Nuxx:71bf6158-b44a-4490-bb9c-65bbfb9e01f2@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <71bf6158-b44a-4490-bb9c-65bbfb9e01f2@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Nuxx Bar Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:46:12 -0700 (PDT) References: <75a79d0f-947a-4c3b-9a3e-8a7153edb357@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>  <005affcc-32ce-406b-8998-aa3114d6df82@h17g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <31b33489-6db2-4f9d-bba2-3074350682d2@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com> Lines: 83 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.145.93 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217011573 15029 127.0.0.1 (25 Jul 2008 18:46:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:46:13 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.145.93; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 5686 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:658936

On Jul 25, 12:33=A0pm, al Mossah  wrote: > On 24 Jul, 21:25, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > >admit what is already excruciatingly obvious, i.e. that you > > want the number of motorists to be substantially reduced and speed > > cameras and other anti-motorist measures are a good way of achieving > > that > > Isn't that what we all want? =A0Even motorists?

Only those who have been convinced (or like to pretend) that a reduction in the number of motorists is the only thing that will prevent gridlock. Besides, Crapman doesn't even admit to wanting that. Instead of saying "I know cameras don't really make the roads safer, but I like them because they make motorists hate driving, and that's got to be a good thing if it makes them think twice about their journeys," he makes vicious, vile, deeply offensive, personal remarks about those who dare to show that cameras don't work, as well as coming up with contrived, laughable rebuttals to Safe Speed pages in which he has desperately tried every conceivable trick in order to twist, beat and contort the figures into supposedly saying "Cameras save lives". Why would he bother unless he had an anti-motorist (or, if you prefer, a "motorist reduction") agenda?

> Which do you want? > > a) fewer motorists? > b) the number we have now? > c) more motorists?

It's not a question of how many I want, it's a question of how many there needs to be. Anyone who needs to drive should be able to. The authorities (and the trolls) need to acknowledge that driving is essential for many people and businesses, and try to help those people, instead of deciding that they're evil because they don't use politically correct transport.

I believe that the current number of motorists, plus more, could easily be accommodated if the authorities *really* wanted to solve congestion properly. There are many options, one of which is not con charging, and I'm fed up with Labour and the Labour Corporation (also known as the BBC) pretending that con charging (i.e. pricing the poorest off the roads) is the only way to deal with it.

You can tell when someone's anti-motorist, because they simply want things to be made as difficult for motorists as possible, and they don't care about anything else. They're not interested in measures which solve congestion or make the roads safer, unless those measures also make things less pleasant for motorists (so bypasses, road widening and removal/rephasing of certain traffic lights are all out...when was the last time Crapman or Spindrift wanted a bypass?) But they *are* interested in discredited "safety" measures (e.g. speed cameras), again as long as they make motorists suffer in some way. I just don't think people should be abusing road safety in order to get rid of motorists, just because *they're* not happy with the idea of the hoi polloi having so much freedom and control over their lives.

> Clue: if c), then you might have to accept that more of them will be > in front of you.

I don't mind drivers being in front of me at all, as long as they either keep up an adequate speed (that's "adequate", trolls, not "high"), and/or have some consideration for those behind them and help them to overtake or pull over and let them past. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to expect of people, and if someone wants to overtake me, I do everything I can (within reason) to aid them. Those who are belligerent and self-righteous towards anyone wishing to overtake, like Chapman and co undoubtedly are, antagonise people unnecessarily, which inevitably increases accident risk. (And that of course shows how much such people really care about "safety".)

I also try to help cyclists whenever I can, e.g. by leaving a gap to the left of me at traffic lights. But when I read the anti-motorist shit on here, and see Spindrift wannabes (or maybe the foul being himself) being complete antisocial twats in London, it makes me wonder why the hell I bother. I just have to keep reminding myself that many cyclists are perfectly decent human beings, and they shouldn't be made to suffer just because of their fallen cyclist brethren, who they have nothing in common with except their mode of transport.

Regards

Guy