Nuxx:B90d2532-d133-4f50-aba0-0eaac4510e75@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Another Motorist-Hating Freak, But At Least He Admits It Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:26:50 -0800 (PST) References: <24966046-3d0b-40b0-a355-9e77891c161d@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>   <1icxj4w.ny3enw12rb1cqN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com>  <1icxsxw.1ccc79n2oj1jN%notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com> <47c48a42$0$2443$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk> Lines: 76 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 1204072011 32469 127.0.0.1 (27 Feb 2008 00:26:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: s19g2000prg.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: 4891 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:642057

On Feb 26, 9:53 pm, d...@telent.net wrote: > Ekul Namsob wrote: > > Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > >> On Feb 26, 5:59 pm, notmyaddress.1.ekulnam...@wronghead.com (Ekul > >> Namsob) wrote: > >>> Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > >>>> Anyway, I know exactly what you'll do when I list them. You'll deny > >>>> that they're anti-motorist measures at all. > >>> I promise you that I won't. > >> Tell you what then. To show that you're serious, please name at least > >> three measures that exist in the UK which you consider to be anti- > >> motorist. I will list my (and many other people's) anti-motorist > >> measures within 72 hours of you doing so. > > > OK. This will be a struggle since I don't believe there are any wholly > > anti-motorist measures in force in this country but I shall try. > > > 1) The London congestion charge. > > > 2) The existence of mandatory cycle lanes. > > > 3) The existence of pedestrian zones. > > You missed: > > 4) Buildings. Many of these could be knocked down to provide extra space > for roads and car parks > > 5) Parks and open spaces ditto. > > 6) Traffic lights. These are *designed* to impede the free flow of traffic > > 7) Measures designed to increase the number of pedestrians in certain > areas - such as "pavements", "shops", and "tourist attractions". > > 8) Tax. It is clearly anti-motorist that our rights to free expression > through driving are abrogated by having to pay the government money for it > > 9) Revolving doors often make it impossible to drive directly into the > lobbies of buildings. Even where this is feasible, the buildings may > have lifts or stairwells too small for the free passage of most SUVs > > 10) Motorists. See also (6) above: the volume of motor vehicles on the > road is a deliberate affront to all motorists whose journeys are impeded > by the consequent congestion. > > 11) Obesity and heart disease. Over 1,200 Americans die of coronary > heart disease every day, and I'm sure that most of them are motorists. > The link is clear. > > It's no wonder people are upset! > > -dan

Yeah, because the Congestion Charge, mandatory cycle lanes and pedestrian zones are every bit as necessary and integral to civilisation as buildings and all the rest, so I see your point. Or at least I see the point you're trying to make oh-so-cleverly, but of course it's completely wrong (what a surprise).

See Luke? I knew at least one troll would immediately leap upon your post with a load of fatuous, contentious nonsense. No-one is allowed to stick up for the motorist in any way, shape or form without immediately getting a load of scathing, sarcastic bollocks in return. And the trolls wonder why they are "misconstrued" as motorist-haters.

> 6) Traffic lights. These are *designed* to impede the free flow of traffic

Nothing like someone trying to be amusingly sarcastic and actually getting something right by mistake. Only a troll would even begin to contend that no set of traffic lights had ever been put in, or deliberately phased badly, in order to impede traffic. Yes, they have their place. No, we don't need as many as we've got, especially on roundabouts. But no doubt I'll be abused for saying that.