For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of
cyclists by motorists this is just one example. I can find plenty more
if anyone is still in doubt.

"Police are hunting for the driver of a Silver Toyota Aygo after a
cyclist was assaulted and his bike run over in New Romney last
Tuesday. The incident at the Parade, in Greatstone, New Romney, left
the cyclist receiving treatment for cuts and bruising in Hospital.

Police say a 28-year-old local man was riding a bicycle along the
footpath between 6.35pm and 7pm when he was approached by a man, who
chased him for a short while. The cyclist kept going and the man
stopped, but shortly afterwards he pulled up alongside the cyclist in
his car, and rammed him. The cyclist fell off his bike, but remounted
and crossed to the other side of the road.

The motorist then drove directly at him, knocked him off the bike and
then ran over it before driving off.

Police are appealing for anyone with information or who might know the
driver of the car involved in the incident, described as a silver
Toyota Aygo, to contact them. The driver is described as white, aged
20, 5ft 9in tall, of slim build, with short black hair.

Kent Police can be contacted on 01303 289180, alternatively, call Kent
Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111."

http://www.romneymarshtimes.com/2009/10/cyclist-rammed-in-new-romney.html

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Doug wrote:

> For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of
> cyclists by motorists this is just one example.

You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your twisting
of facts to support your agenda that people rally against.

You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking
responses (like this one) from people who see you as the problem.  You
never offer real, workable solutions you only bemoan, wail and gnash
your teeth so rather than helping improve the situation for yourself
and others, you actually hinder and fuel it.

Please, go away.

-- 
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of
> > cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
>
> You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your twisting
> of facts to support your agenda that people rally against.
>
> You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking
> responses (like this one) from people who see you as the problem.  You
> never offer real, workable solutions you only bemoan, wail and gnash
> your teeth so rather than helping improve the situation for yourself
> and others, you actually hinder and fuel it.
>
> Please, go away.
>
Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and is
as follows.

For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers and
never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists should
not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use pavements provided
for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a driver and collides with
them the cyclist should be prepared to accept sole responsibility and
blame. Also, a cyclist should be wearing a crash helmet and reflective
vest and be riding a bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted
with mandatory reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame
after colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should
receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:

> On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of
> > > cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
> > 
> > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your
> > twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally against.
> > 
> > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking
> > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the problem.
> >  You never offer real, workable solutions you only bemoan, wail and
> > gnash your teeth so rather than helping improve the situation for
> > yourself and others, you actually hinder and fuel it.
> > 
> > Please, go away.
> > 
> Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and is
> as follows.
> 
> For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers and
> never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists should
> not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use pavements provided
> for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a driver and collides with
> them the cyclist should be prepared to accept sole responsibility and
> blame. Also, a cyclist should be wearing a crash helmet and reflective
> vest and be riding a bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted
> with mandatory reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame
> after colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should
> receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.

Where and when did I say that?

I'm a cyclist too, by the way.  Your main problem is you're too
polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think
_everyone_ is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided
opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.

Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport
available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs
without siding one way or the other.

-- 
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

On Nov 4, 7:23 am, Doug  wrote:
> For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of
> cyclists by motorists this is just one example. I can find plenty more
> if anyone is still in doubt.
>
> "Police are hunting for the driver of a Silver Toyota Aygo after a
> cyclist was assaulted and his bike run over in New Romney last
> Tuesday. The incident at the Parade, in Greatstone, New Romney, left
> the cyclist receiving treatment for cuts and bruising in Hospital.
>
> Police say a 28-year-old local man was riding a bicycle along the
> footpath between 6.35pm and 7pm when he was approached by a man, who
> chased him for a short while. The cyclist kept going and the man
> stopped, but shortly afterwards he pulled up alongside the cyclist in
> his car, and rammed him. The cyclist fell off his bike, but remounted
> and crossed to the other side of the road.
>
> The motorist then drove directly at him, knocked him off the bike and
> then ran over it before driving off.
>
> Police are appealing for anyone with information or who might know the
> driver of the car involved in the incident, described as a silver
> Toyota Aygo, to contact them. The driver is described as white, aged
> 20, 5ft 9in tall, of slim build, with short black hair.
>
> Kent Police can be contacted on 01303 289180, alternatively, call Kent
> Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111."
>
> http://www.romneymarshtimes.com/2009/10/cyclist-rammed-in-new-romney....
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
> One man's democracy is another man's regime.

Police get tough on pavement cyclists

Almost 200 cyclists have been caught riding their bicycles on the
city's pavements or cycling without lights after police launched a
crackdown following complaints from angry families.

Norfolk police's West Centre community policing team launch a
crackdown in the Earlham Road area because people said the problem was
getting so bad.

The issue was raised at a meeting of the Safer Neighbourhood Action
Panel last month and since then police patrols have snared 186
cyclists who were riding on pavements or without lights, with five hit
with £30 fines after they were spotted doing it again despite
warnings.

Posters have also been put up in nearby shops to educate cyclists and
warnings have been printed in University of East Anglia publications.

West Centre Inspector Nigel Richards said: “We have stopped nearly 200
cyclists who have committed offences, both cycling on the pavements
and riding without lights at dusk.

“We have spoken to numerous cyclists and educated them as many are
aware of the law or where the cycle path ends. However if this warning
is ignored then we take a more robust approach and issue a on the spot
fine of £30.

“Footpaths are there for the safety of pedestrians and not cyclists.
If cyclists do not feel safe riding on busy roads then they should
walk with their bicycle on footpaths.”

Cameron Spencer, 44, from Earlham Road, spent more than three weeks
off work and on painkillers after he was knocked down by a cyclist
riding on the pavement.

Mr Spencer said: “I walked out of my gate and just felt an impact. I
felt a shooting pain down one leg, I had no recognition of the bike
until it hit me.

“I was on the floor and the guy came off his bike, I was in
excruciating pain. But he didn't seem very bothered and just
disappeared.

“I am very, very angry about it. For three weeks I was in a great deal
of pain.”

Mr Spencer, who said he was hit by a cyclist a second time while
recovering, said the injury had been a contributory factor in his
decision to close his shop The Period House Store in Upper St Giles
Street.


http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=ENOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED03%20Nov%202009%2014%3A39%3A03%3A750


http://tiny.cc/cdG79

WSR

webreader  writes:

> The issue was raised at a meeting of the Safer Neighbourhood Action
> Panel last month and since then police patrols have snared 186
> cyclists who were riding on pavements or without lights, with five hit
> with £30 fines after they were spotted doing it again despite
> warnings.

It's rather odd that that should be possible, given how often we're told
that cyclists would need to be registered and licenced in order to
enforce footway cycling laws.

Just goes to show that the current law *can* be enforced when the police
actually want to make an effort, eh?


-dan

Doug wrote:

 For their own safety cyclists should
> receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.

There is actually a great deal of truth in this. Cyclists cannot use the 
roads on equal terms as drivers because they are so vulnerable and drivers 
are not, particularly at lower driving speeds. Consequently drivers become 
careless. Cyclists therefore need to ride defensively so as to minimise the 
chances of collision, even if it would not have been their fault anyway.

Doug wrote:
> For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of
> cyclists by motorists this is just one example. I can find plenty more
> if anyone is still in doubt.
> 
> "Police are hunting for the driver of a Silver Toyota Aygo after a
> cyclist was assaulted and his bike run over in New Romney last
> Tuesday. The incident at the Parade, in Greatstone, New Romney, left
> the cyclist receiving treatment for cuts and bruising in Hospital.
> 
> Police say a 28-year-old local man was riding a bicycle along the
> footpath between 6.35pm and 7pm when he was approached by a man, who
> chased him for a short while. The cyclist kept going and the man
> stopped, but shortly afterwards he pulled up alongside the cyclist in
> his car, and rammed him. The cyclist fell off his bike, but remounted
> and crossed to the other side of the road.
> 
> The motorist then drove directly at him, knocked him off the bike and
> then ran over it before driving off.
> 
> Police are appealing for anyone with information or who might know the
> driver of the car involved in the incident, described as a silver
> Toyota Aygo, to contact them. The driver is described as white, aged
> 20, 5ft 9in tall, of slim build, with short black hair.
> 
> Kent Police can be contacted on 01303 289180, alternatively, call Kent
> Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111."
> 
> http://www.romneymarshtimes.com/2009/10/cyclist-rammed-in-new-romney.html

And the moral of this story has to be:

Don't ride a bike along a pedestrian-only route. It annoys people no end, and 
occasionally, one of them will take real exception to your anti-social 
behaviour, perhaps even taking it to extremes.

dan@telent.net wrote:

> webreader  writes:

>> The issue was raised at a meeting of the Safer Neighbourhood Action
>> Panel last month and since then police patrols have snared 186
>> cyclists who were riding on pavements or without lights, with five hit
>> with £30 fines after they were spotted doing it again despite
>> warnings.

> It's rather odd that that should be possible, given how often we're told
> that cyclists would need to be registered and licenced in order to
> enforce footway cycling laws.
> Just goes to show that the current law *can* be enforced when the police
> actually want to make an effort, eh?

Why should a law (very reasonably) requiring lights to be displayed at night 
actually *need* to be enforced all that much?

To directly answer your point, enforcement isn't impossible without 
registration, but at a cost in police resources greater than would be 
necessary with registration.

On Nov 4, 12:28 pm, Doug  wrote:

> Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and is
> as follows.

