|
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:13:11 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote: 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. First, "not around here" - remember this is x-posted to uk.rec.cycling, whihc is where I live. Yes, well obviously every time I comment on bad drivers I think, "Oh, I must remember to crosspost to urc, just so they know I don't just have a go at cyclists...." Second, I am not aware of *anybody* on urc who advocates cyclists being excused from wrongdoing. We might be able to advance possible reasons why they do it (e.g. riding on the pavement because of fear of traffic and councils' blurring of the boundaries with their cans of paint), what we take exception to is bald statements that cyclists are lawless, when the clear evidence is that /all/ vehicular road users are lawless, and a good many non-vehicular ones as well. That's not a reason not to comment on the lawlessness of some cyclists. By your line of reasoning, we shouldn't talk about X medical condition being debilitating, because Y condition is _far_ worse. Why is that, I wonder? Because you have a self-selecting chip on your shoulder? Or not. We get a lot of cross-posts around here from people who clearly walk and drive but never cycle, who then berate cyclists for their behaviour without acknowledging the poor behaviour of other road users. So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course, car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right.... One of the key contributors to road danger, in my view, is the pernicious idea that all the danger is caused by the behaviour of the nebulous "them" and that the things we do must necessarily be safe because they have not yet ended in catastrophe. 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. So explain, then, how car drivers, even though they almost never venture on the footway, still manage to kill 200 times as many pedestrians on the footway as do cyclists? I don't know, but I would be inclined to ask how many cars there are on the roads compared to bicycles, because otherwise your statement is meaningless. Many more people are killed on the roads than in light aircraft accidents in the UK every year, but that means nothing unless you know the differences in usage. It suggests to me that the risk from cyclists is rather small, and would be better tackled by addressing the source of most danger, which is also conicidentally responsible for encouraging the cyclists onto the footway in the first place. So what "danger" causes cyclists to ride through reds at Pelican crossings, when there isn't a motor vehicle within twenty metres of them? What "dangers" causes them to swerve onto the pavement at junctions to bypass red lights and make a left-hand turn? I see these happening all the time, but can't even remotely say the same of drivers. 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. You started a cyclist-baiting crosspost. Prior behaviour is irrelevant. No, I made an observation in light of an existing cross-post. Lacking the sense of telepathy your pompous attitude of superiority suggests you possess, I had no way of knowing if the originator of the thread - and whose post I was responding to - was posting primarily via urc or utl. It is a strange and inconsistent view you have. No, it's a strange an inconsistent defensive attitude you have. On the contrary, my attitude is wholly consistent: all road users should control their vehicles according to the law and the Highway Code. I believe that if everybody drove and rode according to the HC the roads would be much safer. 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." Ah, so you are making the pedantic point that you were merely singling out cyclists from the much greater causes of risk, for some reason known only to yourself. A difference which makes no difference in my view, but I will concede the point if you like. Again we seem to come back to this idea you have that cyclist are beyond reproach - except, it seems, amongst _other_ cyclists - just because drivers are worse. Where's the logic in that? Should be not condemn human rights abuses perpetrated by the United States because there are other countries that are worse? 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. The blinkers are to be found on those who use only one type of vehicle, a group which does not include me. Well, since I don't operate any type of vehicle, I can be truly objective, then. |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
"Nick Cooper 625" wrote in message
om... So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course, car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right.... If you look at the title/beginning of the thread, I think you'll find it was the other way round : somebody made an adverse comment on bus drivers, and somebody else said 'cyclists are as bad/worse'. clive |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
"Clive George" wrote in message ...
