|
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:40:23 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote in message : I made one throwaway comment/observation I think next time you should do exactly that: throw it away :-) Or use a smiley, if it is posted with ironic intent. 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 Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:11:43 +0100 someone who may be Clive Coleman
wrote this:- 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. As Roland said, it is more general. The Home Office came up with a way of oppressing people, called RIP and pushed it through the Westminster rogues gallery. If some bod decides to impose a gaging order then a victim of this "law" cannot tell their lover, religious advisor or anyone else that their communications are being read by some official. However, it is possible to revoke the key and this is (supposedly) not telling one's lover, religious advisor and so on what is happening. Therefore it is elementary to state that one will always explain a revoked key to anyone who asks, unless the UK government is preventing one from doing so with RIP. As Roland said, this particular bit of RIP has yet to be turned on. If the Home Office have any sense it never will be and they will let it curl up before it is exterminated by a law that regulates investigatory powers (something RIP singularly fails to do). I doubt if my pointing out the Home Office's stupidity has had any influence on them not turning on this part of RIP, which they were very keen on at the time. However, it cannot have done any harm. -- 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. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In message , Ian Smith
writes 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 So do I perceive someone with no life other than a computer? -- Clive. |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In message , "Just zis Guy,
you know?" writes 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. O.K. This argument has gone far enough, and to be honest it's all about point scoring and no facts are allowed to intervene. If a cyclist has to brake hard at any obstruction be it traffic lights, road works what ever he is prepared and it's his own fault if he's not. A bus driver on the other hand has to take into account maybe up to 70 other persons who are not expecting sudden braking, especially whilst on their feet walking for the door. If you are a cyclist with half a brain then you would know why I would hit you rather that injure my load who may be children or O.A.P.s. Give it a seconds thought, or more accurately take a PCV test then come back and argue your case if you think you still have one. -- Clive. |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In message , at 22:00:38 on
Mon, 25 Oct 2004, David Hansen remarked: On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:11:43 +0100 someone who may be Clive Coleman wrote this:- 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. As Roland said, it is more general. The Home Office came up with a way of oppressing people, called RIP and pushed it through the Westminster rogues gallery. If some bod decides to impose a gaging order then a victim of this "law" cannot tell their lover, religious advisor or anyone else that their communications are being read by some official. I fear you are conflating the powers to intercept communications, and that to demand a key if they turn out to be encrypted. In the former case, if your communications are being read, you won't normally know, but if you find out there's no ban on telling the world. However, if (when put in force) you are required to reveal a key that might allow encryption of intercepted (or seized) keys, you can be prosecuted for tipping off your friends. However, it is possible to revoke the key and this is (supposedly) not telling one's lover, religious advisor and so on what is happening. This is a long-proposed work around, but until the Code of Practice for that part of the Act appears, it's a little rash to assume it will work as advertised. -- Roland Perry |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In message , at
06:50:02 on Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Roland Perry remarked: However, if (when put in force) you are required to reveal a key that might allow encryption of intercepted (or seized) keys, cough decryption of intercepted (or seized) material you can be prosecuted for tipping off your friends. -- Roland Perry |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 03:30:23 +0100, Clive Coleman
wrote: A bus driver on the other hand has to take into account maybe up to 70 other persons who are not expecting sudden braking, especially whilst on their feet walking for the door. If you are a cyclist with half a brain then you would know why I would hit you rather that injure my load who may be children or O.A.P.s. Bus driver is utilitarianist shock! Colin |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:47:51 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote: 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. You are just talking total crap. I made _one_ denial in error of something I'd said previously, and corrected myself the following day. I could ask you to specifically identify these supposed "repeated denials" you're referring to, but it's clear from the fact that you haven't already that you either can't or won't. In fact, the only thing I have "repeatedly denied" is that anything I have said about bad cyclists was as an "excuse" for the behaviour of bad motorists (which, aof course, was the totality of the statement I was insufficiently clear in denying on 22/10). It's fairly clear that you're only prepared to believe what you want to believe, so as far as I'm concerned you can **** off.. -- 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 Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:41:32 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote: 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. What I actually said: 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. Now, where is, "the false idea that cyc;ists are uniquely lawless," or any, "justification fro dangerous behaviour by bus drivers"? Face it Guy, from the outset you leapt to conclusions that aren't supported by what I actually wrote. If you want to keep ranting on about your fantasies, then you can do it on your own. [remainder of overly-defensive and prejudiced drivel snipped] -- 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 |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In uk.rec.cycling David Hansen wrote:
: The Home Office came up with a way of oppressing people, called RIP : and pushed it through the Westminster rogues gallery. Actually with my professional hat on for a bit, I like large chunks of RIPA. The stuff about having to tell your users that all your IT staff sit around all day drinking tea and reading their email (to pharaphrase :) is good and sensible. The trouble with RIPA is that the bad stuff (the gagging orders etc) is very, very bad. Arthur -- Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt "Blogs are neither necessary nor sufficient for evil to triumph. They're just what we call an enabling technology" - Danny O'Brien |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 03:30:23 +0100, Clive Coleman
wrote in message : O.K. This argument has gone far enough, and to be honest it's all about point scoring and no facts are allowed to intervene. You think? I don't care about point scoring, actually, but I do care about Daily Mail-style scapegoating of cyclists, because that actually affects my safety as I travel. YMMV. If a cyclist has to brake hard at any obstruction be it traffic lights, road works what ever he is prepared and it's his own fault if he's not. Interestingly, a cyclist was held to be at fault when he hit a pedestrian who stepped out into the road into his path having "looked" and seen no "traffic". I invite you to consider the likelihood of a driver being successfully prosecuted for driving without due care (the equivalent offence) under the same circumstances. bus driver on the other hand has to take into account maybe up to 70 other persons who are not expecting sudden braking, especially whilst on their feet walking for the door. If you are a cyclist with half a brain then you would know why I would hit you rather that injure my load who may be children or O.A.P.s. Give it a seconds thought, or more accurately take a PCV test then come back and argue your case if you think you still have one. This argument is about the inherent absurdity of raising cyclist behaviour as an excuse for the behaviour of other road users. I rarely have a problem with buses, because I ride in a way which takes account of their special circumstances. I have seen a driver run into the back of a bus which did the completely unpredictable (i.e. stopping at a a bus stop), so I suppose I can see where you are coming from :-) 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:
Interestingly, a cyclist was held to be at fault when he hit a pedestrian who stepped out into the road into his path having "looked" and seen no "traffic". Do you have a reference for this, please? R |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 26 Oct
2004: On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:21:23 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote in message : What I actually said: 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. Now, where is, "the false idea that cyc;ists are uniquely lawless," or any, "justification fro dangerous behaviour by bus drivers"? If you look up there a bit, in the text you've quoted, you are apparently saying that the lawless behaviour of cyclists is a valid response to a query regarding the correct destination of a complaint about bus driver behaviour. Sorry, but I have to intervene here, as this is ********! Surely Nick was just introducing a red herring into the original thread, something we all do from time to time. Or, perhaps "red herring" is a little harsh - a thought prompted by the original subject of the thread, but only related to it insofar as it involved another type of occasionally irritating/dangerous road user. -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 26 September 2004 |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In message , at 09:00:08 on Tue, 26 Oct
2004, Arthur Clune remarked: The trouble with RIPA is that the bad stuff (the gagging orders etc) is very, very bad. So you like crooks being able to tip off their comrades? Very good. -- Roland Perry |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
Roland Perry wrote:
The trouble with RIPA is that the bad stuff (the gagging orders etc) is very, very bad. So you like crooks being able to tip off their comrades? Very good. If they're a crook, they're going to tip off their comrades regardless. |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In message , at 12:59:44 on Tue, 26 Oct
