Nuxx:98eb865d-1414-4092-98c6-17191694690f@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <98eb865d-1414-4092-98c6-17191694690f@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Reasonable? Necessary? You Decide Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:53:06 -0800 (PST) References: <6ea8bd3b-ff2f-4227-98f7-a5e457545b20@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <15g1uj1jia6bu.nxyshy4hpxbt$.dlg@40tude.net> <62d9j2F225jb2U1@mid.individual.net> <87pruml4oa.fsf@rudin.co.uk> <14ec3fab-199a-4133-a6ca-bab0069572a0@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <87ve4djsz0.fsf@rudin.co.uk> <14539eed-d850-4243-b2dc-1ec974a2e4d9@j28g2000hsj.googlegroups.com> Lines: 119 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 1203965586 2173 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2008 18:53:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:53:06 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: u10g2000prn.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: 5563 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:641776

jub jub = cc mod, tell cc admin about hjeg?

callaghan encounters since ph?

On Feb 25, 10:01 am, spindrift  wrote: > On 25 Feb, 09:17, Paul Rudin  wrote: > > > > > spindrift  writes: > > > On 24 Feb, 16:06, Paul Rudin  wrote: > > >> Don Whybrow  writes: > > >> > _ wrote: > > >> >> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:30:52 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar wrote: > > > >> >>> 1. Location: a stretch of wide, straight urban road with compulsory > > >> >>> cycle lanes. > > > >> >> What is a "compulsory cycle lane"? > > > >> > A lane that is available for a cyclist to use if they want to, but > > >> > other vehicles are not allowed to enter. Marked by a solid line. > > > >> > HC63 & HC140 > > > >> The usual term is "mandatory", not "compulsory", although both terms > > >> are a bit misleading, since use of the lane by cyclists is not > > >> mandatory (or compulsory). However non-use of such by drivers of > > >> motor-vehicles is (although little-prosecuted). > > > > Mandatory lanes are pretty rare, > > > Not hereabouts (Cambridge). > > > > and routinely flouted by motorists. > > > Yes.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Calling a mandatory cycle lane "compulsory" is a good example of the > fuck-witted idiocy of safespeed supporters.

I only meant "compulsory" as in compulsory for drivers to avoid.

I don't have a problem with cyclists. It's you that has a problem with motorists, remember?

Having said that, if there is a perfectly accessible, usable and nearby cycle lane, and a cyclist (say one of the trolls here) is deliberately not using it just to hold up motorists, they probably should be done for something.

I really can't understand why someone would put themselves in danger just to piss off motorists, but we know that the trolls here do that, because they support speed cameras in the full knowledge of the increase in road deaths (including cyclist deaths) that they bring about.

> Rank ignorance about road traffic laws? > > Check.

Except that you're wrong. Not that that ever stops you.

> Rambling, incoherent posts? > > Check.

Incoherent how exactly? I know that mentally ill people sometimes have trouble reading coherently. Maybe that's where the confusion lies.

> Personal insults? > > Check.

And "fuck-witted idiocy" is what, exactly?

> Persecution complex? > > Check.

Ah. So just because you lie about hating motorists, that means I have a persecution complex? Riiiight.

> All we need for a full house is a reference to a police officer as a > "nazi".

I never use the term "Nazi" in such a way. If other Safe Speed supporters do, that's hardly my fault.

And that's rich coming from someone who insinuates that Paul Smith chose the "SS" name and logo for Nazi-supporting reasons. You're a total hypocrite and you're out of your tree.

> Speaking of which nuxxy, how come people get banned from safespeeding > for asking dead smith what his qualifications were, but your fellow > poster who said "Richard Brunstrom should get cancer" is allowed to > remain?

As I said, anyone who sticks to properly and honestly debating road safety, rather than deliberately snarling up the discussion with personal attacks, is welcome.

> Looks like your moderation guidelines are a one-way street....

Looks like you're mental. Looks like you're a lying motorist-hating troll. Looks like you're a very sad person who doesn't have a job and spends his life walking from Internet cafe to Internet cafe posting anti-motorist invective. Looks like you give cyclists everywhere a bad name, even though you don't even cycle yourself.

One day the penny will drop and even the other trolls will turn against you. It's only the motorist-hating element that you have in common with them that keeps them from doing so. Also, I suppose you make them look less bad. Just don't kid yourself that they actually like you.