www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42182497
Interesting stats here, some might be surprised that speed is a factor in less that 25% of fatal accidents.
The article states that speed cameras are a factor in reducing accidents. I would dispute that as I have read elsewhere that there were more active in the early 2000's than in the period since 2010 during which fatalities have reduced massively.
Of course strategically placed speed cameras can deter speeding in the vicinity of schools etc which is a good thing, though the vast majority are simply revenue raising devices.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents comment regarding speed cameras is concerning, they say they are a "very effective way of persuading drivers not to speed, and thereby reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured". Why can people not understand - it is hitting something that kills and injures so the focus needs to be on accident avoidance. Much better for all to have traffic flowing safely at 60mph than snarled up at 30.
I am surprised that the growth in road travel from 1952 to 2016 is not greater than the 180 v 712 billion KM.
|
>> Why can people not understand -
>> it is hitting something that kills and injures so the focus needs to be on
>> accident avoidance. Much better for all to have traffic flowing safely at 60mph than snarled
>> up at 30.
Whilst (up to a point) speed doesn't matter if nobody gets hurt, your problem with that line of argument is the almost universally accepted link between speed and hitting things.
You could argue that speed isn't causal but I don't think you'd get very far. So a focus on accident reduction becomes a focus on speed.
I don't know how the 25% figure is recorded. It is for fatal accidents, not all accidents. Is it just breaches of speed limits, rather than inappropriate speed?
On a common sense and personal experience level, reducing speed does allow more time to think and react, reducing workload and stress levels, and seems very likely to reduce collisions.
You can argue about the proportionality of low speed limits, but arguing that speed is good from a safety perspective isn't going to work.
|
>> Whilst (up to a point) speed doesn't matter if nobody gets hurt, your problem with
>> that line of argument is the almost universally accepted link between speed and hitting things. >>
I really don't think the link is intrinsic.
>>
>> You could argue that speed isn't causal but I don't think you'd get very far. So a focus on accident reduction becomes a focus on speed.
>>
The point is that speed may be causal within a set of circumstances, though change those circumstance (say introduce a no-right-turn or put up a barrier between carriageways on a bend) then the road becomes safer without congestion increasing and journey times lengthening due to the imposition of a lower speed.
>>
>> You can argue about the proportionality of low speed limits, but arguing that speed is
>> good from a safety perspective isn't going to work.
>>
I am not saying going ever faster is safer Manatee, I really cannot see how you deduced that from my post. Though it's clear that with the right focus our already safe roads could be a lot safer still without any further reduction in speed limits or increases in speed enforcement.
|
|
Sorry, perhaps should have said arguing that "speed is neutral"...
|
|
A lot of road capacity has been removed by the policy which has seen the introduction of bus lanes, removing lanes for parking, traffic calming, and simply "painting out" lanes.
|
|
Good point ON as the article says that travel by bus and coach accounts for just 4% of total distance travelled in 2016.
|
>>Painting out lanes.
On a bit of dual carriageway near me they reduced 2 lanes to one and did it be adding almost invisible steel poles half way across lane 2.
They are on gimbals but you wouldn't want to hit them at speed - it would be like running in to a few dozen truncheons at speed.
|
I continue to be amazed that I have to do annual top-up safety training at work, but can pass my driving test at 17 and never have to do a day's driving training again in my life.
The biggest cause of collisions is generally lack of observation. Sure speed has an effect (taken to its extreme, if everyone travelled at close to zero, there would be no fatalities).
I'd rather we did more training, and less focus on speed.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42182497
>>
>> Interesting stats here, some might be surprised that speed is a factor in less that
>> 25% of fatal accidents.
So 24.9% of all road fatalities are caused by excessive speed
>> The article states that speed cameras are a factor in reducing accidents. I would dispute
>> that as I have read elsewhere that there were more active in the early 2000's
>> than in the period since 2010 during which fatalities have reduced massively.
Wrong
2016 1,792
2015 1,732
2014 1,775
2013 1,713 .
2012 1,754
2011 1,901
2010 1,857
Dont see any massive decreases there.
>> it is hitting something that kills and injures so the focus needs to be on
>> accident avoidance. Much better for all to have traffic flowing safely at 60mph than snarled
>> up at 30.
There are fewer serious accidents in 30 mph traffic.
|
>>Wrong>>
As I think is obvious from the article I meant 2006 Z, so the point still stands. To repeat there were more active cameras in the early 2000's than in the period since 2006 during which fatalities have reduced massively.
>>There are fewer serious accidents in 30 mph traffic.>>
The point I am making is it's better to be able to travel safely at 60 than safely at 30 and it's quite possible to achieve. You need to think outside the square, on the average road 30mph might be safer today so what needs to be done to make it as safe at 60mph.
|
>> The point I am making is it's better to be able to travel safely at
>> 60 than safely at 30 and it's quite possible to achieve. You need to think
>> outside the square, on the average road 30mph might be safer today so what needs
>> to be done to make it as safe at 60mph.
Given that collisions are going to be much more serious in terms of injuries at 60 than 30, you are very close to arguing that you can have fewer accidents at a higher speed.
That is pretty much what happens with motorways vs. non-motorways, not really a new concept.
And I'm not certain that the average motorway rates can be applied to urban motorways with their frequent on and off slips and typical need for frequent lane changing.
Anyway it is fairly obvious that humans are basically poor at driving, especially at (to coin a phrase) speeds higher than that of a sabre toothed tiger or whatever we were evolved to deal with - the way forward with your idea from an efficiency point of view is probably public transport of one kind or another - possibly small personal units, but all networked, capable of running nose to tail at relatively high speed without hitting each other, taking the passengers to their destination and then going off for the next one.
|
|
Yes motorways are an example proving the point that roads can be made safer and faster as they are statistically the safest roads in the UK. Of course we cannot have a motorway down every high street though there is much that can be done without imposing ever lower speed limits.
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Sat 23 Dec 17 at 11:32
|
>> Yes motorways are an example proving the point that roads can be made safer and
>> faster as they are statistically the safest roads in the UK.
They are safer because the cars are separated and all going the same way, rarely trying to cross one another paths. No cyclists, no stopping buses, no pedestrians. It has nothing to do with the speed of them.
|
>> >>Wrong>>
>>
>> As I think is obvious from the article I meant 2006 Z, so the point
>> still stands. To repeat there were more active cameras in the early 2000's than in
>> the period since 2006 during which fatalities have reduced massively.
I note you try to use the term "active" to disguise the fact that there are in fact MORE speed cameras now than the early 2000's.
I think you need to check out the effects on A: speed and B: casualties since the introduction of SPECS. Start with the A9.
|
|
I said "active" because in the early to mid '00s many councils announced that they were turning cameras off, removing them and/or reducing funding for camera partnerships - yet fatalities reduced massivley post 2006.
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Sat 23 Dec 17 at 11:37
|
>> I said "active" because in the early to mid '00s many councils announced that they
>> were turning cameras off, removing them and/or reducing funding for camera partnerships - yet fatalities
>> reduced massivley post 2006.
You said "active" because its the only way you can make your argument work. It actually means nothing, because users still don't know which ones are active or not, and certainly councils were not claiming to have turned them off in 2006. So you are trying to bend history as well.
Now go look at the A9 statistics like I suggested
|
No Z, I said active because many councils did say they were turning them off in that period despite which fatalities almost halved.
And it's also try to say that fatalities dropped massively in the late 80's BEFORE speed cameras were introduced and were fairly level for ten years after the introduction of speed cameras.
|
>> No Z, I said active because many councils did say they were turning them off
>> in that period despite which fatalities almost halved.
In the early 2ks? no they didn't.
And you STILL haven't answered the A9 question.
|
|
Oh and try this question. Do you "ignore" speed cameras? i.e. speed past them?
|
>> Oh and try this question. Do you "ignore" speed cameras? i.e. speed past them?
>>
No of course not, what are you trying to say? That because I don't ignore them it shows that the work? r*******!
Most speed cameras are just a snapshot in time, as I have said before the totally legal, sober, responsible etc drivers get penalised for doing 34 in a 30 on a clear bright day with no traffic around when the drunken, drugged up scrote with a phone in hand, no insurance and bald tyres etc could have been doing 60 before the camera and 60 straight afterwards, also no one gets nicked for doing 30 in the snow, ice or fog along the same stretch of road which is much more dangerous that 34 in the dry and clear.
OK, average speed cameras tackle some of the above points though are an example of dumbing down, suggesting that it's OK to do, say, 50 everywhere when one day 60 is quite safe and another day 30 might be irresponsible.
Also of the causes of fatalities given in the BBC link speed cameras only tackle one of them yet have been the main "road safety" focus for 20 + years, why? Because they raise revenue.
|
|
Why oh why is the word for "a small croquette, enclosed in pastry or rolled in breadcrumbs, usually baked or deep fried, filled with savory ingredients, most often minced meat or fish, and is served as an entrée, main course, or side dish" not allowed by the swear filter?????
|
Because some people try and use it as a swear word (or an insult) rather than its true meaning. Sad really when some people do this to try and get their point across.
Quite why you wanted to use its innocent meaning in your post is anyone’s guess!
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 28 Dec 17 at 13:54
|
>> Because some people try and use it as a swear word (or an insult) rather
>> than its true meaning. Sad really when some people do this to try and get
>> their point across.
>>
>> Quite why you wanted to use its innocent meaning in your post is anyone’s guess!
>>
Hmm, It doesn't have a non-innocent meaning and is not a swear word so one can't try and use it as one. It might sound a little like a swear word though that makes it no more of a swear word than "duck" or "farce".
It's simply like saying "rubbish" or "tosh" so why is it sad?
|
>> It's simply like saying "rubbish" or "tosh" so why is it sad?
Then why not use those words instead of using rhyming slang? Bottom line, it was clearly your intention to try and swear, but bypass the filter in doing so. And not for the 1st time IIRC. That is why it is so sad that you have to try and get around the filter because you are unable to put fingers to keyboard without swearing.
|
I thought we were all fully consenting adults here.
We live in a world where, whether we like it or not, you can't walk down the street, watch TV or even attend a business meeting without hearing people swearing so why do we need 'protecting' from it here?
We all have the ability to scroll on by if we don't like it.
I absolutely agree there is a need for a swear filter but at most there needs to be 10 words or less on it and when it starts to ban words that aren't actually swearing, but trying to anticipate a posters intentions, then IMHO that becomes patronising.
Isn't it time we started living in the real world at car4play instead of some victorian parallel universe where we hold our hands up in horror if someone even thinks naughty thoughts?
While I'm at it, if you want to censor a word deemed to be getting round the swear filter but not actually swearing how come Bigger Badder Dave never gets censored? Because that's exactly the context of most of his posts....tosay in a roundabout way something he can't say directly.
For what it's worth, as a seasoned female lorry driver I find most of his posts sleazy and offensive, but I just ignore him.
I just fail to see why one is allowed but the other isn't.
Pat
|
Whilst I am a moderator here, the swear filter stays as it is. If you don't like it - tough. It's not open for discussion as we just go round and round in circles time and time again.
We have a couple of buttons, should anyone find a post offensive or sleazy. No one has complained about BBD's posts before via those buttons so therefore we take it for granted what he posts is ok.
Everyone's a critic. If anyone wants to change the forum, then I suggest you drop S. K. an email with your ideas, or even apply to be a moderator.
|
>> Whilst I am a moderator here, the swear filter stays as it is. If you
>> don't like it - tough. It's not open for discussion<<
That's a really good attitude to have on a discussion forum.
Of course it has to stay, that isn't in question, it's the level it's set at and your interpretation of swearing that is in question.
I think both are far too strict and restrictive.
>> We have a couple of buttons, should anyone find a post offensive or sleazy. No
>> one has complained about BBD's posts before via those buttons so therefore we take it
>> for granted what he posts is ok.<<
Why would I use the buttons when I can easily do what I've done when meeting thos kind of people...ignore them?
I asked why as a moderator, or moderators, none of you find it unacceptable when rhyming slang is a big no, no?
It's double standards and you know it, and allow it.
>> Everyone's a critic. If anyone wants to change the forum, then I suggest you drop
>> S. K. an email with your ideas, or even apply to be a moderator.<<
Is it now forbidden to make a suggestion about the forum to a Mod? Or even float the idea in a post to see how others feel about it? Why assume it's always a critical comment and not meant in a way to improve the forum and it's footfall?
Pat
|
Missed the edit, but surely the answer is to use the buttons you rely upon so much to see if anyone is offended by a post?
Remove all the spurious words from the swear filter for a week, leaving just the ones we all agree should be there, and we can all use the buttons if we disapprove of any other words used.
We can all see if there are any objections or likes so it is open and above board.
That would be a very fair and progressive way of getting an answer to whether it is too strict or not.
....and would make you a very popular Mod if you were prepared to give it a go and act upon the results.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Fri 29 Dec 17 at 03:30
|
It stays as it is. End of.
I am not here to be popular.
If you want to influence How the site is moderated, then perhaps apply to be one.
|
No thanks, I couldn't work with your attitude I'm afraid.
Pat
|
>> It stays as it is. End of.
>>
>> I am not here to be popular.
Its nice to have achieved ones life dream.
|
This subject is about British roads and ends up mouth fighting over swearing.
I swear to much without thinking which is wrong Diana is always having a go at me and she is right.>:)
|
> I asked why as a moderator, or moderators, none of you find it unacceptable when
>> rhyming slang is a big no, no?
>>
>> It's double standards and you know it, and allow it.
It does seem odd, but vxfan is right it's common on other forums. One form hinting is banned another perfectly fine. Perhaps it's a British peculiarity.
|
I'm not happy with that. You're unnecessarily patronising and you're effectively calling me a liar Dave.
Not at all happy.
Clearly some words should be forbidden though the swear filter on here is frankly ridiculous.
|
>> You're unnecessarily patronising and you're effectively calling me a liar Dave.
When I get some time I'll dig out a few previous posts of yours if you like?
>> Clearly some words should be forbidden though the swear filter on here is frankly ridiculous.
If people didn't abuse it by making up words, or using rhyming slang to get around the filter, then we wouldn't need to add other words. Whilst they continue to do so, then those words remain in the filter. And any new ones added when necessary.
The filter here is no more ridiculous than it is on most other forums, btw.
|
>>If people didn't abuse it by making up words, or using rhyming slang to get around the filter, then we wouldn't need to add other words. Whilst they continue to do so,<<
Like you, if I had the time I could dig out posts when the mods themselves have done this on a number of occasions
I have to ask....as a Mod, does a Mod Mod another Mod?
Pat
|
|
Both Pat and myself worked in robust areas where swearing was a way of life. That does not mean that it should be the norm here. I think the nearest I have come to upsetting the filter is "crap" although no doubt you will all be searching the forum to prove different. I was once in a ski lift with a young oik who was swearing profusely to his female companion. I whispered into his ear " Swear in front of my wife again and you get a ski pole up your nose". That is an effective swear filter, we don't need foul mounted oiks here.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 29 Dec 17 at 07:59
|
To be honest, I don't really care what "level" the swear filter is set at. From my point of view, anywhere from full nanny to not at all, would be fine and I'm happy to accept it at any point in between.
What does puzzle me is the blatant hypocrisy which censures a mild sweary, but allows the very person who does so to post unnecessary vitriol including statements that they "hate" and "loath" other sections of the road using community on an apparently universal basis.
I attempted to discuss this anomaly once before but it seems that here is a place where we don't swear to avoid offence, but it is acceptable to express random "hatred" and "loathing" of groups of human beings due to their chosen method of getting about.
Funny old world really and just my observation, not a plea for change, in truth it is up to those who post to examine their own words and decide if they are appropriate before posting them.
|
>> To be honest, I don't really care what "level" the swear filter is set at.
>> From my point of view, anywhere from full nanny to not at all, would be
>> fine and I'm happy to accept it at any point in between.
...I agree (and there are more important matters in the world..... in fact, most other matters...)
>> What does puzzle me is the blatant hypocrisy which censures a mild sweary, but allows
>> the very person who does so to post unnecessary vitriol including statements that they
>>"hate" and "loath" other sections of the road using community on an apparently universal
>>basis.
...the difference between automated and manual intervention.........and I wouldn't pick the moderator(s) as prime target for blame in either case...
(I think a few people must have been wound up by having a Tesco's turkey for Christmas ;-) ).
|
I had a beautiful rare rib of beef!
But don't forget the difference between automated and manual intervention is not relevant because the swear filter is set by what a person programmes it to include.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Fri 29 Dec 17 at 10:58
|
...it is entirely relevant.
If some posters' 'attitude' could be detected by a pre-set filter, then I suspect quite a few more of their posts might not make the forum.
;-)
|
Our society codes of conduct are sometimes at least puzzling. For example, we have some sort of agreement I believe, to limit or even completely avoid, showing serious swearing or nakedness or whatever on TV before 9.00 pm to spare children from seeing or hearing it. And I'm more or less totally in favour of that by the way. But we don't seem at all worried about them seeing visual representations of people being murdered in the plethora of detective series and war films etc that inhabit our airwaves.
I'm not particularly bothered about it you know, just slightly intrigued to better understand why certain relatively mild things offend some people when some really quite horrific things don't.
Anyway, this isn't much to do with roads is it?
;-)
|
>> ...it is entirely relevant. .......
You are entirely correct sir.
The whole point about automations too is that having decided some words are offensive the software does the rest for you and things don’t need to get personal.
It is NOT Dave’s fault the original word got censored. He might have put it in the filter list because of the likely potential misuse, but the software is amoral when it comes to applying it.
If he chooses to leave it in the filter because he still thinks it is useful then so be it. Give him a break for all of our sakes.
If your word got censored fo the wrong reason there is no reason to take offence. No one was intending to harm you. It’s just the algorithm doing its stuff. Just laugh it off.
If your word got censored because you really were trying to game the system then accept that the policy here is that we don’t do that and just laugh at it catching you out rather than feeling aggrieved as if it’s one’s right to do this here.
That’s the short of it. More laughter :-)
|
>>That's the short of it. More laughter :-)<<
Now that's sorted is there any chance of discussing the 'long' of it?
Is the swear filter too strict for a forum of reasonably well behaved and polite adults?
Pat
|
Well now you agree that laughter is good either way why wouldn’t you want more of that?
Don’t tell me you want to be a long term miserable ******** ^*^^^^^^ ^**** *** ^^^********* :-)
|
>> Is the swear filter too strict for a forum of reasonably well behaved and polite
>> adults?
In a word yes. I'm sure somebody, possibly NoFM or RP, listed the less obvious words in there.
Could do with pruning.
Will it allow me to describe the Renault 14 as the b****** offspring of Peugeot's failed courtship with Renault?
|
>>Will it allow me to describe the Renault 14 as the b****** offspring of Peugeot's failed courtship with Renault?
No, but that's its little brother the "Pompous Phrasing Filter" getting you there.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 29 Dec 17 at 16:35
|
>> No, but that's its little brother the "Pompous Phrasing Filter" getting you there.
Your obsession with concern for my use/abuse of the English language is touching but unnecessary.
My first encounter with swear filter on HJ was using the illegitimacy word regarding the Renault 14. On that occasion the context of the aborted Peugeot/Renault merger was was either subject of or tangent from thread.
This time I needed to set the scene.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 29 Dec 17 at 22:02
|
Not quite sure why you would write"obsession with" and cross it out. Presumably you realise you could have deleted it but didn't want to though weren't quite confident enough to actually let it stand. So what does that mean?
|
>>Is the swear filter too strict for a forum of reasonably well behaved and polite adults?
Perhaps. But you'd be surprised. And swearing snowballs. It changes the tone of a place, and causes arguments about which words are offensive and which are not.
I do think that some words are in there from the days when a massive amount of members were being managed towards a strictly commercial end and perhaps are not really necessary these days. Perhaps "rissoles" is one of those.
Hardly a big thing though. Is it?
Swearing is a funny old thing anyway. Take the word "duck" (I don't mean duck really). Most people would acknowledge that 'duck' is a bit rude and the swear filter should stop it. Other people maintain that if you write 'd*ck' it is somehow perfectly acceptable - as if the letter 'u' added something disgraceful.
Its a rare situation where a*** sums up my meaning any less than the full four letters. The meaning is clear either way.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 29 Dec 17 at 16:33
|
> and causes arguments about which words are offensive and which are not.
>>
Oh i dunno we've a very strict one here and we've still got an argument going :)
|
>> > and causes arguments about which words are offensive and which are not.
>> >>
>>
>> Oh i dunno we've a very strict one here and we've still got an argument
>> going :)
So imagine what it'd be like with a less strict one!! At least this way everybody wants it less strict. If it was less strict then someone would it even looser and others would want it tightened up etc. etc.
That way lie monsters.
|
My suggestion at 03.29 this morning is the perfect answer to that and would be a very fair and anonymous way to gauge the general feeling.
The result, if not doctored at all, would then finally put the subject to bed.
Pat
|
>>would then finally put the subject to bed.
No it wouldn't. Look at Brexit.
|
I shall use my BBD method for that one.
Pat
|
Don't take me wrong, I merely meant that a vote and a decision typically do little to reduce conversation and discussion on a subject>
Scottish Independence if you like. Or the Falklands etc. etc.
|
>>Scottish Independence if you like. Or the Falklands etc. etc.<<
They both sort of pale into insignificance when we can discuss the forum swear filter, don't they? :)
Pat
|
It would appear so.
Whoever knew that would be so emotional over whether or not they are permitted to type rissole. And its not just rissole, you know.
What about jewrkinhead, pissasphalt, aktashite, nodgecock, fartlek, clatterfart, assapanick, fuksheet, invagination, bastinado, tetheradick, cockchafer, bumfiddler, knobstick, pershittie, shittah and, of course, wankapin.
Not a single swearword there. But the swearfilter almost exploded.
And before you get all giddy with the idea of being able to type rissole, make sure you only ever talk about one of them. Because in the plural - r*******" - it's still rude.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 29 Dec 17 at 17:25
|
Look, you and I both know it isn't about that at all.
A forum member was carpeted publicly in no uncertain terms this morning, and spoken to like a school child.
There was no need whatsoever for that reaction and it never should have happened like that.
An explanation via email should have been made if the mod felt so strongly about it.
I will always object to unfair or rude treatment of anyone........yes, even if I don't like them CG.
It's something I feel strongly about having been on the wrong end of it many times in my life and I will never change that.
An apology would have avoided all this.
Pat
|
To be fair to Dave, his first two replies seemed fine. It was in the third that he'd clearly tired of being asked the same question repeatedly.
One more than I would have taken.
And this is hardly the first time this conversation has occurred.
|
>> To be fair
Pinch me someone, I am having a dream.
|
|
As they say, I will always object to unfair or rude treatment of anyone..
|
|
Bit early for a New Years resolution init?
|
Or a bit late.....
At this way I might finish the year with a resolution intact.
|
> So imagine what it'd be like with a less strict one!! At least this way
>> everybody wants it less strict. If it was less strict then someone would it even
>> looser and others would want it tightened up etc. etc.
I'd imagine we'd have the same volume of arguments but like you say probably different view points.
|
Now we're getting somewhere, we are at least discussing it and getting opinions from all sides which is how it should be.
To be told this morning >>It stays as it is. End of. << is guaranteed to come over heavy handed and unreasonable.
More like an old boss of mine who continually told me 'If you don't like it Pat, you know where the gate is'
........and I ended up walking out of it not long after.
Pat
|
">>It stays as it is. End of. << "
No, I'd say that is pretty much the status.
Like I say, not really a big thing, is it?
|
>> If your word got censored fo the wrong reason there is no reason to take
>> offence. >>
>> If your word got censored because you really were trying to game the system >>
If it were actually swear word or something like intentionally misspelling a swear word then fair enough.
Though it's a word for a food stuff that can be used to suggest disagreement in the same way as "rubbish" or "tripe" ...
Ridiculous ...
|
|
So say rubbish or tripe. Why is it a big deal?
|
It's a big deal because rubbish or tripe are not censored. Simple, so why is rissole?
That's all we're asking?
Pat
It appears it isn't anymore:)
Last edited by: Pat on Fri 29 Dec 17 at 17:12
|
>> So say rubbish or tripe. Why is it a big deal?
>>
It's not a big deal though Dave and the swear filter made it a big deal ...
|
Great minds HC, both posted at the same time!
Pat
|
>> To be honest, I don't really care what "level" the swear filter is set at.
>> From my point of view, anywhere from full nanny to not at all, would be
>> fine and I'm happy to accept it at any point in between.
>>
That would be fine of it were truly a swear filter but when it filters words such as the one beginning with "R" that means a meat filled croquette it's kind of ridiculous. It should filter the C, N and F words after which we're all grown adults.
After all, it's not as if it stops insults, it's still possible to call someone a banana, an onion or a back side, perhaps the latter will be banned.
Yes a vitriol filter would be a good idea though I don't think it's been invented yet.
|
I'm completely mystified.
Why is ameat and potato fried delicacy banned, and what is the "R****" word?
-Oh, you probably can't tell me!!!!
Total nonsense (nearly said B******!)
8o)
|
I've just realised what this r word is. I think I only ever fell foul of the swear filter once, and it was that word. I was using in the context of a product that Birdseye made that is no longer available, was mystified when it was asterisked out, and had it explained.
Don't much care about swear filters one way or the other for me. Load of old zooterkins, consarn it.
|
|
I had to look it up on google, frankly the whole swear filter is a load of meatballs.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 29 Dec 17 at 12:27
|
Come on!
Give us aclue!
Neil
|
>> Come on!
>> Give us aclue!
>>
>> Neil
>>
Google:
"A small croquette, enclosed in pastry or rolled in breadcrumbs, usually baked or deep fried, filled with savory ingredients, most often minced meat or fish."
|
Rissole.
Please note, I am not swearing, I am not attempting to swear, I am merely stating what is the name of the food that people keep describing.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 29 Dec 17 at 14:41
|
I haven't had one of those in years, and I don't particularly remember enjoying the experience when I did. Still, they do say you should try everything once so that you can be quite sure whether it's for you or not...
;-))
|
Yeeeees, I do agree:)
Pat
|
. Still, they do say you should try everything once so that
>> you can be quite sure whether it's for you or not...
>>
>> ;-))
>>Apart from folk dancing and incest of course.
|
>> >>Apart from folk dancing and incest of course.
>>
...is that both at the same time?
|
A lot has been said since I last looked at this thread yesterday, so I apologise if I don't answer all the questions as I might have missed something whist browsing through it.
To hopefully clear up a few things (and on this rare occasion I have included a couple of swear words in this post for clarity).
It was mentioned "we're all grown adults"
That's as maybe, but what about outside visitors and lurkers? Do you know that they're grown adults too and not children?
For information, the word "rissoles" is in the swear filter, but the word "rissole" isn't.
As No FM2R has already mentioned, the former is also a swearword, the latter isn't.
In the past "rissoles" has been used to bypass the swear filter, hence why it was added in the first place.
Had we all been "grown adults" then perhaps it wouldn't have been necessary to have added it, but we do seem to have one or two "not quite so grown adults" here who like to push the boundaries.
I should like to also point out that it wasn't actually me that included it in the filter, but as per usual I'm being made to be the scapegoat for it.
Definition:
Rissole - A food made from mashed potato and minced meat, rolled into a ball with breadcrumbs on and deep fried.
Rissoles - Asshole or arsehole.
Now this whole argument came about because Hard Cheese said in one of his posts:
"No of course not, what are you trying to say? That because I don't ignore them it shows that the work? r*******!"
He then asked why rissoles was in the filter and I explained why.
Now my explanation wasn't good enough for him, and he went on the defensive of saying that he had used it innocently. Now quite why he would want to finish his sentence by talking about "A food made from mashed potato and minced meat, rolled into a ball with breadcrumbs on and deep fried" is anyone's guess.
To my mind, he was being rude and impolite to the person he was replying to by saying "asshole" or "arsehole" to them, which is totally unacceptable. No different to sticking his two fingers up to them, IMHO.
He seems to deny this, despite the above evidence and previous explanation. I'll leave you to make up your own mind.
Pat then comes along and throws in her two pennies worth without I suspect seeing the whole picture. And not for the first time either, and turns what was originally a mole hill into a mountain.
Pat, I have to say that at times you do have this irritating habit of wading in and stirring things up unnecessarily? Why can't you occasionally let people fight their own battles without interference? You say that I have an attitude. Well, to be blunt Pat, so do you at times, and it also rubs up people the wrong way. You yourself have had numerous arguments in the past because of your aggressive stance and not willing to back down.
Anyway, bottom line is, it's staying in the filter. If used innocently, then myself or one of the other moderators will edit the post at some point.
Here is a previous explanation I made not so long ago about the swear filter as well:-
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=24821&m=547121
========================================
Right, to now answer another question, which was:-
"Why does this forum allow double entendres, sea-side postcard humour, and sleazy type posts, but not swearing?"
My answer to that is that as this forum is such a Carry On at times, I'll use that as an example. Nearly all the Carry On films (with the exception of Carry On Emmannuelle) had very low British Board of Film Classification ratings. Yet most were littered with double entendres, etc. However from what I recall, none of the films had any swearing in them. It was just good old entertainment and humour which most people took with a pinch of salt. Something that should apply here too.
Swearing has become all too commonplace of late and nearly everywhere you go these days you hear people swearing like troopers - young and old alike. Previously we've had positive comments of it's nice to visit a forum that isn't full of expletives, and I for one would like it to remain that way.
Granted, the swear filter might pick up the occasional innocent word and block it. As has been said by car4play, It’s just the algorithm doing its stuff. It's not intelligent enough to distinguish between an innocent word and an innocent word that might also contain a swear word. e.g. Arsenal.
Over the years I've customised the filter to behave itself generally, but on occasion it might still kick in. If it does, please don't have a paddy about it. Just mention it to one of the moderators and we'll edit your post accordingly. However, if you have been intentional in trying to bypass the filter, then you've only got yourself to blame when we slap you for it ;)
Vx.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 30 Dec 17 at 17:14
|
|
An excellent post VxFan. I hope your clear and cogent argument will finally put this matter to rest once and for all. It has been done to death in my opinion.
|
Dave, you are continuing the tosh you posted before - plural of rissole is not a swear word.
I reject your criticism, I was using the word in the same way as I use tosh in the sentence above, to indicate that I thought the opinion expressed was rubbish and NOT to call the person in question a back side.
Is that clear?
|
I now accept you weren't being rude toward whoever you were replying to.
However, rissoles can also be an euphemism and vulgar expression for arsehole. Which for the UMPTEENTH time is WHY is it is the filter because it has previously been used in that context.
Is that clear enough for you? Perhaps you need further proof?
www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/rissole+%5Besp+Aus+%5D+%5Beuphemism+for+arsehole%5D.html
en.langenscheidt.com/english-german/search?term=rissole%20[esp%20aus]%20[euphemism%20for%20arsehole]
Another forum member has also confirmed that it has an alternate rude meaning. Why can you not accept that? I am not the only one telling you this, so why do you still ignore the fact?
If you meant tosh, rubbish, etc then why didn't you use either of them words? It would have saved all this unnecessary arguing, especially when it was explained to you right at the start why the word rissoles in the context that I thought you were using it for was unacceptable here.
You must get some very strange looks if you describe things as rissoles among friends, colleagues, etc instead of just saying tosh or rubbish. Do you then have a long discussion with them as to what you actually meant to say?
Now accept why it's in the filter, stop arguing, and move on for everyone's sake.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 30 Dec 17 at 19:25
|
You must get some very strange looks if you describe things as r******* among friends, colleagues, etc instead of just saying tosh or rubbish. Do you then have a long discussion with them as to what you actually meant to say?
You never can tell on here... ;-)
|
My brother once got very strange looks in the office (in California) when he said a particular person had gone out for a fag :-) Language is a funny thing isn't it and location and context can change the meaning considerably.
Good response on the whole VxFan to explain things (Again).
|
>>
>> Good response on the whole VxFan to explain things (Again).
>>
The only thing I would add is that the links apparently justify why the word is considered to be a swear word though Dave doesn't explain why the singular is allowed and the plural not.
|
>> Dave doesn't explain why the singular is allowed and the plural not.
Simple. It hasn't yet been used as a swear word (to my knowledge) which is why it isn't in the filter.
|
>> >> Dave doesn't explain why the singular is allowed and the plural not.
>>
>> Simple. It hasn't yet been used as a swear word (to my knowledge) which is
>> why it isn't in the filter.
>>
I really think we should draw a line under this now, though you've lost me there. Surely a word is either a swear word or it's not. You cannot "use" a word in such a way that you turn it into a swear word ...
I mean if I say someone's an a r * * then that's swearing, if I say their opinion is b o l l * * * * then that's swearing, though if I call them a parsnip or say their opinion is porridge then that that does not make parsnips or porridge into swear words.
|
|
...I think the thread has turned into a prime example of a*** longa, vita brevis.....
|
>>I really think we should draw a line under this now,
1) Please God, oh please God.
2) Stop going on about it. It'll help.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 3 Jan 18 at 21:24
|
>>I mean if I say someone's an a r * * then that's swearing, if I say their opinion is b o l l * * * * then that's swearing, though if I call them a parsnip or say their opinion is porridge then that that does not make parsnips or porridge into swear words.
Not you Cheeseman: www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU_y9FB0QKk
:o}
|
>> I really think we should draw a line under this now
Yes, lets.
And to make sure there are no more "Groundhog" moments - Thread locked.
|
>> I now accept you weren't being rude toward whoever you were replying to.
>>
Apology accepted.
|
r******* is in the swear filter. *However* you were using it, it was going to get blocked.
FFS let it go, surely it just cannot possibly be that important.
|
Entirely missed the point in my opinion.
Certainly missed the point I was trying to make but in view of this....
>>Pat, I have to say that at times you do have this irritating habit of wading in and stirring things up unnecessarily?<<
I'll shut up.
Pat
|
>>Pat, I have to say that at times you do have this irritating habit of wading in and stirring things up unnecessarily? Why can't you occasionally let people fight their own battles without interference?<<
You can't seem to understand I'm certainly not fighting their battles for them, in fact it's entirely the opposite.
I'm fighting the bully, the one causing the battle and will always continue to do so whether you, or anyone else, likes it or not.
>>You say that I have an attitude. Well, to be blunt Pat, so do you at times, and it also rubs up people the wrong way.<<
Long may it continue, I shall start 2018 as I mean to go on and if anyone has a problem with my attitude they certainly don't have to read my posts.
>>You yourself have had numerous arguments in the past because of your aggressive stance and not willing to back down.<<
Does anyone who posts on here honestly find me aggressive? I find that hard to believe because what ever position we are in now, at some time or other we've all lived in the real world of a working life in some way or another. If they do, why haven't they said so?
I find the refusal to even consider my point of view unreasonable, but I don't moan about it.
To expect me to back down could well be seen as bullying, you know:)
So, to summarise, I will keep within the forum rules, but I shall continue to make my point as and when I feel fit. If that doesn't fit with your views of how I should behave then I'm afraid you'll have to live with it.
I find it strange that you decided to post this publicly instead of by emailing me as you usually do, but after careful consideration of that fact, I felt it warranted a public reply.
Pat
|
Right on cue Pat. Leave it a few days, then drag it all up again (aka stirring).
If it makes you feel any better, then you can have the last word, but let me remind you what you said on Sun 31 Dec 17 @ 05:16 in the latter part of that post.
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=25272&m=557496&v=e
Now for everyone's sake, let it drop and move on. Unless you don't want people to think that you're a reasonably well behaved and polite adult? (something else you previously said in this thread too)
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 3 Jan 18 at 19:09
|
>> Equus mortuus verbera.
>>
I didn't know you spoke Welsh.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Wed 3 Jan 18 at 19:57
|
"Twp" - doesn't mutate to ''d" after a masculine noun.
;-)/
|
Hmm, It doesn't have a non-innocent meaning and is not a swear word so one
>> can't try and use it as one. It might sound a little like a swear
>> word though that makes it no more of a swear word than "duck" or "farce".
>>
>>
>> It's simply like saying "rubbish" or "tosh" so why is it sad?
New here? You'll soon learn the swear filter is set all the way round to puritan.
Not heard of that item of food before, had to look it up!
|
Ain't that the truth!
Pat
|
New here?
Not me, I was first on here pretty much from the beginning ....
|
>> >> Oh and try this question. Do you "ignore" speed cameras? i.e. speed past them?
>> >>
>>
>> No of course not, what are you trying to say? That because I don't ignore
>> them it shows that the work? r*******!
I'm not trying to say anything, you were the one saying that because everyone knows they are turned off, they ignore them, speed and accidents have fallen because of it.
I was merely pointing out the irony that they slow you down despite your assertion
|
>> I was merely pointing out the irony that they slow you down despite your assertion
I see what you are getting at Z though you asked about me, not everyone.
The key points are that fatalities numbers dropped massively in the late 80's before speed cameras were introduced and stayed fairly level for the ten years after the introduction of speed cameras. And despite many councils turning speed cameras off in the '00s fatalities almost halved.
They have their place, for instance to deter speeding outside schools, though they are all too often very clearly used to generate revenue.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 28 Dec 17 at 16:45
|
>> They have their place, for instance to deter speeding outside schools, though they are all
>> too often very clearly used to generate revenue.
Can you provide us a location, preferably with google map/streetview of a camera that's placed for revenue rather than safety?
Fixed cameras cost a lot to install and operate. They go where law breaking is high volume/persistent. Schools and villages are covered by the mobile unit.
There are lots of them at home in Northants, albeit mostly turned off because they didn't wash their faces financially. I can't think of one that doesn't have a reasonable rationale on safety grounds.
|
|
Good to see that like every Christmas I have known, 'tis the season to be quarrelsome.
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42182497
>>
>> Interesting stats here,
I think it is interesting, not to say curious that pedestrian and motorcycle deaths have also reduced massively this century. Why?
MOT stats:-
tinyurl.com/z68xt4a
|
I can't find the stats readily, but IIRC up until the 60s/70s road deaths were on a scale of 6,000-7,000 and had been virtually since the adoption of motor transport, which, considering the far lower number of vehicles and vehicle/passenger miles, was almost incredible in the context of today's numbers.
To some extent of course, denser and faster traffic means that pedestrians just keep out of the way, and traffic is more frequently separated from pedestrians now. Peds keep out of the way, and vehicle occupants are much better protected.
The road was a playground when I was a child, don't see that so much now.
|
>> I can't find the stats readily, but IIRC up until the 60s/70s road deaths were
>> on a scale of 6,000-7,000 and had been virtually since the adoption of motor transport,
>> which, considering the far lower number of vehicles and vehicle/passenger miles, was almost incredible in
>> the context of today's numbers.
Despite what people on here whine about, its mostly because we have very good signage, good traffic systems, well planned roads and on the whole very disciplined drivers who mostly stick to the rules. Whats more incredible is that deaths have remained low despite slashing the numbers of enforcement police on the roads.
|
|
The link I posted in the OP suggests that fatalities peaked at 7985 in 1966.
|
>> The link I posted in the OP suggests that fatalities peaked at 7985 in 1966.
>>
actually 9,169 in 1941 which was quite a lot compared with the 67,000 civilian deaths caused by enemy action in the entire war
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sat 23 Dec 17 at 16:08
|
>> I can't find the stats readily, but IIRC up until the 60s/70s road deaths were
>> on a scale of 6,000-7,000 and had been virtually since the adoption of motor transport,
>> which, considering the far lower number of vehicles and vehicle/passenger miles, was almost >> incredible in the context of today's numbers.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain
Ignoring the war years when figures were high because of the black out, 1966 was the highest year.
|
>> I think it is interesting, not to say curious that pedestrian and motorcycle deaths have
>> also reduced massively this century. Why?
Motorcycle use has declined significantly in recent years following the nineties boom, and cyclist deaths have reduced slightly despite the massive increase following the 2012 Olympics. I'd suggest that in the case of cyclists it is because it has now become an activity for the more safety concious middle aged rider. This demographic would also have an effect on powered two wheelers where younger people have been priced out by massive insurance costs and stricter testing. Back in the sixties and seventies the ride round the block driving test and pocket money insurance meant many teenagers were riding round on large capacity motorcycles.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 23 Dec 17 at 20:54
|
|
Bikes are safer, better illuminated, better tyres and brakes, helmets are better as are suits, boots and gloves, also a bike licence is much harder to obtain.
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Sat 23 Dec 17 at 16:02
|
|
I think that's true regarding Mcycle use, very few of the lads at work who are in their 20s have one. Maybe one or two do but just don't talk about it. But there seems to be very little interest in them within their age group.
|
10 things about Britain's roads ... - Manatee
