Nuxx:7d0dfeab-32f0-498f-95df-b5ae3cbfa970@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <7d0dfeab-32f0-498f-95df-b5ae3cbfa970@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.transport,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Shocking moment drunk driver ploughs into group of cyclists. Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2008 23:35:03 -0700 (PDT) References:  <6amqp0F34nc82U1@mid.individual.net> <31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>  <7584fd90-52bb-4a15-a14f-efb95b1c5454@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <9f14f964-85a0-4910-be26-3a3d7f116e5a@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>  <6aq2biF36s5tbU1@mid.individual.net>  Lines: 196 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.217.66 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1212734104 11216 127.0.0.1 (6 Jun 2008 06:35:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 06:35:04 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.217.66; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9) Gecko/2008051206 Firefox/3.0,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 10547 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:652080

On Jun 6, 6:52=A0am, Doug  wrote: > On 5 Jun, 12:52, "Graculus"  > wrote: > > > "Doug"  wrote in message > > >news:bf6a8355-e7fe-4ecd-a271-e2564f853551@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...=

> > > > On 5 Jun, 06:31, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > >> On Jun 5, 5:48 am, Doug  wrote: > > > >> > On 4 Jun, 20:51, Me  wrote: > > > >> > > In article <31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405 > > >> > > @e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jag...@riseup.net says... > > > >> > > > On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus"  > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > "Doug"  wrote in message > > > >> > > > >news:a7304254-f5d9-466a-bb56-d2c1dfe14c33@27g2000hsf.googlegro= ups.com... > > > >> > > > > > This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compare= d to > > >> > > > > > that > > >> > > > > > of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hi= ts a > > >> > > > > > group > > >> > > > > > of cars. > > > >> > > > > Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are try= ing > > >> > > > > to say, > > >> > > > > Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefor= e > > >> > > > > OT, we again > > >> > > > > have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk= , > > >> > > > > being a > > >> > > > > complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...? > > > >> > > > The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often t= ry > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car > > >> > > > addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much > > >> > > > greater > > >> > > > than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graph= ic > > >> > > > example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also reca= ll > > >> > > > how > > >> > > > the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something = no > > >> > > > bicycle could ever do. > > > >> > > > Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles. > > > >> > > Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was w= hen > > >> > > I > > >> > > was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't moving, a= nd > > >> > > the > > >> > > traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in and half out of = a > > >> > > side > > >> > > road he felt the need to try and smash my rear window. > > >> > > These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road. > > > >> > More cyclist bashing by the motorists who dominate and infest this > > >> > transport newsgroup? > > > >> ...where "bashing" =3D "justified criticism". =A0You'd do yourself a = lot > > >> of favours if you didn't automatically defend every cyclist, no matte= r > > >> whether they were right or wrong. =A0It is you and your troll friends=

> > >> who revel in, and deliberately perpetuate, the "us and them" mentalit= y > > >> between cyclists and motorists. =A0"Two wheels (non-powered) good, fo= ur > > >> wheels bad." =A0It's pathetic. > > > >> Why don't you mind your own business and concentrate on making things=

> > >> better for cyclists, instead of devoting your efforts to persecuting > > >> motorists? =A0Why don't you stop using silly words like "addiction" t= o > > >> describe people who justifiably find their cars useful? =A0(Are peopl= e > > >> with hoovers "hoover addicts"? =A0Should they pick up the dirt on the=

> > >> floor by hand just to placate you?) =A0I don't know why it is that > > >> motorist advocates simply want things to be better for motorists, > > >> while so many so-called cycling advocates seem to be *more* concerned=

> > >> with making things worse for drivers than they are with making things=

> > >> better for themselves. =A0I think the word is "spite". > > > >> If all cyclists would just concentrate on improving their lot, and la= y > > >> off (and make an effort to get on with) motorists, things would be so=

> > >> much better for everyone, but for some reason (*not* "safety", which > > >> is just an excuse), that scenario seems to be the worst nightmare of > > >> the dog-in-the-manger trolls on urc. =A0"Bloody motorists, enjoying > > >> their cars while I'm stuck out here, knackered and sweaty, in the > > >> rain...can't have that." =A0Never mind the fact that cars and cycles > > >> both have innate advantages and disadvantages relative to each other;=

> > >> the millitant cyclists try to artificially increase the disadvantages=

> > >> of driving by campaigning for huge numbers of anti-motorist measures.=

> > > >> And Doug, if you must be anti-car for socialist reasons, at least > > >> admit that, rather than constantly exaggerating the dangers caused by=

> > >> cars in order to get what you want. =A0Interfering with road safety i= s > > >> not on. =A0Pretending that certain things are more dangerous than the= y > > >> are *will* cost lives. =A0Please don't be so callous. > > > > Tsk. Yet another closet motorist masquerading as something else. > > > Is that really the sum total of your response to Nuxx Bar's post? rather=

> > pathetic. If all you can do is hurl an insult at someone who's made the > > effort to lay out an argument clearly, then it's as much an admission of=

> > defeat as anything else. > > No I get bored by these endless justifications for motorists who kill > thousands every year on our roads, compared with whom cyclists hardly > kill any at all. And yet who usually has to take the blame, yes > cyclists, for rashly allowing motorists to kill them.

Ah, simplistic, sanctimonious hysteria: the "weapon" of choice of the politically-motivated motorist-hater.

Road transport is absolutely essential for our economy. If everyone were to stop using their cars, motorbikes and lorries today, or anytime soon, a lot more people would die than the ~3500 dying on the roads each year. There would be other problems also caused by taking cars away from people: how would people drive themselves or their loved ones to hospital if there was no time to wait for an ambulance, for example? Bullying people out of their cars is simply not a viable option for reducing overall deaths. The public transport network isn't developed enough to take over, and it never will be.

It's far better to concentrate on reducing road deaths as far as possible by improving road safety, and this is where you and your ilk on urc show your true colours. Your dogged refusal to do anything but support speed cameras, despite the science demonstrating amply that they actually make matters worse for road safety, indicates that you aren't really concerned about people dying on the roads, you're simply concerned about bullying people out of their cars as an end in itself.

Fewer than 2% of accidents are caused by otherwise law-abiding motorists exceeding the speed limit, yet you still support cameras as the main road "safety" emphasis. Road deaths stopped falling as they had been for decades when cameras were introduced (we could have expected over 1000 a year fewer deaths than we currently get by now), yet you still support them. Over 40 deadly side effects of cameras have been listed, yet you still support them. But cameras are also a great way of persecuting motorists, by getting them off the road in their hundreds of thousands, and *that* is why you really support them. You care more about persecuting motorists than you do about reducing road deaths; you only pretend to care about road deaths because you think you can use it to further your anti-car agenda. It's disgraceful.

> When are people like you going to wake up to the fact that there is a > widespread climate of complacence about road killings and the right to > drive regardless? I atribute this to the fact that the car culture is > allowed to permeate and dominate unchallenged virtually every aspect > of our society, including government, police, judges and juries and, > of course, news groups.

As I said above, cars are vital for society in its current form. The reason for the permeation of "car culture" is not that people want to "be lazy", "be selfish", or "annoy you"; the majority of the time, road transport is by far the best tool for the job, and without it (or even with less of it), there would be far more to worry about than ~3500 deaths a year (not that that's acceptable, which is why people who really care about road safety are campaigning to get that figure substantially reduced). It's far better to accept that road transport is here to stay, and campaign for measures which will genuinely reduce the death toll.