Nuxx:73230a66-afd1-47ac-91bf-27c6d779b0ce@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <73230a66-afd1-47ac-91bf-27c6d779b0ce@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling, uk.rec.driving Subject: Re: Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 06:21:32 -0800 (PST) References: <3282357c-d7aa-4691-a331-97561dba1306@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com> <60kilhF1r6occU2@mid.individual.net> Lines: 84 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.211.17.39 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1202048493 30176 127.0.0.1 (3 Feb 2008 14:21:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:21:33 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.211.17.39; 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: 5547 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:638325

On Feb 3, 1:08 am, "OG"  wrote: > "Nuxx Bar"  wrote in message > > news:3282357c-d7aa-4691-a331-97561dba1306@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com... > > > The Truth About Bikes And Anti-Motorist Lanes: > > >http://tinyurl.com/36kls5 > > Telegraph alert - the home of dodgy reporting. I recall a story about a > religious order 'forced'  to spend =A3400K on 'disabled access' according= to > the journalist; but if you read what was said by the nuns interviewed, the= re > was no question of being 'forced' to spend that sort of money. The quotes > actually refuted the journalist's spin. > > Similarly, the 'environmentism correspondent' who put a wind generator on > his house in a totally unsuitable south London suburb to 'prove' that they=

> are worthless. > > > Very revealing all in all. TfL's true colours are exposed (again), as > > are those of militant cyclists (who are of course doing as much damage > > to proper cyclists' interests as anyone else's). > > > "A clue lies in the report's findings about the attitudes of other > > road users to the idea of motorcycles in bus lanes, with almost half > > the surveyed pedestrians and a large proportion of cyclists expressing > > negative views (although only 40 of 800 cyclists [11 of which were > > Spindrift, who isn't really a cyclist at all] returned their forms, > > which is statistically insignificant compared with total cycle usage > > in London). So although the move would clearly prevent many injuries > > and save lives, it might be greeted with disapproval from a > > significant number of voters who harbour a prejudice against > > motorcycles." > > You have no compunction about misquoting the article then!

What do you mean? I put the bit about Spindrift in square brackets, thereby indicating that it was my addition.

> > So there we have it. Conclusive proof that the extremist > > fundamentalist mentalist cycling freaks care more about their bizarre, > > perverse, ideological, absurd crusade against powered private > > transport than they do about even their own safety. > > I note that you don't mention TfL's concerns about the methodology and > irregularities about the way that data was collected.

Option 1: TfL genuinely had concerns about the way that the data was collected, which only came to light after the conclusion of the trial, and would have stated those concerns whatever the outcome of the trial had been.

Option 2: TfL didn't want to open up the bus lanes to motorcyclists for political reasons, and were hoping that the data would give them an excuse not to. When it didn't, they extended the trial, hoping that there would be a turnaround. When there wasn't a turnaround, they went to "plan B", and suddenly decided that the data was invalid.

Given that TfL are quite openly anti-car and anti-motorbike, and given that they have a vested interest in as many people as possible using public transport, which option do you think is the more likely?

> What conclusive proof? . ..

I quoted it above, dear fellow. If you don't agree then fine, but don't pretend not to know what I mean. The militant cyclist trolls (i.e. not all cyclists) said that they didn't want motorcycles in bus lanes, even though it would make them (and everyone else) safer. That to me says that they care more about persecuting motorcyclists than they do about safety, even their own. This is backed up by the fact that they have previously expressed support for other motorist- persecuting measures even though they are dangerous to cyclists, e.g. speed cameras. I've already explained all this, and I'm not going to bother again, because I don't think you're sufficiently open-minded, and I think you may be one of the people who want motorcyclists and motorists to be given a hard time whatever the cost. If you are, I think you should ask yourself if it's really worth it. Wouldn't it be much easier to coexist peacefully with other road users, and campaign for positive measures which help cyclists (as well as not automatically objecting to any measures which help motorists)? Why the hatred? Why the spite? What is the ultimate aim of it all?