Nuxx:0c563e69-f8ff-4baf-ba44-e019abf98894@r34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!r34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <0c563e69-f8ff-4baf-ba44-e019abf98894@r34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Pre-RFD: uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 17:37:35 -0700 (PDT) References:  <789guhF1kjhlpU1@mid.individual.net>  <78a47hF1l5f9aU1@mid.individual.net> <9ae7293d-6d88-441f-b970-70a3c8ba5962@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> <78a977F1kb03fU2@mid.individual.net> <9171e4f3-3f77-4a2c-9297-b2f678520bca@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>  <78b3qkF1lemg0U1@mid.individual.net>  Lines: 41 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1243730255 14728 127.0.0.1 (31 May 2009 00:37:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 00:37:35 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: r34g2000vbi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.27; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3877 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:705672

On May 30, 5:53=A0pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote: > On Fri, 29 May 2009 22:53:24 +0100, Mark McNeill > >  wrote: > > [Ob. MattB] > > >> He was a troll, he is now more of a social gadfly or kook. =A0His > >> posting is not disruptive as long as it is small in volume. =A0Just my > >> =A30.02. > >And [except on rare occasions in the past] he doesn't nymshift, so that > >those who have heard his opinion enough times can always plonk him if > >they're so inclined. > > Yup. =A0So: not actually a problem, in my book, at least not at the > moment. =A0Still very Clue-resistant, mind, but that's hardly uncommon. > Only today I was reading in the Torygraph that Claire from SafeSpeed > seems to seriously believe that the main difference between the 1920s > and 1930s was the removal of the 20mph speed limit (which was, by > common consensus, almost completely ignored by both motorists and > police, and even when enforced the fines were risible), and that > removal of this limit was the sole reason why fatality rates dropped > slightly in the 1930s. =A0Has she not heard of the Depression? =A0The 193= 0 > Road Traffic Act was a substantial piece of legislation, and the 1934 > Act was also pretty meaty, so to attribute the whole difference in > accident rates to one small part of the overall picture is simply > false, especially when you fail to mention that the 20mph limit was > not enforced and the 30mph urban limit was both enforced and obeyed to > a much greater degree. =A0Car supremacists are weird.

Always an excuse isn't there? Mind you, that's not as bad as your risible claim that mobile phone use is responsible for the loss of trend in fatality figures since the early 90s, and the massive shift in road "safety" policy towards the (ab)use of speed cameras was just a "coincidence". That really was clutching at straws in the most pathetic way, and shows just in itself that you have an anti-motorist agenda and you will *never* admit that excessive speed enforcement is a bad thing just because of that (and never mind the thousands of people who are being unnecessarily killed by such bad policy, eh?)