Nuxx:D0ca2952-52f2-47cb-b80d-0d2419fad50c@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Speed Limits: How Low Is Too Low? Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:04:07 -0700 (PDT) References: <43fcb0d5-3e7e-4ae6-b073-ca62ea02d09f@s39g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <2eo404l98gh2ol93ja5u0eo25qcdrllvi8@4ax.com>  <66gib1F2kb1teU1@mid.individual.net>  <66gqb2F2j5fpqU1@mid.individual.net> <2is604tqsrlnqqvee6tceoi8jmsv5f0ll5@4ax.com> <66hfsdF2j9sm2U1@mid.individual.net>  <66huq7F2j7kjvU1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 45 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.150.187 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1208297048 11582 127.0.0.1 (15 Apr 2008 22:04:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:04:08 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.150.187; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9b5) Gecko/2008032620 Firefox/3.0b5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3578 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:647397

On Apr 14, 10:03=A0pm, Matt B  wrote: > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:48:29 +0100, Matt B > >  said in > > <66hfsdF2j9sm...@mid.individual.net>: > > >>>> Umm, an interesting insight into your level of road safety > >>>> comprehension. =A0The level of danger is a function, not only of the > >>>> amount of kinetic energy, but also of the risk of a collision occurri= ng. > >>>> =A0An inattentive cyclist, on an old and poorly maintained bike, > >>>> travelling at 21 mph, virtually silently, and close to the kerb, may > >>>> well present more danger to a pedestrian stepping off that kerb, than= a > >>>> fully attentive motorist, in a modern well maintained car, travelling= at > >>>> 21 mph, several feet from the kerb, and generating the normal level o= f > >>>> wind, tyre and engine noise. > >>> Matt, you are (still) full of crap. > > >> Guy, try to avoid the temptation to rely on ad hominems (TPIAW, > >> "bullying") in an attempt to win support for your position. > > > I left the full context for purposes of irony. =A0You start with an > > ad-hominem argument, you get a dismissive response, and then =A0you > > accuse me of ad-hominem. =A0Par for the course. > > > Wikipedia has a page which perfectly describes your style of > > argument:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOUP > > Well evaded. =A0You didn't even recommend a good reading list!

He's had plenty of practice at evading. He knows that if he doesn't do so, he'll eventually be pinned down to an admission that cameras cost lives, and then he'd be forced to admit that he only supports them because he likes their motorist-bullying properties.

Sad, really, when your whole stance is based on such lies. And it's pretty unbelievable that someone would knowingly support a measure that was costing lives. Nevertheless, with him, there is no other explanation that stacks up.