"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?

"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

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

"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

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

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|
|/ \|

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)

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

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|
|/ \|

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