On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:43:20 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:


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

I don't recall putting the sort of cyclist I was complaining about
into any particular age bracket. In fact, my own observations tell me
that the most "serious"-looking of cyclists are - if anything - worse.

Ah, so you are making a non age-specific invalid generalisation
instead of the usual age-specific one. That changes everything,
obviously...

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.

I could ask you to elaborate on the huge supposition you seem to have
made here, but you've already dug yourself into too deep a hole as it
is.

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

Alternatively you could consider to what extent the relative
seriousness of your pet hate

Please justify use of phrase "pet hate".

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

and the homicidal bus driver might be informed by the fact the fact
that the bus driver is trained to a higher standard than most road
users, is entrusted with the safety of multiple occupants of his
vehicle, is driving a large and heavy vehicle and is notionally a
professional driver paid to drive. His company has a duty of care to
those with whom their drivers share the roads.

So that excuses crap cyclists, does it?

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.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:43:20 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:


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

I don't recall putting the sort of cyclist I was complaining about
into any particular age bracket. In fact, my own observations tell me
that the most "serious"-looking of cyclists are - if anything - worse.

Ah, so you are making a non age-specific invalid generalisation
instead of the usual age-specific one. That changes everything,
obviously...

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.

I could ask you to elaborate on the huge supposition you seem to have
made here, but you've already dug yourself into too deep a hole as it
is.

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

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

Alternatively you could consider to what extent the relative
seriousness of your pet hate

Please justify use of phrase "pet hate".

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?

and the homicidal bus driver might be informed by the fact the fact
that the bus driver is trained to a higher standard than most road
users, is entrusted with the safety of multiple occupants of his
vehicle, is driving a large and heavy vehicle and is notionally a
professional driver paid to drive. His company has a duty of care to
those with whom their drivers share the roads.

So that excuses crap cyclists, does it?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

It is a strange and inconsistent view you have.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is that, I wonder?

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

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

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

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

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

It is a strange and inconsistent view you have.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:13:11 GMT, Nick Cooper
wrote:

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

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.

Really?

At the lights just over there, points out window, one lane opens to two
for the stop line. If there are vehicles waiting to turn right, and there
usually are, then those drivers who want to go straight on mount the
pavement and drive along it to bypass stopped vehicles. The drivers'
behaviour is routine, I see it every single day, and deliberate.

At the school over there, points in roughly the same direction, the
parents seem to not want to let their little dears walk too far along the
pavement so they park as near to the school as possible. When the yellow
zigzags are full, as they usually are, drivers will mount the pavement and
drive along it, parking on the grass verge (and the pavement.) The
drivers' behaviour is routine, I see it every school day, and deliberate.
It makes the pavement so dangerous parents daren't let their kids walk on
it!

These are just two places in Durham, not a particularly large city. I
would doubt they are the only examples or routine and deliberate pavement
driving even for Durham.

Why do you think there are so many bollards along the outer edges of
pavements?

Colin

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:13:11 GMT someone who may be
(Nick Cooper) wrote
this:-

Of course, cars do not routinely deliberate
travel on pavements, but many cyclists certainly do.

Correct. They are inanimate objects.

However, car drivers do routinely and deliberately travel on
pavements. I see it every day.

I also see cyclists do the same thing. The one who did so outside my
office yesterday was not keen on me sweeping some broken glass
across the pavement and into the road.


--
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 =---

In message , at 09:54:16 on
Wed, 20 Oct 2004, David Hansen
remarked:
Of course, cars do not routinely deliberate
travel on pavements, but many cyclists certainly do.

Correct. They are inanimate objects.

However, car drivers do routinely and deliberately travel on
pavements. I see it every day.

I also see cyclists do the same thing.

I've often seen cars *on* the pavement, but rarely had difficulty with
one that was *driving* along the pavement. Never has one come close to
threatening me (although sometimes it's inconvenient to get past them).

However, I have often had collisions, or had to move very fast to avoid
one, when a cyclist has been making progress along the pavement while
ignoring the pedestrians. And no, these were not "shared use" pavements.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:43:36 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

I've often seen cars *on* the pavement, but rarely had difficulty with
one that was *driving* along the pavement.

There are bollards on the pavement at one set of lights near me to
stop precisely this, because cars (and especially buses and goods
vehicles) were routinely driving along the footway to bypass the queue
at a set of lights.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

In article ,
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
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'm curious, now.

How many cycles are there? How many cars? Perhaps vechical-hours
would be a better measure - do you have any estimates for that?

--
You dont have to be illiterate to use the Internet, but it help's.