"Nick Cooper 625" wrote in message om... So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course, car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right.... If you look at the title/beginning of the thread, I think you'll find it was the other way round : somebody made an adverse comment on bus drivers, and somebody else said 'cyclists are as bad/worse'. So you think there is something fundamentally wrong with saying some cyclists as "as bad" ("worse" was never mentioned)? Are cyclists beyond reproach? |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
On 21 Oct 2004 04:42:46 -0700, (Nick Cooper 625) wrote: First, "not around here" - remember this is x-posted to uk.rec.cycling, whihc is where I live. Yes, well obviously every time I comment on bad drivers I think, "Oh, I must remember to crosspost to urc, just so they know I don't just have a go at cyclists...." Alternatively, you could try not launching pointless attacks on cyclists in the first place. Obviously we're back to your 11th Commandment again: "Thous shalt not criticise cyclists." Second, I am not aware of *anybody* on urc who advocates cyclists being excused from wrongdoing. That's not a reason not to comment on the lawlessness of some cyclists. By your line of reasoning, we shouldn't talk about X medical condition being debilitating, because Y condition is _far_ worse. 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. That will work especially well if the medical condition in question turns out to be something which extends life, but which, when combined with one of the conditions we are determinedly ignoring, ends up with death. On second thoughts, it seems that your analogy falls apart as soon we start to bring in reality. I get the impression that isn't a place you visit very often. So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course, car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right.... Yeah, right. A moment's rational thought will reveal that the problem is not cyclists, it is lawless and careless vehicle use. So explain, then, how car drivers, even though they almost never venture on the footway, still manage to kill 200 times as many pedestrians on the footway as do cyclists? I don't know, but I would be inclined to ask how many cars there are on the roads compared to bicycles, because otherwise your statement is meaningless. 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. An order of magnitude lower? Two orders of magnitude? We are constantly being told that no driver sets out to accomplish all or aany significant part of his journey on the footway, yet at least some cyclists appear to do just that. At some ages they are positively encouraged to do so. In some locations adult cyclists are berated for not doing so. Ditto. And yet, despite the fact that it appears vastly more bicyclist miles are ridden on the pavement than motorist miles, the risk /on the pavement/ from motor traffic is over two orders of magnitude higher. On the face of it that says to me that focusing on pavement cycling alone in this way is absurd. However, since I wasn't.... It suggests to me that the risk from cyclists is rather small, and would be better tackled by addressing the source of most danger, which is also conicidentally responsible for encouraging the cyclists onto the footway in the first place. So what "danger" causes cyclists to ride through reds at Pelican crossings, when there isn't a motor vehicle within twenty metres of them? That is different from the question of pavement cycling. The "question" you have largely invented here.... 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? They can get away with it because, in the main, they do not conflict with other traffic when doing so. If they did, they would die, and they know that. It is quite difficult to weave through a stream of crossing pedestrians in somethign 6ft wide and 15ft long, much easier to do so on something 18" wide and 5ft long - especially when it is very manoeuvrable. Which is not an excuse, any more than the fact that we know why drivers jump lights is an excuse. 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. Again we come back to your weird "worst first" set of priorities.... What "dangers" causes them to swerve onto the pavement at junctions to bypass red lights and make a left-hand turn? I see these happening all the time, but can't even remotely say the same of drivers. As previously posted, there are bolards on the pavement at a set of lights near my home precisely to prevent drivers from doing this. You started a cyclist-baiting crosspost. Prior behaviour is irrelevant. No, I made an observation in light of an existing cross-post. Yes, I see that my newsreader has expired the earlier posts. But you did bring up the issue of cyclists. Ah, so you are making the pedantic point that you were merely singling out cyclists from the much greater causes of risk, for some reason known only to yourself. A difference which makes no difference in my view, but I will concede the point if you like. Again we seem to come back to this idea you have that cyclist are beyond reproach Absolutely not. Nor are they uniquely (or even especially) worthy of reproach. That is my point. Pointless more like it. |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
"Nick Cooper 625" wrote in message om... "Clive George" wrote in message ... "Nick Cooper 625" wrote in message om... So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course, car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right.... If you look at the title/beginning of the thread, I think you'll find it was the other way round : somebody made an adverse comment on bus drivers, and somebody else said 'cyclists are as bad/worse'. So you think there is something fundamentally wrong with saying some cyclists as "as bad" ("worse" was never mentioned)? Are cyclists beyond reproach? Yes, no. Fundamentally, a bad cyclist would have to try incredibly hard to be more dangerous than a bad bus driver, so it is unreasonable to excuse bad bus drivers by claiming that cyclists are as bad. Which is what the comment that sparked all this nasty disagreement was doing. No, cyclists are not beyond reproach. Happy now? clive |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
Nick Cooper 625 blathered, in response to Guy:
