Nuxx:2f59f3cd-7f77-49d5-b5f2-ea4a95ffd9ba@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <2f59f3cd-7f77-49d5-b5f2-ea4a95ffd9ba@e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Pre-RFD: uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 10:03:00 -0700 (PDT) References: <2lc*4xWHs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>  <384088d7-bd50-43a0-a3c9-7e8b10f3d4db@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 215 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1243789380 6571 127.0.0.1 (31 May 2009 17:03:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 17:03:00 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.27; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 12232 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:705823

On May 31, 12:15 pm, Danny Colyer  wrote: > On 31/05/2009 03:44, Nuxx Bar asked me directly: > > > Do you think that people who are abusing the cause of cycling in order > > to pursue a "hidden" anti-motorist agenda should be allowed to do it > > on the new group? I'm not asking for your opinion on whether such > > people exist or who they are (the answers are obviously "Yes" and > > "Chapman, Spindrift and others" respectively), I'm just asking whether > > you think such people should be permitted to perform such activities, > > and whether you think that pretending to be "pro-cycling" when you're > > actually just anti-motorist is a good thing for cycling in general. > > As with the moderation policy on other types of post that have been > discussed, I think the question of whether it should be allowed to > happen is something that should be considered on a case-by-case basis if > and when a problem arises.

Nicely avoided. ;-) I can see that you don't want to upset Chapman by saying that such posters shouldn't be allowed.  But if Chapman "isn't anti-motorist", why would such a thing upset him?  It's like when I started the thread entitled "Why Do Some People Hate Motorists?"; Chapman got so annoyed that he posted a reply as Lou Knee calling me a "piece of shit".  If he really hadn't been anti-motorist, he wouldn't have cared, but as he is anti-motorist, and "secretly" so, the thread title touched a nerve, and he couldn't resist throwing his toys out of the pram.

> I *will* give my opinion on whether such people exist, because I do not > believe that the situation has yet arisen.

I wasn't saying that you couldn't (I don't pretend to be a moderator, unlike Chapman), just that I was more interested in what I was actually asking.

> First off, I do not for a moment accept that Guy Chapman is > "anti-motorist".

I accept that you believe that, but I'm afraid you're wrong. Chapman had a page on his site called "The 'Cagers and Why We Hate Them' Mini- FAQ", and in it he described himself (and others on URC) as "vehemently anti-motorist". When this was pointed out, he quietly changed that page and sneeringly refused to say why. He's obviously decided that he'll get his anti-motorist measures more easily if he pretends to be "pro-safety" or "pro-environment" rather than anti- motorist.

I posted a huge list of anti-motorist measures. Chapman has, at one point or other, admitted to supporting *every single one* of them. Furthermore, I asked him (before he started pretending to have "killfiled" me) what the differences between his opinions and a car- hater's opinions were. The *only thing* he could come up with was "I'm a motorist". That doesn't mean he's not anti-motorist, it just means that he thinks he's important enough to be exempt from the draconian restrictions that he advocates for "ordinary" motorists. Livingstone and other anti-car ministers also drive (or are driven) a lot...if anything, they drive *more* (look at the anti-car Livingstone compared to the non-anti-car Boris). That is what socialists do: advocate a shitty lifestyle, but only for others, not themselves.

There is also the fact that Chapman is far too eager to defend anti- motorist measures such as speed cameras: for example, he knows about RTTM, but is happy for it to be ignored whenever cameras are being defended. Similarly, anyone posting arguments against cameras, however credible, is flamed by Chapman and called a "troll"; he has no time for such arguments, he simply dismisses them from the start without giving them any proper, open-minded consideration. He has even started hate campaigns against the likes of Paul Smith. He simply *won't accept* arguments against cameras, however good they are, and automatically accepts arguments for them. He quite clearly has an emotive axe to grind when it comes to defending cameras, and that axe is a prejudice against car drivers.

Next time Chapman whinges about drivers (it won't take too long), look at what he posts, and compare it to what a car-hater would post. There will be no difference.

> I believe that he [...] is opposed to the use of > motor vehicles

Yep.

> would like > to see stricter enforcement of existing road traffic legislation.

Yes, he would, but only because he wants motoring to be made as unpleasant as possible...the "safety" rubbish is just an excuse.

> I also believe that many of the more inconsiderate motorists regard any > suggestion that they should be required to comply with the law as being > "anti-motorist". Your posting history strongly suggests that you are > among this number (in particular your frequent claim that all motorists > speed, which I would suggest could itself easily be taken out of context > as being an anti-motorist statement).

