Hi Keith
I'm not proposing to publish the following:
Ah but who says 1700 is big enough or too big? Well of course the insatiable road safety industry, especially PACTs will never be satisfied with road drivers, and try to compare air travel with road figures. Daft enough anyway, but they don't include road accidents which are solely for and part of an air journey for example. Why not? But if we get it wrong, then we kill more people indirectly from the massive road safety costs and profiteering as well as the over-slowing of major infrastructure. That is why the tunnel visioned road safety industry and anti driver ideologists mustn't have all the say.
Because in my view it's more of a rant than a considered post and as such not in keeping with the tone of debate on our newsfeed.
Best regards
Nick
Note: My comments, in a public forum discussion in red, were in the context of the PACTs statement on casualty figures and in response to posts by the road safety amateur Rod King of the anti driver 'charity' 20's Plenty and it was withheld. In the emaiis I invited RSGB to alter my statements to their satisfaction and they replied: 'in their present form there is almost nothing I would be prepared to publish'
The significance is twofold 1) Nick Rawlings is running RSGB on a day to day basis. 2) They are not prepared to allow honest expert no vested interest or ideological agenda road safety fair comment on their site.
To date, they have still failed to say that they oppose vested interest amateur road safety and the prosecution, for profit, of perfectly safe drivers. That Rod King, BRAKE, Road Peace and PACTS et al do not oppose or lobby against them either is not coincidental and that RSGB is run by non experts too, seems to have been established.