Nuxx:84269f0c-6de5-4aac-8149-6dfb33660d4c@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <84269f0c-6de5-4aac-8149-6dfb33660d4c@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Friends of the Earth Quote Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:01:03 -0800 (PST) References: <6074774d-6b65-42a5-aafa-5fbb4d4cc732@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>  <13quhska2ktsj52@corp.supernews.com> Lines: 60 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.211.165.120 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1202720463 26205 127.0.0.1 (11 Feb 2008 09:01:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:01:03 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.211.165.120; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071127 Firefox/2.0.0.11,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4489 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:639475

On Feb 10, 6:48 pm, Jim Harvest  wrote: > x-no-archive:Budstaff wrote: > > "Nuxx Bar"  wrote in message > >news:6074774d-6b65-42a5-aafa-5fbb4d4cc732@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >> "Speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all > >> the glamour out of motoring" > >> Friends of the Earth, 1995 > > >> Is anyone going to have the guts to admit that they agree with the > >> above quote? Spindrift? His sycophants? Other militant cyclists? > > >> The quote does of course prove that the continued lowering of speed > >> limits and the proliferation of speed cameras are indeed implemented > >> for anti-motorist reasons, at least some of the time. Anyone who > >> denies that that is ever the case is pretty likely to be anti-motorist > >> themselves. How Enemies of the People must regret letting that one > >> slip, as it makes a mockery of claims (lies) that such measures are > >> all about safety and nothing else. > > >> Surely saving lives, rather than ideological anti-car nonsense, should > >> *always* be the top priority when deciding on road safety measures; > >> anything less and people will die unnecessarily. Surely no-one can > >> reasonably argue with that. Therefore "taking all the glamour out of > >> motoring" should never *ever* be so much as a slight consideration > >> when deciding what to implement. We owe it to all road users, even > >> obnoxious cyclists. > > >> Those who interfere with road safety in order to make things > >> unpleasant for drivers have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who support > >> them have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who knowingly propagate the > >> associated lies have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. When are these bastards > >> going to stop pretending that they are doing anything but effectively > >> signing people's death warrants? > > >> It's time for real road safety, where reducing casualties as much as > >> possible is the one and only aim. There's no room for anything else. > > >> (Doubtless Spindrift will deny that he agrees with the quote, but then > >> argue with everything else that I've written, thereby showing that he > >> does in fact completely agree with it. He may also have a go at > >> claiming that Friends of the Earth "didn't really say that" or some > >> such, giving a list of irrelevant hyperlinks in his defence.  Par for > >> the course then really.) > > > I really can't see the point of taking a 12-year-old quote that has > > _nothing_ to say about cycling, then cross posting it to one newsgroup, > > u.r.d, that probably took issue with it 12 years ago, and another, u.r.c, in > > order to pick a fight with them by challenging them to agree with it. > > > Unless of course the point is that you are a sad and particularly > > unimaginative troll. > > > However I would be intersted to know what (legal) aspect of modern motoring > > you think is or should be 'glamorous'. > > Budstaff, don't feed the troll.

Fuck off, you murdering motorist-hating freak. You disagree that saving lives has to be the top priority in road safety, and it's there in black and white. You're a MURDERER.