Nuxx:4e344ea6$0$2483$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news2.euro.net!feeder.news-service.com!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!prichard.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4e344ea6$0$2483$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Bexley driver "'severely embarrassed' after attack. Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 19:34:13 +0100 References:  <998b11F9raU1@mid.individual.net>  <4e334b24$0$2491$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>  <4e34118d$0$2502$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>  <4e341a32$0$2940$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk>  Lines: 101 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 1909edc9.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=WLD]ZnLaoM6H\B?SViP\860g@SS;SF6n7R9OH0:RnEN4aQ\_d:g?bQ6`:ITG5aA:c7=]8?lZbBC>3 X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 6108 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:848248

On 30/07/2011 16:19, Simon Mason wrote: > > "Nuxx Bar"  wrote in message > news:4e341a32$0$2940$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk... >> On 30/07/2011 15:31, Simon Mason wrote: >>> >>> "Nuxx Bar"  wrote in message >>> news:4e34118d$0$2502$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk... >>>> On 30/07/2011 14:01, Simon Mason wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "Nuxx Bar"  wrote in message >>>>> news:4e334b24$0$2491$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If it's done as a genuine, necessary effort to prevent someone from >>>>>> knocking you off or squashing you then that's one thing. Of course >>>>>> your >>>>>> self-preservation is more important than any vehicle. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What is your opinion of this photo, Nuxxy? >>>>> >>>>> http://www.swldxer.co.uk/overtaking.jpg >>>> >>>> There's no real need to give cyclists that much room, and you and >>>> others >>>> are perfectly aware of that. >>> >>> One wonders why it is shown as an example in the Highway Code then. >> >> Because in recent years the Highway Code has sadly become biased towards >> cyclists and against motorists. > > Ah, yes, I should have known. > It's all part of the big conspiracy. > Is Mr Chapman behind it by any chance? > > See this list of perfectly reasonable >> suggestions from the ABD which were ignored just because they were from >> the ABD (Chapman recently linked to them and said they were barking, but >> then he would, being a car-hater): >> >> http://www.abd.org.uk/highway_code_2006.htm >> >> I'd love to see what objection you could possibly have to most if not >> all of those suggestions, many of which help cyclists (but I suppose if >> they help motorists as well then that automatically disqualifies >> them....) Go on, why don't you actually read them all and tell me what >> problem (if any) you have with each of them? > > They seem reasonable enough, except for the personal stereo ban. After > all, there are deaf cyclists out there and drivers are not averse to > having loud music on so why a ban on personal stereos for cyclists? > Seems a bit petty.

Fair enough, but I'm glad you agree with the rest, as any reasonable person would. Now, Chapman says it's "bonkers on many levels":

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/b55eb2fafd185b06

Perhaps this may be the beginning of your belated enlightenment and realisation that he does indeed hate cars.

As we already knew, Chapman thinks that drivers shouldn't have a defence if they are prosecuted for jumping a red light to let emergency vehicles through. Chapman thinks that drivers shouldn't be asked to leave room if they're not going to overtake themselves so that others behind can overtake. Chapman thinks drivers shouldn't be advised to take further training (because that would "glamourise motoring" and be treating it as a positive thing). Chapman wants drivers to be forced to keep their engines off in traffic even if it causes their windows to mist up.

He is even against clarifying what the speed limits are for small non-car-derived vans, and clarifying when a road is a dual or single carriageway. This can only be because he wants people to be confused about what speed limit applies to them, and therefore to inadvertantly get fined for "speeding". This also shows how much he's really bothered about the "safety" side of speed limits.

These are all things which, surely, only a car-hater who wanted to restrict and frustrate motorists for the sake of it (even when it compromises safety) would think. It's no surprise that he doesn't want "so kill your speed" to be changed to "so moderate your speed accordingly"; "kill your speed" literally means "stop", and that's exactly what he actually wants drivers (except himself) to do.

Apparently, Chapman also thinks that pedestrians shouldn't be told to pay attention when crossing the road, and cyclists shouldn't be told not to use mobile phones. This once again shows that Chapman is determined to minimise restrictions on cyclists and pedestrians, even advisory restrictions, no matter how much they would improve safety.

He doesn't even want drivers to be told about stopping distances on single-track roads, or about not parking in turning circles at the ends of cul-de-sacs. Of course, those things would be bad because other drivers might benefit from them.

His rejection of that page is one of the surest indicators so far that he is indeed a car-hating nutter. Ditto the Labour government which ignored every single one of those suggestions (because the ABD dared to campaign against its anti-car policies).