[snip]

No, Doug, the workable solution is this: you shut the fuck up and
leave it to people like Roger Geffen who are capable of campaigning on
behalf of cyclists without pissing off everybody with whom they come
into contact.
--
Guy

mileburner wrote:

> Doug wrote:

>  For their own safety cyclists should

>> receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.

> There is actually a great deal of truth in this. Cyclists cannot use the 
> roads on equal terms as drivers because they are so vulnerable and drivers 
> are not, particularly at lower driving speeds.

You mean their bodies are not vulnerable. Their vehicles certainly are - and 
damage can be very costly. No, it's not the same thing, but neither is it 
trivial.

> Consequently drivers become careless.

Only if they don't care about vehicle damage. That cannot be a very large 
proportion of drivers.

> Cyclists therefore need to ride defensively so as to minimise the 
> chances of collision, even if it would not have been their fault anyway.

Good advice for anyone using the roads (with the appropriate adjustments). If 
someone runs out into the road in front of me, I brake, even though it's my 
"right of way". Similarly at green lights; if someone comes the other way, I 
do my best to stop and avoid a collision. It's what most people do. Their 
lack of "vulnerability" doesn't come into it.

"JNugent"  wrote in message 
news:cuWdnU-YG8deLGzXnZ2dnUVZ8hOdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> mileburner wrote:
>
>> Doug wrote:
>
>>  For their own safety cyclists should
>
>>> receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
>
>> There is actually a great deal of truth in this. Cyclists cannot use the 
>> roads on equal terms as drivers because they are so vulnerable and 
>> drivers are not, particularly at lower driving speeds.
>
> You mean their bodies are not vulnerable. Their vehicles certainly are - 
> and damage can be very costly. No, it's not the same thing, but neither is 
> it trivial.

Comparitively speaking, a scratched or dented bonnet is fairly trivial 
compared to a broken bone (IMO).

>> Consequently drivers become careless.
>
> Only if they don't care about vehicle damage. That cannot be a very large 
> proportion of drivers.

The pain of vehicle damage is actually very slight in comparison to the pain 
of bodily injury. I would also suggest that there is a large proportion who 
do not care about dents and scratches on their cars (I am one of them) I do 
however car about the physical well being of myself and others.

>> Cyclists therefore need to ride defensively so as to minimise the chances 
>> of collision, even if it would not have been their fault anyway.
>
> Good advice for anyone using the roads (with the appropriate adjustments). 
> If someone runs out into the road in front of me, I brake, even though 
> it's my "right of way". Similarly at green lights; if someone comes the 
> other way, I do my best to stop and avoid a collision. It's what most 
> people do. Their lack of "vulnerability" doesn't come into it.

The vulnerability heightens the awareness of the danger. A small knock or 
bump really does not matter that much to most drivers, it is just part of 
motoring. A small knock or bump, even at low speed, can put a cyclist in 
hospital, make them suffer a lot of pain, and make them have several months 
off work.

But what is also so utterly bizarre, is that I can drive through my local 
town at say 20 - 25 mph and suffer no violations of rights of way. Other 
drivers yield, pedestrians stay out of the way and I can cruise through 
without much worry about a car pulling out from the left (they rarely if 
ever do) or pulling in front from the right (they do this even less so) or 
even have anyone try to overtake. But, if I take the same route on a bike, 
and I travel at the same speed, and take the same road position I will have 
them pulling out from the left, crossing my path from the right, overtaking 
and cutting in and generally put me at risk.

Drivers will respect bigger vehicles, but the smaller the vehicle, the less 
threat they pose to them and the less courtesy and respect they are given.

This is why cyclists need to ride as if every driver is a total jerk.

Ho Bleeding Hum...

On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> > > Doug wrote:
> > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of
> > > > cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
>
> > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your
> > > twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally against.
>
> > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking
> > > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the problem.
> > >  You never offer real, workable solutions you only bemoan, wail and
> > > gnash your teeth so rather than helping improve the situation for
> > > yourself and others, you actually hinder and fuel it.
>
> > > Please, go away.
>
> > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and is
> > as follows.
>
> > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers and
> > never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists should
> > not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use pavements provided
> > for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a driver and collides with
> > them the cyclist should be prepared to accept sole responsibility and
> > blame. Also, a cyclist should be wearing a crash helmet and reflective
> > vest and be riding a bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted
> > with mandatory reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame
> > after colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should
> > receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
>
> Where and when did I say that?
>
> I'm a cyclist too, by the way.  Your main problem is you're too
> polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think
> _everyone_ is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided
> opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
>
> Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport
> available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs
> without siding one way or the other.
>
I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.

Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
it.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 5 Nov, 07:26, Doug  wrote:
> On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of
> > > > > cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
>
> > > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your
> > > > twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally against.
>
> > > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking
> > > > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the problem.
> > > >  You never offer real, workable solutions you only bemoan, wail and
> > > > gnash your teeth so rather than helping improve the situation for
> > > > yourself and others, you actually hinder and fuel it.
>
> > > > Please, go away.
>
> > > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and is
> > > as follows.
>
> > > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers and
> > > never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists should
> > > not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use pavements provided
> > > for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a driver and collides with
> > > them the cyclist should be prepared to accept sole responsibility and
> > > blame. Also, a cyclist should be wearing a crash helmet and reflective
> > > vest and be riding a bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted
> > > with mandatory reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame
> > > after colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should
> > > receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
>
> > Where and when did I say that?
>
> > I'm a cyclist too, by the way.  Your main problem is you're too
> > polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think
> > _everyone_ is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided
> > opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
>
> > Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport
> > available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs
> > without siding one way or the other.
>
> I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
>
> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
> culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
> and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
> it.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

...oops - your paranoia is showing yet again Doug

Why can't you accept that someone may use several forms of transport?
When you were driving your old Landie about didn't you also own a
pushbike - or were you then the very person that you're so paranoid
about nowadays - some sort of driver with a pathological hatred
reserved especially for cyclists....

On Nov 5, 7:26 am, Doug  wrote:
> On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
>
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of
> > > > > cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
>
> > > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your
> > > > twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally against.
>
> > > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking
> > > > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the problem.
> > > >  You never offer real, workable solutions you only bemoan, wail and
> > > > gnash your teeth so rather than helping improve the situation for
> > > > yourself and others, you actually hinder and fuel it.
>
> > > > Please, go away.
>
> > > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and is
> > > as follows.
>
> > > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers and
> > > never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists should
> > > not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use pavements provided
> > > for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a driver and collides with
> > > them the cyclist should be prepared to accept sole responsibility and
> > > blame. Also, a cyclist should be wearing a crash helmet and reflective
> > > vest and be riding a bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted
> > > with mandatory reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame
> > > after colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should
> > > receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
>
> > Where and when did I say that?
>
> > I'm a cyclist too, by the way.  Your main problem is you're too
> > polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think
> > _everyone_ is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided
> > opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
>
> > Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport
> > available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs
> > without siding one way or the other.
>
> I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
>
> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
> culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
> and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
> it.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Daftinitian of 'closet motorist' ' a cyclist who id also a motorist'

PeterG

On 5 Nov, 07:43, PeterG  wrote:
> On Nov 5, 7:26 am, Doug  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
>
> > > Doug wrote:
> > > > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> > > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of
> > > > > > cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
>
> > > > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your
> > > > > twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally against.
>
> > > > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking
> > > > > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the problem.
> > > > >  You never offer real, workable solutions you only bemoan, wail and
> > > > > gnash your teeth so rather than helping improve the situation for
> > > > > yourself and others, you actually hinder and fuel it.
>
> > > > > Please, go away.
>
> > > > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and is
> > > > as follows.
>
> > > > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers and
> > > > never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists should
> > > > not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use pavements provided
> > > > for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a driver and collides with
> > > > them the cyclist should be prepared to accept sole responsibility and
> > > > blame. Also, a cyclist should be wearing a crash helmet and reflective
> > > > vest and be riding a bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted
> > > > with mandatory reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame
> > > > after colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should
> > > > receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
>
> > > Where and when did I say that?
>
> > > I'm a cyclist too, by the way.  Your main problem is you're too
> > > polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think
> > > _everyone_ is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided
> > > opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
>
> > > Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport
> > > available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs
> > > without siding one way or the other.
>
> > I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
>
> > Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
> > culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
> > and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
> > it.
>
>
> Daftinitian of 'closet motorist' ' a cyclist who id also a motorist'
>
No a closet motorist prefers to be regarded as a cyclist though spends
little time actually cycling and is highly critical of cyclists while
being very defensive of motorists. Seems familiar on this newsgroup?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.

Doug wrote:

> On 5 Nov, 07:43, PeterG  wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 7:26 am, Doug  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> > 
> > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx" 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate
> > > > > > > ramming of cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
> > 
> > > > > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's
> > > > > > your twisting of facts to support your agenda that people
> > > > > > rally against.
> > 
> > > > > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in
> > > > > > provoking responses (like this one) from people who see you
> > > > > > as the problem.   You never offer real, workable solutions
> > > > > > you only bemoan, wail and gnash your teeth so rather than
> > > > > > helping improve the situation for yourself and others, you
> > > > > > actually hinder and fuel it.
> > 
> > > > > > Please, go away.
> > 
> > > > > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one
> > > > > and is as follows.
> > 
> > > > > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to
> > > > > drivers and never obstruct them in any way. For their own
> > > > > safety cyclists should not use roads but instead cycle paths
> > > > > and share use pavements provided for them. If a cyclist gets
> > > > > in the way of a driver and collides with them the cyclist
> > > > > should be prepared to accept sole responsibility and blame.
> > > > > Also, a cyclist should be wearing a crash helmet and
> > > > > reflective vest and be riding a bicycle which is perfect
> > > > > working order and fitted with mandatory reflectors etc if
> > > > > they wish to minimise their blame after colliding with a
> > > > > driver. For their own safety cyclists should receive special
> > > > > training to minimise colliding with drivers.
> > 
> > > > Where and when did I say that?
> > 
> > > > I'm a cyclist too, by the way.  Your main problem is you're too
> > > > polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think
> > > > everyone is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided
> > > > opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
> > 
> > > > Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport
> > > > available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs
> > > > without siding one way or the other.
> > 
> > > I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
> > 
> > > Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the
> > > bicycle culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to
> > > stick up for them and you can't expect closet motorists on this
> > > newsgroup to want to do it.
> > 
> > 
> > Daftinitian of 'closet motorist' ' a cyclist who id also a motorist'
> > 
> No a closet motorist prefers to be regarded as a cyclist though spends
> little time actually cycling and is highly critical of cyclists while
> being very defensive of motorists. Seems familiar on this newsgroup?

Hahah ... can you read?

If you think I'm a closet motorist using your definition of the phrase
then you're way wrong.

-- 
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

Doug wrote:

> On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate
> > > > > ramming of cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
> > 
> > > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your
> > > > twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally
> > > > against.
> > 
> > > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking
> > > > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the
> > > > problem.   You never offer real, workable solutions you only
> > > > bemoan, wail and gnash your teeth so rather than helping
> > > > improve the situation for yourself and others, you actually
> > > > hinder and fuel it.
> > 
> > > > Please, go away.
> > 
> > > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and
> > > is as follows.
> > 
> > > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers
> > > and never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists
> > > should not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use
> > > pavements provided for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a
> > > driver and collides with them the cyclist should be prepared to
> > > accept sole responsibility and blame. Also, a cyclist should be
> > > wearing a crash helmet and reflective vest and be riding a
> > > bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted with mandatory
> > > reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame after
> > > colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should
> > > receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
> > 
> > Where and when did I say that?
> > 
> > I'm a cyclist too, by the way.  Your main problem is you're too
> > polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think
> > everyone is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided
> > opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
> > 
> > Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport
> > available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs
> > without siding one way or the other.
> > 
> I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.

How so?  Does that mean that when I'm a cyclist on the roads I
shouldn't be amenable to cars needs?  By that same definition when I'm
a car driver I also shouldn't be amenable to cyclists needs, which
seems to be what you deplore ... so which is it to be?  You have
strange views.
 
> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
> culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
> and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
> it.

Bullshit.  This is a cycling newsgroup, OK, it's been trolled a lot,
but your views are not expressive of most/many/almost any other
cyclists, indeed many of them completely disagree with you, hence you
saying they're actually motorists!

Problem is you are unique.  That, in your case, is not a good thing.

-- 
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:26:44 -0000, Doug  wrote:


> I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
>
> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
> culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
> and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
> it.

Therefore it behoves us cyclists to carefully state our position without  
causing offense, or being dismissed as looney pyscholists. This is an area  
where you could improve, I feel.



> --

your sig separator needs a space at the end.

(newline dash dash space newline)

> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.


-- 
Nuns! Reverse!

On 5 Nov, 07:54, Doug  wrote:
> On 5 Nov, 07:43, PeterG  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 7:26 am, Doug  wrote:
>
> > > On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
>
> > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> > > > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of
> > > > > > > cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
>
> > > > > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your
> > > > > > twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally against.
>
> > > > > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking
> > > > > > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the problem.
> > > > > >  You never offer real, workable solutions you only bemoan, wail and
> > > > > > gnash your teeth so rather than helping improve the situation for
> > > > > > yourself and others, you actually hinder and fuel it.
>
> > > > > > Please, go away.
>
> > > > > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and is
> > > > > as follows.
>
> > > > > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers and
> > > > > never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists should
> > > > > not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use pavements provided
> > > > > for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a driver and collides with
> > > > > them the cyclist should be prepared to accept sole responsibility and
> > > > > blame. Also, a cyclist should be wearing a crash helmet and reflective
> > > > > vest and be riding a bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted
> > > > > with mandatory reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame
> > > > > after colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should
> > > > > receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
>
> > > > Where and when did I say that?
>
> > > > I'm a cyclist too, by the way.  Your main problem is you're too
> > > > polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think
> > > > _everyone_ is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided
> > > > opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
>
> > > > Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport
> > > > available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs
> > > > without siding one way or the other.
>
> > > I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
>
> > > Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
> > > culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
> > > and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
> > > it.
>
> > Daftinitian of 'closet motorist' ' a cyclist who id also a motorist'
>
> No a closet motorist prefers to be regarded as a cyclist though spends
> little time actually cycling and is highly critical of cyclists while
> being very defensive of motorists. Seems familiar on this newsgroup?

When you were busy driving and overturning your 14 mpg Land Rover, did
you also cycle (*)?

* not at the same time, obviously.

mileburner wrote:

> "JNugent"  wrote:
>> mileburner wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:

>>>  For their own safety cyclists should
>>>> receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
>>> There is actually a great deal of truth in this. Cyclists cannot use the 
>>> roads on equal terms as drivers because they are so vulnerable and 
>>> drivers are not, particularly at lower driving speeds.

>> You mean their bodies are not vulnerable. Their vehicles certainly are - 
>> and damage can be very costly. No, it's not the same thing, but neither is 
>> it trivial.

> Comparitively speaking, a scratched or dented bonnet is fairly trivial 
> compared to a broken bone (IMO).

I had already addressed the issue of non-comparability between injury and 
property damage. Having made that specific point, there was no need for you 
to do so. You added nothing to the discussion. Do you always try to unlatch 
open doors?

The *cost* of vehicle repairs is certainly not trivial. It can easily cost 
£1000 to repair dents and scratches to one side of a car.

That is not to be compared to injury (as I had already remarked), but that 
does not mean that repair costs are insignificant or that drivers don't try 
to avoid accidents. It is crass to pretend or suggest otherwise.

Here's the space for your next attempt at a riposte to an argument that 
doesn't exist (adjust length to suit):

<------------------------------->

>>> Consequently drivers become careless.

>> Only if they don't care about vehicle damage. That cannot be a very large 
>> proportion of drivers.

> The pain of vehicle damage is actually very slight in comparison to the pain 
> of bodily injury.

See above.

No-one's arguing to the contrary.

That doesn't mean that drivers welcome, or don't try to avoid, damage to 
their vehicles.

Next point, please.

> I would also suggest that there is a large proportion who 
> do not care about dents and scratches on their cars (I am one of them) I do 
> however car about the physical well being of myself and others.

If that is true, you are in a minority. A small one. Most drivers - most 
people - are concerned to avoid damage to their property.

>>> Cyclists therefore need to ride defensively so as to minimise the chances 
>>> of collision, even if it would not have been their fault anyway.

>> Good advice for anyone using the roads (with the appropriate adjustments). 
>> If someone runs out into the road in front of me, I brake, even though 
>> it's my "right of way". Similarly at green lights; if someone comes the 
>> other way, I do my best to stop and avoid a collision. It's what most 
>> people do. Their lack of "vulnerability" doesn't come into it.

> The vulnerability heightens the awareness of the danger. A small knock or 
> bump really does not matter that much to most drivers, it is just part of 
> motoring.

Rubbish.

It costs money to get damage repaired. It can affect the cost of insurance 
and the whole affordability of motoring. If you are so rich that this means 
nothing to you, please do not assume that everyone else is so privileged.

> A small knock or bump, even at low speed, can put a cyclist in 
> hospital, make them suffer a lot of pain, and make them have several months 
> off work.

See above.

No-one's arguing to the contrary.

That doesn't mean that drivers welcome, or don't try to avoid, damage to 
their vehicles.

Next point, please.

> But what is also so utterly bizarre, is that I can drive through my local 
> town at say 20 - 25 mph and suffer no violations of rights of way. Other 
> drivers yield, pedestrians stay out of the way and I can cruise through 
> without much worry about a car pulling out from the left (they rarely if 
> ever do) or pulling in front from the right (they do this even less so) or 
> even have anyone try to overtake. But, if I take the same route on a bike, 
> and I travel at the same speed, and take the same road position I will have 
> them pulling out from the left, crossing my path from the right, overtaking 
> and cutting in and generally put me at risk.

That was a rather better point.

> Drivers will respect bigger vehicles, but the smaller the vehicle, the less 
> threat they pose to them and the less courtesy and respect they are given.

That has the ring of truth to it. I suggest that it isn't quite as simple as 
that, but that should not be taken as meaning that I don't recognise the 
force of what you are sying.

I rather suspect that the reason for not wanting to be behind a bike is 
similar to the reasons many would have for not wanting to be behind a bus, or 
a larger commercial vehicle.

> This is why cyclists need to ride as if every driver is a total jerk.

Well, that's your view.

Why not just co-operate to let potentially faster vehicles get past you?

Less confrontation and (ultimately) less risk.

> Ho Bleeding Hum... 

Quite.

"JNugent"  wrote in message 
news:temdnRwqtN4VVm_XnZ2dnUVZ8oidnZ2d@pipex.net...
> mileburner wrote:
>
>> Comparitively speaking, a scratched or dented bonnet is fairly trivial 
>> compared to a broken bone (IMO).
>
> I had already addressed the issue of non-comparability between injury and 
> property damage. Having made that specific point, there was no need for 
> you to do so. You added nothing to the discussion. Do you always try to 
> unlatch open doors?
>
> The *cost* of vehicle repairs is certainly not trivial. It can easily cost 
> £1000 to repair dents and scratches to one side of a car.
>
> That is not to be compared to injury (as I had already remarked), but that 
> does not mean that repair costs are insignificant or that drivers don't 
> try to avoid accidents. It is crass to pretend or suggest otherwise.

