On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:29:24 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
Firth) said in <1iocu3v.18pr2tx1antt17N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:

>Not for "judith". Improbable leaps from fact to fiction are "her" stock
>in trade.

Wow, she uses fact before fiction now? That's new :o)

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 Sun, 05 Oct 2008 20:48:06 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:29:24 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
>Firth) said in <1iocu3v.18pr2tx1antt17N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:
>
>>Not for "judith". Improbable leaps from fact to fiction are "her" stock
>>in trade.
>
>Wow, she uses fact before fiction now? That's new :o)
>
>Guy

Nice of you to keep things on the boil Guy - why not listen to the
advice given by the sensible people in urc?

I see you've been disputing the "children cycle helmets saga again" -
you know, the bit where you were caught altering your web page; here
it is:

Chapman consistently said that he had NEVER <my emphasis> encouraged
his children to wear cycle helmets.

On 13 August at 15:11 Chapman posted a message which said
"I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets.  In fact, I have several times most
explicitly /not/ said that.  It is her inference from some pictures,
but I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets"

I knew that he had said it, as I had read it on his web pages.

I had been warned that he was a devious and despicable person who will
readily lie - so I took a copy of the relevant page and on 13 August
posted the link to the web page which contained the following:

"I encourage my children to wear them and tell them what sort of
injuries the helmet might prevent."

This of course is totally at odds with "I have NEVER <my emphasis>
said that I encourage my children to wear helmets". 

Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web
page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" - but
left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

When this was pointed out to him he squirmed and said it was just
coincidence but he had added those words to all of the pages that day
!!!!!

This is a prime example of his extreme economy with the truth.

Of course he could make it clear by answering the question:

If you looked at the relevant web page on 13 August 2008 - and you
looked at it today - will those pages be identical or will the latest
have added information  - which was NOT there on 13 August 2008.

An honest person would have said - "You are right - I had forgotten
that I had said that  - I have now altered the web page to say it is
out of date".

Chapman did not do that.

Chapman is not an honest person.



--   

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)

Nym-shifting is the surest sign of a troll.

Back in the killfile with you.

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 Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:06:11 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
Firth) said in <1iocvva.zagb8518ou2alN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:

>> Wow, she uses fact before fiction now? That's new :o)
>No, she leaps from other people's fact to her own fiction.

OK, that rings true.

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 Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:11:00 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>Nym-shifting is the surest sign of a troll.
>
>Back in the killfile with you.
>
>Guy

I do not know what you mean Guy - have you any comment on what I
posted - I assume that you read it.




--   
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 Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:17:28 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:06:11 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
>Firth) said in <1iocvva.zagb8518ou2alN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:
>
>>> Wow, she uses fact before fiction now? That's new :o)
>>No, she leaps from other people's fact to her own fiction.
>
>OK, that rings true.
>
>Guy

Hello Guy - thanks for the opportunity to speak with you.

Others have said that you are hell-bent on destroying URC - why is
that?

Did you see that clarification I wrote on the "children/helmets"
little porkies which you told:


Chapman consistently said that he had NEVER <my emphasis> encouraged
his children to wear cycle helmets.

On 13 August at 15:11 Chapman posted a message which said
"I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets.  In fact, I have several times most
explicitly /not/ said that.  It is her inference from some pictures,
but I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets"

I knew that he had said it, as I had read it on his web pages.

I had been warned that he was a devious and despicable person who will
readily lie - so I took a copy of the relevant page and on 13 August
at 16:20 posted the link to the web page which contained the
following:

"I encourage my children to wear them and tell them what sort of
injuries the helmet might prevent."

This of course is totally at odds with "I have NEVER <my emphasis>
said that I encourage my children to wear helmets". 

Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web
page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" - but
left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.

When this was pointed out to him he squirmed and said it was just
coincidence but he had added those words to all of the pages that day
!!!!!

This is a prime example of his extreme economy with the truth.

Of course he could make it clear by answering the question:

If you looked at the relevant web page on 13 August 2008 - and you
looked at it today - will those pages be identical or will the latest
have added information  - which was NOT there on 13 August 2008.

An honest person would have said - "You are right - I had forgotten
that I had said that  - I have now altered the web page to say it is
out of date".  Chapman did not do that.  Chapman is not an honest
person.

------- 

The "snide accusations" situation:

Chapman has accused me of making snide accusations or comments about
the author of Cyclecraft; I have never done so.

Chapman has been asked many times to quote those accusations which he
says that I made - he has never done so.  Obviously if I had done so -
he would easily be able to quote it.

This begs the question - why does he not do that?

Is it any wonder that they choose to cycle on pavements to avoid
dangerous drivers'?

"They started in San Francisco, spread throughout the States and are
now appearing in cities worldwide ghostly white bikes adorned with
fresh flowers that mark the spot where a cyclist has been killed. As
they begin to appear across Britain, Geraldine Bedell talks to the
creators of these poetic shrines and the victims families..."

More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/oct/05/art


--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".

Doug wrote:

> Is it any wonder that they choose to cycle illegally on pavements?

Isn't this a copy of an article you posted a short while ago?

-- 
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi 'Big and Butch'
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp "When I feel fit enough'
ebay stuff   http://shop.ebay.co.uk/merchant/paul-xxx

On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 23:02:26 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
wrote:

>Is it any wonder that they choose to cycle on pavements to avoid
>dangerous drivers'?
>
>"They started in San Francisco, spread throughout the States and are
>now appearing in cities worldwide ghostly white bikes adorned with
>fresh flowers that mark the spot where a cyclist has been killed. As
>they begin to appear across Britain, Geraldine Bedell talks to the
>creators of these poetic shrines and the victims families..."
>
>More:
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/oct/05/art

Here's a report on the ghost bike left in Greenwich park after Leonard
Woods was killed by Coong Duong Voong who was driving on the wrong
side of the road.

Voong was fined £2,500 for his "momentary inattention".

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:8b466982-2b45-49b1-8936-de7b035fbde6@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Is it any wonder that they choose to cycle on pavements to avoid
> dangerous drivers'?
>
> "They started in San Francisco, spread throughout the States and are
> now appearing in cities worldwide ghostly white bikes adorned with
> fresh flowers that mark the spot where a cyclist has been killed. As
> they begin to appear across Britain, Geraldine Bedell talks to the
> creators of these poetic shrines and the victims families..."
>
> More:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/oct/05/art

Quote from site

"A memorial to James Foster in Essex Road......
James, who was 37, was pushing his bike across the road when he was hit by a 
car driven by 24 year-old Sabrina Harman. She was over the drink-drive limit 
and speeding and had a previous conviction for drink-driving. She had been 
banned for a year and still had not regained her full licence."

As a driver, parent and cyclist (along with ten year old son), I resent the 
campaign to tar all "motorists" with the same brush, and particularly the 
association with characters like the woman named above.

With respect, if less than 150 cyclists are being killed nationally, what's 
the fuss ? Its a bloody tragedy for those concerned, but with the number 
using the roads, alongside cars, lorries, busses etc, shits gonna happen. 
Accidents happen. Individual people occasionally behave appallingly and 
irreparably.