On second thoughts, it seems that your analogy falls apart as soon we start to bring in reality. I get the impression that isn't a place you visit very often. Guy is a Christian, but otherwise seems to be pretty firmly rooted in reality. 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? Do you have difficulty reading? Guy stated 2 *reasons* why cyclists go through red lights, not *excuses*. In fact, 2 paragraphs later Guy wrote: "Which is not an excuse..." Which is not an excuse, any more than the fact that we know why drivers jump lights is an excuse. Oh look, you didn't even snip it! Actually, you /do/ seem to have difficulty trimming, as well. -- Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address) URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:13:02 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote: "Nick Cooper 625" wrote in message . com... "Clive George" wrote in message ... "Nick Cooper 625" wrote in message om... So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course, car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right.... If you look at the title/beginning of the thread, I think you'll find it was the other way round : somebody made an adverse comment on bus drivers, and somebody else said 'cyclists are as bad/worse'. So you think there is something fundamentally wrong with saying some cyclists as "as bad" ("worse" was never mentioned)? Are cyclists beyond reproach? Yes, no. Fundamentally, a bad cyclist would have to try incredibly hard to be more dangerous than a bad bus driver, so it is unreasonable to excuse bad bus drivers by claiming that cyclists are as bad. Which is what the comment that sparked all this nasty disagreement was doing. This is starting to develop into a theme of cyclists leaping spectacurly to the conclusion they want, rather than actually reading what was said. I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists are as bad," but I'm getting a bit bored with this obsessive over-defensiveness from the Lycra Lobby.... -- 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 |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:00:21 +0100, Danny Colyer
wrote: Nick Cooper 625 blathered, in response to Guy: On second thoughts, it seems that your analogy falls apart as soon we start to bring in reality. I get the impression that isn't a place you visit very often. Guy is a Christian, but otherwise seems to be pretty firmly rooted in reality. 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? Do you have difficulty reading? Guy stated 2 *reasons* why cyclists go through red lights, not *excuses*. In fact, 2 paragraphs later Guy wrote: "Which is not an excuse..." Which is not an excuse, any more than the fact that we know why drivers jump lights is an excuse. Oh look, you didn't even snip it! Actually, you /do/ seem to have difficulty trimming, as well. Half the problem with this thread is cyclist-apologists overly-trimming and then claiming that things were said which weren't. -- 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 |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ... So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course, car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right.... If you look at the title/beginning of the thread, I think you'll find it was the other way round : somebody made an adverse comment on bus drivers, and somebody else said 'cyclists are as bad/worse'. So you think there is something fundamentally wrong with saying some cyclists as "as bad" ("worse" was never mentioned)? Are cyclists beyond reproach? Yes, no. Fundamentally, a bad cyclist would have to try incredibly hard to be more dangerous than a bad bus driver, so it is unreasonable to excuse bad bus drivers by claiming that cyclists are as bad. Which is what the comment that sparked all this nasty disagreement was doing. This is starting to develop into a theme of cyclists leaping spectacurly to the conclusion they want, rather than actually reading what was said. I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists are as bad," but I'm getting a bit bored with this obsessive over-defensiveness from the Lycra Lobby.... Your first post in this thread, I believe. Google groups confirms. You imply that the cyclist behaviour you complain about is as bad as the bus driver behaviour originally complained about. clive |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:08:54 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote in message : Half the problem with this thread is cyclist-apologists overly-trimming and then claiming that things were said which weren't. And the other half is idiots whose hatred of cyclists overwhelms any sense of perspective. 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 |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
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 |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message ... [snip] ...... 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. There's a third reason, too, although thankfully it's not as common in London as it is in some places. There are traffic engineers who don't consider vehicles without motors to be proper vehicles, so they simply set the traffic light vehicle detectors so they don't detect cyclists. This trains cyclists to believe that there is no point in waiting at lights, because lights don't turn green for cyclists. Furthermore it sends out the message that the professionals who cause the inevitably resulting red light running don't consider that red light running to be a problem. I gather that bad detectors are sometimes a problem even for motorcycles. Jeremy Parker |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:07:51 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote:
I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists are as bad," Ooh, ooh, I know this one! Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:13:11 GMT However, I see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers, That appears to be by you in a direct ancestor of this post. Do you deny you said it? regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:07:51 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote: I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists are as bad," Ooh, ooh, I know this one! Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:13:11 GMT However, I see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers, That appears to be by you in a direct ancestor of this post. Do you deny you said it? Miss, miss! Teh nasty man's confusing us with FACTS, miss! -- Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/ World Domination? Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine) |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
|
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In article ,
David Hansen wrote: It is irrelevant. From the point of view of a pedestrian what matters is how likely they are to be killed by a cyclist or killed by a motorist. Debatable[1], but irrelevant. My curiousity still has not been sated! Does anyone know - roughly - how many cyclists there are? Or the relative number of journeys each mode makes? [1] The pedestrian may want to make adjustments to their own behaviour when they see vehicles approaching them. And others may wish to make a cost/benifit analysis for measures to reduce the number - the benefits are larger if you target cars (by the factor of 200 you cite); but the costs are likely also larger (because there are - probably - more cars to fit bubble wrap to. Or whatever). -- You dont have to be illiterate to use the Internet, but it help's. |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:24:37 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: 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. yawn No I didn't. Why should I? Stop doggedly sticking to you own misassumption. 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. Well, it's a comparison of your own making, so it's nothing to do with me. I would make the observation, though, that a bus driver disgregarding their training and behaving in a dangerous manner is no less irrational than a cyclist disregarding all common sense and nehaving in a dangerous manner. They may have different potential consequences, but the basic fact that both behave in a way they should know is wrong is similar. 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. Nope, yours, I think you'll find. Above you suggested - yet again - that I portray cyclists as "/the/ major threat to life and limb" - essentially that cyclists are _more_ of a threat. This is a total fantasy of your own making. 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." 1% is meaningless when you can't quantify the number of motor vehicles compared to the number of bicycles. 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. The absurdity, again, is of your own making. Nowhere have I ever said that the _threat_ posed by cyclists is greater, but I have said that the _behaviour_ of some cyclists is as bad as some drivers. It is your own prejudices that seem to make you incapable of understanding the difference between the two. One thing I will say is that as a pedestrian I have reached the experience-based conclusion that cyclists are far less predictable than drivers. If I am using a Pelican crossing - whether waiting for the traffic signal to go read, or actually on the crossing - I know that in the vast majority cases approaching motor vehicles will and do slow and stop. Cyclists, however, are far less prone to do so. In fact, it is a regular sight for me to see both types approaching a crossing that his already on red for them, and while the driver will stop, the cyclist will not, regardless of how crowded the crossing may be with pedestrians at the time. I've see the latter happen several times a week, but the former only very rarely. Similarly if no-one is one the crossing, cyclists will often ignore the red and go straight through (witnessed frequently - twice yestrrday, in fact), while drivers far less so (seen maybe once or twice a week). This amply illustrates the extent to which some cyclists think the law does not apply to them. -- 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 |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:31:14 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote: "Nick Cooper" wrote in message ... So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course, car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right.... If you look at the title/beginning of the thread, I think you'll find it was the other way round : somebody made an adverse comment on bus drivers, and somebody else said 'cyclists are as bad/worse'. So you think there is something fundamentally wrong with saying some cyclists as "as bad" ("worse" was never mentioned)? Are cyclists beyond reproach? Yes, no. Fundamentally, a bad cyclist would have to try incredibly hard to be more dangerous than a bad bus driver, so it is unreasonable to excuse bad bus drivers by claiming that cyclists are as bad. Which is what the comment that sparked all this nasty disagreement was doing. This is starting to develop into a theme of cyclists leaping spectacurly to the conclusion they want, rather than actually reading what was said. I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists are as bad," but I'm getting a bit bored with this obsessive over-defensiveness from the Lycra Lobby.... Your first post in this thread, I believe. Google groups confirms. You imply that the cyclist behaviour you complain about is as bad as the bus driver behaviour originally complained about. That was unclear of me. I should have said I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists are as bad... to _excuse_ bad bus drivers" (my emphasis). I wasn't making any excuses for motor vehicle drivers, and I have no reason to do so. I'm not a driver (never have been), and I'm not a cyclist (at least not for a long time) - I don't owe any allegiance to either group. -- 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 |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:24:27 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:08:54 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote in message : Half the problem with this thread is cyclist-apologists overly-trimming and then claiming that things were said which weren't. And the other half is idiots whose hatred of cyclists overwhelms any sense of perspective. I don't "hate" cyclists any more than I "hate" drivers (I am neither). -- 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 |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ... On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:24:37 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote: 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. yawn No I didn't. Why should I? Stop doggedly sticking to you own misassumption. It's a pretty common misassumption. Why didn't you even bother to change the thread title? clive |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:55:45 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote: "Nick Cooper" wrote in message ... On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:24:37 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote: 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. yawn No I didn't. Why should I? Stop doggedly sticking to you own misassumption. It's a pretty common misassumption. Which says far more about the over-sensitivity of those making it. Just because five people jump to the same false conclusion, it doesn't mean it is no longer false. Why didn't you even bother to change the thread title? Perhaps because at that stage I didn't even remotely consider such an irrationally over-defensive reaction. It was just a tangential observation I would have been surprised had it resulted in more than half a dozen follow-ups. In fact, it's been a bit like a doctor tapping a patient's knee, only for the whole body to go into spasm. -- 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 |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On 22 Oct 2004 16:56:37 GMT, Monkey Hanger wrote:
(Nick Cooper 625) wrote in . com: "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . .. So once again, any rational measure of risk leaves tackling cyclists well down on the "if we get around to it" pile. Again we come back to your weird "worst first" set of priorities.... Can you justify *not* setting your priorities this way? So you would advocate, say, stopping funding on all types of medical research bar that into cancer, and concentrate entirely on that? -- 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 |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:07:51 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote: I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists are as bad," Ooh, ooh, I know this one! Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:13:11 GMT However, I see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers, That appears to be by you in a direct ancestor of this post. Do you deny you said it? Actually, yes because what I disputed (somewhat imperfectly) was Clive's assertion that, "it is unreasonable to excuse bad bus drivers by claiming that cyclists are as bad." I certainly made an observation on the conduct of some cyclists, but this was never an explicit or implicit "excuse" for bus drivers or anyone else. The "as bad" bit isn't the issue, the supposed "excuse" bit is. -- 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 |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
|
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
|
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Sat, 23 Oct, Nick Cooper wrote
(or did he? maybe he'll shortly deny it): On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:07:51 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote: I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists are as bad," Ooh, ooh, I know this one! Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:13:11 GMT However, I see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers, That appears to be by you in a direct ancestor of this post. Do you deny you said it? Actually, yes You deny you said what I quoted? Who did, and why do you let them use your identity to post things you don't mean? because what I disputed (somewhat imperfectly) was Clive's assertion that, "it is unreasonable to excuse bad bus drivers by claiming that cyclists are as bad." I certainly made an observation on the conduct of some cyclists, but this was never an explicit or implicit "excuse" for bus drivers or anyone else. The "as bad" bit isn't the issue, the supposed "excuse" bit is. So what you're saying is that you did say that cyclists are as bad, and somehow accidently in all the numerous times you denied saying that cyclists were as bad, you were actually denying something different, just electing not to say what you were denying, but rather expecting us to work out what you actually intending denying (but didn't). That's alright then, why didn't I think of that. Silly of me, assuming you meant what you said. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ... It's a pretty common misassumption. Which says far more about the over-sensitivity of those making it. Just because five people jump to the same false conclusion, it doesn't mean it is no longer false. Why didn't you even bother to change the thread title? Perhaps because at that stage I didn't even remotely consider such an irrationally over-defensive reaction. It was just a tangential observation I would have been surprised had it resulted in more than half a dozen follow-ups. In fact, it's been a bit like a doctor tapping a patient's knee, only for the whole body to go into spasm. Well now you know - whining about cyclist's behaviour on u.r.c will result in robust rebuttals, because we're so used to people attempting to justify motorist's bad behaviour by saying cyclists are as bad. This will happen whether or not you mean to. clive |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:16:47 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote: "Nick Cooper" wrote in message ... It's a pretty common misassumption. Which says far more about the over-sensitivity of those making it. Just because five people jump to the same false conclusion, it doesn't mean it is no longer false. Why didn't you even bother to change the thread title? Perhaps because at that stage I didn't even remotely consider such an irrationally over-defensive reaction. It was just a tangential observation I would have been surprised had it resulted in more than half a dozen follow-ups. In fact, it's been a bit like a doctor tapping a patient's knee, only for the whole body to go into spasm. Well now you know - whining about cyclist's behaviour on u.r.c will result in robust rebuttals, because we're so used to people attempting to justify motorist's bad behaviour by saying cyclists are as bad. This will happen whether or not you mean to. You see, this is the problem. I made one throwaway comment/ observation and then had to elaborate or defend myself from a bunch of over-sensitive and trigger-happy cyclists who leapt spectacularly to the wrong conclusion about what I actually said, and you characterise it as "whining"? Yeah, right.... -- 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 |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:06:52 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote: On Sat, 23 Oct, Nick Cooper wrote (or did he? maybe he'll shortly deny it): On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:07:51 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote: I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists are as bad," Ooh, ooh, I know this one! Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:13:11 GMT However, I see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers, That appears to be by you in a direct ancestor of this post. Do you deny you said it? Actually, yes You deny you said what I quoted? No, I deny that it was an "excuse" for bad drivers, which is the way various posters here have tried to misrepresent it. because what I disputed (somewhat imperfectly) was Clive's assertion that, "it is unreasonable to excuse bad bus drivers by claiming that cyclists are as bad." I certainly made an observation on the conduct of some cyclists, but this was never an explicit or implicit "excuse" for bus drivers or anyone else. The "as bad" bit isn't the issue, the supposed "excuse" bit is. So what you're saying is that you did say that cyclists are as bad, and somehow accidently in all the numerous times you denied saying that cyclists were as bad, you were actually denying something different, just electing not to say what you were denying, but rather expecting us to work out what you actually intending denying (but didn't). I think you should go back and read what actually read what I said. Guy has repeatedly made claims such as the following: Please jsutify the use of illegal cyclist behaviour to excuse illegal and potentially lethal bus driver behaviour. 