Nuxx:9f14f964-85a0-4910-be26-3a3d7f116e5a@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <9f14f964-85a0-4910-be26-3a3d7f116e5a@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Shocking moment drunk driver ploughs into group of cyclists. Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:31:47 -0700 (PDT) References:  <6amqp0F34nc82U1@mid.individual.net> <31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>  <7584fd90-52bb-4a15-a14f-efb95b1c5454@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> Lines: 82 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.217.66 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1212643907 5021 127.0.0.1 (5 Jun 2008 05:31:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 05:31:47 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.217.66; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008051206 Firefox/3.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 5527 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:651972

On Jun 5, 5:48=A0am, Doug  wrote: > On 4 Jun, 20:51, Me  wrote: > > > > > In article <31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405 > > @e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jag...@riseup.net says... > > > > On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus"  > > > wrote: > > > > "Doug"  wrote in message > > > > >news:a7304254-f5d9-466a-bb56-d2c1dfe14c33@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com= ... > > > > > > This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to th= at > > > > > of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hits a gr= oup > > > > > of cars. > > > > > Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying to = say, > > > > Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefore OT, w= e again > > > > have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk, being= a > > > > complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...? > > > > The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to > > > make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car > > > addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much greater > > > than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graphic > > > example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also recall how > > > the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something no > > > bicycle could ever do. > > > > Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles. > > > Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was when I > > was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't moving, and the > > traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in and half out of a side > > road he felt the need to try and smash my rear window. > > These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road. > > More cyclist bashing by the motorists who dominate and infest this > transport newsgroup?

=2E..where "bashing" =3D "justified criticism". You'd do yourself a lot of favours if you didn't automatically defend every cyclist, no matter whether they were right or wrong. It is you and your troll friends who revel in, and deliberately perpetuate, the "us and them" mentality between cyclists and motorists. "Two wheels (non-powered) good, four wheels bad." It's pathetic.

Why don't you mind your own business and concentrate on making things better for cyclists, instead of devoting your efforts to persecuting motorists? Why don't you stop using silly words like "addiction" to describe people who justifiably find their cars useful? (Are people with hoovers "hoover addicts"? Should they pick up the dirt on the floor by hand just to placate you?)  I don't know why it is that motorist advocates simply want things to be better for motorists, while so many so-called cycling advocates seem to be *more* concerned with making things worse for drivers than they are with making things better for themselves. I think the word is "spite".

If all cyclists would just concentrate on improving their lot, and lay off (and make an effort to get on with) motorists, things would be so much better for everyone, but for some reason (*not* "safety", which is just an excuse), that scenario seems to be the worst nightmare of the dog-in-the-manger trolls on urc. "Bloody motorists, enjoying their cars while I'm stuck out here, knackered and sweaty, in the rain...can't have that." Never mind the fact that cars and cycles both have innate advantages and disadvantages relative to each other; the millitant cyclists try to artificially increase the disadvantages of driving by campaigning for huge numbers of anti-motorist measures.

And Doug, if you must be anti-car for socialist reasons, at least admit that, rather than constantly exaggerating the dangers caused by cars in order to get what you want. Interfering with road safety is not on. Pretending that certain things are more dangerous than they are *will* cost lives. Please don't be so callous.