Oh please...

On one hand you are saying a financial cost and physical injury are 
non-comparable, and then on the other hand you are trying to claim that a 
drivers cost of collision is not trivial either. So which is it? Are you 
trying to compare or not? It looks like you are. You also seem to have 
overlooked the fact that in many cases it is not the person actually driving 
the car that will bear the cost. You have also overlooked the fact that 
their cost is not immediate, direct and apparent. You have also overlooked 
the fact that their cost would not be disabling and painful as it would be 
in the case of a cyclist.

>> I would also suggest that there is a large proportion who do not care 
>> about dents and scratches on their cars (I am one of them) I do however 
>> car about the physical well being of myself and others.
>
> If that is true, you are in a minority. A small one. Most drivers - most 
> people - are concerned to avoid damage to their property.

Of course they try to avoid damage to their vehicles. It might mean the 
inconvenience of having their car off the road for a week. It might mean 
they lose their no claim discount. It might mean they get into bother with 
their spouse, employer or the car owner. But it does not mean that they 
might be sucking soup through a straw for the rest of their lives. Car 
damage *is* trivial compared to physical injury so don't try to compare the 
two. Oh no, you weren't were you?

>> The vulnerability heightens the awareness of the danger. A small knock or 
>> bump really does not matter that much to most drivers, it is just part of 
>> motoring.
>
> Rubbish.

And your experience of cycling is exactly? Or are you one of those drivers 
who obsessively worries about your car getting dented or scratched. I know 
they exist (they may even be the majority) but that does not negate the fact 
that there are an awful lot of drivers who really do not care about the odd 
dent or scratch here and there.

> It costs money to get damage repaired. It can affect the cost of insurance 
> and the whole affordability of motoring. If you are so rich that this 
> means nothing to you, please do not assume that everyone else is so 
> privileged.

My insurers allow me to have 2 claims in any 3 years before I lose any of my 
NCD. Actually I could drive with comprehensive insurance and suffer no 
financial cost if I damage my car. I would not say that is privileged. If 
people can afford to drive about in cars costing 20 grand, they can quite 
easily afford a few hundred quid on repairs or but of extra insurance costs. 
The cost of a minor collision *really is* trivial in this respect.

> That doesn't mean that drivers welcome, or don't try to avoid, damage to 
> their vehicles.

<yawn>

> Why not just co-operate to let potentially faster vehicles get past you?

Perhaps it has something to do with there not being enough room to do so 
safely. Are we back to the Nugent 100mm again? Or is it 12 inches needed to 
safely pass a cyclist?

mileburner wrote:

> "JNugent"  wrote in message 
> news:temdnRwqtN4VVm_XnZ2dnUVZ8oidnZ2d@pipex.net...
>> mileburner wrote:

>>> Comparitively speaking, a scratched or dented bonnet is fairly trivial 
>>> compared to a broken bone (IMO).

>> I had already addressed the issue of non-comparability between injury and 
>> property damage. Having made that specific point, there was no need for 
>> you to do so. You added nothing to the discussion. Do you always try to 
>> unlatch open doors?

>> The *cost* of vehicle repairs is certainly not trivial. It can easily cost 
>> £1000 to repair dents and scratches to one side of a car.

>> That is not to be compared to injury (as I had already remarked), but that 
>> does not mean that repair costs are insignificant or that drivers don't 
>> try to avoid accidents. It is crass to pretend or suggest otherwise.

> Oh please...

> On one hand you are saying a financial cost and physical injury are 
> non-comparable, and then on the other hand you are trying to claim that a 
> drivers cost of collision is not trivial either. So which is it?

It's both, as any sensible person would recognise and admit in an instant.

> Are you trying to compare or not?

If by "compare" you mean "equate", certainly not. I was explicit about that.

But the fact that damage to property is not as life-shattering as  physical 
injury does not mean that damage (or the cost of repairs) are insignificant 
or trivial.

> It looks like you are.

It looks as though I'm *not*, actually. Perhaps those with a warped agenda 
might see it differently.

> You also seem to have 
> overlooked the fact that in many cases it is not the person actually driving 
> the car that will bear the cost.

Irrelevant. No-one wants to have to take their company car, van, ambulance, 
lorry, etc, back to their boss and say "I've done it again". That would have 
consequences too.

> You have also overlooked the fact that 
> their cost is not immediate, direct and apparent. You have also overlooked 
> the fact that their cost would not be disabling and painful as it would be 
> in the case of a cyclist.

I haven't "overlooked" any of those things.

>>> I would also suggest that there is a large proportion who do not care 
>>> about dents and scratches on their cars (I am one of them) I do however 
>>> car about the physical well being of myself and others.

>> If that is true, you are in a minority. A small one. Most drivers - most 
>> people - are concerned to avoid damage to their property.

> Of course they try to avoid damage to their vehicles.

So what are you arguing about?

> It might mean the 
> inconvenience of having their car off the road for a week. It might mean 
> they lose their no claim discount. It might mean they get into bother with 
> their spouse, employer or the car owner. But it does not mean that they 
> might be sucking soup through a straw for the rest of their lives.

No-one has said it does (though it would be wrong to dismiss the likelihood 
of injury to a vehicle occupant, which is a frequent occurrence which *yoiu* 
seem to have overlooked).

> Car 
> damage *is* trivial compared to physical injury so don't try to compare the 
> two. Oh no, you weren't were you?

Correct.

I wasn't.

At least, I wasn't trying to equate them (that's the correct word).

>>> The vulnerability heightens the awareness of the danger. A small knock or 
>>> bump really does not matter that much to most drivers, it is just part of 
>>> motoring.

>> Rubbish.

> And your experience of cycling is exactly?

...irrelevant when commenting on whether a crash and resultant vehicle damage 
  is trivial to a driver.

Do *try* to keep up.

> Or are you one of those drivers 
> who obsessively worries about your car getting dented or scratched. I know 
> they exist (they may even be the majority) but that does not negate the fact 
> that there are an awful lot of drivers who really do not care about the odd 
> dent or scratch here and there.

I look after all of my property, not just my car.

>> It costs money to get damage repaired. It can affect the cost of insurance 
>> and the whole affordability of motoring. If you are so rich that this 
>> means nothing to you, please do not assume that everyone else is so 
>> privileged.

> My insurers allow me to have 2 claims in any 3 years before I lose any of my 
> NCD. Actually I could drive with comprehensive insurance and suffer no 
> financial cost if I damage my car. I would not say that is privileged. If 
> people can afford to drive about in cars costing 20 grand, they can quite 
> easily afford a few hundred quid on repairs or but of extra insurance costs. 
> The cost of a minor collision *really is* trivial in this respect.

"In this respect" is a weasel phrase. The cost of vehicle damage repairs is 
not trivial except to very rich people like your good self.

>> That doesn't mean that drivers welcome, or don't try to avoid, damage to 
>> their vehicles.

> <yawn>

>> Why not just co-operate to let potentially faster vehicles get past you?

> Perhaps it has something to do with there not being enough room to do so 
> safely. Are we back to the Nugent 100mm again? Or is it 12 inches needed to 
> safely pass a cyclist?

Oh dear... you've run out of argument again, eh?

On 5 Nov, 14:30, "mileburner"  wrote:
> "JNugent"  wrote in message
>
> news:temdnRwqtN4VVm_XnZ2dnUVZ8oidnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > mileburner wrote:
>
> >> Comparitively speaking, a scratched or dented bonnet is fairly trivial
> >> compared to a broken bone (IMO).
>
> > I had already addressed the issue of non-comparability between injury and
> > property damage. Having made that specific point, there was no need for
> > you to do so. You added nothing to the discussion. Do you always try to
> > unlatch open doors?
>
> > The *cost* of vehicle repairs is certainly not trivial. It can easily cost
> > �1000 to repair dents and scratches to one side of a car.
>
> > That is not to be compared to injury (as I had already remarked), but that
> > does not mean that repair costs are insignificant or that drivers don't
> > try to avoid accidents. It is crass to pretend or suggest otherwise.
>
> Oh please...
>
> On one hand you are saying a financial cost and physical injury are
> non-comparable, and then on the other hand you are trying to claim that a
> drivers cost of collision is not trivial either. So which is it? Are you
> trying to compare or not? It looks like you are. You also seem to have
> overlooked the fact that in many cases it is not the person actually driving
> the car that will bear the cost. You have also overlooked the fact that
> their cost is not immediate, direct and apparent. You have also overlooked
> the fact that their cost would not be disabling and painful as it would be
> in the case of a cyclist.

This is one of the rare occasions where I find myself in full
agreement with Mr Nugent.  He has not equated the effect of a
collision on a motorist with the effect on a cyclist.  He is merely
pointing out that most sensible people try to avoid damaging their
property, and hence most sensible drivers try to avoid colliding with
things.  I know only too well the effect a collision has on a cyclist
- I am still recovering from a serious accident earlier this year.
That said, it would piss me off enormously to be left with a repair
bill for my car as a result of me colliding with something.  That is
all he is saying.

Now give up - you are making yourself look silly.