2004, Richard remarked: So you like crooks being able to tip off their comrades? Very good. If they're a crook, they're going to tip off their comrades regardless. So cancel the law banning armed robbery, as people do it anyway. -- Roland Perry |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In uk.rec.cycling Roland Perry wrote:
: So you like crooks being able to tip off their comrades? Very good. And you think they won't anyway? The trouble will all this sort of stuff is that it's always a trade off between the risks to the innocent and being able to convict the guilty. I think RIPA (and a lot of more recent developments) draw the line in the wrong place. Why defend "the free world" if it's not free anymore? Arthur -- Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt "Blogs are neither necessary nor sufficient for evil to triumph. They're just what we call an enabling technology" - Danny O'Brien |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:59:44 on Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Richard remarked: So you like crooks being able to tip off their comrades? Very good. If they're a crook, they're going to tip off their comrades regardless. So cancel the law banning armed robbery, as people do it anyway. Oh, look, apples and oranges and straw men. "If you're doing nothing wrong..." can't be far off. (Parts of) RIPA are overly restrictive. The effect on criminals will be minimal; the effect on the general public will be widespread repression. A more accurate statement/analogy would be, "As people committ armed robbery despite there being a law against it, we're going to ban everyone from entering post offices and banks." p.s. laws don't get cancelled, they get repealed. |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:50:02 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
wrote this:- The Home Office came up with a way of oppressing people, called RIP and pushed it through the Westminster rogues gallery. If some bod decides to impose a gaging order then a victim of this "law" cannot tell their lover, religious advisor or anyone else that their communications are being read by some official. I fear you are conflating the powers to intercept communications, and that to demand a key if they turn out to be encrypted. Not in this case:-) My wording of "communications are being read by some official" is not precise, but referred to some official reading encrypted communications, by whatever means. -- 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. |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:18:45 +0100, Richard
wrote in message : Interestingly, a cyclist was held to be at fault when he hit a pedestrian who stepped out into the road into his path having "looked" and seen no "traffic". Do you have a reference for this, please? Howard does: http://www.motorcarnage.org.uk/motor...e/justice.html and look for Richard Brady 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 Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:44:02 +0100, Mrs Redboots
wrote in message : Surely Nick was just introducing a red herring into the original thread, something we all do from time to time. Arguably so, but given that it was (a) a tired restatement of well-rehearsed arguments and (b) cross-posted to the cycling newsgroup, it was unlikely ever to be seen as such. We have become very tired on urc of hearing these arguments used to excuse all dangerous behaviour by other road users, call for enforcement against cyclists in preference to other road users who by any measure pose much more danger, to call for cyclists to be subjected to absurd and draconian regulation, or even simply to undermine the right of cyclists to use the road at all. So maybe it was a reflex brain fart on the part of the PP, but given his subsequent defence of his posting I am inclined to think not. 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
In message , at 13:48:39 on
Tue, 26 Oct 2004, David Hansen remarked: On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:50:02 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry wrote this:- The Home Office came up with a way of oppressing people, called RIP and pushed it through the Westminster rogues gallery. If some bod decides to impose a gaging order then a victim of this "law" cannot tell their lover, religious advisor or anyone else that their communications are being read by some official. I fear you are conflating the powers to intercept communications, and that to demand a key if they turn out to be encrypted. Not in this case:-) My wording of "communications are being read by some official" is not precise, but referred to some official reading encrypted communications, by whatever means. Close, but just because your key has been acquired doesn't mean it's being used to read your communications. Unless you only use the key for communications; and even then it might just one or two that access is required to, not all of them; and even then, they may have been acquired by a search warrant and not interception. -- Roland Perry |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In message , at 13:47:37 on Tue, 26 Oct
2004, Richard remarked: (Parts of) RIPA are overly restrictive. The effect on criminals will be minimal; the effect on the general public will be widespread repression. I don't think most of the General Public's communications (even if encrypted) are of enough interest that the recipients will have the GAK powers applied. -- Roland Perry |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In message , at 12:46:29 on Tue, 26 Oct
