On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:32:59 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On 19 Oct 2004 06:16:58 -0700, (Nick
Cooper 625) wrote:

What supposition? Look back at the history of cross-posted threads
between urc and uk.tosspot.

Your supposition that I have any affinity with - or remit to defend -
the drivers of motor vehicles.

And yet you seek to prosecute cyclists for the tiny risk they pose,
without at the same time commenting on the equally commonplace and far
more dangerous lawbreaking of motorised road users.

I daresay if you looked properly you would see a fair few comments by
me about motor vehicle drivers. However, I see just as many cyclists
behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers, so I don't see why
they should be excused comment.

Why is that, I wonder?

Because you have a self-selecting chip on your shoulder?

Most pedestrians' representatives seem to have no trouble
distinguishing between the scale of risk posed by cars and bicycles,
and devote their efforts to controlling motor danger. We already know
that you are about 200 times more likely to be killed /on the footway/
by a motor driver than by a cyclist, after all.

Yes, I'm sure that's a huge consolation to any pedestrian who gets hit
by a reckless cyclist. Of course, cars do not routinely deliberate
travel on pavements, but many cyclists certainly do.

But instead of railing against lawlessness among vehicle users - which
is not in any way contentious (except on uk.tosspot, a fantasy land
where speeding is not illegal) - you choose to pick on those who not
only pose little risk, but actually share the danger. In case you
hadnt noticed the leading cause of both pedestrian and cyclist death
is collisions involving motor vehicles. And cyclists are actually
much less likely to be to blame for their own demise than are
pedestrians.

If you can prove that I have never made an adverse comment about motor
vehicle drivers, you might have a point, but since you can't, you're
just coming up with the same self-selecting ******** again.

It is a strange and inconsistent view you have.

No, it's a strange an inconsistent defensive attitude you have.

Please jsutify the use of illegal cyclist behaviour to excuse illegal
and potentially lethal bus driver behaviour.

And where am I supposed to have done that, smartarse?

Up through the thread history, that is how you started the whole
thing.

Really? I can't see any statement by me that "excuse illegal
and potentially lethal bus driver behaviour." Would you care to
identify it specifically, or are you just leaping to huge conclusions.
Again.

So you feel it's perfectly acceptable to use the behaviour of crap
cyclists to excuse that of crap drivers, but not vice-versa?
Fascinating.

Since I haven't, then obviously not. Admit it - you don't even know
what you're talkign about, do you?

Indeed I do, having spent a lot of time researching the matter.

Nice set of reasearch blinkers you have, obviously.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk