On 21 Oct 2004 13:03:50 -0700, (Nick
Cooper 625) wrote in message
:

Obviously we're back to your 11th Commandment again: "Thous shalt not
criticise cyclists."

Is the wrong answer. You started this subthread by advancing the bad
behaviour of cyclists as some kind of defence or excuse for the bad
behaviour of bus drivers. Given that bus drivers are paid to drive,
trained to an advanced standard and specially licensed, driving large
and dangerous vehicles, responsible for the safety of their passengers
as well as the general public - the comparison simply doesn't stand
up.

So instead we should, to use your own analogy, focus on that one
medical condition, vilifying it and using derogatory language, and not
even acknowledging the fact that it is a tiny problem, portraying it
as if it /the/ major threat to life and limb. Brilliant.

That chip on you shoulder is obviously weighing you down again.

Projection, n

(Psychology)
1. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or
suppositions to others: “Even trained anthropologists have
been guilty of unconscious projectionof clothing the subjects
of their research in theories brought with them into the
field” (Alex Shoumatoff).

2. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or
desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious
defense against anxiety or guilt.

Seems to cover your attitude here, I think.

Read it again. These are deaths /on the footway/. You have asserted
that large numbers of cyclists ride on the footway for much of their
journey, do you believe that the average annual passenger mileage of
cars on the footway is as high as it is for bicycles?

I asserted no such thing, I couldn't give a **** about the latter.

Ah, so you only care about red light jumping / pedestrian crossing
offences. In which case...

"So now we look at the fatality figures on pedestrian crossings, which
are about equal to those for footways (crossing the road is dangerous,
even when you have priority). Of these fatalities, how many are
caused by cyclists? And the answer is, once again, somewhere below a
quarter of 1% - and once again this is despite your assertion that
cyclists do this all the time, and drivers only rarely. So once
again, any rational measure of risk leaves tackling cyclists well down
on the "if we get around to it" pile."

There are two main reasons why cyclists go through red lights: first,
because they can get away with it, and second, because the energy required
to restart after coming to a halt is equivalent to extending your journey
by up to 200 metres.

Well, tough ****ing ****. Do you see car drivers coming up with the
same excuse? "I don't stop for red lights, because the action of
bringing the vehicle back upto speed is like spending another X amount
on petrol." Do you realise what a total idiot you sound like?

The range of excuses used by drivers (all road users, in fact) for
their illegal behaviour is legendary. To suggest that this is unique
to cyclists is absurd.

Again we come back to your weird "worst first" set of priorities....

LOL! So weird, in fact, that Mr Pareto famously invented a law to
describe it!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University