Nuxx:Iy8xl.170885$Bt3.85371@newsfe03.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.kpn.net!pfeed09.wxs.nl!border3.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!mrouter2.a.astraweb.com!news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!feeder.news-service.com!cyclone02.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf02.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe03.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: _  Newsgroups: uk.legal,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Cyclists going through red traffic lights Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:25:17 +0000 References: <72h0pkFpshmdU1@mid.individual.net> <81da1a72-951c-4473-99db-d16f48840e19@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>  <568f6f67-f856-4720-ad59-c45abbc27ad1@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>     <4K4xl.143751$q45.132433@newsfe07.ams2> <4lm9s49h4uktk2rak0h6jlbjjlpq2s0nkv@4ax.com>   Lines: 70 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.12.82.202 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe03.ams2 1237652750 86.12.82.202 (Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:25:50 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:25:50 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 5552 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:690499

Adam Lea wrote: > _ wrote: >> Peter Grange wrote: >>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 12:04:49 +0000, _  wrote: >>> >>>> Peter Grange wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:06:45 +0000, _  wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Peter Grange wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:24:46 -0000, "ThePunisher" >>>>>>>  wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Doug"  wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:568f6f67-f856-4720-ad59-c45abbc27ad1@t3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>> The other point he seemed to make was that it causes >>>>>>>>> frustration FROM drivers, implying that the drivers might >>>>>>>>> react, presumably by the common practice of ramming or >>>>>>>>> otherwise intimidating cyclists at slow speeds. >>>>>>>> Why not? I consider cyclists who have ridden through red lights >>>>>>>> as fair game, they want to risk their lives lets see how far >>>>>>>> they want to go. >>>>>>> "The Punisher". That's a stunning sig. Impress the other kids in >>>>>>> the nursery did it? >>>>>> Damn, you cant help but laugh, can you? The psycholist nobheads >>>>>> love to taunt the 'cagers', but flip the tables and they start >>>>>> coming out with pathetic one-liners like the one above and the >>>>>> other reply! >>>>> The pathetic one is the one who has to hide behind an infantile >>>>> name like "ThePunisher", and then makes veiled threats about >>>>> cyclists being "fair game". I guess if a driver of an 18-wheeler >>>>> described motorists as "fair game" he'd find that funny too. Takes >>>>> all types I guess. (Stupid as "ThePunisher" is as a name, at least >>>>> he can think of one, so he's one up on you). >>>> Open your eyes to the transgressions of your own, and I'd place a >>>> bet that you'd notice a steep decline in the "veiled threats" you >>>> find so offensive. As has been said many times by many different >>>> posters here, whenever a car drivers offences are mentioned there >>>> is universal condemnation from ALL parties, but when a cyclist >>>> offence is brought up only the motorists will criticise it while >>>> the URC'ers come out with juvenile crap like "well what you do is >>>> worse". Every time you criticise cagers while ignoring bike >>>> offences you perpetuate posts like The Punishers, above. He is >>>> simply expressing the irritation caused to cagers, not just by the >>>> RLJ in the first place, but by the blanket refusal of the whole >>>> cycling fraternity to join him in condemning it. >>> See my response to your previous posts. I have never condoned >>> lawbreaking by cyclists. I probably have criticised posts by people >>> claiming to be motorists who claim cyclists jump red lights but do >>> not acknowledge motorists do the same. >> Well in fairness I gotta admit that I dont bother keeping a 'tally' of >> who are the most rabid, other than spin and Chappers. But if you >> remove the individual and instead substitute the 'group' of URC, the >> point still stands. If you've ever read UKT and the hysterically >> funny Duhg 'I'm not Bollen' Bollen, you'd see that EVERY TIME he >> posts another thread of lawbreaking motorists the whole group condemn >> the act. Dont you think it'd be a refreshing change to see something >> similar in URC? > > Here you go: > > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_frm/thread/7f012102b4612015/b0dff8808d978423?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=pedestrians#b0dff8808d978423 > > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_frm/thread/42fb108bd5c89059/60252962667147a6?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=red+lights#60252962667147a6 > > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_frm/thread/e23a909765f2127/453c08f46ca359e7?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=pavements#453c08f46ca359e7 > > I couldn't see much condemnation in the first thread you supplied, and the other two are a gnats knob from FIVE YEARS old, but at least its a start I suppose.