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. 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. 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. Of course, this isn't the limits of Guy's fantasy accusations: 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... Which I never said anywhere! I made ten posts in this thread before Clive claimed: Fundamentally, a bad cyclist would have to try incredibly hard to be more dangerous than a bad bus driver, so it is unreasonable to excuse bad bus drivers by claiming that cyclists are as bad. Which is what the comment that sparked all this nasty disagreement was doing. My response was badly worded, as I have acknowledged that (twice). However, the fact remains that I have _never_ anywhere used the behaviour or bad cyclists as an "excuse" for bad drivers. That's what I'm denying I ever said, and the fact that none of you lot can quote such a statement proves my point. -- 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 |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:40:23 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote:
You see, this is the problem. I made one throwaway comment/ observation and then had to elaborate or defend myself from a bunch of over-sensitive and trigger-happy cyclists who leapt spectacularly to the wrong conclusion about what I actually said, ITYM "leapt to the conclusion I meant what I actually said". You _did_ say cyclists were as bad as various motor vehicles drivers. I provided the quote and teh message-id. I agree you've subsequently claimed you meant more than you said, and what you didn't say may or may not be reasonable. What's not reasonable, however, is complaining that people aren't agreeing with what you didn't say. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:41:20 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:06:52 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith wrote: On Sat, 23 Oct, Nick Cooper wrote (or did he? maybe he'll shortly deny it): On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:49:50 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:07:51 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote: I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists are as bad," Ooh, ooh, I know this one! Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:13:11 GMT However, I see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers, That appears to be by you in a direct ancestor of this post. Do you deny you said it? Actually, yes You deny you said what I quoted? I think you should go back and read what actually read what I said. OK - "I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists are as bad"". Yep, read that, parsed it, reached conclusions about the only thing it can possibly mean, compared it with teh statement "I see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers", and I don't see any need to revise anything I said. You _are_ moaning about people believing what you said. Guy has repeatedly made claims such as the following: I'm not talking about what Guy has said. He may or may not be talking rubbish. He may or may not be lying about what he has previously said. I fail to see how that has any relevance to teh fact that you said "I see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers", and also that you never said that. Of course, this isn't the limits of Guy's fantasy accusations: I don't care. I was considering what you said. You said "I see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers" and you also said that claims you said cylists are as bad was a "mythical statement". You seem to be claiming that if anyone else ever said something that's not true, you should not be questioned about saying things that aren't true. Two wrongs, apparently, make a right. My response was badly worded, as I have acknowledged that (twice). However, the fact remains that I have _never_ anywhere used the behaviour or bad cyclists as an "excuse" for bad drivers. Fine. I didn't claim you did. I claimed you said "I see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers" after you denied saying that cyclists were as bad as motorists. Specifically, you asked "I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists are as bad"". I did so. I thought you'd be pleased, since I did what you asked. That's what I'm denying I ever said, That's what you're denying you said _now_. It's not what you denied you said when you said "I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists are as bad"", is it. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:26:38 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote: On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:40:23 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote: You see, this is the problem. I made one throwaway comment/ observation and then had to elaborate or defend myself from a bunch of over-sensitive and trigger-happy cyclists who leapt spectacularly to the wrong conclusion about what I actually said, ITYM "leapt to the conclusion I meant what I actually said". No. Let's consider what I actually said in my first post (10/10/04 16:41): Alternatively, who can I complain to about all the ****s on bikes who think that red lights - particularly those at pedestrian crossing - somehow don't count for them? Especially annoying are the ones who think they're entitled to shout abuse at the pedestrians they have to swerve round them because they're already half way across the road. Funny, that, isn't it? Pedestrians having the temerity to cross a road when the lights are in their favour, just because to knobend-in-lycra is too impatient to obey the red and wait a few seconds. No mention of drivers in there at all, but despite that Guy's immediate response (10/10/04 18:40) was: You can complain to uk.tosspot, who will greet you as a long-lost brother. They think the fact that "yoofs" on bikes commit offences justifies whatever behaviour they see fit to inflict on those unlucky enough to have to share the road with them, and the disparity in danger posed by cyclists and motorists is of no relevance. From the outset he introduced the inference that somehow I was using the behaviour of cyclists to excuse or "justif(y)" the behaviour of motorists. You _did_ say cyclists were as bad as various motor vehicles drivers. Operative word "some" missing twice there. I provided the quote and teh message-id. I agree you've subsequently