Some people drink, fight, stab, glass people etc. Some people drink, have a 
jolly good time, get a kebab, go home to bed. All drinkers, but all 
individuals.

The anti "motorist" campaign is as insulting to the majority as it is 
dangerous.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:11:24 +0100, "BOFH"  wrote:

>The anti "motorist" campaign is as insulting to the majority as it is 
>dangerous.

I fail to see how leaving a ghost bike at the spot where a cyclist has
been killed is "anti motorist".

Doug wrote:
> Is it any wonder that they choose to cycle on pavements to avoid
> dangerous drivers'?
> 
> "They started in San Francisco, spread throughout the States and are
> now appearing in cities worldwide ghostly white bikes adorned with
> fresh flowers that mark the spot where a cyclist has been killed. As
> they begin to appear across Britain, Geraldine Bedell talks to the
> creators of these poetic shrines and the victims families..."
> 
> More:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/oct/05/art
> 
> 
> --
> Critical Mass London
> http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> "We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".

Rehashing old threads again?
Is that the best you can do?

-- 
Tony the Dragon

"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message 
news:fkqge4p903bku1ot7bpueb7142v9he4q16@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:11:24 +0100, "BOFH"  wrote:
>
>>The anti "motorist" campaign is as insulting to the majority as it is
>>dangerous.
>
> I fail to see how leaving a ghost bike at the spot where a cyclist has
> been killed is "anti motorist".

do you ?

Using the example of the repeated drunk driving woman gives the message...

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:58:55 +0100, "BOFH"  wrote:

>
>"Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message 
>news:fkqge4p903bku1ot7bpueb7142v9he4q16@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:11:24 +0100, "BOFH"  wrote:
>>
>>>The anti "motorist" campaign is as insulting to the majority as it is
>>>dangerous.
>>
>> I fail to see how leaving a ghost bike at the spot where a cyclist has
>> been killed is "anti motorist".
>
>do you ?
>
>Using the example of the repeated drunk driving woman gives the message...

...that the woman's actions were an outrage.

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:58:55 +0100, "BOFH"  wrote:
>
>>
>> "Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in
>> message news:fkqge4p903bku1ot7bpueb7142v9he4q16@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:11:24 +0100, "BOFH"  wrote:
>>>
>>>> The anti "motorist" campaign is as insulting to the majority as it
>>>> is dangerous.
>>>
>>> I fail to see how leaving a ghost bike at the spot where a cyclist
>>> has been killed is "anti motorist".
>>
>> do you ?
>>
>> Using the example of the repeated drunk driving woman gives the
>> message...
>
> ...that the woman's actions were an outrage which no sensible person would 
> condone.

Now, doesn't that read better?

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:11:24 +0100, "BOFH"  wrote:
> 
>> The anti "motorist" campaign is as insulting to the majority as it is 
>> dangerous.
> 
> I fail to see how leaving a ghost bike at the spot where a cyclist has
> been killed is "anti motorist".

There is probably an assumption, based on years of domination of 
uk.transport by Duhg in one form or another, that all cyclist deaths are 
caused by car drivers who set out having one intention only - to kill 
someone.

We all know this is not true.

-- 
John Wright

I used to drive a car a lot also, which probably contributes to back
troubles. - Doug Bollen.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 08:02:06 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 23:02:26 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>wrote:
>
>>Is it any wonder that they choose to cycle on pavements to avoid
>>dangerous drivers'?
>>
>>"They started in San Francisco, spread throughout the States and are
>>now appearing in cities worldwide ghostly white bikes adorned with
>>fresh flowers that mark the spot where a cyclist has been killed. As
>>they begin to appear across Britain, Geraldine Bedell talks to the
>>creators of these poetic shrines and the victims families..."
>>
>>More:
>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/oct/05/art
>
>Here's a report on the ghost bike left in Greenwich park after Leonard
>Woods was killed by Coong Duong Voong who was driving on the wrong
>side of the road.
>
>Voong was fined £2,500 for his "momentary inattention".


You have forgotten to say that he was actually overtaking - that was
why he was on the wrong side of the road (I am not saying that that
exonerates him in any way - but a little bit of accuracy would go down
well - but doesn't sound as "good" as "driving on the wrong side of
the road" does it?)

Police have incidentally remarked that some cyclists as well as
motorists travel down the hill at speeds greater than 30 mph - there
was no evidence that the driver was exceeding the sped limit.

I think that it is OK for cyclists to travel at dangerous speeds as
the speed limit does not apply to them - but I am not sure about this.

I see you have also not (yet) posted the bits you did last time you
discussed this where you kindly pointed out that the car driver was
Vietnamese, and rumoured to be the owner of a restaurant in Greenwich
- which you then gave the name and address of.

I wasn't too sure why you did that.



--   
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 Sun, 05 Oct 2008 08:22:16 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:11:24 +0100, "BOFH"  wrote:
>
>>The anti "motorist" campaign is as insulting to the majority as it is 
>>dangerous.
>
>I fail to see how leaving a ghost bike at the spot where a cyclist has
>been killed is "anti motorist".


If you disagree with them, I understand that if one complains to the
local authority they now follow guidelines of removing such "shrines".



--   
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

"judith"  wrote in message 
news:qo1he4tfsc4500u7827jf27imc0tg7bctk@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 08:22:16 +0100, Tom Crispin
> <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:11:24 +0100, "BOFH"  wrote:
>>
>>>The anti "motorist" campaign is as insulting to the majority as it is
>>>dangerous.
>>
>>I fail to see how leaving a ghost bike at the spot where a cyclist has
>>been killed is "anti motorist".
>
>
> If you disagree with them, I understand that if one complains to the
> local authority they now follow guidelines of removing such "shrines".

Maybe there should be a ghost bike fastened to the railings at every 
junction, partly as a reminder to motorists to look to their left when 
turning left, but mainly as a dire warning to cyclists "this is what will 
happen to you if you overtake a vehicle that is indicating/turning left - 
DON'T DO IT!".

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:8b466982-2b45-49b1-8936-de7b035fbde6@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Is it any wonder that they choose to cycle on pavements to avoid
> dangerous drivers'?
>
> "They started in San Francisco, spread throughout the States and are
> now appearing in cities worldwide ghostly white bikes adorned with
> fresh flowers that mark the spot where a cyclist has been killed. As
> they begin to appear across Britain, Geraldine Bedell talks to the
> creators of these poetic shrines and the victims families..."

Repeating oneself is a sign of being a senile old twat.

Oh, you already are. Sorry!

Mike P

Doug wrote:

> Is it any wonder that they choose to cycle on pavements to avoid
> dangerous drivers'?

> "They started in San Francisco, spread throughout the States and are
> now appearing in cities worldwide ghostly white bikes adorned with
> fresh flowers that mark the spot where a cyclist has been killed. As
> they begin to appear across Britain, Geraldine Bedell talks to the
> creators of these poetic shrines and the victims families..."

> More:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/oct/05/art

I hope those things are not left either on the footway or on the carriageway, 
where they will cause obvious obstruction.

Tom Crispin wrote:

> "BOFH"  wrote:

>> The anti "motorist" campaign is as insulting to the majority as it is 
>> dangerous.