2004, Arthur Clune remarked: : So you like crooks being able to tip off their comrades? Very good. And you think they won't anyway? Just like they'll rob banks anyway (haven't we been round this block once before?) The trouble will all this sort of stuff is that it's always a trade off between the risks to the innocent and being able to convict the guilty. I think RIPA (and a lot of more recent developments) draw the line in the wrong place. RIPA draws the line in a place decided by other legislation. The crime has to be serious enough. If you are paranoid enough to think that a future government will make insert your pet activity here illegal, and subject to GAK, then that new law could just as easily have the GAK within it. -- Roland Perry |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
(Parts of) RIPA are overly restrictive. The effect on criminals will
be minimal; the effect on the general public will be widespread repression. I don't think most of the General Public's communications (even if encrypted) are of enough interest that the recipients will have the GAK powers applied. headbutts brick wall You've somewhat missed the point. Although Roland is being slightly hysterical, the effect of parts of RIPA _could_ be widespread repression, which is why we should deny that opportunity to this future governments. Slippery slope and thin end of the wedge may be cliches, but they are almost always valid. |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
then that new law could just as easily have the GAK
within it. Nope. |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In message , at
13:49:34 on Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Mark Thompson remarked: (Parts of) RIPA are overly restrictive. The effect on criminals will be minimal; the effect on the general public will be widespread repression. I don't think most of the General Public's communications (even if encrypted) are of enough interest that the recipients will have the GAK powers applied. headbutts brick wall You've somewhat missed the point. Although Roland is being slightly hysterical, the effect of parts of RIPA _could_ be widespread repression, which is why we should deny that opportunity to this future governments. Slippery slope and thin end of the wedge may be cliches, but they are almost always valid. Any law can be misused - why pick on RIPA especially? And while the GAK part hasn't even got a draft Code of Practice, speculation is moot. -- Roland Perry |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In message , at
14:37:45 on Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Mark Thompson remarked: then that new law could just as easily have the GAK within it. Nope. err, yes it could. See the Social Security Fraud Act, which has a cut.n.paste acquisition of comms data section, post-RIPA. -- Roland Perry |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
then that new law could just as easily have the GAK
within it. Nope. err, yes it could. By nope I mean it's harder to get dodgy legislation through the Lords. They tend to amend out many of the more silly bits. Getting a law through that refers to a bit of existing legislation is going to be easier than introducing the dodgy bit of legislation with every law that you want covered by it. |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
Any law can be misused - why pick on RIPA especially? And while the
GAK part hasn't even got a draft Code of Practice, speculation is moot. Because fining pavement cyclists just isn't in the same league. Also, does a code of practice stop it being misused, or merely enable people to feel justifiably upset when it's disregarded in their case? |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
Mark Thompson wrote in
. 1.4: then that new law could just as easily have the GAK within it. Nope. err, yes it could. By nope I mean it's harder to get dodgy legislation through the Lords. They tend to amend out many of the more silly bits. Getting a law through that refers to a bit of existing legislation is going to be easier than introducing the dodgy bit of legislation with every law that you want covered by it. Just how long will the Lords exist? -- Chris |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In message , at
16:14:54 on Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Mark Thompson remarked: Any law can be misused - why pick on RIPA especially? And while the GAK part hasn't even got a draft Code of Practice, speculation is moot. Because fining pavement cyclists just isn't in the same league. Also, does a code of practice stop it being misused, or merely enable people to feel justifiably upset when it's disregarded in their case? As with all things, the existence of a rule gives society a benchmark to judge transgressors against. -- Roland Perry |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In message , at
16:12:19 on Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Mark Thompson remarked: By nope I mean it's harder to get dodgy legislation through the Lords. They tend to amend out many of the more silly bits. Oh, sorry, I thought we were discussing some future government that was going to ride roughshod over established principles. Getting a law through that refers to a bit of existing legislation is going to be easier than introducing the dodgy bit of legislation with every law that you want covered by it. New laws don't refer to RIPA, RIPA refers to them (by only being active when a crime has been specified as being serious enough). -- Roland Perry |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Clive Coleman wrote:
In message , "Just zis Guy, you know?" writes 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. O.K. This argument has gone far enough, and to be honest it's all about point scoring and no facts are allowed to intervene. Yay for usenet! If a cyclist has to brake hard at any obstruction be it traffic lights, road works what ever he is prepared and it's his own fault if he's not. A bus driver on the other hand has to take into account maybe up to 70 other persons who are not expecting sudden braking, Is it common to be carrying 70 people who've never been on a bus before? Also, i'm not sure that being on a bus when it brakes hard and being on a bike when it is hit by a bus are the same magnitude of injury - it may well be that the latter is 70 times worse than the former (especially given that 90% of the time, you'll be sitting down). I'm not saying it's never right to not brake, but it's not as clear cut as you make out. Also, i haven't been following this thread, but from this one post, you really sound like a dangerous lunatic who advocates running over cyclists. Just thought i'd let you know. tom -- Memes don't exist. Tell your friends. |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
In message ,
Tom Anderson writes Also, i'm not sure that being on a bus when it brakes hard and being on a bike when it is hit by a bus are the same magnitude of injury - it may well be that the latter is 70 times worse than the former (especially given that 90% of the time, you'll be sitting down). I'm not saying it's never right to not brake, but it's not as clear cut as you make out. Also, i haven't been following this thread, but from this one post, you really sound like a dangerous lunatic who advocates running over cyclists. Just thought i'd let you know. tom You've never driven a bus then, that is obvious, and if you think I'm a lunatic get me off the roads before other cyclists think they're Gods gift to London. -- Clive. |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:44:02 +0100, Mrs Redboots
wrote: Just zis Guy, you know? wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 26 Oct 2004: On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:21:23 GMT, (Nick Cooper) wrote in message : What I actually said: 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. Now, where is, "the false idea that cyc;ists are uniquely lawless," or any, "justification fro dangerous behaviour by bus drivers"? If you look up there a bit, in the text you've quoted, you are apparently saying that the lawless behaviour of cyclists is a valid response to a query regarding the correct destination of a complaint about bus driver behaviour. Sorry, but I have to intervene here, as this is ********! Surely Nick was just introducing a red herring into the original thread, something we all do from time to time. Or, perhaps "red herring" is a little harsh - a thought prompted by the original subject of the thread, but only related to it insofar as it involved another type of occasionally irritating/dangerous road user. Yeah, pretty much. Guy's warped logic that somehow me denying what he suggested - and what I clearly didn't say - "proved" his false conclusion probably says far more about him than anyone else.... -- 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 Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:25:50 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote: Yeah, pretty much. Guy's warped logic that somehow me denying what he suggested - and what I clearly didn't say - "proved" his false conclusion probably says far more about him than anyone else.... Can you see out of your mouth with your head up there? Just curious. 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 |
[OT] RIPA was Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On 26 Oct 2004 16:14:54 GMT someone who may be Mark Thompson
wrote this:- Also, does a code of practice stop it being misused, Of course not. Especially when "supervision" will consist of a Mr Hutton who says, "well done chaps, keep up the good work", no matter what has happened. -- 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. |
Bus driver complaint and OYBike
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Clive Coleman wrote:
In message , Tom Anderson writes Also, i'm not sure that being on a bus when it brakes hard and being on a bike when it is hit by a bus are the same magnitude of injury - it may well be that the latter is 70 times worse than the former (especially given that 90% of the time, you'll be sitting down). I'm not saying it's never right to not brake, but it's not as clear cut as you make out. Also, i haven't been following this thread, but from this one post, you really sound like a dangerous lunatic who advocates running over cyclists. Just thought i'd let you know. You've never driven a bus then, that is obvious, You're a perceptive chap. and if you think I'm a lunatic get me off the roads before other cyclists think they're Gods gift to London. I didn't say i thought you were a lunatic, just that your post made it sound like it - i assume you're just a bit worked up by the argument. You need to relax - maybe go for a swim, or have a drink, or, hey, how about a nice bike ride? ;) tom -- I do not think we will have to wait for very long. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk