Nuxx:MPG.25836f52fe9f61459896ca@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!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-out2.kabelfoon.nl!newsfeed.kabelfoon.nl!bandi.nntp.kabelfoon.nl!multikabel.net!newsfeed20.multikabel.net!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: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 19:11:48 -0000 References:     <2eadndaaRpovforWnZ2dnUVZ8uednZ2d@pipex.net>     Lines: 58 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.13 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 091203-1, 03/12/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 8316a7a0.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=m7j^<=[T8@TnS@\_F@iSjUnok4Z\, mileburner@btinternet.com says... > > "Anchor Lee"  wrote in message > news:MPG.2582b6129f8acdd49896c7@news.zen.co.uk... > > > > Funny how you don't seem so concerned about ambulances getting through > > when you advocate the prosecution of motorists who carefully go through > > red lights in order to allow just that. > > > > Yet again, we have a car-hater pretending to care about something when > > it allows them to advocate anti-motorist measures, but being strangely > > unconcerned about that exact same thing when it can be used in a > > motorist's favour. You, mileburner, spindrift and the other car-haters > > don't care about emergency vehicles getting through, "safety", "the > > environment", "the law", "cyclists' rights" or any of the other things > > that you claim to be so concerned about: you simply use them whenever > > convenient as a stick to beat motorists with (and ignore them the rest > > of the time), being sad car-hating extremists who are so ashamed of > > hating motorists that you won't even admit it and hijack legitimate > > causes instead. Pathetic. > > Oi! I don't hate them, I just *pity* them.

Please explain why you're such a fan of "the law" when it can be used against motorists in some way, yet you don't like it when motorists use "the law" to quite legitimately and legally fight their anti-motorist tickets. Please explain why it's OK by you for technicalities to be used (to a *huge* extent) to send FPNs and PCNs to motorists, yet it's not OK by you for motorists to use technicalities (and sometimes not even that) to get their FPNs/PCNs cancelled. Is following "the law" to the letter important or not?

Please explain why you're such a fan of "safety" when it can be used against motorists in some way (e.g. speed cameras, even though we all know they don't actually improve safety), yet you never advocate safety improvements which would actually help motorists (e.g. widening and dualling roads, reducing conflict between traffic streams, etc, and of course they are genuine safety improvements).

Please explain why you're so keen on improving things for cyclists, but only when it can be used as a way of making things harder for motorists...you never advocate measures which would improve things for cyclists *and* make things easier for motorists (e.g. getting rid of measures which artificially narrow the road and therefore make it less safe to overtake cyclists).

It's blatantly obvious to me that your primary aim is to inconvenience motorists, and that all your stated aims are just a means to that end. You haven't even denied that you only care about "the law" etc when they can be used against drivers.

Oh BTW, what do you think of councils using "decriminalised parking enforcement" to raise millions from motorists? You're no doubt a fan of such behaviour. But councils have been explicitly told *not* to abuse parking enforcement in order to raise money. You don't care about that though do you? Never mind that they're breaking "the rules"...they're doing it to inconvenience motorists, so that's all right.