> I fail to see how leaving a ghost bike at the spot where a cyclist has
> been killed is "anti motorist".

Depnds on the level of obstruction. It may even be anti-pedestrian as well.

Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:58:55 +0100, "BOFH"  wrote:
> 
>> "Tom Crispin" <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message 
>> news:fkqge4p903bku1ot7bpueb7142v9he4q16@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:11:24 +0100, "BOFH"  wrote:
>>>
>>>> The anti "motorist" campaign is as insulting to the majority as it is
>>>> dangerous.
>>> I fail to see how leaving a ghost bike at the spot where a cyclist has
>>> been killed is "anti motorist".
>> do you ?
>>
>> Using the example of the repeated drunk driving woman gives the message...
> 
> ...that the woman's actions were an outrage

Do you agree that drunken driving should be made an offence?

Perhaps the appropriate punishment for it would be  minimum of a year's ban 
from driving plus a swingeing fine, plus a ten-year licence endorsement?

Oh, hang on...

Mortimer wrote:
> "judith"  wrote in message 
> news:qo1he4tfsc4500u7827jf27imc0tg7bctk@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 08:22:16 +0100, Tom Crispin
>> <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:11:24 +0100, "BOFH"  wrote:
>>>
>>>> The anti "motorist" campaign is as insulting to the majority as it is
>>>> dangerous.
>>> I fail to see how leaving a ghost bike at the spot where a cyclist has
>>> been killed is "anti motorist".
>>
>> If you disagree with them, I understand that if one complains to the
>> local authority they now follow guidelines of removing such "shrines".
> 
> Maybe there should be a ghost bike fastened to the railings at every 
> junction, partly as a reminder to motorists to look to their left when 
> turning left, but mainly as a dire warning to cyclists "this is what will 
> happen to you if you overtake a vehicle that is indicating/turning left - 
> DON'T DO IT!". 

That would be more useful - to actually prevent deaths before they 
happen rather than commemorate them after they have. Works for 
pedestrians as well.


-- 
John Wright

I used to drive a car a lot also, which probably contributes to back
troubles. - Doug Bollen.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 08:58:55 +0100, "BOFH"  said in
:

>> I fail to see how leaving a ghost bike at the spot where a cyclist has
>> been killed is "anti motorist".

>do you ?
>Using the example of the repeated drunk driving woman gives the message...

Sounds to me like you're seeing reds under the bed.

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

Doug wrote:
 > Is it any wonder that they choose to cycle on pavements to avoid
 > dangerous drivers'?
 >
 > "They started in San Francisco, spread throughout the States and are
 > now appearing in cities worldwide ghostly white bikes adorned with
 > fresh flowers that mark the spot where a cyclist has been killed. As
 > they begin to appear across Britain, Geraldine Bedell talks to the
 > creators of these poetic shrines and the victims families..."
 >

I'd rather they didn't. I sick of people telling me that they'd love to 
ride a bike but the roads are just too dangerous and that I must be very 
(mad/dangerous) to ride to work along main roads.

Its not that I'm not anti motorist, I am, I'd limit them to 20 mph 
anywhere within 1/2 a mile of a pedestrian or residential area, I'd 
retest the buggers every five years and after any offences, I'm as 
rabidly anti car as Jude the offensive's worst nightmare.

Its just that I don't see cyclists as particularly victims of cars. 
Certainly less so than children who should be playing out or anyone 
trying to cross a busy road and being intimidated by the constant heavy 
flow of overly fast traffic, or people unable to enjoy there home 
because of the noise and pollution, or even the stupid fool behind the 
wheel working half his life away to pay for the box to get to work to 
pay for the box.





-- 
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 10:41:18 +0100, "Mortimer"  said
in <dvSdnaFwefpfFnXVnZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>:

>Maybe there should be a ghost bike fastened to the railings at every 
>junction, partly as a reminder to motorists to look to their left when 
>turning left, but mainly as a dire warning to cyclists "this is what will 
>happen to you if you overtake a vehicle that is indicating/turning left - 
>DON'T DO IT!". 

You could get that message across rather better by not painting
silly narrow "bike lanes" up the left side at junctions.  But as it
happens when drivers kill cyclists, the drivers turn out to be to
blame in most cases (2/3 - 7/8 in the studies I've seen).  So the
message needs to target both parties, especially when you consider
that if the motor vehicle was a bicycle instead, the fatality rate
would be close to zero.  It's not "anti-motorist" to acknowledge
that, whatever the distribution of blame, roughly 100% of the
injuries will be the cyclists not the drivers.  As a driver I expect
to take extra care around vulnerable road users, I don't think this
is a problem.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message 
news:s98he4tvmlgt0a6i2hjrtmntdiv0t3uuo1@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 10:41:18 +0100, "Mortimer"  said
> in <dvSdnaFwefpfFnXVnZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>:
>
>>Maybe there should be a ghost bike fastened to the railings at every
>>junction, partly as a reminder to motorists to look to their left when
>>turning left, but mainly as a dire warning to cyclists "this is what will
>>happen to you if you overtake a vehicle that is indicating/turning left -
>>DON'T DO IT!".
>
> You could get that message across rather better by not painting
> silly narrow "bike lanes" up the left side at junctions.

Now what *would* be a good idea. I'd like to see all cycle lanes on the road 
discontinued maybe 50 yards before the traffic lights, and all advance stop 
lines abolished.

Are there any other situations where a road user who wants to turn left or 
right is made to wait in a lane which is not the furthest left or right, 
such that he has to look for and give way to traffic coming from the side 
towards which he wants to turn?

> But as it
> happens when drivers kill cyclists, the drivers turn out to be to
> blame in most cases (2/3 - 7/8 in the studies I've seen).

Given that the cyclists should not be there in the first place, I'm not sure 
how studies can say that most of the accidents are the drivers' fault.

> So the
> message needs to target both parties, especially when you consider
> that if the motor vehicle was a bicycle instead, the fatality rate
> would be close to zero.  It's not "anti-motorist" to acknowledge
> that, whatever the distribution of blame, roughly 100% of the
> injuries will be the cyclists not the drivers.  As a driver I expect
> to take extra care around vulnerable road users, I don't think this
> is a problem.

So you are advocating that drivers take the responsibility for making sure 
thay don't hit the cyclists, rather than the cyclists taking the 
responsibility for not putting themselves into the dangerous position in the 
first place?

The person who gets hit and who comes off worst in the collision is not 
always the innocent party.

Andy Morris wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>> Is it any wonder that they choose to cycle on pavements to avoid
>> dangerous drivers'?
>>
>> "They started in San Francisco, spread throughout the States and are
>> now appearing in cities worldwide ghostly white bikes adorned with
>> fresh flowers that mark the spot where a cyclist has been killed. As
>> they begin to appear across Britain, Geraldine Bedell talks to the
>> creators of these poetic shrines and the victims families..."
>>
>
> I'd rather they didn't. I sick of people telling me that they'd love
> to ride a bike but the roads are just too dangerous and that I must
> be very (mad/dangerous) to ride to work along main roads.
>
> Its not that I'm not anti motorist, I am, I'd limit them to 20 mph
> anywhere within 1/2 a mile of a pedestrian or residential area, I'd
> retest the buggers every five years and after any offences, I'm as
> rabidly anti car as Jude the offensive's worst nightmare.
>
> Its just that I don't see cyclists as particularly victims of cars.
> Certainly less so than children who should be playing out or anyone
> trying to cross a busy road and being intimidated by the constant
> heavy flow of overly fast traffic, or people unable to enjoy there
> home because of the noise and pollution, or even the stupid fool
> behind the wheel working half his life away to pay for the box to get
> to work to pay for the box.

