Nuxx:855385b4-da5d-42f4-b7e9-9a46b5295118@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <855385b4-da5d-42f4-b7e9-9a46b5295118@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Are You Anti-Motorist? Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 00:51:36 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 263 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.138.49 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1215244297 22128 127.0.0.1 (5 Jul 2008 07:51:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2008 07:51:37 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.138.49; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; 	.NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506; 	InfoPath.2),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 15304 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:655390

When it comes to the trolls, they know the answer to the above question as well as I do. However, since they insist on farcically denying it, I thought it would be fun to annoy them (isn't it always?) by once again effortlessly demonstrating how anti-motorist they really are. This time, the demonstration will take the form of a series of questions. Any troll answering will quickly show that they're quite prepared to forget about silly little things like road safety, democracy and justice as long as it means that motorists are punished. Of course, the trolls are very unlikely to answer the questions, not wanting to be exposed as demented and irrational haters of those who dare to transport themselves in the "wrong" fashion, but that in itself will be as telling as any answers they could give.

(Chapman, I know you're busy with your new job that someone was stupid enough to give you, so I've made it easy for you: just choose "a" for each question. In fact, as a personal favour to you, I'll assume that you've done that already, without you even having to post.  Isn't that generous of me?  And just to show that I'm not asking people to answer questions that I wouldn't answer myself, my answer to each question is "b".)

1. Despite the extensive evidence showing that they make the roads significantly less safe through their long list of side effects, do you support speed cameras?

a. Yes. I don't care how unsafe cameras are shown to be, I'll always support them, because my reasons for supporting them were never to do with safety in the first place. So, whenever a petrolhead puts forward an argument against cameras, I've already decided that it's not going to make any difference to my stance before the petrolhead has even begun. In other words, my support of cameras is based on sound and dispassionate logic, science, reason and rationality...not.

b. No. They are killing machines and they need to be scrapped RIGHT NOW. Surely only those who stand to make money from cameras, those who hate motorists, those who like to be sanctimonious and/or controlling towards others, those who aren't aware of and/or aren't sufficiently educated to understand all the facts, those who refuse point blank to look beyond overly simplistic rubbish like "Slower is safer", and those with similarly spurious reasons for their support of cameras would disagree.

2. If a speed limit is reduced (despite nothing about the road or its surroundings having changed), and the new reduced speed limit is far lower than it needs to be, do you believe that this is a good thing?

a. Yes. As long as something makes life less pleasant for motorists, it's all good. There may well be all sorts of safety-related side effects associated with making a speed limit too low, but it's a question of priorities. What's a few thousand deaths and injuries here and there when the motorist scum are being given hell?

b. No. Simply reducing speed limits willy-nilly when there is no genuine safety-related reason for doing so is potentially very dangerous, as well as bad for the economy and the environment. One of the worst safety-related side effects is the "crying wolf" aspect: ludicrous 30 limits are not distinguished from proper 30 limits, with the result that the effectiveness of the proper 30 limits is reduced.

3. What do you think of those who are charged with speeding and fight the charge in court?

a. They should just accept their punishment. They wouldn't have been charged if they hadn't been guilty [of driving].

b. They have every right to justice, and if the case for the prosecution cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, there should be no conviction. The bias shown by magistrates in recent years against those accused of speeding has been sickening.

4. Are you happy with the fact that Ken Livingstone went ahead with the westward extension of the Con Charge, despite the fact that the residents involved in the "consultation" clearly indicated that they didn't want it?

a. Yes. Making things unpleasant for motorists is so important that, if necessary, the wishes of the people must be ignored.

b. No. Of course Livingstone should have listened to the wishes of those who lived in the affected area, and the fact that he didn't showed that, like the trolls, he hates motorists. Who knows, maybe he
 * is* one of the trolls.

5. Despite the fact that the people of Manchester have made it clear that they don't want it (e.g. by overwhelmingly voting out Roger Jones in favour of a candidate who ran on an anti-Con Charge ticket), do you believe that the Manchester Con Charge should be implemented anyway, without a referendum?

a. Yes. Again, it's extremely important that things are made as difficult for motorists as possible. Sometimes (quite often in fact), when it comes to the anti-motorist effort, relatively insignificant things such as democracy have to be ignored for the greater good.

b. No. It's outrageous that the government and the relevant councils are still even considering the Con Charge when it is so utterly clear that the people don't want it. How very dare they? And why is it that with problems such as congestion, the authorities will only ever consider "solutions" that make things harder for motorists? Congestion is a classic example: con charging and HOV lanes are gleefully announced, while the likes of road widening/building, removal of congestion-causing measures and traffic light rephasing/ removal are stubbornly ignored again and again. It's blatantly obvious that the authorities don't *really* want to ease congestion, because that might actually make things easier for the evil drivers. So instead, they just use congestion as another excuse to tax, restrict and bully the beleaguered motorist. However good old Boris* is now rephasing traffic lights: maybe the tide is turning at last.

6. Do you support the huge VED rises announced in the last budget, despite the fact that they are very unpopular, they are extremely unfair, and their environmental value has been extensively questioned, even by the likes of Greenpeace?

a. Yes. Once again, it's all about priority. I wouldn't normally support something of that nature, but since the motorist is getting clobbered, how could I not support it? The only thing I don't like about the VED rises is that they don't go far enough. I'd love motorists to have to pay =A310000 a year. Not that I'm anti-motorist or anything like that.

b. No. Very unpopular, extremely unfair, and of no environmental value: who, except motorist-hating dimwits, would be in favour of such a measure? And if the government absolutely must raise yet more taxes to recoup its losses, the motorist should not (yet again) be the target.

7. Do you believe that fuel duty should be cut?

a. No. I realise that the huge rises in the cost of fuel are increasing the prices of food and pretty much everything else, as well as threatening to put large numbers of hauliers out of business, and I'm sorry about those things. But pissing off the motorist has GOT to come first. I'm prepared to pay more for my food and everything else if it means that I can feel spitefully smug about the suffering of millions of motorists. Just the other day, I was thinking about the pain of all those drivers and I actually came in my pants. That's how great it makes me feel. Perhaps there is a way of me feeling that great without having to pay extra for everything: maybe we should cut fuel duty for hauliers, and increase it for motorists to compensate. But of course the selfish motorist wankers would whinge about it, despite it being perfectly fair. They should be grateful that they're even allowed to drive at all: if I had my way, that would all change. And if we all had to pay huge amounts of extra tax to replace the motorists' fuel duty, so be it.

b. Yes. Fuel duty has been excessive for a long time, and it has never been anything to do with "the environment". Now, thanks to the rise in the cost of oil, everyone is suffering, however they get around. It's time for the government to get on our side rather than on our backs; it's time for the government to do something which for once doesn't involve making money, persecuting motorists, or both.

8. The website http://www.witlessandswindle.me.uk, a site which contained justified criticism of the Wiltshire & Swindon "Safety" Camera Partnership, "mysteriously disappeared" a few months ago according to its owner. (Don't worry trolls, it will be back very soon.) It seems that certain people didn't like the public being able to access such information. Do you think this is a good thing?

a. Yes. I'm normally as anti-censorship as anyone, but once again, persecution of the motorist is more important. I know that speed cameras cost lives, and I know that the way that partnerships are run is extremely dodgy at the best of times. But we can't have that information getting out to the general public, because then even more people than currently will be against speed cameras, and they'll have to be scrapped. Then where would the anti-motorist effort be? In other words, usually with censorship, the end doesn't justify the means, but in this case, it most definitely does. If we have a choice between keeping our cameras and becoming like China, and getting rid of our wonderful cameras, then keeping cameras and becoming like China is quite obviously the way to go.

b. No. The authorities are killing people, lying to cover up that fact, and then indulging in censorship to cover up the lies. It's outrageous and it has to stop. I'm looking forward to the reinstatement of the website and others like it. Truth will out. One day, all but the most stubborn control freaks and motorist-haters will despise scameras for what they are.

9. Do you hate motorists?

a. No. You see, I play this really funny game where I make it entirely obvious that I hate motorists, but then when I'm asked whether I hate them, I deny it. Hilarious, isn't it? And dead clever, I reckon. Because, you see, I know I can't defend my hatred of motorists, and this way, I don't have to! Suck on that, petrolheads!

b. No. I've had enough "discussions" with lying motorist-hating trolls to know what sad, pathetic pricks they really are, and just the thought of being among their number makes me shudder. One of them in particular, who calls himself Spindrift, is a really, infamously sick individual who urgently needs help; you simply don't get people anywhere near as bad as that on the pro-motorist side. Whether it's socialism, or Communism, or something else that fuels their warped agenda, motorist-haters are utterly ridiculous. Why would anyone be so obsessed with making things worse for people who, like anyone, are simply trying to get from A to B? It's time for the motorist-haters to adopt a real cause and stop harrassing reasonable people.

Addendum

Hopefully this will have demonstrated to the motorist-haters just how many of their usual principles they have steamrollered in order to maintain their insane discrimination against those who dare to drive. If you're normally against road deaths, but you're prepared to make an exception for the sake of Cause X (in this case a wish to get motorists off the road), it's very likely that there is something utterly wrong with Cause X, and it doesn't deserve your support. If you're normally in favour of true justice, democracy, freedom of speech, openness about your true aims, and the authorities telling the truth, but not when it comes to Cause X, then the same applies.

Look what a bullying, lying, misanthropic monster Cause X has turned you into. Cause X is no good, and if you continue to pursue it, then you and your outlook will become irrevocably warped, not just with Cause X, but with everything. Can you even remember why you hate motorists so much, or has it just become a sort of reflex? For your own sake, as well as that of millions of people who just want to get around, please destroy your hatred of motorists once and for all, before it destroys you.

to simply anti-motorist, wouldn't have a problem with him. But, surprise surprise, Spindrift does have a problem with him. Spindrift also doesn't want motorcyclists in bus lanes, even though such a measure would make things safer for cyclists. It's crystal clear that Spindrift is utterly anti-motorist/motorcyclist, and is simply pretending to be pro-cyclist in order to get support.
 * Talking of Boris, anyone who was genuinely pro-cyclist, as opposed

Whenever there is a measure or a politician that makes things better for cyclists, but also makes things better for motorists, Spindrift been asked to come up with examples to the contrary, but of course he can't. When are the genuinely pro-cyclist posters on this newsgroup, if there are any, going to wake up to the fact that Spiteful Scumbag Psycho Shitdrift is using them? The fact that he gets any support anywhere on the Internet, let alone as much as he does, is deeply worrying, and is just going to make him more and more unhinged. It also puts those who support him in a very bad light.
 * always* opposes it/them. (Coincidence?  I don't think so.)  He has

The best way that people can help Spindrift is to stop feeding his delusions and get him sectioned. That way, he gets the help he needs, and he won't be allowed to post anonymously on the Internet anymore, which will mean that we finally have an end to the disgusting tirades against Safe Speed and anyone else who dares to oppose the war on the motorist. If and when he is released, he will be able to offer genuine help to cyclists, by concentrating on making things better for them rather than making things worse for motorists. Surely that way, everyone will win except for the remaining motorist-haters (*ahem* Crapman *cough*).