Nuxx:87a94583-1da8-498e-ac73-7c386a05a1db@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <87a94583-1da8-498e-ac73-7c386a05a1db@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Reasonable? Necessary? You Decide Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 03:08:38 -0800 (PST) References: <6ea8bd3b-ff2f-4227-98f7-a5e457545b20@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <62b3gdF21h7rlU1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 42 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.211.165.120 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1203937719 6194 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2008 11:08:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:08:39 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.211.165.120; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3220 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:641710

On Feb 23, 5:29 pm, Peter Clinch  wrote: > Nuxx Bar wrote: > > But for now, I would like people (particularly Spindrift and his ilk) > > to say whether they feel that each of the following events is > > reasonable and necessary to achieve safer and/or less congested > > roads. > > > > These aren't "anti motorist measures", they are places where a set > of circumstances has arisen that inconveniences a motorist in some > perticular contexts. So in the same vein you /could/ say anyone > wanting to cross the road is potentially "an anti motorist measure".

I never said they were. All I asked were for people to say whether they thought each situation was reasonable and necessary for safer roads. So far as I read only one person has even attempted to do so. I think this is probably because:

- most of you know that the events described involving motorists are not necessary for safer roads - you don't want to admit it, because you rank the persecution of motorists above road safety.

So it confirms what I thought all along. So keep trolling, trolls, you're just proving my point.

> A true "anti motorist measure" would be discrimination against a > motorist for no other reason than discrimination, and none of yours > fit the bill.

Have you ever heard of common sense? Do you think that maybe an absolute refusal to apply common sense in the events described is discrimination, especially when it's built into the system? I do, and I'm perfectly entitled to. No amount of trolling will change that.

I also think that where common sense is not applied in the cycling- related events, that is discrimination. Because I don't hate cyclists just because I advocate motorists' rights, even though so many advocates of cyclists' rights seem to think that they have to hate motorists. Can't they see how counterproductive it is? Will they not rest until no cars are left? Otherwise what exactly is their aim?