Nuxx:B8503313-0065-4624-b86f-f5f22aed3a65@h18g2000yqj.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!h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: IAM Cycle Safety presentations Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:10:24 -0700 (PDT) References:         <20090619140933.29663360@bluemoon>  Lines: 38 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.150.242 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1245701424 25164 127.0.0.1 (22 Jun 2009 20:10:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:10:24 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.150.242; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3523 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:830316

On Jun 22, 9:10=A0am, Mark  wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:09:33 +0100, Rob Morley  > wrote: > > >On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:51:05 +0100 > >Mark  wrote: > > >> Advanced driving qualifications are not mandatory > >> which shows that anyone who does one is doing it for the right > >> reasons: because they know their driving is not perfect and they wish > >> to improve it. > > >What about the ones who only do it to prove how superior their skill > >is, > > I've not met anyone like this.

Exactly. It's a typical invention by a car-hater. They just make up stuff about drivers doing things for the wrong reasons, being selfish, being irresponsible etc when there's absolutely no evidence for it, it's just what they *want* to be the case, so they say it as if it's fact. They *couldn't care less* whether something is true or not: if they think it'll help their "cause" against motorists, they claim it's true, and if they think it'll hinder it, they deny it until they're blue in the face, even when there's a mountain of evidence for it. It's demented fantasy.

I suppose they think they wouldn't be doing much good to the anti- motorist effort if they were honest about the fact that the vast majority of drivers are decent, responsible people who mostly do things for the right reasons and can judge whether they're going too fast without draconian speed enforcement. Still, it says something about car-haters in general that they're so prone to telling such outrageous lies as a matter of course. Wherever you go, car-haters who debate fairly and truthfully are *extremely* few and far between, probably because any car-hater who told it how it was would quickly show just how ludicrous their position was, to such a degree that they simply couldn't carry on defending it.