claimed you meant more than you said, and what you didn't say may or may not be reasonable. No, I've said I did _not_ mean more than I said, and that I did _not_ say what Guy and various others have repeatedly either implied or directly suggested, i.e. that I was making "excuses" or offering "justification" for the behaviour of bad drivers. -- 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 |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:36:40 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote: [snip now totally boring repetition of something I said, ignoring my own correction the day after I said it, as follows] On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:29:30 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote: On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:31:14 +0100, "Clive George" wrote: "Nick Cooper" wrote in message ... So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course, car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right.... If you look at the title/beginning of the thread, I think you'll find it was the other way round : somebody made an adverse comment on bus drivers, and somebody else said 'cyclists are as bad/worse'. So you think there is something fundamentally wrong with saying some cyclists as "as bad" ("worse" was never mentioned)? Are cyclists beyond reproach? Yes, no. Fundamentally, a bad cyclist would have to try incredibly hard to be more dangerous than a bad bus driver, so it is unreasonable to excuse bad bus drivers by claiming that cyclists are as bad. Which is what the comment that sparked all this nasty disagreement was doing. This is starting to develop into a theme of cyclists leaping spectacurly to the conclusion they want, rather than actually reading what was said. I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists are as bad," but I'm getting a bit bored with this obsessive over-defensiveness from the Lycra Lobby.... Your first post in this thread, I believe. Google groups confirms. You imply that the cyclist behaviour you complain about is as bad as the bus driver behaviour originally complained about. That was unclear of me. I should have said I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists are as bad... to _excuse_ bad bus drivers" (my emphasis). I wasn't making any excuses for motor vehicle drivers, and I have no reason to do so. I'm not a driver (never have been), and I'm not a cyclist (at least not for a long time) - I don't owe any allegiance to either group. The posting you are persisting in referring to was made just after 9am, when I was just leaving home. I did it in a hurry, I wasn't clear, so sue me. My correction makes my position clear. If you won't accept it, then I couldn't care less. -- 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 |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Sun, Nick Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:26:38 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith wrote: Nick Cooper wrote: You see, this is the problem. I made one throwaway comment/ observation and then had to elaborate or defend myself from a bunch of over-sensitive and trigger-happy cyclists who leapt spectacularly to the wrong conclusion about what I actually said, ITYM "leapt to the conclusion I meant what I actually said". No. Let's consider what I actually said in my first post I was commenting on what you said on a particular occasion. An occasion that you subsequently repeatedly denied occurred. That you said something slightly differnet on other occasions doesn't alter the fact that you said what you did in fact say, and what you subsequently denied saying. You _did_ say cyclists were as bad as various motor vehicles drivers. Operative word "some" missing twice there. "just as many" was what you actually said, I believe. The word 'some' did not feature in teh statement I recal. No, I've said I did _not_ mean more than I said, and that I did _not_ say what Guy and various others have repeatedly either implied or directly suggested, i.e. that I was making "excuses" or offering "justification" for the behaviour of bad drivers. I haven't claimed you did. I said you did say something you subsequently claimed not to have said. That this is fact is a matter of public record. I'm not sure why you keep denying you said it - even when furnished with the message-id and quote, you bizarrely claimed you didn't say what you said. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:17:33 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote: On Sun, Nick Cooper wrote: On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:26:38 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith wrote: Nick Cooper wrote: You see, this is the problem. I made one throwaway comment/ observation and then had to elaborate or defend myself from a bunch of over-sensitive and trigger-happy cyclists who leapt spectacularly to the wrong conclusion about what I actually said, ITYM "leapt to the conclusion I meant what I actually said". No. Let's consider what I actually said in my first post I was commenting on what you said on a particular occasion. An occasion that you subsequently repeatedly denied occurred. That you said something slightly differnet on other occasions doesn't alter the fact that you said what you did in fact say, and what you subsequently denied saying. Now, for you benefit, Ian, I've just gone back and re-read all 22 of my previous posts in this thread. The one you are taking issue with was the 11th (posted 22/10/04 09:07). The following day (23/10/04 13:29) I corrected myself, as I recognised that in my haste previously I'd not been specific enough in my answer. I don't deny I made the post on 22/10, just that it wasn't clear. I note that you are doing you best not to acknowledge my clarification the following day, and in fact the only sense I have "repeatedly denied" anything is on two occasions, both drawing _your_ attention to my post of 23/10 that you can't or won't acknowledge. You _did_ say cyclists were as bad as various motor vehicles drivers. Operative word "some" missing twice there. "just as many" was what you actually said, I believe. The word 'some' did not feature in teh statement I recal. Is English your first language? I only ask because you seem to be quibbling over two things that are not actually contradictory. The evidence of my own eyes is that cyclists are no less inclined to bad behaviour as drivers, but obviously neither represent the totality of either group. No, I've said I did _not_ mean more than I said, and that I did _not_ say what Guy and various others have repeatedly either implied or directly suggested, i.e. that I was making "excuses" or offering "justification" for the behaviour of bad drivers. I haven't claimed you did. I said you did say something you subsequently claimed not to have said. That this is fact is a matter of public record. I'm not sure why you keep denying you said it - even when furnished with the message-id and quote, you bizarrely claimed you didn't say what you said. I'm not quite sure why _you_ keep failing to even acknowledge my subsequent correction/clarification. You seem very keen on fixating on the thing I said that suits your agenda, but incapable of recognising the other. Tell me, Ian, can you now - hand-on-heart - steadfastly stick by every single thing you have ever said on Usenet? Have you never given an answer only to realise later that it wasn't complete, or you'd overlooked some detail, and so it gave a completely different impression to to the one you intended? -- 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 |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In message , David Hansen
writes David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000. Could you explain this a bit more please? I can't find a reference to PGP keys in the act you cite. -- Clive. |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:40:40 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:17:33 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith wrote: I was commenting on what you said on a particular occasion. An occasion that you subsequently repeatedly denied occurred. Tell me, Ian, can you now - hand-on-heart - steadfastly stick by every single thing you have ever said on Usenet? Have you never given an answer only to realise later that it wasn't complete, or you'd overlooked some detail, and so it gave a completely different impression to to the one you intended? Of the occasions where I have said something that turns out not to be true, both in real life and on usenet, I am not aware of a single one where I have repeatedly denied saying what I actually did say. If you believe otherwise, I am happy to re-examine any particular case you have in mind. You will note that I have not made any comment here on whether or not cyslists are as bad as motorists - the factual accuracy or otherwise of your statement is not what interests me in this case. My observations are purely limited to your repeated denial that you said what you did. As such, teh accuracy or otherwise of everything I have ever said is not only irrelevant, but also not even a comparable or reciprocal case. regards, Ian SMith -- |\ /| no .sig |o o| |/ \| |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In message , at 13:11:43 on Mon,
25 Oct 2004, Clive Coleman remarked: I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000. Could you explain this a bit more please? I can't find a reference to PGP keys in the act you cite. There's a gagging clause in Pt3 of the Act, about acquisition of keys in general (not especially PGP). It's intended to prevent crooks tipping one another off. That part of the Act is years away from being put into force, anyway. -- Roland Perry |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
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. yawn No I didn't. Why should I? Stop doggedly sticking to you own misassumption. So your question which started this subthread was a non-sequitur was it? Quite how raising the false idea that cyc;ists are uniquely lawless works as a non-sequitur when it fails as a justification fro dangerous behaviour by bus drivers escapes me just at the moment. bus drivers [...] the comparison simply doesn't stand up. Well, it's a comparison of your own making, so it's nothing to do with me. It is either a comparison of your own making, as per the start of this subthread, or your first post here was a non-sequitur, as above. Neither puts you in a particularly strong position. I would make the observation, though, that a bus driver disgregarding their training and behaving in a dangerous manner is no less irrational than a cyclist disregarding all common sense and nehaving in a dangerous manner. Considerably more so, since the bus driver is personally at very little risk. Which is probably why, despite widespread allegations of complete lawlessness, the major danger posed by cyclists appears to be to themselves, and even that apparently to a lesser extent than for pedestrians, who are far more likely to be at fault in fatal and serious injury crashes involving them. Above you suggested - yet again - that I portray cyclists as "/the/ major threat to life and limb" - essentially that cyclists are _more_ of a threat. This is a total fantasy of your own making. Ah, so your singling them out was an /irrelevant/ non-sequitur. Well that makes al the difference, doesn't it? "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." 1% is meaningless when you can't quantify the number of motor vehicles compared to the number of bicycles. Are we not constantly told that the number of bicycles crossing red lights outweighs by many multiples the number of motor vehicles so doing? So surely if anything that makes the 1% look even less significant. Either way, in numerical terms, your complaint sounds like a man concerned about splinters while walking the plank. 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. The absurdity, again, is of your own making. Really? So it was a typo, when you said cyclists; you meant vehicle users? One thing I will say is that as a pedestrian I have reached the experience-based conclusion that cyclists are far less predictable than drivers. Not disputed. Strange, really, when you consider that the majority of road riders are also drivers. Anyone would think that road users were ignorant or contemptuous of the rules of the road. If I am using a Pelican crossing - whether waiting for the traffic signal to go read, or actually on the crossing - I know that in the vast majority cases approaching motor vehicles will and do slow and stop. Cyclists, however, are far less prone to do so. In fact, it is a regular sight for me to see both types approaching a crossing that his already on red for them, and while the driver will stop, the cyclist will not, regardless of how crowded the crossing may be with pedestrians at the time. And yet the fatalities caused by those cyclists are negligible. Which just shows that they must /seem/ much more dangerous than they /are/. This amply illustrates the extent to which some cyclists think the law does not apply to them. Exhibit A: SafeSpeed, a site which is entirely dedicated to the idea that the law does not apply to drivers. I know of no site advocating reduced enforcement for cyclists. Once again your targeting mechanism seems to be a few degrees off. 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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:52 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk