____| ||
>            /   |   |           |      --|
>            |   |   |           |____  --|
>     * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
> *-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
>    /  _     \\        |        /      `
> *  /   \_ /- |       |       |
>    *      ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
>
> --
> My hearts numbered beat            |       Greetings from Birmingham, UK
> Still echoes in this empty room    |All about me:www.nervouscyclist.org
> Fear wells in me, but nothing seems|      Is your ISP pimping your data?
> Enough to defend      Dave Matthews|                  www.badphorm.co.uk

Tee hee.  So offering people money for being honest is "trolling" now,
is it?  It would only be described as such on a newsgroup full of
liars who WILL NOT even contemplate telling the truth no matter what
they get in return.

Here on uk.rec.anti-motorist, "Don't feed the trolls" is code for "I
don't like you, because you have an annoying habit of coming on here
and embarrassing me and my wanker-friends by showing, time and time
again, and painfully accurately, just what pathetic, lying anti-
motorist bastards we are.  I can't counter what you say with facts and
logic, because you're speaking the truth, so all I can manage is to
spout vague insults".  Carry on saying "Don't feed the trolls" all you
want, trolls, as it's entirely obvious to all and sundry what it
really means.

Think about it.  If there was a newsgroup full of anti-motorist turds
who lied about their reasons for supporting speed cameras, and someone
came on there and started telling the truth about the turds' motives
and the fact that speed cameras kill people, the turds wouldn't
exactly say "Oh yes, you're right, we're sorry for being lying,
lowlife fuckwits".  They'd be much more likely to say, ooh, I don't
know, "Don't feed the trolls".  And so it has come to pass, twice
already, on this thread.

It's really quite sad that you and your ilk are so devoid of intellect
that you can't even have a go at defending yourselves properly.  I
mean, obviously the truth isn't on your side, as we all know, but
couldn't you be a bit clever, and attempt to use deception and guile
to at least make it *look* as though you're not anti-motorist?  Is
"Don't feed the trolls" and "I've killfiled you (and I've got a small
dick)" all you've got?  I mean really.

On Sep 25, 12:37 pm, Dead Paul <dead_p...@no.reply> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:06:48 퍝, Tom Crispin wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
> >  wrote:
>
> >>I will send £50 to the first regular pro-camera poster on here who:
>
> >>- admits to being anti-motorist;
> >>- admits that they are attracted to speed cameras solely or mostly
> >>because of their anti-motorist stance, and that is more important to them
> >>than whether or not speed cameras save lives; - promises to look properly
> >>at the facts and figures to find out whether speed cameras actually save
> >>lives, and if they don't, stop supporting them, in recognition of the
> >>fact that saving the lives of road users is infinitely important than
> >>silly, small-minded prejudices against people who use the "wrong" modes
> >>of transport; - admits that they think that the sick Chapman is
> >>anti-motorist, and that his whole road "safety" campaign is driven
> >>exclusively by that rather than any genuine wish to save lives.
>
> >>Easy money, if you'll only be honest for a minute.  Can any of the trolls
> >>stop lying for that amount of time, or is it beyond them, even for
> >>£3000/hour?  We shall see.
>
> > I admit to it all.
>
> > How are you going to get the cash to me?
>
> Now look what you made the loser say.

I know, he is rather.

On Sep 25, 6:55 pm, judith  wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:52:21 +0100, judith 
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:06:51 GMT, _
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:17:12 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar wrote:
>
> Did you see the latest figures from the DfT?
>
> Seriously Injured 2007 cf 2006
>
> All road users : down 13%
>
> Pedestrians:  down:  2%
>
> Pedal Cyclists:  up 6%
>
> Now what was that about cycling  being comparable to being a
> pedestrian?
>
> It looks like cycling is becoming even more dangerous.

Haven't you heard?  You're not allowed to come on here and post
statistics that the native trolls find unpalatable, however true they
might be.  If you do, you're a "troll".

What particularly irritates them is mentioning that road deaths
stopped falling, as they had been for decades, when speed cameras came
in.  At least two of the trolls here launched vicious, sustained,
psychopathic hate campaigns against someone who had the temerity to
say that in the national media.  They're really not keen on the truth
about cameras not saving lives being propagated, are they?  It's
almost as if they're desperate for cameras to stay for some reason,
and they couldn't give two hoots about whether they were saving lives
or not.  Now why would they be so desperate to keep cameras?  Hey,
maybe they're anti-motorist.  Just a hunch.  No other explanation
remotely stacks up, after all.  There's no other possible reason why
they would be SO passionately offensive towards those who simply point
out, correctly, that cameras aren't working.

Oops.  More unpalatable true facts.  Please don't threaten to blow up
my place of work, Spindrift.

In article ,
Tim Ward  wrote:
>"judith"  wrote in message 
>news:e2knd4dkpa8cc58qtfcgon5ceghbga9946@4ax.com...
>> It looks like cycling is becoming even more dangerous.
>
>Er ... is that up 6% per mile, or per journey, or per hour, or what? How is 
>it factored for whatever change there might have been in the number of 
>cyclists and the number and type  of journey they undertake?

judith is one of the trolls that infest uk.rec.cycling.  I wouldn't
bother responding.  In case it's of any use:

/,.*,.*,/HNewsgroups:j
/JNugent/f:,
/JeremyParker@compuserve\.com/f:j
/Nuxx Bar/f:,
/Steve Firth/f:j
/^Newsgroups:.*uk\.transport/h:j
/abelard/f:,
/edolan/f:,
/graz@gmail\.com/f:,
/judithsmith/f:,
/matt\.bourke/f:,
/no@wherel\.void/f:j
/null@null\.null/f:,
/nully@null/f:,
/pete\.aron@virgin\.net/f:,

(my uk.rec.cycling killfile, with the Subject-line entries removed)

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

On Sep 25, 12:23 am, dkahn400  wrote:
> On 24 Sep, 23:58, Nuxx Bar  wrote:
>
> > By the way, this is a time-limited offer.  It'll end sometime in the
> > next week.
>
> Don't worry, Nuxxy. No one seriously thought you had any intention of
> honouring your word.

Oh, so you're an advocate of people being honest now, are you?  In
which case, why have you lied so many times about not being anti-
motorist?  (Or would you have finally admitted it if you'd actually
thought I was going to "honour my word"?  Is that what you meant by
the above?)

Perhaps you don't realise just how ridiculously obvious it is that you
actually are anti-motorist.  If you did, you surely wouldn't get on
your high horse about "honesty".  Who knows, maybe you'd even TELL THE
FUCKING TRUTH.  Though how you can not think it's obvious, when you
support so many anti-motorist measures, is anyone's guess.  You must
think people are really thick if you genuinely believe that they can't
see through your pathetic lies.  But the only thickies are you and the
other trolls.

Actually though, I'm wondering whether the trolls on here are only
denying being anti-motorist to wind me up.  "Oh look, it's someone who
hasn't got it in for motorists.  Can't have that.  Let's all
hilariously say we're not anti-motorist, despite it being screamingly
obvious that we are.  That ought to piss him off."  Which, to be fair,
it has.  But there's nothing particularly clever or funny about it, it
just indicates that you know that you can't defend your anti-motorist
stance.

Still, David Damerell has broken ranks and admitted to being anti-
motorist (Crapman won't be happy about that), so let's see if he can
now defend his stance.  (Somehow, I can't see the "I'm not anti-
motorist" types telling him that he's wrong to be anti-motorist.
Funny that.  Almost as if they secretly think the same as him.)

"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
news:rdy*iEVns@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> In article ,
> Tim Ward  wrote:
>>"judith"  wrote in message
>>news:e2knd4dkpa8cc58qtfcgon5ceghbga9946@4ax.com...
>>> It looks like cycling is becoming even more dangerous.
>>
>>Er ... is that up 6% per mile, or per journey, or per hour, or what? How 
>>is
>>it factored for whatever change there might have been in the number of
>>cyclists and the number and type  of journey they undertake?
>
> judith is one of the trolls that infest uk.rec.cycling.  I wouldn't
> bother responding.

Oh, right, ta, didn't even notice the cross posting.

-- 
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:01:00 +0100, "Tim Ward" 
said in :

>Er ... is that up 6% per mile, or per journey, or per hour, or what? How is 
>it factored for whatever change there might have been in the number of 
>cyclists and the number and type  of journey they undertake?

In other news:

Trolling stats up 130% for judith, 70% for nully but down 25% for
nuxx bar.

These figures come from the prestigious International Journal of
Because I said So, the primary source of evidence used by the three
of them.

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

On Sep 25, 7:53 pm, Ian Jackson 
wrote:
> In article ,
>
> Tim Ward  wrote:
> >"judith"  wrote in message
> >news:e2knd4dkpa8cc58qtfcgon5ceghbga9946@4ax.com...
> >> It looks like cycling is becoming even more dangerous.
>
> >Er ... is that up 6% per mile, or per journey, or per hour, or what? How is
> >it factored for whatever change there might have been in the number of
> >cyclists and the number and type  of journey they undertake?
>
> judith is one of the trolls that infest uk.rec.cycling.  I wouldn't
> bother responding.  In case it's of any use:
>
> /,.*,.*,/HNewsgroups:j
> /JNugent/f:,
> /JeremyParker@compuserve\.com/f:j
> /Nuxx Bar/f:,
> /Steve Firth/f:j
> /^Newsgroups:.*uk\.transport/h:j
> /abelard/f:,
> /edolan/f:,
> /graz@gmail\.com/f:,
> /judithsmith/f:,
> /matt\.bourke/f:,
> /no@wherel\.void/f:j
> /null@null\.null/f:,
> /nully@null/f:,
> /pete\.aron@virgin\.net/f:,

Oh look!  That just happens to be every single person who sticks up
for motorists and/or opposes murder cameras!  What are the chances of
that, considering that you're not even slightlyanti-motorist?  (Oh,
hang on, you are, and so are your fuckwit troll-friends.)

Considering that I come on here to irritate the trolls with the truth,
and to put the cat among the pigeons by telling it how it is, and
considering that I don't attempt to sugar-coat my intense hatred of
the anti-motorist liars in any way, I can understand why so many of
them take exception to me, in the same way that criminal scumbags take
exception to the police.  But this labelling of the likes of JNugent
and MattB as "trolls" is absolute, 100% proof that the native trolls
here really do wish to censor anyone who has a different (i.e. non-
anti-motorist) stance to them.  What utter wankers (although I suppose
that when your whole stance is based on lies and deception, and you
even lie about having the stance itself, you're going to be pretty
keen to hide the truth from yourself as much as possible, as you don't
want to be reminded just what an unbelievable cunt you really are).

It's things like the above list which show that you all KNOW that
you're wrong about cameras etc, and you are malicious rather than
simply misguided.  Fucking bastards.  It just makes me all the more
determined to vent at you (whereas if you were genuinely just
misguided, I wouldn't bother).  Utter, utter bastards.  Whatever
turned you into such monsters?  Is your fight against motorists really
so important to you that you're prepared to so completely abandon
those principles which make someone a decent human being?  How the
hell did you become so twisted? What is it about being anti-motorist
in particular which turns people into such complete shits?  Is it just
the strain caused by maintaining such an illogical and spiteful
position?  It's a real puzzle, and it's also very, very sad.

> (my uk.rec.cycling killfile, with the Subject-line entries removed)

Wow, what a huge killfile you've got there (and what a small dick),
and how impressive you are for not only ignoring anyone who reminds
you of the inconvenient truth, but also boasting about it.  Prick.

On Sep 25, 7:53 pm, Ian Jackson 
wrote:
> In article ,
>
> Tim Ward  wrote:
> >"judith"  wrote in message
> >news:e2knd4dkpa8cc58qtfcgon5ceghbga9946@4ax.com...
> >> It looks like cycling is becoming even more dangerous.
>
> >Er ... is that up 6% per mile, or per journey, or per hour, or what? How is
> >it factored for whatever change there might have been in the number of
> >cyclists and the number and type  of journey they undertake?
>
> judith is one of the trolls that infest uk.rec.cycling.  I wouldn't
> bother responding.  In case it's of any use:
>
> /,.*,.*,/HNewsgroups:j
> /JNugent/f:,
> /JeremyParker@compuserve\.com/f:j
> /Nuxx Bar/f:,
> /Steve Firth/f:j
> /^Newsgroups:.*uk\.transport/h:j
> /abelard/f:,
> /edolan/f:,
> /graz@gmail\.com/f:,
> /judithsmith/f:,
> /matt\.bourke/f:,
> /no@wherel\.void/f:j
> /null@null\.null/f:,
> /nully@null/f:,
> /pete\.aron@virgin\.net/f:,

Oh look!  That just happens to be every single person who sticks up
for motorists and/or opposes murder cameras!  What are the chances of
that, considering that you're not even slightlyanti-motorist?  (Oh,
hang on, you are, and so are your fuckwit troll-friends.)

Considering that I come on here to irritate the trolls with the truth,
and to put the cat among the pigeons by telling it how it is, and
considering that I don't attempt to sugar-coat my intense hatred of
the anti-motorist liars in any way, I can understand why so many of
them take exception to me, in the same way that criminal scumbags take
exception to the police.  But this labelling of the likes of JNugent
and MattB as "trolls" is absolute, 100% proof that the native trolls
here really do wish to censor anyone who has a different (i.e. non-
anti-motorist) stance to them.  What utter wankers (although I suppose
that when your whole stance is based on lies and deception, and you
even lie about having the stance itself, you're going to be pretty
keen to hide the truth from yourself as much as possible, as you don't
want to be reminded just what an unbelievable cunt you really are).

It's things like the above list which show that you all KNOW that
you're wrong about cameras etc, and you are malicious rather than
simply misguided.  Fucking bastards.  It just makes me all the more
determined to vent at you (whereas if you were genuinely just
misguided, I wouldn't bother).  Utter, utter bastards.  Whatever
turned you into such monsters?  Is your fight against motorists really
so important to you that you're prepared to so completely abandon
those principles which make someone a decent human being?  How the
hell did you become so twisted? What is it about being anti-motorist
in particular which turns people into such complete shits?  Is it just
the strain caused by maintaining such an illogical and spiteful
position?  It's a real puzzle, and it's also very, very sad.

> (my uk.rec.cycling killfile, with the Subject-line entries removed)

Wow, what a huge killfile you've got there (and what a small dick),
and how impressive you are for not only ignoring anyone who reminds
you of the inconvenient truth, but also boasting about it.  Prick.

"Nuxx Bar"  wrote in message 
news:d3f89908-1b47-401e-a5e3-26a0eca05421@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

What a strange person.

*Plonk*

-- 
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

On Sep 25, 8:27 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:01:00 퍝, "Tim Ward" 
> said in :
>
> >Er ... is that up 6% per mile, or per journey, or per hour, or what? How is
> >it factored for whatever change there might have been in the number of
> >cyclists and the number and type  of journey they undertake?
>
> In other news:
>
> Trolling stats up 130% for judith, 70% for nully but down 25% for
> nuxx bar.
>
> These figures come from the prestigious International Journal of
> Because I said So, the primary source of evidence used by the three
> of them.

What actually caused you to become such a bitter and twisted shitbag?
What caused you to develop such a prejudice against four-wheeled
travellers?  What turned you into such a compulsive liar?  Or have you
always been like that?

You want thousands of road users to die, just so that you can keep
your beloved motorist-persecuting devices.  I just want one road user
to die: YOU.  Completely seriously, I've never even remotely wanted
anyone to die before, but hand on heart, I'd be ecstatic if you did.
And unlike your spiteful campaign against motorists, your death really
would benefit humanity, hugely.

In message <rdy*iEVns@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 19:53:21 on Thu, 
25 Sep 2008, Ian Jackson  remarked:
>/,.*,.*,/HNewsgroups:j
>/JNugent/f:,
>/JeremyParker@compuserve\.com/f:j
>/Nuxx Bar/f:,
>/Steve Firth/f:j
>/^Newsgroups:.*uk\.transport/h:j
>/abelard/f:,
>/edolan/f:,
>/graz@gmail\.com/f:,
>/judithsmith/f:,
>/matt\.bourke/f:,
>/no@wherel\.void/f:j
>/null@null\.null/f:,
>/nully@null/f:,
>/pete\.aron@virgin\.net/f:,

Wot - I'm not in there??
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 19:01:00 on Thu, 25 
Sep 2008, Tim Ward  remarked:
>> Seriously Injured 2007 cf 2006
>>
>> Pedal Cyclists:  up 6%
>>
>> It looks like cycling is becoming even more dangerous.
>
>Er ... is that up 6% per mile, or per journey, or per hour, or what?

Could easily be combined with a more than 6% increase in cycling, 
therefore a reduced *rate* of injury.
-- 
Roland Perry

On 25 Sep 2008 19:53:21 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In article ,
>Tim Ward  wrote:
>>"judith"  wrote in message 
>>news:e2knd4dkpa8cc58qtfcgon5ceghbga9946@4ax.com...
>>> It looks like cycling is becoming even more dangerous.
>>
>>Er ... is that up 6% per mile, or per journey, or per hour, or what? How is 
>>it factored for whatever change there might have been in the number of 
>>cyclists and the number and type  of journey they undertake?
>
>judith is one of the trolls that infest uk.rec.cycling.  I wouldn't
>bother responding.  In case it's of any use:


The nasty, nasty troll - coming in here and telling us things we don't
want to hear;  I know, lets close our ears and pretend that they
haven't happened.

Many thanks - why not just ask people to ignore those posts which
contain facts you cannot stomach?

Cycling can be dangerous - why dispute it?

 
--   

If you're going to make snide insinuations about the author,
as you undoubtedly did, then you can fuck right off. (Guy Chapman)
If you are going to make accusations about someone, then you need to
be able to substantiate when asked to. (Judith Smith)

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:27:20 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:01:00 +0100, "Tim Ward" 
>said in :
>
>>Er ... is that up 6% per mile, or per journey, or per hour, or what? How is 
>>it factored for whatever change there might have been in the number of 
>>cyclists and the number and type  of journey they undertake?
>
>In other news:
>
>Trolling stats up 130% for judith, 70% for nully but down 25% for
>nuxx bar.


Hello Chapman - still got nothing to contribute I see.

Any comment on the latest DfT stats? 




--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

In cam.transport Roland Perry  wrote:
> In message <rdy*iEVns@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 19:53:21 on Thu, 
> 25 Sep 2008, Ian Jackson  remarked:
> >/,.*,.*,/HNewsgroups:j
...

> Wot - I'm not in there??

"Must try harder"

-- 
Robin Stevens   
---- http://www.cynic.org.uk/ ----

On 25 Sep, 19:53, Ian Jackson  wrote:

> /JeremyParker@compuserve\.com/f:j

Strange. Are you perhaps confusing Jeremy Parker with the obnoxious
"Sir Jeremy"? The Jeremy Parker I know is not a troll by any means.

--
Dave...

On 25 Sep, 19:56, Nuxx Bar  wrote:
> On Sep 25, 12:23 am, dkahn400  wrote:
>
> > On 24 Sep, 23:58, Nuxx Bar  wrote:
>
> > > By the way, this is a time-limited offer.  It'll end sometime in the
> > > next week.
>
> > Don't worry, Nuxxy. No one seriously thought you had any intention of
> > honouring your word.
>
> Oh, so you're an advocate of people being honest now, are you?

Of course everyone knew your offer wasn't honest, but thanks for
admitting it.

--
Dave...

Nuxx Bar wrote:

8<...

                                _____________________
                    /|  /| |   |                     |
                    ||__|| |   |  Please don't feed  |
                   /   O O\__  |   the trolls...     |
                  /          \ |         thank you.  |
                 /      \     \|_____________________|
                /   _    \     \      ||
               /    |\____\     \     ||
              /     | | | |\____/     ||
             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
            /  /  \            |____| ||
           /   |   |           |      --|
           |   |   |           |____  --|
    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
   /  _     \\        |        /      `
*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
   *      ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________



-- 
My hearts numbered beat            |       Greetings from Birmingham, UK
Still echoes in this empty room    |All about me: www.nervouscyclist.org
Fear wells in me, but nothing seems|      Is your ISP pimping your data?
Enough to defend      Dave Matthews|                  www.badphorm.co.uk

On Sep 25, 10:08 pm, judith  wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2008 19:53:21 퍝 (BST), Ian Jackson
>
>  wrote:
> >In article ,
> >Tim Ward  wrote:
> >>"judith"  wrote in message
> >>news:e2knd4dkpa8cc58qtfcgon5ceghbga9946@4ax.com...
> >>> It looks like cycling is becoming even more dangerous.
>
> >>Er ... is that up 6% per mile, or per journey, or per hour, or what? How is
> >>it factored for whatever change there might have been in the number of
> >>cyclists and the number and type  of journey they undertake?
>
> >judith is one of the trolls that infest uk.rec.cycling.  I wouldn't
> >bother responding.  In case it's of any use:
>
> The nasty, nasty troll - coming in here and telling us things we don't
> want to hear;  I know, lets close our ears and pretend that they
> haven't happened.

Nail/head.

> Many thanks - why not just ask people to ignore those posts which
> contain facts you cannot stomach?
>
> Cycling can be dangerous - why dispute it?

Why be anti-motorist, and why compulsively lie about it?  There can be
no logical answer.  There's no point in trying to make sense out of
the (actual) trolls here and their utterly whacked way of looking at
the world.  It's much better just to goad them instead (although I
suppose it's a bit unfair, in the same way that taking the piss out of
handicapped people is).

On Sep 25, 10:53 pm, dkahn400  wrote:
> On 25 Sep, 19:53, Ian Jackson  wrote:
>
> > /JeremyParker@compuserve\.com/f:j
>
> Strange. Are you perhaps confusing Jeremy Parker with the obnoxious
> "Sir Jeremy"? The Jeremy Parker I know is not a troll by any means.

Strange.  Are you perhaps confusing "obnoxious" with "not anti-
motorist", or "someone who dares to reveal awkward true facts"?  Why
are you lot so obsessed with shooting the messenger, rather than
looking close to home and asking yourselves why you have such a
problem with the truth?

Oh, I get it now.  When you say someone's a troll, it means that
they're not, and vice versa.  Suddenly it all makes sense (well, about
as much as anything ever does with the anti-motorist fiends).

On Sep 25, 10:13 pm, judith  wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:27:20 퍝, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>
>  wrote:
> >On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:01:00 퍝, "Tim Ward" 
> >said in :
>
> >>Er ... is that up 6% per mile, or per journey, or per hour, or what? How is
> >>it factored for whatever change there might have been in the number of
> >>cyclists and the number and type  of journey they undertake?
>
> >In other news:
>
> >Trolling stats up 130% for judith, 70% for nully but down 25% for
> >nuxx bar.
>
> Hello Chapman - still got nothing to contribute I see.

Nothing of worth at any rate.  If he truly contributed nothing to the
world then we'd all be much better off.  We can all do without those
who want road users to die, I would think.

> Any comment on the latest DfT stats?

You ask him a straight question as if you're expecting a straight
answer.  But I'm sure you know as well as I do that you'll never get
one.  (After all, we're talking about the arsewipe who refused to say
which would bother him more out of a cyclist being decapitated and a
motorcyclist being decapitated.  Not that anyone's in any doubt about
what answer he would have given had he had a super-rare honest
moment.)

> I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
> Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
> He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
> of last amendment

Crapman being a deceptive, evasive twat?  Surely shome mishtake.

On Sep 25, 9:13 pm, Roland Perry  wrote:
> In message , at 19:01:00 on Thu, 25
> Sep 2008, Tim Ward  remarked:
>
> >> Seriously Injured 2007 cf 2006
>
> >> Pedal Cyclists:  up 6%
>
> >> It looks like cycling is becoming even more dangerous.
>
> >Er ... is that up 6% per mile, or per journey, or per hour, or what?
>
> Could easily be combined with a more than 6% increase in cycling,
> therefore a reduced *rate* of injury.
> --
> Roland Perry

When I see your name, I think of Roland Rat.  I bet I'm not the only
one either.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:23:48 +0100, "Tim Ward" 
wrote:

>"Ian Jackson"  wrote in message 
>news:rdy*iEVns@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> In article ,
>> Tim Ward  wrote:
>>>"judith"  wrote in message
>>>news:e2knd4dkpa8cc58qtfcgon5ceghbga9946@4ax.com...
>>>> It looks like cycling is becoming even more dangerous.
>>>
>>>Er ... is that up 6% per mile, or per journey, or per hour, or what? How 
>>>is
>>>it factored for whatever change there might have been in the number of
>>>cyclists and the number and type  of journey they undertake?
>>
>> judith is one of the trolls that infest uk.rec.cycling.  I wouldn't
>> bother responding.
>
>Oh, right, ta, didn't even notice the cross posting.


That's right Tim - maintain a balanced view - well done - don't engage
in a debate just ignore "the troll" as they may be saying things we
don't like to hear.

On 25 Sep 2008 19:53:21 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In article ,
>Tim Ward  wrote:
>>"judith"  wrote in message 
>>news:e2knd4dkpa8cc58qtfcgon5ceghbga9946@4ax.com...
>>> It looks like cycling is becoming even more dangerous.
>>
>>Er ... is that up 6% per mile, or per journey, or per hour, or what? How is 
>>it factored for whatever change there might have been in the number of 
>>cyclists and the number and type  of journey they undertake?
>
>judith is one of the trolls that infest uk.rec.cycling.  I wouldn't
>bother responding.  In case it's of any use:
>
>/,.*,.*,/HNewsgroups:j
>/JNugent/f:,
>/JeremyParker@compuserve\.com/f:j
>/Nuxx Bar/f:,
>/Steve Firth/f:j
>/^Newsgroups:.*uk\.transport/h:j
>/abelard/f:,
>/edolan/f:,
>/graz@gmail\.com/f:,
>/judithsmith/f:,
>/matt\.bourke/f:,
>/no@wherel\.void/f:j
>/null@null\.null/f:,
>/nully@null/f:,
>/pete\.aron@virgin\.net/f:,
>
>(my uk.rec.cycling killfile, with the Subject-line entries removed)


Which just shows how silly you are as well Jackson - not everyone uses
the same system as you - I suspect that your "commands" mean sweet FA
to most people here.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:46:50 GMT, Tim Dunne
 wrote:

>Nuxx Bar wrote:
>
>8<...
>
>                                _____________________
>                    /|  /| |   |                     |
>                    ||__|| |   |  Please don't feed  |
>                   /   O O\__  |   the trolls...     |
>                  /          \ |         thank you.  |
>                 /      \     \|_____________________|
>                /   _    \     \      ||
>               /    |\____\     \     ||
>              /     | | | |\____/     ||
>             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
>            /  /  \            |____| ||
>           /   |   |           |      --|
>           |   |   |           |____  --|
>    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
>*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
>   /  _     \\        |        /      `
>*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
>   *      ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

Hello again Tim
How we laughed at that one - (or were we laughing at you???)




--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 23:48:32 GMT, Tim Dunne
 wrote:

>Nuxx Bar wrote:
>
>8<...
>
>                                _____________________
>                    /|  /| |   |                     |
>                    ||__|| |   |  Please don't feed  |
>                   /   O O\__  |   the trolls...     |
>                  /          \ |         thank you.  |
>                 /      \     \|_____________________|
>                /   _    \     \      ||
>               /    |\____\     \     ||
>              /     | | | |\____/     ||
>             /       \|_|_|/   |     _||
>            /  /  \            |____| ||
>           /   |   |           |      --|
>           |   |   |           |____  --|
>    * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/
>*-- _--\ _ \                  |      ||
>   /  _     \\        |        /      `
>*  /   \_ /- |       |       |
>   *      ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________


Good one Tim - have you got any more like this?

You really do give us all a laugh.




--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their  heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

In article ,
dkahn400   wrote:
>On 25 Sep, 19:53, Ian Jackson  wrote:
>> /JeremyParker@compuserve\.com/f:j
>
>Strange. Are you perhaps confusing Jeremy Parker with the obnoxious
>"Sir Jeremy"? The Jeremy Parker I know is not a troll by any means.

It could be a mistake on my part, though I normally copy the address
from the From: line of the posting.  I'll try taking it out for a bit.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

On 26 Sep, 02:51, Nuxx Bar  wrote:

> Strange.  Are you perhaps confusing "obnoxious" with "not anti-
> motorist", or "someone who dares to reveal awkward true facts"?  

No.

--
Dave...

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 03:57:31 -0700 (PDT), dkahn400
 said in
:

>> Strange.  Are you perhaps confusing "obnoxious" with "not anti-
>> motorist", or "someone who dares to reveal awkward true facts"?  

>No.

