Nuxx:1608ccea-fe97-43e3-b4b6-b338c0fb822d@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <1608ccea-fe97-43e3-b4b6-b338c0fb822d@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Parking in advisory cycle lane Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 00:38:59 -0700 (PDT) References: <14WdnQLGd88DbwzVRVnyiwA@pipex.net> <31303030373639354892112A08@zetnet.co.uk>  <878wvh1djc.fsf@rudin.co.uk> <0rp594hls8c9b5u3ls2tjp4jtjgj9jjraj@4ax.com>     Lines: 47 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.129.172 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217921940 8718 127.0.0.1 (5 Aug 2008 07:39:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 07:39:00 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.129.172; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4204 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:660820

On Aug 4, 9:59=A0pm, judith  wrote: > hence the > confusion with some thinking (incorrectly) =A0that they are lanes which > must be used by cyclists)

Understandable confusion, but there is indeed no such thing. The militants campaigned vociferously against such an idea when it was mooted, primarily because they wanted to maintain the right to unnecessarily get in the way of motorists (even if it meant putting themselves in more danger).

Yes, I know there are many places where it's not reasonable to expect cyclists to use cycle lanes, but there are other cycle lanes which are perfectly accessible and useful, and the militants don't want to use them because of some bullshit about how that would mean they "were being made to get out of the way" and they "weren't proper traffic". So, on the one hand, they complain about cars causing danger to cyclists, but then when the authorities try to help the cyclists by separating the two modes of traffic, the militants won't have it. It's one of many, many things which show that they're more anti- motorist than pro-cyclist (or pro-safety) by far. Why would anyone who was simply pro-cyclist (or pro-safety) mind using a cycle lane which was right next to the road, of adequate width and of the same quality as the road? Why would anyone not want to use such a lane, except for a dog-in-the-manger militant who couldn't bear to see the cars going past next to him unhindered?

The militants don't mind the authorities creating bus, cycle and taxi- only lanes on the supposed basis of "safety" (even though it actually makes things less safe), but they do mind the authorities effectively creating motor vehicle-only lanes for the same reasons. Yet again, it's a case of the militants automatically welcoming measures that restrict motorists/motorcyclists, but automatically rejecting measures that in any way restrict cyclists, regardless of the safety implications.

I simply cannot comprehend the mindset of people who are more concerned about making things difficult for others than they are about making things easy for themselves. There's no need for it. If the militants would just mind their own business by concentrating on getting themselves from A to B as safely as possible, and not worrying about whether the cars next to them were having too easy a time of it and not being punished enough for driving, the roads would be indescribably better for everyone. Or, if they disagree with that statement, perhaps they could be brave enough to admit that they do, and explain why. After all, you wouldn't want to be labelled a coward, would you Crapman?