Nuxx:MPG.258c123e80dd7a8d9896db@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin3!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!txtfeed2.tudelft.nl!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Bus lane moaners. Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:58:36 -0000 References:               <MPG.2587679d738fb3f99896d5@news.zen.co.uk> <7ea8c4ba-01a7-4fb6-aa6e-137624a5b97c@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <MPG.2588b2a88eac99369896d8@news.zen.co.uk> <51872d84-c14b-4114-b48f-c0c64ae2a235@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> Lines: 75 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.13 Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: b897ce15.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=PBfMlK5\I0liecb`[XPR_jnok4Z\<mH4ihDU:2=XKPkh`AVFU<X0\DcEn<S9LLeaZm792BiS<Ld6m X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 6241 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:746533

In article <51872d84-c14b-4114-b48f-c0c64ae2a235 @m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, MasonS@BP.com says... > > On 8 Dec, 19:00, Guy Cuthbertson <gu...@nothing.invalid> wrote: > > > > I don't really care to be honest. > > > > I didn't ask whether you *cared*. Do you believe that speed cameras and > > lowered limits are used to discourage motoring? You must either believe > > or disbelieve it. Which one is it? (Are you worried that if you admit > > to believing it, the car-hating fuckwits will turn on you for daring to > > speak a truth which they would rather keep suppressed?  You really > > shouldn't let them have their bullying way with you.) > > Nobody bullies me Guy. > Since you ask, in my case, I was persuaded to give up my car for > reasons other than bus lanes, cameras or lowered limits. It was due to > road layouts such as this which made me take to my bicycle rather than > being held up. It was in 1998 I think. Does that answer your question?

No it doesn't! Come on Simon...I really thought that unlike so many here, you were enough of a man to properly answer tough questions instead of just ignoring them or trying to evade them (LK springs to mind among many other things). I still have hope that you are. It's a very simple question and I honestly don't think you've answered it yet. Do you think it likely that speed cameras are used to any extent to discourage motoring, or don't you? A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice. Please answer; I'd do the same if you asked me a reasonable transport- related question. (By asking that question I am *not* saying that *all* motorists would necessarily be discouraged by speed cameras, but almost certainly a majority are. And surely an even higher majority are discouraged by unreasonably low speed limits.)

I think the evidence for "Yes" is strong: You've already admitted that you think bus lanes are there partly for anti-motorist reasons; surely it's therefore likely that the same thing applies to speed cameras, lowered speed limits, unnecessary and badly-phased traffic lights, and all the other things we now have which just happen to disadvantage normal, generally well-behaved, adequately competent and considerate motorists with the right attitude who abide by the spirit of the law. One council somewhere up near you (in Lincolnshire I think) even admitted that they were lowering a speed limit on a particular road solely to "encourage" motorists to use an alternative route. (Both roads were "A" roads IIRC, which makes their actions even less justifiable.) It goes on all over the place of course, but this has been the only council stupid enough to give the "game" away and admit what they were doing.

Anyway, when you admitted that bus lanes were there partly for anti- motorist reasons, you defended the practice and said there "has to be a deterrent [to driving]". But the thing is that if, as you admit, councils are deliberately trying to delay motorists to get them to stop driving, why do they never admit to doing it (except in the occasional cat-out-of-the-bag cockup), and why do they *always* disguise their motorist-delaying measures as "safety"/"pro-bus"/"pro-cyclist"/etc measures instead of just saying what they really are? The answer, as we both know, is that they know a clear majority of the electorate *don't want* motorists to be deliberately delayed (in fact they want the opposite: for traffic flow to be *improved*). So the councils have to sneak around putting in anti-motorist measures while pretending not to do it. Do you think it's right that in a democracy, the wish of the people is so deliberately, calculatingly and actively defied? (If you agreed with the people, which I know you don't in this case, then wouldn't you be pretty annoyed about that...wouldn't it be time for another letter to the local paper?)

> http://www.speedlimit.org.uk/images/hull.jpg

Well, I know the guy who runs that site, and he's an intelligent, eloquent, decent fella with the very best of intentions. He's certainly about as far as you could get from some "boy racer" who just wants to "speed around everywhere". I agree with pretty much every word on that site. I can't understand why every non-car-hater doesn't...it just seems like common sense to me. Still, the world would be a very boring (and ultimately unpleasant) place if everyone agreed about everything.