Nuxx:14416922-d4a1-42d8-9e3d-0ff801854a94@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!bcklog2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <14416922-d4a1-42d8-9e3d-0ff801854a94@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Child Death In Redditch Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:32:26 -0700 (PDT) References:   <9d01da1a-4907-4a3b-a064-b8cc9f2f81e2@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <4ac2e807-74ea-4cf2-b37b-b3e169449d2a@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <8f8438f4-faa5-490e-9506-ccb842401fe5@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>  <72c0b107-498a-4239-b608-e5ee4ebbec17@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>   <2b744ed4-5c76-4924-b230-f307ecd75557@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <8536875b-03ee-4453-b07f-7ebbb1cae189@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Lines: 132 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.129.172 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217961146 14360 127.0.0.1 (5 Aug 2008 18:32:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:32:26 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.129.172; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 7493 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:660955

On Aug 5, 1:00=A0pm, spindrift  wrote: > On Aug 5, 12:46=A0pm, Toom Tabard  wrote: > > > > > On 5 Aug, 11:52, spindrift  wrote: > > > > On Aug 5, 11:45=A0am, Ace  wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 02:54:58 -0700 (PDT), spindrift > > > > >  wrote: > > > > > you seem happy to accept that it was an > > > > >"accident" (your quotes), > > > > > Of course. Unless you're trying to say it was a deliberate act, the= n > > > > it can only have been an accident. > > > > > >I said exactly the opposite, read my post again, we know far too > > > > >little to attribute blame. Please don't misrepresent what I've sai= d. > > > > > Well if I've done so it was solely from what you wrote, so you clea= rly > > > > didn't make your point very well ;-) > > > > > >" yet you seem to believe that errors of judgement on the part of = any > > > > >motor vehicle user are unnacceptable. " > > > > > >When have I ever made any such point? What are you talking about? = Are > > > > >you mixing me up with someone else? > > > > > No, I was simply extrapolating from your post, where you implied th= at > > > > an "accident" is somehow different from an error on the part of a > > > > motorist, i.e. this bit: > > > > > >> > Most RTAs are caused not by > > > > >> >"accident" but by driver error, be it speeding, drunk, drugged, > > > > >> >distracted, whatever. > > > > > If you're happy with the idea that all of these are equally acciden= ts, > > > > then what exactly were you trying to say? > > > > > -- > > > > Ace in Alsace > > > > I said we know too little to apportion blame > > > How do you get drunk accidently? > > > > If a driver chooses to increase the risk to others by speeding (highe= r > > > speeds make accidents more likely and more serious) then the resultin= g > > > collision is not an accident, it's a result of the driver's wilfull > > > choice. That's why "accident" was in parenthesis. We don't know yet, > > > but true accidents beyond anything the driver could have done are as > > > rare as hens' teeth. > > > > For instance, if drivers and cyclists adhere to the HC, there would b= e > > > virtually zero cyclists' deaths. Yet in most cycling fatalities the > > > driver is ar fault.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Well, as a driver and cyclist, I'd say there is a particular problem > > with young cyclists. As a driver I've had three near-accidents with > > cyclists. > > > 1. Signalling to pull out and =A0pass a young cyclist riding close to > > the left edge of a street. I was about six feet behind her, when she > > stuck out her right hand and simultaneously swerved right in front of > > me. i.e =A0it wasn't exactly a signal of intent. > > > 2. Stopped at traffic lights with a young cyclist in at the left kerb > > of the forward cycle box. I was going straight ahead - he was making a > > right turn. Not exactly clever positioning. > > > 3. Driving on a fairly busy road through a residential area, when a > > kid on a bike sailed out from from a side street on my left > > governed by a give way sign. > > > There but for fortune - it seems there is some need for someone (dare > > I suggest parents?) to be responsible for ensuring adequate cycle > > training (and adherence to HC) before kids on bikes mix with trafiic. > > > Toom- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Paul Smith had a habit of harassing and intimidating people who dared > disagree with him. For instance, a slower speeds campaigner had his > home address and telephone number posted on the safespeeding forum.

You're a hypocrite of the highest order. Absolutely unbelievable. The amount of harrassment and intimidation that you trolls directed at Paul was horrific. You *hated* the fact that he kept broadcasting true facts about cameras in the media, because that meant that the general public saw cameras for what they were, and that meant that your camera-infested, anti-motorist utopia was up in smoke, after you'd thought you had it in the bag. Have Paul or anyone else ever spelt "SPINDRIFT IS A CUNT" downwards in any forum, to name just one example of the thousands of detestable things that you have said about Paul (many of which you've said since he passed away)?

You're an absolute joke, and a very bad one at that.

> Now nuxxie claims a safespeeding poster has stated I committed a > serious criminal act but refuses to post any details or ask the > accuser to come here and repeat them. Cowardly, dishonest, and creepy.

Do you ever use any adjective about any of your opponents which doesn't describe you to a tee? You can rest assured that steps are being taken to deal with your criminal act, and if you haven't already, you will eventually be informed of all the details you could want (and with any luck you'll have a long time to reflect on them without the Internet to distract you...I assume your brief will press for you to be committed rather than imprisoned, and I think that would be the right thing for you). But of course you know all the details perfectly well already, and the fact that you keep demanding them from me anyway is yet another example of the thoroughly disingenuous way in which you conduct Internet dicussions.

You'd have been better off just ignoring my initial mention of the threats you made, like you ignore so many other difficult points/ questions. Now everyone knows about what you've done, so you've shot yourself in the foot there really.