Nuxx:0931a327-261b-47cd-a605-fc7f6d1e26c3@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <0931a327-261b-47cd-a605-fc7f6d1e26c3@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Spindrift Automatically Blames the Motorist Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:39:52 -0800 (PST) References: <3dea3a9f-eca4-4cfe-9a79-7bb386fc9b78@d32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <7ad5c6ad-f65f-49de-8524-93a9e751d429@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com> <7bac52f4-da5f-4f59-a644-11ce8a4f5fac@m22g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 58 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.151.152.80 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1233437992 26118 127.0.0.1 (31 Jan 2009 21:39:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 21:39:52 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.151.152.80; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.5) Gecko/2008120122 Firefox/3.0.5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3880 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:684477

On Jan 31, 9:31=A0pm, spindrift  wrote: > On Jan 31, 9:06=A0am, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > > On Jan 31, 8:39=A0pm, spindrift  wrote: > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/28.= .. > > > So you're occasionally happy to blame cyclists who are in conflict > > with pedestrians. =A0But do you ever blame cyclists who are in conflict > > with *motorists* (which, quite clearly, was the point of my OP)? =A0If > > you don't (or if you only do so extremely rarely, when you've been > > backed into a corner), that points towards you having a bit of a > > problem with motorists per se, does it not? > > > This would appear to be yet another case of "Spindrift can't prove the > > point he wants to, so he posts an irrelevant link and/or copied and > > pasted passage instead". > > Do you think cyclists who jump red lights only threaten and intimidate > pedestrians? > > They also cause motorists to swerve, brake dangerously, carry out > dangerous manoevers and threaten other road users. > > Red light jumping cyclists could cause a motorist to swerve and > collide with another car or, God forbid, a vulnerable road user. > > Cyclists who jump red lights create havoc sometimes, they do a great > disservice to law-abiding cyclists like me, that's why I sometimes > remonstrate with them although it's often pointless as my link makes > clear. > > Why do you think cyclists bad behaviour only impacts on pedestrians? > > That's a rather blinkered way of looking at things, with respect. > > Cyclists who don't obey the rules make things harder for me and harder > for motorists. > > Motorists see cyclists disobey signals and think "Well, if they're not > bothered then the next cyclist I see will receive the same discourtesy > back. > > Do you see what I mean? > > Bad behaviour on the roads impacts everyone, not just one set of road > users, I'm surprised you need to have this explained, and cyclists who > blatantly and flagrantly ignore traffic signals impact on every other > road user.

Are you going to post a link to where you have previously blamed the cyclist when discussing an incident between a cyclist and a motorist? Or are you going to have the grace to admit that you have never done that?

And I've always known that "with respect" means the exact opposite, but you take it to new extremes.