Nuxx:4133ad9d-9454-466f-85ba-4c50876cb8b1@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4133ad9d-9454-466f-85ba-4c50876cb8b1@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: IAM Cycle Safety presentations Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:02:12 -0700 (PDT) References:         <20090619140933.29663360@bluemoon>  Lines: 51 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.150.242 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1245704532 2919 127.0.0.1 (22 Jun 2009 21:02:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:02:12 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.150.242; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4185 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:830317

On Jun 19, 2:41=A0pm, Tim Woodall  wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:09:33 +0100, > =A0 =A0 Rob Morley  wrote:> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:5= 1:05 +0100 > > Mark  wrote: > > >> Advanced driving qualifications are not mandatory > >> which shows that anyone who does one is doing it for the right > >> reasons: because they know their driving is not perfect and they wish > >> to improve it. > > > What about the ones who only do it to prove how superior their skill > > is, or to qualify for cheaper insurance? > > I don't believe it is possible to pass an advanced driving test unless > you are a well above average driver. > > I suspect there are a few people who genuinely were already good drivers > and just "sat the test" to get cheaper insurance or whatever, but I > would think the majority of people who think "oh I'll just do it to get > cheaper insurance" will then get a shock and will either give up and > never take the test or will improve their driving in order to pass. > > I thought the IAM test would be easy. And now I'm horrified at just how > bad my driving was for seven or eight years before I decided to do the > test.

Sounds eminently reasonable and true. It's topics like these where the car-haters show that they are just car-haters, and not "safety warriors" or any of the other things that they label themselves as.

People who really cared about road safety would be open-minded about the idea of advanced drivers being allowed to exceed the speed limit; car-haters just dismiss ideas like that out of hand. They even oppose advanced driving tests full stop (as we've seen in this thread); any measure which is anything but negative (and preferably punitive) about motoring, and treats motorists as anything but reckless scum who can't be trusted an inch, is one that they refuse point blank to support. That is exactly what you would expect a car-hater to do; it's *not* what you'd expect someone who genuinely cared about road safety to do, as such a person would be open to any and all suggestions on improving safety.

When are Rob Morley, Chapman and the other car-haters going to be man enough to admit that a dislike of motorists, rather than "safety" or anything else, is their primary agenda? How obvious does it have to become?

(Oh look, another post that the car-haters can't answer, because they know that it's entirely correct. No wonder they're fighting tooth and nail to censor such posts.)