Nuxx:1812ba7d-977b-4ebf-b850-6bef533bd0b1@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <1812ba7d-977b-4ebf-b850-6bef533bd0b1@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:07:13 -0800 (PST) References:  <166804253321545262.511456%steve%-malloc.co.uk@news.individual.net> <38eq48x9b4.ln2@news.ducksburg.com> <02059306-f632-4ff7-9f3e-949162648f6e@w6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> Lines: 130 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1299971233 27919 127.0.0.1 (12 Mar 2011 23:07:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 23:07:13 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 8303 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:38845

On Mar 12, 8:55=A0am, Simon Mason  wrote: > On Mar 11, 8:45=A0pm, Adam Funk  wrote: > > > On 2011-03-11, Steve Firth wrote: > > > > BTW thanks for proving that when I stated that cyclists seemed to be > > > inadequates with a short fuse that I had hit the nail on the head. Yo= u're > > > not by any chance the pavement cyclist who screamed abuse at me last = week > > > in Camden because I refused to move out if his way? > > > AIUI (from reading URCM), Simon Mason (like me) advocates good cycling > > with consideration for pedestrians. =A0You've said previously that you > > don't hate all cyclists, just the just the ones that are inconsiderate > > to pedestrians, so this hostility to Simon is misdirected. > > Yes, but in Judith's, Nuxxy's and Firth's world *all* cyclists are a > homogenous entity who exibit exactly the same (always negative) > traits.

I'm sorry you think that Simon. It is categorically not the case with me (or the others, I don't think, but certainly not me). My dad cycles to work 3 days a week. I have colleagues who cycle to work and I respect them for it. i have friends who cycle. None of them, I'm sure, would even begin to call me anti-cyclist. Even I cycle sometimes, and have been doing so more lately with the better weather. Walking as well, as a matter of fact.

Please don't confuse my problem with *psycholists* (a small, militant, usually car-hating subset of cyclists) with a general problem with cyclists. It would be ridiculous to automatically despise anyone who used a certain mode of transport (as ridiculous as the car-haters who I castigate). I would love it if everyone just minded their own business, used whatever form of transport they felt best suited them to get from A to B, *and* respected everyone else's right to do the same (which, for example, means not deliberately obstructing cyclists when driving, *or* going out with a helmet cam, Ian Jackson-style, with the express intention of provoking motorists and causing problems just because of a belief that motoring is somehow inherently wrong). If everyone concentrated on advocating road policies to help themselves, rather than to spite others, that would be wonderful. I would be over the moon if no-one ever attempted to interfere with or belittle anyone else for using a certain form of transport again, believe me.

You've got me wrong. Please cite any post of mine where I have advocated measures with the sole intention of obstructing or discouraging cycling. You, on the other hand, have admitted that you support bus lanes partly because they "deter motoring", and you don't care whether the majority of the public wants it or not.

> Guy Chapman > is a "murderer" and "car hater" by dint of his saying he supported > safety cameras

I've said on more than one occasion since that "murderer" is the wrong term to use. I do however remain convinced that Chapman supports cameras because he hates cars, despite knowing that they kill people. What am I supposed to do, say I don't think that even though I do? These days I rarely if ever mention Chapman in regard to speed cameras unless someone else brings it up first: unless he starts being honest there seems little point in revisiting the topic (especially since he pretends to have me in his "killfile" these days).

There *are* people who support cameras because they hate cars, and prioritise that above whether or not cameras save lives, through varying degrees of dishonesty and self-delusion. There *are* people who support cameras because they're simple and "slower is safer" appeals to their idiocy. There *are* people who support cameras because they're intelligent enough but they just haven't looked at the facts properly (I would probably put you in that category, bearing in mind that you tend to go all quiet when I mention the likes of regression to the mean, which is *not* just "being clever" but is essential if you're going to evaluate cameras' effectiveness properly).

I sincerely believe that most people who are intelligent, informed of the facts about cameras, and who are honest and don't have an axe to grind about motorists or anything else, end up opposing cameras. Nevertheless some such people still do support cameras, if often with caveats ("safety" camera partnerships are quite obviously more concerned with generating tickets than anything else, for example), and when I first came onto URC, I was probably too quick to assume that no-one could possibly be in that category. I hereby apologise to such people for misjudging them and their motives, OK? I accept that people like Ian Smith and Rob Morley have looked at the facts, do know what they're talking about, and yet have still come to the decision that cameras work. Fair enough, they're entitled to their opinions, and I was too eager to assume foul play.

You try getting Chapman to ever admit anything like that. Have you noticed that he will *never* admit to having made a mistake? I'm not the only one who thinks that, Ian Smith has said so as well for one.

> I am apparently a raging homophobe

I'm sorry I implied that, and having read your explanation I now accept that you're not, particularly if your brother is gay. Now that I've told you that my dad is a keen cyclist, perhaps you could similarly withdraw your accusation that I'm a raging "cyclophobe"?

> They appear to have a totally irrational hatred of a large number of > people solely by their (usually occasional) choice of transport

Not so. I don't have a problem with any cyclist who is law-abiding and doesn't actively try to make life harder for motorists.

> and so > the only way they can vent their anger (they would not dare to > verbally abuse a cyclist face to face in the real world)

I can, and have, had a go at cyclists who have almost run me over as a pedestrian having jumped red lights, and I'd do so again. They never stop because they know they're in the wrong.

I repeat, what is wrong with the posts I have made to URCM? Does it actually matter what you think my motives are as long as I post on- topic on and in line with the charter? As for URC, yes I do post stuff about motoring there sometimes, but thereagain, so do you. As I've said before, URC is the UK place on Usenet with the most anti- motorist posters, and sometimes it's interesting to find out what they think about something (or sometimes, yes, expose their irrationality). There's also the fact that most topics which are relevant to motoring are somewhat relevant to cycling by default, since the two transport modes share roads (and are surely more relevant if motoring is as terribly dangerous to cyclists as is made out by some posters).

I don't have a problem with the vast majority of cyclists.