I strongly disagree. Of course motorists should be required to comply with good laws which are there for the right reasons. I detest motorists who drive without insurance, without a licence, without tax, without an MOT, dangerously, inconsiderately, etc.

What I do dislike is pretending that driving above an arbitrary speed is automatically "dangerous" just because that provides an easy mechanism to threaten, bully, intimidate and prosecute all motorists (because all motorists *do* speed, except for those who hardly ever drive, and the most dangerous ones (i.e. old people who never go above 15mph and never go out of their villages)).

I also dislike deliberately robotic, discretionless enforcement of laws which clearly weren't designed with that in mind. "Speeding" and stopping briefly on double yellow lines (which often shouldn't even be there in the first place) are two examples of this. When someone is quite happy for *every* non-motoring law to be enforced with intelligence and discretion, but wants detected "speeding" and parking offences to result in a prosecution/PCN every single time bar none, I am extremely suspicious of their motives, and believe that they just wish to abuse such laws to give motorists a hard time.

> The requirements of cyclists are often in conflict with the desires of > those less considerate motorists.

Yes, but "less considerate" does not involve exceeding an arbitrary speed in itself.

> Enforcement of motoring legislation > is an important part of increasing safety on the roads for cyclists (as > well as for pedestrians, equestrians and other motorists). It is also > an important part of encouraging more people to cycle - the most common > reason given for not cycling is fear of motor traffic.

But increased speed enforcement hasn't saved lives...in fact it's done the opposite. Surely that has *increased* fear of motor traffic if anything? Enforcement shouldn't just be done for its own sake...if it's not saving lives, it's no use. We need to bring down the deaths year on year, as was happening very nicely before cameras came in, and that will mean less fear of motor traffic (some will always have irrational fears, of course, but enforcement is not the answer to that).

> Calls for such > enforcement (which you seem to regard as anti-motorist) are an important > part of pro-cycle campaigning and are therefore relevant to a cycling group.

If enforcement really saves lives, I'm all for it. If a particular type of enforcement is carried out when it has a track record of discourage car use, then that is indeed anti-motorist (not to mention incredibly callous).
 * costing* lives, but it's still carried out to make money and

> I would also suggest that there /is/ a place here for genuine > anti-motoring rants. I'm sure that most of us have had experiences > where our lives have been threatened by the inconsiderate behaviour of a > motorist. Everyone is entitled to let off steam after such an incident, > and the best place to do so is among friends who will understand.

If someone's really had such an incident, then I suppose they're entitled to have a go at motorists in general, as it's understandable that someone would be irrational in such a way after a close shave. That is not the same as someone coming on here and having a go at motorists, having *not* had any such incident, purely as a part of their wish to bully motorists off the roads (even if doing so costs lives).

> I don't expect you to understand this, because I don't believe that you > are a cyclist,

I never said I was. I used to be. Then I got a car. It's better. I'm not going to apologise for thinking that, though some round here seem to think I should.

> but in the aftermath of such an incident it's normal to > feel that "all motorists are bastards", in the same way that a woman > who's just been dumped or betrayed might go around saying that "all men > are bastards".

Fine, but it's completely irrational. And that is not the explanation for Chapman's anti-motorist rants (or Spindrift's for that matter, though he does sometimes make incidents up in order to dupe the likes of you).

> Those who understand, who have shared the experience, > will be well aware that it's a phase that the individual needs > supporting and helping through.

Fine. But that does not provide a rational reason for being anti- motorist in general.

> I'm not really in a position to judge Spindrift's motives, because I > confess that I find his posts tedious, repetitive and Londoncentric and > as such I actually ignore most of them,

So far so good.

> but I have a feeling that this > is where he is coming from most of the time.

Oh COME ON. Have you *seen* some of the stuff he's written about Paul Smith and SafeSpeed? Is that the kind of thing which is borne out of a saintly wish to save cyclists' lives...or just the rantings of a deeply disturbed car-hating moron who saw speed cameras as a great weapon against motorists, and *hated* that Paul Smith kept pointing out that they were costing lives in the national media, thus making the weapon less effective (and never mind that he was actually speaking the truth)? He goes from Internet cafe to Internet cafe to ensure that no-one can find out who he really is, just so that he can post libel. I'm sure you're a good, genuine person, but he absolutely is not, and I'm sure you'd be able to see that if you could stand to read through Spindrift's posting history.

> Of those that I have read, > I don't believe there have been any that I would regard as irrelevant to > a cycling group.

He always slips in a cycling reference, so that he can "cleverly" use cycling as a front for his hatred of motorists. But he's fooling no- one...except you, apparently. It's highly debatable as to whether he even cycles at all.