I have considerable sympathy with your comments, but being "anti" and 
protesting does not convert people to one's cause, it merely put's their 
backs up. Reasoned argument pointing out ways in which they can make life 
easier and cheaper for themselves will win everytime, i.e. appeal to their 
selfishness.

"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message 
news:s98he4tvmlgt0a6i2hjrtmntdiv0t3uuo1@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 10:41:18 +0100, "Mortimer"  said
> in <dvSdnaFwefpfFnXVnZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>:
>
>>Maybe there should be a ghost bike fastened to the railings at every
>>junction, partly as a reminder to motorists to look to their left when
>>turning left, but mainly as a dire warning to cyclists "this is what will
>>happen to you if you overtake a vehicle that is indicating/turning left -
>>DON'T DO IT!".
>
> You could get that message across rather better by not painting
> silly narrow "bike lanes" up the left side at junctions.  But as it
> happens when drivers kill cyclists, the drivers turn out to be to
> blame in most cases (2/3 - 7/8 in the studies I've seen).  So the
> message needs to target both parties, especially when you consider
> that if the motor vehicle was a bicycle instead, the fatality rate
> would be close to zero.  It's not "anti-motorist" to acknowledge
> that, whatever the distribution of blame, roughly 100% of the
> injuries will be the cyclists not the drivers.  As a driver I expect
> to take extra care around vulnerable road users, I don't think this
> is a problem.
>

Just ban cycles. There; we solved the problem at a stroke.
No charge, only took a moment.

For the hard of thinking:    -->  ;-)

-- 
David Kemper
Motorist (cars & vans), HGV Driver (C + E), Cyclist (well I have a bike 
anyway), Pedestrian.
Often all on the same day (well maybe not a cyclist that often any more).

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:27:15 +0100, Mortimer wrote:


> So you are advocating that drivers take the responsibility for making sure 
> thay don't hit the cyclists, rather than the cyclists taking the 
> responsibility for not putting themselves into the dangerous position in the 
> first place?
> 

By doing so collisions and consequent injury and death would be drastically
reduced; I believe it is on the order of halving.  As motorcars are going
to be used less and less, and cycles more and more, it's quite a good idea.


[uk.tosspot removed]

"Andy Morris"  wrote in message 
news:gca7l5$gg7$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Doug wrote:
> > Is it any wonder that they choose to cycle on pavements to avoid
> > dangerous drivers'?
> >
> > "They started in San Francisco, spread throughout the States and are
> > now appearing in cities worldwide ghostly white bikes adorned with
> > fresh flowers that mark the spot where a cyclist has been killed. As
> > they begin to appear across Britain, Geraldine Bedell talks to the
> > creators of these poetic shrines and the victims families..."
> >
>
> I'd rather they didn't. I sick of people telling me that they'd love to 
> ride a bike but the roads are just too dangerous and that I must be very 
> (mad/dangerous) to ride to work along main roads.
>
> Its not that I'm not anti motorist, I am, I'd limit them to 20 mph 
> anywhere within 1/2 a mile of a pedestrian or residential area, I'd retest 
> the buggers every five years and after any offences, I'm as rabidly anti 
> car as Jude the offensive's worst nightmare.
>

Can we also test cyclists every 5 years then, make them have a licence to 
ride on the road, insurance and ensure that they are fined/prosecuted for 
misdemeanours like motorists are?

For example...  *Laws* from the RTA 1988  sect 36 TSRDG regulation 10, 
referring to cyclists - "You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light 
signals". There are others, as I'm sure you are aware.


Mike P

Just so we all know.
This thread was started by Doug Bollen and has been cross posted by him to 
both newsgroups.
He is deliberately starting a flame war as he gets off on anything anti 
motorist.
Carry on flaming if you wish but I for one would not want Doug to enjoy it.
I will make no further posts in this thread.

David Kemper
(usually lurking at uk.transport)

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:27:15 +0100, "Mortimer"  said
in <BcadnYws6pMHOXXVnZ2dnUVZ8jidnZ2d@posted.plusnet>:

>> You could get that message across rather better by not painting
>> silly narrow "bike lanes" up the left side at junctions.

>Now what *would* be a good idea. I'd like to see all cycle lanes on the road 
>discontinued maybe 50 yards before the traffic lights, and all advance stop 
>lines abolished.

ASLs are actually a good idea, in that they encourage cyclists to
position themselves in full view.  Cycles accelerate pretty fast, so
it does not cause any real hold-up, in my experience as a daily
London commuter.

>Are there any other situations where a road user who wants to turn left or 
>right is made to wait in a lane which is not the furthest left or right, 
>such that he has to look for and give way to traffic coming from the side 
>towards which he wants to turn?

Quite.  Cyclecraft gives good advice on road positioning, including
lane position and which lane to choose when negotiating junctions
and roundabouts. 

>> But as it
>> happens when drivers kill cyclists, the drivers turn out to be to
>> blame in most cases (2/3 - 7/8 in the studies I've seen).

>Given that the cyclists should not be there in the first place, I'm not sure 
>how studies can say that most of the accidents are the drivers' fault.

Should not be where? This is studies of, for example, all car v.
cyclist collisions in Oxford, which showed that in something over
80% of collisions where a cyclist was injured, the driver was to
blame.

>> So the
>> message needs to target both parties, especially when you consider
>> that if the motor vehicle was a bicycle instead, the fatality rate
>> would be close to zero.  It's not "anti-motorist" to acknowledge
>> that, whatever the distribution of blame, roughly 100% of the
>> injuries will be the cyclists not the drivers.  As a driver I expect
>> to take extra care around vulnerable road users, I don't think this
>> is a problem.

>So you are advocating that drivers take the responsibility for making sure 
>thay don't hit the cyclists, rather than the cyclists taking the 
>responsibility for not putting themselves into the dangerous position in the 
>first place?

No, I'm saying that there is a heavier burden of care on the
drivers.

>The person who gets hit and who comes off worst in the collision is not 
>always the innocent party. 

No, only usually.  Actually assessed about 50/50 for pedestrians, so
cyclists are less likely to be the authors of their own misfortune,
but the same applies to both: however the blame is apportioned, the
danger is all on one side.

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 Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:51:57 +0100, "Mike P" 
said in :

>Can we also test cyclists every 5 years then, make them have a licence to 
>ride on the road, insurance and ensure that they are fined/prosecuted for 
>misdemeanours like motorists are?

And don't forget the pedestrians, the most numerous users of the
road, allowed to use it virtually unsupervised from an early age and
with almost no regulation at all.  They are definitely the worst
offenders.

Mind you since ped v. ped and ped v. bike collisions almost never
result in fatality, perhaps things are the right way round after
all.

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 Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:57:27 +0100, "David Kemper"
 said in
<IY1Gk.5461$8r6.1864@newsfe03.ams2>:

>Just so we all know.
>This thread was started by Doug Bollen and has been cross posted by him to 
>both newsgroups.
>He is deliberately starting a flame war as he gets off on anything anti 
>motorist.
>Carry on flaming if you wish but I for one would not want Doug to enjoy it.
>I will make no further posts in this thread.

Yeah, Duhg is a pretty poor specimen of a troll.  Do they still call
him the noid? That was in one of the demon FAQs at one point, ISTR.

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

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:57:27 +0100, "David Kemper"
>  said in
> <IY1Gk.5461$8r6.1864@newsfe03.ams2>:
>
>> Just so we all know.
>> This thread was started by Doug Bollen and has been cross posted by
>> him to both newsgroups.
>> He is deliberately starting a flame war as he gets off on anything
>> anti motorist.
>> Carry on flaming if you wish but I for one would not want Doug to
>> enjoy it. I will make no further posts in this thread.
>
> Yeah, Duhg is a pretty poor specimen of a troll.  Do they still call
> him the noid? That was in one of the demon FAQs at one point, ISTR.
>
Doug is called many things, most of them much less polite than "the noid". 
See uk.transport for examples.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:15:16 +0100, "Brimstone"
 said in
:

>Doug is called many things, most of them much less polite than "the noid". 
>See uk.transport for examples. 

Yebbut winding up the regulars in uk.tosspot is /sport/ :-)

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

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:27:15 +0100, "Mortimer"  said
> in <BcadnYws6pMHOXXVnZ2dnUVZ8jidnZ2d@posted.plusnet>:
> 
>>> You could get that message across rather better by not painting
>>> silly narrow "bike lanes" up the left side at junctions.
> 
>> Now what *would* be a good idea. I'd like to see all cycle lanes on the road 
>> discontinued maybe 50 yards before the traffic lights, and all advance stop 
>> lines abolished.
> 
> ASLs are actually a good idea, in that they encourage cyclists to
> position themselves in full view.  Cycles accelerate pretty fast, so
> it does not cause any real hold-up, in my experience as a daily
> London commuter.

However quick cycles are off the mark, their terminal velocity is quite 
low. They don't *actually* accelerate all that quickly at all, it just 
appears so in a congested environment. In an non congested environment 
they would be slower than cars and *much* slower than motorbikes.

The truth is that in a congested environment bicycles are the only 
vehicles that can use the performance they have. We are told that the 
average speed of traffic in London is around 10mph - this is within the 
performance envelope of a bicycle, but much less than that of a car, or 
even a bus. (City buses tend to be low geared for good acceleration, but 
rarely will you find one in a city that does more than 40mph)

-- 
John Wright

I used to drive a car a lot also, which probably contributes to back
troubles. - Doug Bollen.

"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message 
news:3hbhe4120fpt70nabmm29cl39uituqhube@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:51:57 +0100, "Mike P" 
> said in :
>
> Mind you since ped v. ped and ped v. bike collisions almost never
> result in fatality, perhaps things are the right way round after
> all.

Well I've witnessed two ped v cyclist incidents which could very easily have 
resulted in death or serious injury. Both were at zebra crossings and would 
have been the cyclist's fault. In one case, in Bristol as my mate and I was 
walking into town for lectures, a woman was crossing and cars stopped for 
her but a cyclist overtook them all and swerved between the leading car and 
a central bollard, probably at about 20-25 mph, narrowly missing the 
pedestrian who had to leap out of the way; the cyclist came off and started 
yelling at the pedestrian and looked as if he was about to attack her until 
my mate, built like a brick shithouse, "persuaded" him not to, and held on 
to him until the police arrived.

The other case was in Oxford last year when I was cycling through town. I 
slowed down to stop at a zebra crossing which large group of people 
(probably tourists) were about to cross. I was overtaken by another cyclist 
who rode straight towards the people who were now on the crossing, causing 
them to scatter left and right. Because cyclists do not have number plates, 
I was unable to report him to the police: with myself and the people on the 
crossing, there would have been plenty of witnesses.

All it needed was for either of the cyclists to hit the pedestrian and for 
the pedestrian or cyclist to land badly, hitting their head on the road, and 
you have head trauma that may result in death.

There was a case earlier this year where a cyclist hit a pedestrian (there 
was some confusion in news reports as to whether the pedestrian was on the 
road or whether the cyclist had mounted a pavement): he shouted "out of the 
way - I'm not going to stop for you" and hit her. She died.

But those are probably fairly rare examples, and a much greater majority of 
cyclist v pedestrian collisions than car v pedestrian collision are 
survivable. But the moral is that everyone must abide by the rules: 
pedestrians *must not* cross the road in front of a moving vehicle (car, 
lorry or cyclist) unless they have explicit priorty (zebra crossing, pelican 
crossing in the pedestrian's favour) when the vehicles *must* stop. Placing 
ever greater restrictions on the vehicles' speed is not the answer: that's 
penalising the wrong people.

"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message 
news:iq9he4l829dn5me0i1t4afeks25a5bhcp7@4ax.com...
>>Given that the cyclists should not be there in the first place, I'm not 
>>sure
>>how studies can say that most of the accidents are the drivers' fault.
>
> Should not be where? This is studies of, for example, all car v.
> cyclist collisions in Oxford, which showed that in something over
> 80% of collisions where a cyclist was injured, the driver was to
> blame.

I was referring specifically to cyclists who get hit when they try to carry 
straight on at a junction, overtaking a vehicle which is turning left and 
which is indicating to do so.

>>The person who gets hit and who comes off worst in the collision is not
>>always the innocent party.
>
> No, only usually.  Actually assessed about 50/50 for pedestrians, so
> cyclists are less likely to be the authors of their own misfortune,
> but the same applies to both: however the blame is apportioned, the
> danger is all on one side.

If a pedestrian is hit while crossing the road when they are not on a zebra 
crossing or a pelican crossing, then the car has priority over them and they 
should wait for a gap in the traffic. Therefore it is the pedestrian's fault 
if they are hit. That does not in any way absolve the driver from keeping a 
good look out and doing their damndest to stop if a pedestrian does walk out 
in front of them, but it doesn't change the fact that if the driver is 
unable to stop, the accident will have been caused by the pedestrian.

The fact that pedestrians and cyclists are more vulnerable means that, for 
reasons of self-interest if nothing else, they need to take care that they 
do not get hit.

Doug  wrote:

> Is it any wonder that they choose to cycle on pavements to avoid
> dangerous drivers'?

Wy should I as a pedestrian have to face being mown down by a coward on
two wheels? Do pedestrians not count for anything in Duhgworld?

Andy Morris  wrote:

> Its not that I'm not anti motorist, I am, I'd limit them to 20 mph 
> anywhere within 1/2 a mile of a pedestrian or residential area, I'd 
> retest the buggers every five years and after any offences, I'm as 
> rabidly anti car as Jude the offensive's worst nightmare.

Then you're a dickhead and your views are disposable. As indeed are the
views of the vast majority of uk.rec.antimotorist.

Perhaps you can now explain why your fear for your own safety permits
you to infringe my safety?

Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:

> Yeah, Duhg is a pretty poor specimen of a troll.  Do they still call
> him the noid? That was in one of the demon FAQs at one point, ISTR.

He has morphed several times, being the noid, "Mr Natural", DougX and
currently Doug. He's still Doug Bollen of Catford, the one time clueless
scourge of demon.service. But nowadays he denies his identity, despite
havign posted photos of himself fiddlign with bicycle and trailer
outside the very house in Catford that he claims to not infest.

He has dropped his claim to be "a socialist" having now migrated via the
oxymoronic "anarcho-socialist" to "anarchist". Sadly his concept of
anarchy is his admiration for Stalin and his previously posted Holocaust
denial. He appears to think that anarchy will be a wonderful idea just
as soon as an all-powerful state can get around to imposing it.

Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:

> Mind you since ped v. ped and ped v. bike collisions almost never
> result in fatality, perhaps things are the right way round after
> all.

Ah yes. "I'm allowed to break the law and ride down pedestrians because
the chances of killign one are remote."

Not a very good, nor sensible argument is it Mr Chapman?

Fuck off my pavement. I'm tired of having to dodge the abusive twats for
whom being allocated 2/3rds of the pavement as a cycle lane still isn't
enough.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:23:01 +0100, "Mortimer"  said
in <BN6dnafde5TxKHXVnZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>:

>If a pedestrian is hit while crossing the road when they are not on a zebra 
>crossing or a pelican crossing, then the car has priority over them a

O RLY? Perhaps you can cite the statutory instrument which gives us
this peerless wisdom.

>The fact that pedestrians and cyclists are more vulnerable means that, for 
>reasons of self-interest if nothing else, they need to take care that they 
>do not get hit. 

They do.  But when they are hit, which in at least half of cases is
through absolutely no fault of their own, they always bear the brunt
of the injury.  Which is why some of the more enlightened countries
have presumed fault laws when vulnerable road users are injured, and
why Monderman's "shared space" idea has resulted in zero fatalities
in some trials.

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 Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:29:47 +0100, John Wright
 said in
:

>However quick cycles are off the mark, their terminal velocity is quite 
>low. They don't *actually* accelerate all that quickly at all, it just 
>appears so in a congested environment. In an non congested environment 
>they would be slower than cars and *much* slower than motorbikes.

So you say.  Me, I tend to be across the junction well before the
motor traffic.  Except motorbikes, as you say, but I am quicker than
scooters (which are a work of Stan often ridden by the most numpty
of the numpties, but that's just my pet hobby-horse).

>The truth is that in a congested environment bicycles are the only 
>vehicles that can use the performance they have. We are told that the 
>average speed of traffic in London is around 10mph - this is within the 
>performance envelope of a bicycle, but much less than that of a car, or 
>even a bus. (City buses tend to be low geared for good acceleration, but 
>rarely will you find one in a city that does more than 40mph)

True enough.  End result is the same: ASLs work quite well, they put
cyclists where people are actually looking (which is always the
first best thing to do in terms of being seen) without any
observable detrimental effect on traffic flow.

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 Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:39:03 +0100, "Mortimer"  said
in <BN6dnabde5TwKHXVnZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>:

>Well I've witnessed two ped v cyclist incidents which could very easily have 
>resulted in death or serious injury.

But didn't.  End of, really.

You have, I take it, seen the figures for pedestrian fatalities on
the footway?  Mostly (as in almost all) caused by motor vehicle
collisions.

I'm afraid you will never persuade me to subscribe to the outdated
doctrine of unconditional deference to motor traffic other than at
designated crossing places.  Pedestrians are, as Prof. Adams
eloquently puts it, "natural Pythagoreans" - because every yard
takes effort, they will cross where they need to cross, not a
hundred yards away.  And rightly so, we vehicles are trespassers in
their environment.  Towns don't belong to us, they belong to people
on foot, we are there on sufferance.

Doing away with the designated crossing places on Kensington High
Street is said to have resulted in an increase in passing trade and
a significant reduction in casualties.  People have to slow down?
Good.  Their journey will probably take no longer, a steady slow
speed is often faster end to end than stop-start, but in the end it
doesn't matter because we are passing through someone's home area,
and we should be decently respectful of that.

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

Steve Firth wrote:
> Doug  wrote:
> 
>> Is it any wonder that they choose to cycle on pavements to avoid
>> dangerous drivers'?
> 
> Wy should I as a pedestrian have to face being mown down by a coward on
> two wheels? Do pedestrians not count for anything in Duhgworld?


Only if they get hit by a car.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:

>  Towns don't belong to us, they belong to people
> on foot, we are there on sufferance.

That is hogwash, mounted and wheeled transport is as vital and as
venerable a form of transport as walking in towns.

I can just about take your point that pedestrians have priority, but
don't try to prop that stance up with unmitigated bollocks. It is mostly
the UK in which the assumption is made that pedestrians have absolute
priority in the carriageway. In other countries either pedestrians and
traffic are given more or less equal priority (France and Italy for
example) or in the more sensible countries jay-walking is a crime
(Germany).

I can't think of any country where cylists have licence to run down
pedestrians though. Although in the UK it's a de-facto state of affairs.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Yebbut winding up the regulars in uk.tosspot is /sport/ :-)

Not when you bring the twats back in here, you prat...

Tim
-- 
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

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:15:16 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  said in
> :
>
>> Doug is called many things, most of them much less polite than "the
>> noid". See uk.transport for examples.
>
> Yebbut winding up the regulars in uk.tosspot is /sport/ :-)
>
You misunderstand, it's the regulars who have the sport by poking Doug with 
sharp sticks.

Brimstone wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:15:16 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>  said in
>> :
>>
>>> Doug is called many things, most of them much less polite than "the
>>> noid". See uk.transport for examples.
>> Yebbut winding up the regulars in uk.tosspot is /sport/ :-)
>>
> You misunderstand, it's the regulars who have the sport by poking Doug with 
> sharp sticks. 
> 
> 

The idea of poking Doug is an image I can do without.

-- 
Tony the Dragon

Tony Dragon wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:15:16 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>>  said in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Doug is called many things, most of them much less polite than "the
>>>> noid". See uk.transport for examples.
>>> Yebbut winding up the regulars in uk.tosspot is /sport/ :-)
>>>
>> You misunderstand, it's the regulars who have the sport by poking
>> Doug with sharp sticks.
>>
>>
>
> The idea of poking Doug is an image I can do without.

Indeed, hence I qualified my comment.

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Sun, 05 Oct 2008, Just zis Guy, you know? <> wrote:
>  On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:15:16 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  said in
> :
> 
> >Doug is called many things, most of them much less polite than "the 
> >noid". See uk.transport for examples.
> 
>  Yebbut winding up the regulars in uk.tosspot is /sport/ :-)

Guy, are you really such an infantile, short-sighted clot as you 
appear?  Is it some sort of mid-life crisis?  Once upon a time you had 
useful contributions to make to teh group.  In teh last six months, 
however, your useful contributions have been swamped by repeated 
troll-feeding, ecouraging abusive posters, and now you seem to think 
it would be a good idea to prolong a cross-posted flame-fest with 
uk.transport started by a poster you yourself label a troll.

I've threatened it before, I'm now actioning it: my current 
uk.rec.cycling killfile: Ed Dolan, Nuxx Bar, judith and Guy Chapman.  
You all deserve each other.  
You are all equally deserving of teh honour.  
If any of you grow up, I'll let you out eventually.

regards,  Ian SMith
-- 
  |\ /|      no .sig
  |o o|
  |/ \|

Brimstone wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> "Brimstone"  said:

>>> Doug is called many things, most of them much less polite than "the
>>> noid". See uk.transport for examples.

>> Yebbut winding up the regulars in uk.tosspot is /sport/ :-)

> You misunderstand, it's the regulars who have the sport by poking Doug with 
> sharp sticks. 

*Some* of them do.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:29:47 +0100, John Wright
>  said in
> :
> 
>> However quick cycles are off the mark, their terminal velocity is quite 
>> low. They don't *actually* accelerate all that quickly at all, it just 
>> appears so in a congested environment. In an non congested environment 
>> they would be slower than cars and *much* slower than motorbikes.
> 
> So you say.  Me, I tend to be across the junction well before the
> motor traffic.  Except motorbikes, as you say, but I am quicker than
> scooters (which are a work of Stan often ridden by the most numpty
> of the numpties, but that's just my pet hobby-horse).

Thus proving my point. In most urban circumstances a car driver can only 
go *so* far - perhaps only using 5% of the available power. Probably not 
even all the way across the junction. Cyclists can usually see a gap to 
go into, motorbikes less so - they're often quite a bit bigger.

I agree with you about scooters - given half a chance I would be with 
the Rockers on Brighton beach in 1964 beating up the scooter riders :-)

>> The truth is that in a congested environment bicycles are the only 
>> vehicles that can use the performance they have. We are told that the 
>> average speed of traffic in London is around 10mph - this is within the 
>> performance envelope of a bicycle, but much less than that of a car, or 
>> even a bus. (City buses tend to be low geared for good acceleration, but 
>> rarely will you find one in a city that does more than 40mph)
> 
> True enough.  End result is the same: ASLs work quite well, they put
> cyclists where people are actually looking (which is always the
> first best thing to do in terms of being seen) without any
> observable detrimental effect on traffic flow.

I would not argue that one - ASLs also stop cyclists being mown down by 
HGVs turning left. Having been there (usually on a largish (> 750cc) 
motorbike) I've been across the junction before the HGV driver has even 
got his clutch out or in or whatever they do :-)

In most circumstances what you say is totally true, but at 3am in the 
morning (or other circumstances where the traffic level is very low), 
you might find you were in the way, suddenly surrounded by the cars you 
started off in front of.

-- 
John Wright

I used to drive a car a lot also, which probably contributes to back
troubles. - Doug Bollen.

"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message 
news:sfehe454aapotmhqtiq1nlvm34he19hd3r@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:23:01 +0100, "Mortimer"  said
> in <BN6dnafde5TxKHXVnZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>:
>
>>If a pedestrian is hit while crossing the road when they are not on a 
>>zebra
>>crossing or a pelican crossing, then the car has priority over them a
>
> O RLY? Perhaps you can cite the statutory instrument which gives us
> this peerless wisdom.

The same logic which presumes that any vehicle on a major road has priority 
over one pulling out from a minor road and that a vehicle travelling in a 
lane on a dual carriageway has priority over one that wants to pull into 
that lane from an adjacent one.

Maybe "priority over" is the wrong phrase - what I mean is that other road 
users must give way to it.

If it was not the case, every road user would have to give way to every 
other road user, a form of anarchy which would be unworkable.

I've no idea if it's enshrined in law - is just a standard rule of the road 
like "drive on the left" (well, in the UK).

"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message 
news:12che4pcs596ai5h0kra4d56etaqn0777o@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:15:16 +0100, "Brimstone"
>  said in
> :
>
>>Doug is called many things, most of them much less polite than "the noid".
>>See uk.transport for examples.
>
> Yebbut winding up the regulars in uk.tosspot is /sport/ :-)
>
> Guy


Not when you bring it back to urc, Guy, it's not.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 13:20:43 GMT, Tim Dunne
 said in
<La3Gk.67117$E41.62347@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>> Yebbut winding up the regulars in uk.tosspot is /sport/ :-)
>Not when you bring the twats back in here, you prat...

I didn't.  Someone else did.

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 Sun, 5 Oct 2008 13:44:18 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
Firth) said in <1iocb6t.rkh7f41wddzk2N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:

>He has morphed several times, being the noid, "Mr Natural", DougX and
>currently Doug.

Ha! I had forgotten Mr Natural.  That one was funny for a while -
must have been the first time I came across him seriously, it takes
a short while for the novelty value of such outright lunacy to wear
off, for me at least.

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 05 Oct 2008 13:49:38 GMT, Ian Smith  said
in :

>>  Yebbut winding up the regulars in uk.tosspot is /sport/ :-)

>Guy, are you really such an infantile, short-sighted clot as you 
>appear?

Good grief, Ian, I was joking!  Duhg can be as much of an arse as he
likes over there, wind them up all he wants, I have him in the
killfile so I never see a word he posts here.  He winds them up?
Like I care.  If I wanted to go to uk.tosspot and wind them up
myself I guess I could, but I don't subscribe to that group.  The
current crossposted thread looks pretty reasonable to me - I seem to
have found agreement with one uk.t poster that ASLs are broadly
speaking probably a good idea but feeders up the left are an
invitation to a dangerous practice, which I'd say is fair enough,
other bits also seem even tempered.  Do you have a problem with
that?

Recently here we've discussed Bromptons, the Me'n'U2 I sold to a
colleague of Chris Gerhard's (small world), hub dynamos and so on.
And even Duhg's trolling seems to have resulted for the most part
some good-tempered exchanges with both sides for the most part
actively trying not to have a flamewar, which, my God, is progress.
I have no doubt it will not last, but once the usual suspects weigh
in and we get round to the familiar circular arguments I'll just
kill that thread, as I usually do with threads crossposted to uk.t.

After all, it's not as if we are immune to our own internal circular
arguments, is it?  Or in RL for that matter - ask Helen Vecht about
the feud between the pro and anti facility camps in Camden.

This is not a nuxxious troll thread, at least yet.

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 Sun, 5 Oct 2008 15:24:51 +0100
"Mortimer"  wrote:

> If it was not the case, every road user would have to give way to
> every other road user, a form of anarchy which would be unworkable.
> 
Actually that has been shown to improve traffic flow and reduce
casualties - road users have to think for themselves, take
responsibility for their actions and make allowances for the actions of
other road users.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:20:59 +0100, judith 
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 08:02:06 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 23:02:26 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Is it any wonder that they choose to cycle on pavements to avoid
>>>dangerous drivers'?
>>>
>>>"They started in San Francisco, spread throughout the States and are
>>>now appearing in cities worldwide ghostly white bikes adorned with
>>>fresh flowers that mark the spot where a cyclist has been killed. As
>>>they begin to appear across Britain, Geraldine Bedell talks to the
>>>creators of these poetic shrines and the victims families..."
>>>
>>>More:
>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/oct/05/art
>>
>>Here's a report on the ghost bike left in Greenwich park after Leonard
>>Woods was killed by Coong Duong Voong who was driving on the wrong
>>side of the road.
>>
>>Voong was fined £2,500 for his "momentary inattention".
>
>
>You have forgotten to say that he was actually overtaking - that was
>why he was on the wrong side of the road (I am not saying that that
>exonerates him in any way - but a little bit of accuracy would go down
>well - but doesn't sound as "good" as "driving on the wrong side of
>the road" does it?)

You lie.  Voong was not overtaking.

>I think that it is OK for cyclists to travel at dangerous speeds as
>the speed limit does not apply to them - but I am not sure about this.

You lie.  The speed limit does apply to cyclists in Greenwich Park.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 16:27:03 +0100, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 10:20:59 +0100, judith 
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 08:02:06 +0100, Tom Crispin
>><kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 23:02:26 -0700 (PDT), Doug 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Is it any wonder that they choose to cycle on pavements to avoid
>>>>dangerous drivers'?
>>>>
>>>>"They started in San Francisco, spread throughout the States and are
>>>>now appearing in cities worldwide ghostly white bikes adorned with
>>>>fresh flowers that mark the spot where a cyclist has been killed. As
>>>>they begin to appear across Britain, Geraldine Bedell talks to the
>>>>creators of these poetic shrines and the victims families..."
>>>>
>>>>More:
>>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/oct/05/art
>>>
>>>Here's a report on the ghost bike left in Greenwich park after Leonard
>>>Woods was killed by Coong Duong Voong who was driving on the wrong
>>>side of the road.
>>>
>>>Voong was fined £2,500 for his "momentary inattention".
>>
>>
>>You have forgotten to say that he was actually overtaking - that was
>>why he was on the wrong side of the road (I am not saying that that
>>exonerates him in any way - but a little bit of accuracy would go down
>>well - but doesn't sound as "good" as "driving on the wrong side of
>>the road" does it?)
>
>You lie.  Voong was not overtaking.

I am sorry - that was reported in the  article which I read:

The cyclist was cycling up the
hill and was hit head on and killed by the driver of a car coming down
the hill who was overtaking another vehicle. The driver has
apparently pleaded guilty to an offence.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Uk/uk.rec.cycling/2008-03/msg01036.html


Do you have a court report which says otherwise?


>>I think that it is OK for cyclists to travel at dangerous speeds as
>>the speed limit does not apply to them - but I am not sure about this.



>You lie.  The speed limit does apply to cyclists in Greenwich Park.


Why thank you - it was not an intentional lie - I understood that
speed limits did not apply to cyclists - I did not know that Royal
Parks were an exception.

So you are saying that cyclists regularly break the law in Greenwich
Park.  Cheers.


--   
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 Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:16:07 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 10:41:18 +0100, "Mortimer"  said
>in <dvSdnaFwefpfFnXVnZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>:
>
>>Maybe there should be a ghost bike fastened to the railings at every 
>>junction, partly as a reminder to motorists to look to their left when 
>>turning left, but mainly as a dire warning to cyclists "this is what will 
>>happen to you if you overtake a vehicle that is indicating/turning left - 
>>DON'T DO IT!". 
>
>You could get that message across rather better by not painting
>silly narrow "bike lanes" up the left side at junctions.  But as it
>happens when drivers kill cyclists, the drivers turn out to be to
>blame in most cases (2/3 - 7/8 in the studies I've seen).  So the
>message needs to target both parties, especially when you consider
>that if the motor vehicle was a bicycle instead, the fatality rate
>would be close to zero.  It's not "anti-motorist" to acknowledge
>that, whatever the distribution of blame, roughly 100% of the
>injuries will be the cyclists not the drivers.  As a driver I expect
>to take extra care around vulnerable road users, I don't think this
>is a problem.
>
>Guy


Did you not say once that "constant vigilance, in order to remain
safe, is not needed when cycling on the road."

Are you sure?

--   
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 Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:58:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

<snip>

>Quite.  Cyclecraft gives good advice on road positioning, including
>lane position and which lane to choose when negotiating junctions
>and roundabouts. 


So does the Highway Code:

73

Pay particular attention to long vehicles which need a lot of room to
manoeuvre at corners. Be aware that drivers may not see you. They may
have to move over to the right before turning left. Wait until they
have completed the manoeuvre because the rear wheels come very close
to the kerb while turning. Do not be tempted to ride in the space
between them and the kerb.

74
If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure it is safe, then
signal and move to the centre of the road. Wait until there is a safe
gap in the oncoming traffic and give a final look before completing
the turn. It may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe
gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the road.

77
You may feel safer walking your cycle round on the pavement or verge.
If you decide to ride round keeping to the left-hand lane you
should.......



--   
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 Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:00:49 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

<snip>

>>The fact that pedestrians and cyclists are more vulnerable means that, for 
>>reasons of self-interest if nothing else, they need to take care that they 
>>do not get hit. 
>
>They do.  But when they are hit, which in at least half of cases is
>through absolutely no fault of their own, they always bear the brunt
>of the injury.  Which is why some of the more enlightened countries
>have presumed fault laws when vulnerable road users are injured


can quote these countries and the actual laws please?

Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

> >You have forgotten to say that he was actually overtaking - that was
> >why he was on the wrong side of the road (I am not saying that that
> >exonerates him in any way - but a little bit of accuracy would go down
> >well - but doesn't sound as "good" as "driving on the wrong side of
> >the road" does it?)
> 
> You lie.  Voong was not overtaking.
> 
> >I think that it is OK for cyclists to travel at dangerous speeds as
> >the speed limit does not apply to them - but I am not sure about this.
> 
> You lie.  The speed limit does apply to cyclists in Greenwich Park.

Does it help anyone, or your own case, for you to accuse someone of
being a liar as casually as you do? In the past you had accepted that
the driver was overtaking, and that was the report initially given in
the press. It's therefore easy to see how someone would believe the
driver was overtaking. It was only at the subsequent trial that it
because clear that the driver was not overtaking.

Again you accepted that it was possible that the driver's statement that
the windscreen went white before the impact, leading to loss of control.
That explanation was false. Does that make you a liar for stating that
the windscreen went white?

Finally I note that the Park authority, who you blamed in part for the
accident, has taken action to prevent a repetition. And you don't like
that either.

I'm afraid that your track record of comment, cock-up, blind prejudice
and opinion reversal on this issue doesn't exactly give the impression
of a coherent, balanced view of events.


As to the prejudiced, racist opinions from the rest of
uk.rec.trolls.against.cars I'm quite simply disgusted that several of
the slime that infest that group expressed their intention to boycott
Vietnamese restaurants that had no connection to the guilty party. Nice
people you associate with. Not.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 12:51:57 +0100, "Mike P" 
wrote:

<snip>

>
>Can we also test cyclists every 5 years then, make them have a licence to 
>ride on the road, insurance and ensure tha