Nuxx:4e452756-a150-4213-bec6-c454e2e9111b@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4e452756-a150-4213-bec6-c454e2e9111b@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving Subject: Re: Child Death In Redditch Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 12:45:57 -0700 (PDT) References:   <7qog949oit5gq8bancgu6k86skl3rsq64r@4ax.com> <9Mednf7_EdIy8gXVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com> Lines: 70 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.129.172 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217965558 28293 127.0.0.1 (5 Aug 2008 19:45:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 19:45:58 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.129.172; 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: 4657 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:826981

On Aug 5, 4:20=A0pm, "budstaff"  wrote: > "judith"  wrote in message > > news:7qog949oit5gq8bancgu6k86skl3rsq64r@4ax.com... > > > On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 12:35:50 +0100, Paul Boyd  > > wrote: > > >>Nuxx Bar said the following on 05/08/2008 06:13: > >>> An interesting message from elsewhere. =A0A 10-year-old boy on his bi= ke > >>> was killed on a heavily traffic calmed, bus-only road. =A0Hardly a > >>> surprise, then, that there has been no mention of it here on > >>> uk.rec.anti-motorist, since no motorist can be blamed, and no anti- > >>> motorist measures can be called for as a result of the tragedy. > > >>What has this to do with cycling? > > > Are you just not bright? > > > "A 10-year-old boy on his bike was killed on a heavy traffic calmed, > > but-only road" > > > "What has this to do with cycling?" > > > How about =A0- "he was on a bike" > > How about "he was on a bike and on a bus-only road"? > > > Any you wonder why people take the piss out of you. > > The original post was not about cycling. It was a vicious and personal > attack on cyclists and those who frequent this usegroup because they had = not > made a fuss about an _accident_ involving a child on a bike and a bus. Th= e > slightest research on your part would reveal that the boy's mode of > transport was probably not relevant (he could just have easily run out in > front of =A0the bus, and then, presumably Noxious would have demanded tha= t the > ramblers got in a froth about it - no of course he wouldn't as he is > pursuing a simple-minded and simplistic anti cyclist agenda). > > Wouldn't you be better occupied in finding out whether he was wearing a > helmet or not, and jumping to your own prejudiced conclusions about that?

Why do you lot seem to think that telling blatant lies is the best way of debating? I didn't slag off cyclists. I like cyclists. All I want to do is share the roads peacefully with cyclists, and cooperate with them in the full knowledge that they're not anti-motorist twats who want to make life difficult for me just because I'm driving. Well over 90% of them are already like that. Most of the worst examples of the other <10% post on this newsgroup, hence my OP.

Do I campaign for anti-cyclist measures, even though they would make me less safe? Do I set about trying to make things worse for cyclists all the time, for purely spiteful reasons? No, so I'm not anti- cyclist. The motorist-haters on here, on the other hand, campaign for anti-motorist measures, even thought they make them less safe (e.g. speed cameras). They also set about trying to make things worse for motorists all the time, for purely spiteful reasons. That means that they're anti-motorist. Got it yet? It's really not that difficult to grasp once you make an effort.

I leave cyclists be, and cooperate with them as much as possible. Why can't the militants leave motorists be, and cooperate with them as much as possible? Why does the thought of motorists enjoying themselves bother them so much? It's so strange that they devote such a lot of effort to making other people suffer. Don't they ever wonder whether it's really worth it?