On 08/11/2012 16:50, Nick Leverton wrote:

In article , Mizter T wrote:
On 08/11/2012 16:16, Nick Leverton wrote:

.. and that one ...

Oh, this is of course a totally unedifying discussion (if it even
warrants that description), but I just fancied challenging Roland a bit.
He'll have the last word of course, but on rare occasions this bizarre
masochistic urge just grabs me.

(What I'm aiming for here is the unspoken "all" or "some" that precedes
"cyclists" in Roland's comments, and trying to tease out which he means.
Of course the ambiguity suits him very well, because it allows him to
spout off whilst maintaining a semblance of cover. Though you're right,
this branch of the discussion belongs on uk.transport.rant. I shall desist.)

No, don't let me spoil your fun. Normally I'd just have killed the
entire thread, but I perhaps over-reacted as sometimes it seems as if
uk.r**.c*****g is taking over the whole of what's left of uk.*.

Yes, I feel bad for encouraging / perpetuating this nonsense on utl in a
thread that should be about the upcoming fares changes, of which there
are some interesting things to say.

Paul C has, as ever, contributed a well reasoned and rational post which
essentially makes the point I was trying to make (as describe above -
the some/all muddle) with far more finesse than I could have managed.

I shall return to my SOP, which is to just ignore the anti-cycle outbursts.

Far more fun to actually go for a cycle up a gruelling hill then enjoy
breezing down the other side.

I wish I had heard that.

Spot on, sir. Absolutely correct.

On 08/11/2012 16:39, Paul Corfield wrote:

People making sweeping statements leave themselves wide open to
criticism when it is not possible for them to properly substantiate
or evidence their position.

All of them?



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 08/11/2012 11:55, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:01:32 +0000, Mizter T
wrote:

But yes, I can well imagine the timing of the announcement was a bit of
news management. C'est la vie.

Err TfL said the date of the Board meeting where the increases was
discussed had been in the diary for months. If you look back at
previous years the pattern of TfL Board meetings is pretty stable.
Obviously the date of the US election was known 4 years ago but I
can't see that the Mayor / TfL would go to these lengths.

Maybe Boris sent a hitman to assassinate Clive Dunn, and leaked news of
the archbishop?

There was a
delay given the Govt policy change on the scale of RPI increases - I
doubt that was predicted many months back when the Board meeting was
diarised.

Tom Edwards of the BBC did tweet yesterday to say it was a pretty poor
attempt to "bury bad news" if you invite all the relevant members of
the press to the Board meeting where you discuss the fares rise.

I bet the _real_ bad news was buried by the fare rises.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In article ,
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 08/11/2012 16:39, Paul Corfield wrote:

People making sweeping statements leave themselves wide open to
criticism when it is not possible for them to properly substantiate
or evidence their position.

All of them?

:-)

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

In message , at 16:10:17 on Thu, 8 Nov 2012,
Mizter T remarked:
Serious, straightforward question - do you think cycling on the road
is inherently a bad thing?

It's a good thing. Most of my issues with cyclists are when they on the
pavement, pretending to be pedestrians on various crossings, and of
course ignoring almost any kind of traffic sign (especially ones that
say "no cycling").

What do you think about motorists ignoring almost any kind of traffic sign?

That's annoying too, but happens much less frequently.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:38:38 on Thu, 8 Nov 2012,
Mizter T remarked:

Roland's comments, and trying to tease out which he means.

I thought it was pretty clear that my main objections are cycling on the
pavement and in areas with "no cycling" signs, plus running red traffic
lights (especially at pedestrian crossings - once again it's the
pedestrian in me that's complaining).
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 16:10:17 on Thu, 8 Nov
2012, Mizter T remarked:
Serious, straightforward question - do you think cycling on the road
is inherently a bad thing?

It's a good thing. Most of my issues with cyclists are when they on the
pavement, pretending to be pedestrians on various crossings, and of
course ignoring almost any kind of traffic sign (especially ones that
say "no cycling").

What do you think about motorists ignoring almost any kind of traffic
sign?

That's annoying too, but happens much less frequently.

You'd be surprised. There are traffic lights in Cambridge I see motorists
jumping almost every time I pass them.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 16:02:35
on Thu, 8 Nov 2012, remarked:

That's annoying too, but happens much less frequently.

You'd be surprised. There are traffic lights in Cambridge I see motorists
jumping almost every time I pass them.

I've not seen a motorist jump any of the lights in Ely since I moved
here, but cyclists frequently ignore them just like they do elsewhere.

--
Roland Perry