But you /are/ confusing "nuxxious" with "worth reading or replying
to" :-)

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

On 26 Sep, 19:21, "Just zis Guy, you know?" 
wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 03:57:31 -0700 (PDT), dkahn400
>  said in
> :
>
> >> Strange.  Are you perhaps confusing "obnoxious" with "not anti-
> >> motorist", or "someone who dares to reveal awkward true facts"?  
> >No.
>
> But you /are/ confusing "nuxxious" with "worth reading or replying
> to" :-)

Veritatem dicis. Dolo ostenso desistam.

--
Dave...

"Tim Ward"  wrote:
> "judith"  wrote in message 
> news:e2knd4dkpa8cc58qtfcgon5ceghbga9946@4ax.com...
> > Did you see the latest figures from the DfT?
> > Seriously Injured 2007 cf 2006
> > Pedal Cyclists:  up 6% [...]
> 
> Er ... is that up 6% per mile, or per journey, or per hour, or what? How is 
> it factored for whatever change there might have been in the number of 
> cyclists and the number and type  of journey they undertake?

Source link (published months ago and they're not the latest figures) is
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesmr/rcgbmainresults2007
which also mentions the fall in cyclist deaths last year and is near
the full data which shows a 33% reduction on a decade ago, against a
background of increasing cycling...

Hope that helps,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237

On 25 Sep, 19:42, Nuxx Bar  wrote:

>
> What particularly irritates them is mentioning that road deaths
> stopped falling, as they had been for decades, when speed cameras came
> in.

Sorry, don't understand.  In the latest DfT report (http://
www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/227755/rcgb2007.pdf  table
1i page 18), the KSI figures for car users are
1994-98   6 per 100 million vehicle kilometres
2005       4        "
2006       4        "
2007       3        "

Numbers killed are:
1994-98   1762
2005       1675
2006       1612
2007       1432

Seriously injured are:
1994-98   21,492
2005       12,942
2006       12,642
2007       11,535

All factors showing steady decreases.

Overall traffic since 98 has increased 10%.

So I struggle to find evidence  from these that the " road deaths
stopped falling, as they had been for decades, when speed cameras came
in.  "

Peter.

In article ,
al Mossah   wrote:
>On 25 Sep, 19:42, Nuxx Bar  wrote:
>> [ some drivel ]
>
>Sorry, don't understand.

Nuxx Bar is a longstanding troll in uk.rec.cycling.  Please just
killfile him or at least avoid the temptation to reply.

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

al Mossah wrote:
> On 25 Sep, 19:42, Nuxx Bar  wrote:
> 
>> What particularly irritates them is mentioning that road deaths
>> stopped falling, as they had been for decades, when speed cameras came
>> in.
> 
> Sorry, don't understand.

<snipped irrelevant figures for killed /and/ seriously injured - car 
users only>

> All factors showing steady decreases.

in 1989 there were 5373 road users killed.  By 1998 (before widespread 
use of cameras) that number had dropped to 3421.  During the main 
"camera years" (1998 - 2003) that number had risen again to 3508.  In 
the last few years, with cameras losing favour again (partnerships are 
no longer allowed to keep the profits) the drop has started again, by 
2006 it was down to 3172 and in 2007 it dropped to 2946.

> So I struggle to find evidence  from these that the " road deaths
> stopped falling, as they had been for decades, when speed cameras came
> in.  "

Look again at the trend from the mid 1960s until the mid 1990s, the 
graph shows a dramatic drop, then compare it with the trend for the 
camera years, the graph levels out.

-- 
Matt B

On 28 Sep 2008 22:37:46 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
 wrote:

>In article ,
>al Mossah   wrote:
>>On 25 Sep, 19:42, Nuxx Bar  wrote:
>>> [ some drivel ]
>>
>>Sorry, don't understand.
>
>Nuxx Bar is a longstanding troll in uk.rec.cycling.  Please just
>killfile him or at least avoid the temptation to reply.


Yes - whatever you do, do not get involved in a sensible discussion
with any of the "trolls" who regularly visit these groups.

You can easily identify them as they will post some very pertinent
facts - usually with references to sources.  The fact that they do not
agree with the regulars who post here does indeed, show that they are
trolls.

It is much easier to pretend that this is the case, than get in to  a
sensible discussion which you will most likely  lose.