Nuxx:MPG.265f8e7a466004bf98974d@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!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!prichard.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling,uk.rec.driving Subject: Re: Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's 'war on motorists' Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 19:23:29 +0100 References:    Lines: 48 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 019bc80b.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=l>W:ac_D5W2bGK9<`dcd<?0g@SS;SF6n7ogMo?Vo4ZT7>6dS0cT>mO>8 X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 3704 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:765523

In article , mileburner@btinternet.com says... > > >> It's time the car-haters accepted that spitefully obstructing people > >> just for choosing a perfectly legitimate, legal mode of transport > >> which may well be the only practical one is totally and utterly out > >> of order. > > It would be if: > [1] The use of cars did not cause 3000 deaths and some 30,000 KSIs per > annum. > [2] The use of cars did not pollute. > [3] The use of cars did not terrify other road users. > > Otherwise, yes, it's *totally* out of order.

Except those are just excuses aren't they (not to mention highly suspect arguments in ways that others have pointed out)? If cars killed no-one, didn't pollute at all, and didn't "terrify other road users" (not that they really do anyway, that's just a typical emotive car-hating lie), you would still be against them because of the freedom they provide people. You fundamentally *hate* the idea of people choosing where to go, when to go there, what speed to go there at and what route to take, all without having to get permission from you or the state, and all without being monitored. The idea of people being able to do that drives you *crackers*...no-one except you can be trusted enough to be allowed to do such a thing.

The question is, why are socialists like you always so reluctant to admit that you have such a problem with freedom? Why invent feeble excuses to be anti-car instead of just being honest about wanting to reduce people's civil liberties? Is it because you know you can't justify such a stance? In which case why have such a stance at all?

If you really cared about "pollution" then you wouldn't support measures which intentionally cause traffic to stop and start unnecessarily. If you really cared about "deaths" then you wouldn't support speed cameras in the full knowledge that they made the situation worse rather than better. If you really cared about "the law" then you would support motorists who used legal means to defend themselves against charges. You're just another freedom-hating car-hater who lies through their teeth about their real agenda. It's pathetic and only a tiny percentage of people think like you do, so it's good that the new government isn't pandering to such loonies like the old one so eagerly did.

Having exposed your agenda and shown your "arguments" to be disingenuous crap, I'm not going to bother replying to you anymore unless you reply directly to my posts (and probably not even then).