Nuxx:Dae1a2b1-4fc0-4c13-bc45-90570cfbcdb3@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM is now working pretty well on the whole Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 04:46:44 -0800 (PST) References:   <1c0dm656abu5cb5i5q15r5saa9oeq3hnn5@4ax.com> <1jx7bxi.prxj5027n83rN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> <8b2dm6p7rsfig3ph3qnbknaa0vdfrp7dl8@4ax.com> <1jx7d08.11lk0kk1tcc8b6N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>    <1jx8kch.8kp6n419un11cN%NEWS@sarlet.com>  <1jx9aup.1u0v49i1ugq448N%NEWS@sarlet.com>  <1jxnyxo.17m56ka6tclihN%NEWS@sarlet.com>  <1jxojd8.4zlctn1t95n8eN%NEWS@sarlet.com>  Lines: 20 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1299415605 25706 127.0.0.1 (6 Mar 2011 12:46:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2011 12:46:45 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110218 Firefox/3.6.14,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2880 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:38515

On Mar 6, 12:08 am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote: > [crap] > On 05/03/2011 23:59, Roger Merriman wrote: > > > um not really, like MattB and others you seem to chat about traffic > > islands and so on, I assume you enjoy it if not thats a lot of time to > > waste on something you don't like. > > For me, as a cyclist, traffic islands loom large in the list of things > that repeatedly cause acute problems.

But you don't seem to oppose them very often, presumably because they also cause problems for motorists, and for you, as is well established, persecuting motorists takes priority over helping cyclists. If you could think of a replacement for traffic islands which unnecessarily obstructed motorists in the same way but didn't cause problems for cyclists, then you'd be all for it, but until then, it's just something cyclists will have to put up with, as with the danger caused by speed cameras etc.