"JNugent"  wrote in message 
news:CPydnfTvDrfEYW_XnZ2dnUVZ7tmdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> mileburner wrote:
>
>> On one hand you are saying a financial cost and physical injury are 
>> non-comparable, and then on the other hand you are trying to claim that a 
>> drivers cost of collision is not trivial either. So which is it?
>
> It's both, as any sensible person would recognise and admit in an instant.

"Trivial" is subjective and needs to be compared against something for it to 
have any meaning.

>>> Why not just co-operate to let potentially faster vehicles get past you?
>
>> Perhaps it has something to do with there not being enough room to do so 
>> safely. Are we back to the Nugent 100mm again? Or is it 12 inches needed 
>> to safely pass a cyclist?
>
> Oh dear... you've run out of argument again, eh?

Cyclists need space on the roads. Cyclists have a lot more to lose in the 
event of a crash. Cyclists would do well to ride in a manner which reduces 
the likelihood of collision.

I'm sure that Nugent can find an argument in there somewhere.

Crack on...

Paul - xxx wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> 
>> On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
>>> Doug wrote:
>>>> On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>> For those here in completed denial about the deliberate
>>>>>> ramming of cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
>>>>> You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your
>>>>> twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally
>>>>> against.
>>>>> You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking
>>>>> responses (like this one) from people who see you as the
>>>>> problem.   You never offer real, workable solutions you only
>>>>> bemoan, wail and gnash your teeth so rather than helping
>>>>> improve the situation for yourself and others, you actually
>>>>> hinder and fuel it.
>>>>> Please, go away.
>>>> Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and
>>>> is as follows.
>>>> For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers
>>>> and never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists
>>>> should not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use
>>>> pavements provided for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a
>>>> driver and collides with them the cyclist should be prepared to
>>>> accept sole responsibility and blame. Also, a cyclist should be
>>>> wearing a crash helmet and reflective vest and be riding a
>>>> bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted with mandatory
>>>> reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame after
>>>> colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should
>>>> receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
>>> Where and when did I say that?
>>>
>>> I'm a cyclist too, by the way.  Your main problem is you're too
>>> polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think
>>> everyone is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided
>>> opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
>>>
>>> Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport
>>> available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs
>>> without siding one way or the other.
>>>
>> I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
> 
> How so?  Does that mean that when I'm a cyclist on the roads I
> shouldn't be amenable to cars needs?  By that same definition when I'm
> a car driver I also shouldn't be amenable to cyclists needs, which
> seems to be what you deplore ... so which is it to be?  You have
> strange views.
>  
>> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
>> culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
>> and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
>> it.
> 
> Bullshit.  This is a cycling newsgroup, OK, it's been trolled a lot,
> but your views are not expressive of most/many/almost any other
> cyclists, indeed many of them completely disagree with you, hence you
> saying they're actually motorists!
> 
> Problem is you are unique.  That, in your case, is not a good thing.
> 

For myself, I think that it is a good thing that he is unique.

-- 

Tony Dragon

BrianW wrote:
> This is one of the rare occasions where I find myself in full
> agreement with Mr Nugent.  He has not equated the effect of a
> collision on a motorist with the effect on a cyclist.  He is merely
> pointing out that most sensible people try to avoid damaging their
> property, and hence most sensible drivers try to avoid colliding with
> things.

While I agree with what you say, all drivers are not sensible people.

> Now give up - you are making yourself look silly.

I already have, I really can't be arsed with Nugents pathetic arguments.

mileburner wrote:

> BrianW wrote:

>> This is one of the rare occasions where I find myself in full
>> agreement with Mr Nugent.  He has not equated the effect of a
>> collision on a motorist with the effect on a cyclist.  He is merely
>> pointing out that most sensible people try to avoid damaging their
>> property, and hence most sensible drivers try to avoid colliding with
>> things.

> While I agree with what you say, all drivers are not sensible people.

I didn't realise, until I read the above, how much difficulty you have with 
the English language.

I'll let you reflect on what you wrote and its meaning.

>> Now give up - you are making yourself look silly.

> I already have, I really can't be arsed with Nugents pathetic arguments.

Correct.

You had indeed already made yourself look silly, and you are adding to the 
effect with each successive post.

Tony Dragon wrote:

> Paul - xxx wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > 
> >>On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> > > > Doug wrote:
> >>>>On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> > > > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate
> > > > > > > ramming of cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
> > > > > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's
> > > > > > your twisting of facts to support your agenda that people
> > > > > > rally against.
> > > > > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in
> > > > > > provoking responses (like this one) from people who see you
> > > > > > as the problem.   You never offer real, workable solutions
> > > > > > you only bemoan, wail and gnash your teeth so rather than
> > > > > > helping improve the situation for yourself and others, you
> > > > > > actually hinder and fuel it.
> > > > > > Please, go away.
> > > > > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one
> > > > > and is as follows.
> > > > > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to
> > > > > drivers and never obstruct them in any way. For their own
> > > > > safety cyclists should not use roads but instead cycle paths
> > > > > and share use pavements provided for them. If a cyclist gets
> > > > > in the way of a driver and collides with them the cyclist
> > > > > should be prepared to accept sole responsibility and blame.
> > > > > Also, a cyclist should be wearing a crash helmet and
> > > > > reflective vest and be riding a bicycle which is perfect
> > > > > working order and fitted with mandatory reflectors etc if
> > > > > they wish to minimise their blame after colliding with a
> > > > > driver. For their own safety cyclists should receive special
> > > > > training to minimise colliding with drivers.
> > > > Where and when did I say that?
> > > > 
> > > > I'm a cyclist too, by the way.  Your main problem is you're too
> > > > polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think
> > > > everyone is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided
> > > > opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
> > > > 
> > > > Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport
> > > > available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs
> > > > without siding one way or the other.
> > > > 
> > > I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
> > 
> > How so?  Does that mean that when I'm a cyclist on the roads I
> > shouldn't be amenable to cars needs?  By that same definition when
> > I'm a car driver I also shouldn't be amenable to cyclists needs,
> > which seems to be what you deplore ... so which is it to be?  You
> > have strange views.
> > 
> > > Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the
> > > bicycle culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to
> > > stick up for them and you can't expect closet motorists on this
> > > newsgroup to want to do it.
> > 
> > Bullshit.  This is a cycling newsgroup, OK, it's been trolled a lot,
> > but your views are not expressive of most/many/almost any other
> > cyclists, indeed many of them completely disagree with you, hence
> > you saying they're actually motorists!
> > 
> > Problem is you are unique.  That, in your case, is not a good thing.
> > 
> 
> For myself, I think that it is a good thing that he is unique.

LOL, on reflection I think I have to agree.  ;)

Can you imagine more Dougs?  --<<shudder>>--

-- 
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

On 5 Nov, 08:25, "Esra Sdrawkcab"  wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:26:44 -0000, Doug  wrote:
> > I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
>
> > Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
> > culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
> > and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
> > it.
>
> Therefore it behoves us cyclists to carefully state our position without  
> causing offense, or being dismissed as looney pyscholists. This is an area  
> where you could improve, I feel.
>
It is very difficult to avoid causing offense after having been
verbally or physically abused or threatened by drivers. Don't forget
also that drivers kill cyclists but not vice versa and surely that
allows one a little latitude in causing offense? Or must we cyclists
all allow ourselves to be cowed and subjugated by drivers because they
happen to be a powerful majority with a lot of clout and heavy and
dangerous vehicles?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob.

On 5 Nov, 08:14, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> > > Doug wrote:
> > > > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> > > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate
> > > > > > ramming of cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
>
> > > > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your
> > > > > twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally
> > > > > against.
>
> > > > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking
> > > > > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the
> > > > > problem.   You never offer real, workable solutions you only
> > > > > bemoan, wail and gnash your teeth so rather than helping
> > > > > improve the situation for yourself and others, you actually
> > > > > hinder and fuel it.
>
> > > > > Please, go away.
>
> > > > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and
> > > > is as follows.
>
> > > > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers
> > > > and never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists
> > > > should not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use
> > > > pavements provided for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a
> > > > driver and collides with them the cyclist should be prepared to
> > > > accept sole responsibility and blame. Also, a cyclist should be
> > > > wearing a crash helmet and reflective vest and be riding a
> > > > bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted with mandatory
> > > > reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame after
> > > > colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should
> > > > receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
>
> > > Where and when did I say that?
>
> > > I'm a cyclist too, by the way.  Your main problem is you're too
> > > polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think
> > > everyone is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided
> > > opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
>
> > > Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport
> > > available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs
> > > without siding one way or the other.
>
> > I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
>
> How so?  Does that mean that when I'm a cyclist on the roads I
> shouldn't be amenable to cars needs?  By that same definition when I'm
> a car driver I also shouldn't be amenable to cyclists needs, which
> seems to be what you deplore ... so which is it to be?  You have
> strange views.
>
There is natural conflict between categories of road users which
cannot be resolved by always turning the other cheek to have it
slapped time and time again. There is far too much denigration of
cyclists which is undeserved, and I believe motorist inspired, bearing
mind which is the most dangerous by far.
>
> > Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
> > culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
> > and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
> > it.
>
> Bullshit.  This is a cycling newsgroup, OK, it's been trolled a lot,
> but your views are not expressive of most/many/almost any other
> cyclists, indeed many of them completely disagree with you, hence you
> saying they're actually motorists!
>
Either that or they are cowed by a majority. Why would cyclists, who
are in fierce competition for road space and are lethally threatened
by drivers, not stick up for cyclists?
>
> Problem is you are unique.  That, in your case, is not a good thing.
>
No I am not unique, though I may well be on this clearly motorist
dominated so-called cycling newsgroup. There is a world-wide movement
against excessive car use of which I am proud to belong. See sig.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:

> There is natural conflict between categories of road users which
> cannot be resolved by always turning the other cheek to have it
> slapped time and time again. 

Huh?  Your answer doesn't make sense.

> There is far too much denigration of
> cyclists which is undeserved, and I believe motorist inspired, bearing
> mind which is the most dangerous by far.

Again, you talk nonsensically.  How are cyclists denigrated on the
roads?

> > Bullshit.  This is a cycling newsgroup, OK, it's been trolled a lot,
> > but your views are not expressive of most/many/almost any other
> > cyclists, indeed many of them completely disagree with you, hence
> > you saying they're actually motorists!
> > 
> Either that or they are cowed by a majority. Why would cyclists, who
> are in fierce competition for road space and are lethally threatened
> by drivers, not stick up for cyclists?

Cyclists do stick up for cyclists, you seem not to stick up for
cyclists as such, you just seem to hate motorists .. which seems odd
given your history.  Although I guess being forced to give up something
you love could hurt ...

> > Problem is you are unique.  That, in your case, is not a good thing.
> > 
> No I am not unique, though I may well be on this clearly motorist
> dominated so-called cycling newsgroup.

You are just so blinkered.  

-- 
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

On 6 Nov, 08:06, Doug  wrote:
> On 5 Nov, 08:14, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
>
>
>
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> > > > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate
> > > > > > > ramming of cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
>
> > > > > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your
> > > > > > twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally
> > > > > > against.
>
> > > > > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking
> > > > > > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the
> > > > > > problem.   You never offer real, workable solutions you only
> > > > > > bemoan, wail and gnash your teeth so rather than helping
> > > > > > improve the situation for yourself and others, you actually
> > > > > > hinder and fuel it.
>
> > > > > > Please, go away.
>
> > > > > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and
> > > > > is as follows.
>
> > > > > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers
> > > > > and never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists
> > > > > should not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use
> > > > > pavements provided for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a
> > > > > driver and collides with them the cyclist should be prepared to
> > > > > accept sole responsibility and blame. Also, a cyclist should be
> > > > > wearing a crash helmet and reflective vest and be riding a
> > > > > bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted with mandatory
> > > > > reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame after
> > > > > colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should
> > > > > receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
>
> > > > Where and when did I say that?
>
> > > > I'm a cyclist too, by the way.  Your main problem is you're too
> > > > polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think
> > > > everyone is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided
> > > > opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
>
> > > > Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport
> > > > available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs
> > > > without siding one way or the other.
>
> > > I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
>
> > How so?  Does that mean that when I'm a cyclist on the roads I
> > shouldn't be amenable to cars needs?  By that same definition when I'm
> > a car driver I also shouldn't be amenable to cyclists needs, which
> > seems to be what you deplore ... so which is it to be?  You have
> > strange views.
>
> There is natural conflict between categories of road users which
> cannot be resolved by always turning the other cheek to have it
> slapped time and time again. There is far too much denigration of
> cyclists which is undeserved, and I believe motorist inspired, bearing
> mind which is the most dangerous by far.
>
> > > Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
> > > culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
> > > and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
> > > it.
>
> > Bullshit.  This is a cycling newsgroup, OK, it's been trolled a lot,
> > but your views are not expressive of most/many/almost any other
> > cyclists, indeed many of them completely disagree with you, hence you
> > saying they're actually motorists!
>
> Either that or they are cowed by a majority. Why would cyclists, who
> are in fierce competition for road space and are lethally threatened
> by drivers, not stick up for cyclists?
>
> > Problem is you are unique.  That, in your case, is not a good thing.
>
> No I am not unique, though I may well be on this clearly motorist
> dominated so-called cycling newsgroup. There is a world-wide movement
> against excessive car use of which I am proud to belong. See sig.
>
> --
> World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The World car free, how's that going to work then Doug?

Most of us are happy to share the roads, a few of us aren't - and a
paranoid minority of one is convinced that all car drivers are out to
get him! ...and any cyclist who contradicts anything he says has to be
a closet driver.

Doug  wrote in news:ea92bfbf-1fc4-461d-9563-
67856010ffeb@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
> culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
> and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
> it.

A lot of the drivers in this newsgroup are also cyclists and pedestrians.

"Paul - xxx"  wrote in news:7li4ksF3ds3v0U1
@mid.individual.net:

> Doug wrote:
> 
>> There is natural conflict between categories of road users which
>> cannot be resolved by always turning the other cheek to have it
>> slapped time and time again. 
> 
> Huh?  Your answer doesn't make sense.
> 
>> There is far too much denigration of
>> cyclists which is undeserved, and I believe motorist inspired, bearing
>> mind which is the most dangerous by far.
> 
> Again, you talk nonsensically.  How are cyclists denigrated on the
> roads?
> 
>> > Bullshit.  This is a cycling newsgroup, OK, it's been trolled a lot,
>> > but your views are not expressive of most/many/almost any other
>> > cyclists, indeed many of them completely disagree with you, hence
>> > you saying they're actually motorists!
>> > 
>> Either that or they are cowed by a majority. Why would cyclists, who
>> are in fierce competition for road space and are lethally threatened
>> by drivers, not stick up for cyclists?
> 
> Cyclists do stick up for cyclists, you seem not to stick up for
> cyclists as such, you just seem to hate motorists .. which seems odd
> given your history.  Although I guess being forced to give up something
> you love could hurt ...
> 
>> > Problem is you are unique.  That, in your case, is not a good thing.
>> > 
>> No I am not unique, though I may well be on this clearly motorist
>> dominated so-called cycling newsgroup.
> 
> You are just so blinkered.  

You and I will both be a bit blinkered when we get to 77 years old like 
Doug.  I think that is his age based on a Guardian story about him a few 
years ago.

On 7 Nov, 06:08, oldMaxim  wrote:
> On 6 Nov, 08:06, Doug  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 5 Nov, 08:14, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
>
> > > Doug wrote:
> > > > On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> > > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> > > > > > > Doug wrote:
> > > > > > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate
> > > > > > > > ramming of cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
>
> > > > > > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your
> > > > > > > twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally
> > > > > > > against.
>
> > > > > > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking
> > > > > > > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the
> > > > > > > problem.   You never offer real, workable solutions you only
> > > > > > > bemoan, wail and gnash your teeth so rather than helping
> > > > > > > improve the situation for yourself and others, you actually
> > > > > > > hinder and fuel it.
>
> > > > > > > Please, go away.
>
> > > > > > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and
> > > > > > is as follows.
>
> > > > > > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers
> > > > > > and never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists
> > > > > > should not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use
> > > > > > pavements provided for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a
> > > > > > driver and collides with them the cyclist should be prepared to
> > > > > > accept sole responsibility and blame. Also, a cyclist should be
> > > > > > wearing a crash helmet and reflective vest and be riding a
> > > > > > bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted with mandatory
> > > > > > reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame after
> > > > > > colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should
> > > > > > receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
>
> > > > > Where and when did I say that?
>
> > > > > I'm a cyclist too, by the way.  Your main problem is you're too
> > > > > polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think
> > > > > everyone is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided
> > > > > opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
>
> > > > > Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport
> > > > > available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs
> > > > > without siding one way or the other.
>
> > > > I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
>
> > > How so?  Does that mean that when I'm a cyclist on the roads I
> > > shouldn't be amenable to cars needs?  By that same definition when I'm
> > > a car driver I also shouldn't be amenable to cyclists needs, which
> > > seems to be what you deplore ... so which is it to be?  You have
> > > strange views.
>
> > There is natural conflict between categories of road users which
> > cannot be resolved by always turning the other cheek to have it
> > slapped time and time again. There is far too much denigration of
> > cyclists which is undeserved, and I believe motorist inspired, bearing
> > mind which is the most dangerous by far.
>
> > > > Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
> > > > culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
> > > > and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
> > > > it.
>
> > > Bullshit.  This is a cycling newsgroup, OK, it's been trolled a lot> > > but your views are not expressive of most/many/almost any other
> > > cyclists, indeed many of them completely disagree with you, hence you
> > > saying they're actually motorists!
>
> > Either that or they are cowed by a majority. Why would cyclists, who
> > are in fierce competition for road space and are lethally threatened
> > by drivers, not stick up for cyclists?
>
> > > Problem is you are unique.  That, in your case, is not a good thing> > No I am not unique, though I may well be on this clearly motorist
> > dominated so-called cycling newsgroup. There is a world-wide movement
> > against excessive car use of which I am proud to belong. See sig.
>
> > --
> > World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
> > Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The World car free, how's that going to work then Doug?
>
Its a 'world network' which hopes to minimise car use.
>
> Most of us are happy to share the roads, a few of us aren't - and a
> paranoid minority of one is convinced that all car drivers are out to
> get him! ...and any cyclist who contradicts anything he says has to be
> a closet driver.
>
I don't mind being contradicted, it is the incessant denigration of
cyclists I object to, especially on a cycling newsgroup, "Ohh! I saw a
cyclist riding on a pavement today and yesterday saw one going through
a red light". You can expect it from a motoring newsgroup or from a
media staffed mainly by motorists but not from cyclists themselves.

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.

Doug wrote:
> On 7 Nov, 06:08, oldMaxim  wrote:
>> On 6 Nov, 08:06, Doug  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 5 Nov, 08:14, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>> For those here in completed denial about the deliberate
>>>>>>>>> ramming of cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
>>>>>>>> You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your
>>>>>>>> twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally
>>>>>>>> against.
>>>>>>>> You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking
>>>>>>>> responses (like this one) from people who see you as the
>>>>>>>> problem.   You never offer real, workable solutions you only
>>>>>>>> bemoan, wail and gnash your teeth so rather than helping
>>>>>>>> improve the situation for yourself and others, you actually
>>>>>>>> hinder and fuel it.
>>>>>>>> Please, go away.
>>>>>>> Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and
>>>>>>> is as follows.
>>>>>>> For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers
>>>>>>> and never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists
>>>>>>> should not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use
>>>>>>> pavements provided for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a
>>>>>>> driver and collides with them the cyclist should be prepared to
>>>>>>> accept sole responsibility and blame. Also, a cyclist should be
>>>>>>> wearing a crash helmet and reflective vest and be riding a
>>>>>>> bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted with mandatory
>>>>>>> reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame after
>>>>>>> colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should
>>>>>>> receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
>>>>>> Where and when did I say that?
>>>>>> I'm a cyclist too, by the way.  Your main problem is you're too
>>>>>> polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think
>>>>>> everyone is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided
>>>>>> opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
>>>>>> Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport
>>>>>> available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs
>>>>>> without siding one way or the other.
>>>>> I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
>>>> How so?  Does that mean that when I'm a cyclist on the roads I
>>>> shouldn't be amenable to cars needs?  By that same definition when I'm
>>>> a car driver I also shouldn't be amenable to cyclists needs, which
>>>> seems to be what you deplore ... so which is it to be?  You have
>>>> strange views.
>>> There is natural conflict between categories of road users which
>>> cannot be resolved by always turning the other cheek to have it
>>> slapped time and time again. There is far too much denigration of
>>> cyclists which is undeserved, and I believe motorist inspired, bearing
>>> mind which is the most dangerous by far.
>>>>> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
>>>>> culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
>>>>> and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
>>>>> it.
>>>> Bullshit.  This is a cycling newsgroup, OK, it's been trolled a lot,
>>>> but your views are not expressive of most/many/almost any other
>>>> cyclists, indeed many of them completely disagree with you, hence you
>>>> saying they're actually motorists!
>>> Either that or they are cowed by a majority. Why would cyclists, who
>>> are in fierce competition for road space and are lethally threatened
>>> by drivers, not stick up for cyclists?
>>>> Problem is you are unique.  That, in your case, is not a good thing.
>>> No I am not unique, though I may well be on this clearly motorist
>>> dominated so-called cycling newsgroup. There is a world-wide movement
>>> against excessive car use of which I am proud to belong. See sig.
>>> --
>>> World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> The World car free, how's that going to work then Doug?
>>
> Its a 'world network' which hopes to minimise car use.
>> Most of us are happy to share the roads, a few of us aren't - and a
>> paranoid minority of one is convinced that all car drivers are out to
>> get him! ...and any cyclist who contradicts anything he says has to be
>> a closet driver.
>>
> I don't mind being contradicted, it is the incessant denigration of
> cyclists I object to, especially on a cycling newsgroup, "Ohh! I saw a
> cyclist riding on a pavement today and yesterday saw one going through
> a red light". You can expect it from a motoring newsgroup or from a
> media staffed mainly by motorists but not from cyclists themselves.
> 
> --
> Car Free Cities
> http://www.carfree.com/
> Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
> to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.
> 

If as a motorist I see a motorist doing wrong I will (and have) 
criticised him, so why should not a cyclist criticise a cyclist for 
doing wrong?

-- 

Tony Dragon

Mr. Benn wrote:
> Doug  wrote in news:ea92bfbf-1fc4-461d-9563-
> 67856010ffeb@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> 
>> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
>> culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
>> and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
>> it.
> 
> A lot of the drivers in this newsgroup are also cyclists and pedestrians.

And PT users, horse riders, etc.

Dougs problem is that he believes that you can only be one thing.

-- 

Tony Dragon

On 7 Nov, 09:22, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 7 Nov, 06:08, oldMaxim  wrote:
> >> On 6 Nov, 08:06, Doug  wrote:
>
> >>> On 5 Nov, 08:14, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>> On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> >>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> For those here in completed denial about the deliberate
> >>>>>>>>> ramming of cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
> >>>>>>>> You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your
> >>>>>>>> twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally
> >>>>>>>> against.
> >>>>>>>> You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking
> >>>>>>>> responses (like this one) from people who see you as the
> >>>>>>>> problem.   You never offer real, workable solutions you only
> >>>>>>>> bemoan, wail and gnash your teeth so rather than helping
> >>>>>>>> improve the situation for yourself and others, you actually
> >>>>>>>> hinder and fuel it.
> >>>>>>>> Please, go away.
> >>>>>>> Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and
> >>>>>>> is as follows.
> >>>>>>> For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers
> >>>>>>> and never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists
> >>>>>>> should not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use
> >>>>>>> pavements provided for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a
> >>>>>>> driver and collides with them the cyclist should be prepared to
> >>>>>>> accept sole responsibility and blame. Also, a cyclist should be
> >>>>>>> wearing a crash helmet and reflective vest and be riding a
> >>>>>>> bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted with mandatory
> >>>>>>> reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame after
> >>>>>>> colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should
> >>>>>>> receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
> >>>>>> Where and when did I say that?
> >>>>>> I'm a cyclist too, by the way.  Your main problem is you're too
> >>>>>> polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think
> >>>>>> everyone is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided
> >>>>>> opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
> >>>>>> Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport
> >>>>>> available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs
> >>>>>> without siding one way or the other.
> >>>>> I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
> >>>> How so?  Does that mean that when I'm a cyclist on the roads I
> >>>> shouldn't be amenable to cars needs?  By that same definition when I'm
> >>>> a car driver I also shouldn't be amenable to cyclists needs, which
> >>>> seems to be what you deplore ... so which is it to be?  You have
> >>>> strange views.
> >>> There is natural conflict between categories of road users which
> >>> cannot be resolved by always turning the other cheek to have it
> >>> slapped time and time again. There is far too much denigration of
> >>> cyclists which is undeserved, and I believe motorist inspired, bearing
> >>> mind which is the most dangerous by far.
> >>>>> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
> >>>>> culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
> >>>>> and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
> >>>>> it.
> >>>> Bullshit.  This is a cycling newsgroup, OK, it's been trolled a lot,
> >>>> but your views are not expressive of most/many/almost any other
> >>>> cyclists, indeed many of them completely disagree with you, hence you
> >>>> saying they're actually motorists!
> >>> Either that or they are cowed by a majority. Why would cyclists, who
> >>> are in fierce competition for road space and are lethally threatened
> >>> by drivers, not stick up for cyclists?
> >>>> Problem is you are unique.  That, in your case, is not a good thing.
> >>> No I am not unique, though I may well be on this clearly motorist
> >>> dominated so-called cycling newsgroup. There is a world-wide movement
> >>> against excessive car use of which I am proud to belong. See sig.
> >>> --
> >>> World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
> >>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> The World car free, how's that going to work then Doug?
>
> > Its a 'world network' which hopes to minimise car use.
> >> Most of us are happy to share the roads, a few of us aren't - and a
> >> paranoid minority of one is convinced that all car drivers are out to
> >> get him! ...and any cyclist who contradicts anything he says has to be
> >> a closet driver.
>
> > I don't mind being contradicted, it is the incessant denigration of
> > cyclists I object to, especially on a cycling newsgroup, "Ohh! I saw a
> > cyclist riding on a pavement today and yesterday saw one going through
> > a red light". You can expect it from a motoring newsgroup or from a
> > media staffed mainly by motorists but not from cyclists themselves.
>
>
> If as a motorist I see a motorist doing wrong I will (and have)
> criticised him, so why should not a cyclist criticise a cyclist for
> doing wrong?
>
They can but why should they need to when motorists are doing it for
them on a regular basis?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 7 Nov, 09:24, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> Mr. Benn wrote:
> > Doug  wrote in news:ea92bfbf-1fc4-461d-9563-
> > 67856010f...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
> >> culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
> >> and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
> >> it.
>
> > A lot of the drivers in this newsgroup are also cyclists and pedestrians.
>
> And PT users, horse riders, etc.
>
> Dougs problem is that he believes that you can only be one thing.
>
No I believe that most people have a preference for one thing and tend
to use it and justify it the most.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 8 Nov, 07:56, Doug  wrote:
> On 7 Nov, 09:24, Tony Dragon  wrote:> Mr. Benn wrote:
> > > Doug  wrote in news:ea92bfbf-1fc4-461d-9563-
> > > 67856010f...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
> > >> culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
> > >> and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
> > >> it.
>
> > > A lot of the drivers in this newsgroup are also cyclists and pedestrians.
>
> > And PT users, horse riders, etc.
>
> > Dougs problem is that he believes that you can only be one thing.
>
> No I believe that most people have a preference for one thing and tend
> to use it and justify it the most.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

we're not all like you - most folk seem to be a lot more broad minded
than you, tend to see a bit more of the big picture

Doug wrote:
> On 7 Nov, 09:22, Tony Dragon  wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 7 Nov, 06:08, oldMaxim  wrote:
>>>> On 6 Nov, 08:06, Doug  wrote:
>>>>> On 5 Nov, 08:14, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> For those here in completed denial about the deliberate
>>>>>>>>>>> ramming of cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
>>>>>>>>>> You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your
>>>>>>>>>> twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally
>>>>>>>>>> against.
>>>>>>>>>> You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking
>>>>>>>>>> responses (like this one) from people who see you as the
>>>>>>>>>> problem.   You never offer real, workable solutions you only
>>>>>>>>>> bemoan, wail and gnash your teeth so rather than helping
>>>>>>>>>> improve the situation for yourself and others, you actually
>>>>>>>>>> hinder and fuel it.
>>>>>>>>>> Please, go away.
>>>>>>>>> Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and
>>>>>>>>> is as follows.
>>>>>>>>> For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers
>>>>>>>>> and never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists
>>>>>>>>> should not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use
>>>>>>>>> pavements provided for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a
>>>>>>>>> driver and collides with them the cyclist should be prepared to
>>>>>>>>> accept sole responsibility and blame. Also, a cyclist should be
>>>>>>>>> wearing a crash helmet and reflective vest and be riding a
>>>>>>>>> bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted with mandatory
>>>>>>>>> reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame after
>>>>>>>>> colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should
>>>>>>>>> receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
>>>>>>>> Where and when did I say that?
>>>>>>>> I'm a cyclist too, by the way.  Your main problem is you're too
>>>>>>>> polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think
>>>>>>>> everyone is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided
>>>>>>>> opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
>>>>>>>> Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport
>>>>>>>> available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs
>>>>>>>> without siding one way or the other.
>>>>>>> I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
>>>>>> How so?  Does that mean that when I'm a cyclist on the roads I
>>>>>> shouldn't be amenable to cars needs?  By that same definition when I'm
>>>>>> a car driver I also shouldn't be amenable to cyclists needs, which
>>>>>> seems to be what you deplore ... so which is it to be?  You have
>>>>>> strange views.
>>>>> There is natural conflict between categories of road users which
>>>>> cannot be resolved by always turning the other cheek to have it
>>>>> slapped time and time again. There is far too much denigration of
>>>>> cyclists which is undeserved, and I believe motorist inspired, bearing
>>>>> mind which is the most dangerous by far.
>>>>>>> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
>>>>>>> culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
>>>>>>> and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>> Bullshit.  This is a cycling newsgroup, OK, it's been trolled a lot,
>>>>>> but your views are not expressive of most/many/almost any other
>>>>>> cyclists, indeed many of them completely disagree with you, hence you
>>>>>> saying they're actually motorists!
>>>>> Either that or they are cowed by a majority. Why would cyclists, who
>>>>> are in fierce competition for road space and are lethally threatened
>>>>> by drivers, not stick up for cyclists?
>>>>>> Problem is you are unique.  That, in your case, is not a good thing.
>>>>> No I am not unique, though I may well be on this clearly motorist
>>>>> dominated so-called cycling newsgroup. There is a world-wide movement
>>>>> against excessive car use of which I am proud to belong. See sig.
>>>>> --
>>>>> World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
>>>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> The World car free, how's that going to work then Doug?
>>> Its a 'world network' which hopes to minimise car use.
>>>> Most of us are happy to share the roads, a few of us aren't - and a
>>>> paranoid minority of one is convinced that all car drivers are out to
>>>> get him! ...and any cyclist who contradicts anything he says has to be
>>>> a closet driver.
>>> I don't mind being contradicted, it is the incessant denigration of
>>> cyclists I object to, especially on a cycling newsgroup, "Ohh! I saw a
>>> cyclist riding on a pavement today and yesterday saw one going through
>>> a red light". You can expect it from a motoring newsgroup or from a
>>> media staffed mainly by motorists but not from cyclists themselves.
>>
>> If as a motorist I see a motorist doing wrong I will (and have)
>> criticised him, so why should not a cyclist criticise a cyclist for
>> doing wrong?
>>
> They can but why should they need to when motorists are doing it for
> them on a regular basis?
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
> 

If you could be bothered to read & understand various posts on this NG, 
you would notice many who have said they are cyclists criticising 
pavement cycling, or are they in your words not 'real cyclists'?

-- 

Tony Dragon

Doug wrote:
> On 7 Nov, 09:24, Tony Dragon  wrote:
>> Mr. Benn wrote:
>>> Doug  wrote in news:ea92bfbf-1fc4-461d-9563-
>>> 67856010f...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>>> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
>>>> culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
>>>> and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
>>>> it.
>>> A lot of the drivers in this newsgroup are also cyclists and pedestrians.
>> And PT users, horse riders, etc.
>>
>> Dougs problem is that he believes that you can only be one thing.
>>
> No I believe that most people have a preference for one thing and tend
> to use it and justify it the most.
> 
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
> 

I tend to use PT about as much as a car, I have no preference for one 
over the other, I use what I see as the most suitable transport at that 
time.
Does that make me a motorist, a busist, a trainist or a tramist?

-- 

Tony Dragon

On 8 Nov, 08:56, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 7 Nov, 09:22, Tony Dragon  wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 7 Nov, 06:08, oldMaxim  wrote:
> >>>> On 6 Nov, 08:06, Doug  wrote:
> >>>>> On 5 Nov, 08:14, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> >>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx"  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> For those here in completed denial about the deliberate
> >>>>>>>>>>> ramming of cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
> >>>>>>>>>> You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your
> >>>>>>>>>> twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally
> >>>>>>>>>> against.
> >>>>>>>>>> You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking
> >>>>>>>>>> responses (like this one) from people who see you as the
> >>>>>>>>>> problem.   You never offer real, workable solutions you only
> >>>>>>>>>> bemoan, wail and gnash your teeth so rather than helping
> >>>>>>>>>> improve the situation for yourself and others, you actually
> >>>>>>>>>> hinder and fuel it.
> >>>>>>>>>> Please, go away.
> >>>>>>>>> Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and
> >>>>>>>>> is as follows.
> >>>>>>>>> For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers
> >>>>>>>>> and never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists
> >>>>>>>>> should not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use
> >>>>>>>>> pavements provided for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a
> >>>>>>>>> driver and collides with them the cyclist should be prepared to
> >>>>>>>>> accept sole responsibility and blame. Also, a cyclist should be
> >>>>>>>>> wearing a crash helmet and reflective vest and be riding a
> >>>>>>>>> bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted with mandatory
> >>>>>>>>> reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame after
> >>>>>>>>> colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should
> >>>>>>>>> receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
> >>>>>>>> Where and when did I say that?
> >>>>>>>> I'm a cyclist too, by the way.  Your main problem is you're too
> >>>>>>>> polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think
> >>>>>>>> everyone is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided
> >>>>>>>> opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
> >>>>>>>> Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport
> >>>>>>>> available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs
> >>>>>>>> without siding one way or the other.
> >>>>>>> I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
> >>>>>> How so?  Does that mean that when I'm a cyclist on the roads I
> >>>>>> shouldn't be amenable to cars needs?  By that same definition when I'm
> >>>>>> a car driver I also shouldn't be amenable to cyclists needs, which
> >>>>>> seems to be what you deplore ... so which is it to be?  You have
> >>>>>> strange views.
> >>>>> There is natural conflict between categories of road users which
> >>>>> cannot be resolved by always turning the other cheek to have it
> >>>>> slapped time and time again. There is far too much denigration of
> >>>>> cyclists which is undeserved, and I believe motorist inspired, bearing
> >>>>> mind which is the most dangerous by far.
> >>>>>>> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle
> >>>>>>> culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them
> >>>>>>> and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do
> >>>>>>> it.
> >>>>>> Bullshit.  This is a cycling newsgroup, OK, it's been trolled a lot,
> >>>>>> but your views are not expressive of most/many/almost any other
> >>>>>> cyclists, indeed many of them completely disagree with you, hence you
> >>>>>> saying they're actually motorists!
> >>>>> Either that or they are cowed by a majority. Why would cyclists, who
> >>>>> are in fierce competition for road space and are lethally threatened
> >>>>> by drivers, not stick up for cyclists?
> >>>>>> Problem is you are unique.  That, in your case, is not a good thing.
> >>>>> No I am not unique, though I may well be on this clearly motorist
> >>>>> dominated so-called cycling newsgroup. There is a world-wide movement
> >>>>> against excessive car use of which I am proud to belong. See sig.
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
> >>>>> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> The World car free, how's that going to work then Doug?
> >>> Its a 'world network' which hopes to minimise car use.
> >>>> Most of us are happy to share the roads, a few of us aren't - and a
> >>>> paranoid minority of one is convinced that all car drivers are out to
> >>>> get him! ...and any cyclist who contradicts anything he says has to be
> >>>> a closet driver.
> >>> I don't mind being contradicted, it is the incessant denigration of
> >>> cyclists I object to, especially on a cycling newsgroup, "Ohh! I saw a
> >>> cyclist riding on a pavement today and yesterday saw one going through
> >>> a red light". You can expect it from a motoring newsgroup or from a
> >>> media staffed mainly by motorists but not from cyclists themselves.
>
> >> If as a motorist I see a motorist doing wrong I will (and have)
> >> criticised him, so why should not a cyclist criticise a cyclist for
> >> doing wrong?
>
> > They can but why should they need to when motorists are doing it for
> > them on a regular basis?
>
>
> If you could be bothered to read & understand various posts on this NG,
> you would notice many who have said they are cyclists criticising
> pavement cycling, or are they in your words not 'real cyclists'?
>
I criticise pavement cycling but I understand the very good reason why
cyclists do it. Your average motorist doesn't or doesn't want to.
Hence why would there be repeated criticism of pavement cycling on
newsgroups and in the media if it wasn't with the objective of
vilifying cycling at any and every opportunity while ignoring pavement
motoring?

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.