Nuxx:4297d106-51b6-41ed-bf56-50b458627495@f11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com

Path: number6.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!f11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4297d106-51b6-41ed-bf56-50b458627495@f11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Those dreadful railings! Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 03:07:15 -0700 (PDT) References: <8c533a38-ede8-4175-b70a-62dfb920c47c@f19g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>  <101aba54-309f-44c0-8c38-b94241fcf0e9@3g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>   Lines: 37 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.248.79 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1239444435 11202 127.0.0.1 (11 Apr 2009 10:07:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:07:15 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: f11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.248.79; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.8) Gecko/2009032609 Firefox/3.0.8 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3588 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:694585

On Apr 10, 12:06=A0pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote: > I am pretty confident that this is another of those measures > which is "obviously" good so does not need to be justified by evidence > or tested post-facto to see if it delivers the stated aims.

You mean, like lowering speed limits? And then lowering them again when that doesn't work? But of course you know that the obsession with speed is a load of nonsense, don't you? You just pretend to think otherwise because you hate motorists and you want them to be subjected to ever more draconian measures, even if they result in the deaths of thousands of road users. You utter bastard.

> Pedestrians are natural pythagoreans. =A0They will tend to take the > shortest route, because every step of the way costs them effort. =A0You > can deal with that by trying to force them to take a longer route so > that cagers don't have to think, or you can accept it and make a > concerted effort ot get the cagers to start thinking. =A0For some reaosn > the former course seems to be the preferred one, repeatably. =A0And as > far as I can tell this has been the case from the dawn of motoring.

As long as you insist on using words like "cager", people will not even begin to entertain your laughable assertion that you don't hate motorists. As for your claptrap above, why should pedestrians have it all their own way? What is wrong with two forms of transport compromising? In this case, pedestrians have the priority, at certain times, and in certain places. They can still cross at other places as long as it's clear. Sounds like a good deal to me, and I think it works pretty well for everyone, considering that pedestrians are so much slower and more vulnerable than motorists.

Only a car-hating wanker like you would think that pedestrians or cyclists should *always* get preferential treatment to motorists. You just want motorists to be constantly slowed to walking pace, so that yet another advantage of motoring over other modes of transport is artificially neutralised. You want people out of their cars. Have the guts to be up-front about it.