"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:13:11 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

I daresay if you looked properly you would see a fair few comments by
me about motor vehicle drivers. However, I see just as many cyclists
behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers, so I don't see why
they should be excused comment.

First, "not around here" - remember this is x-posted to
uk.rec.cycling, whihc is where I live.

Yes, well obviously every time I comment on bad drivers I think, "Oh,
I must remember to crosspost to urc, just so they know I don't just
have a go at cyclists...."

Second, I am not aware of *anybody* on urc who advocates cyclists
being excused from wrongdoing. We might be able to advance possible
reasons why they do it (e.g. riding on the pavement because of fear of
traffic and councils' blurring of the boundaries with their cans of
paint), what we take exception to is bald statements that cyclists are
lawless, when the clear evidence is that /all/ vehicular road users
are lawless, and a good many non-vehicular ones as well.

That's not a reason not to comment on the lawlessness of some
cyclists. By your line of reasoning, we shouldn't talk about X
medical condition being debilitating, because Y condition is _far_
worse.

Why is that, I wonder?
Because you have a self-selecting chip on your shoulder?

Or not. We get a lot of cross-posts around here from people who
clearly walk and drive but never cycle, who then berate cyclists for
their behaviour without acknowledging the poor behaviour of other road
users.

So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists
behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course,
car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right....

One of the key contributors to road danger, in my view, is the
pernicious idea that all the danger is caused by the behaviour of the
nebulous "them" and that the things we do must necessarily be safe
because they have not yet ended in catastrophe.

Most pedestrians' representatives seem to have no trouble
distinguishing between the scale of risk posed by cars and bicycles,
and devote their efforts to controlling motor danger. We already know
that you are about 200 times more likely to be killed /on the footway/
by a motor driver than by a cyclist, after all.

Yes, I'm sure that's a huge consolation to any pedestrian who gets hit
by a reckless cyclist. Of course, cars do not routinely deliberate
travel on pavements, but many cyclists certainly do.

So explain, then, how car drivers, even though they almost never
venture on the footway, still manage to kill 200 times as many
pedestrians on the footway as do cyclists?

I don't know, but I would be inclined to ask how many cars there are
on the roads compared to bicycles, because otherwise your statement is
meaningless. Many more people are killed on the roads than in light
aircraft accidents in the UK every year, but that means nothing unless
you know the differences in usage.

It suggests to me that the risk from cyclists is rather small, and
would be better tackled by addressing the source of most danger, which
is also conicidentally responsible for encouraging the cyclists onto
the footway in the first place.

So what "danger" causes cyclists to ride through reds at Pelican
crossings, when there isn't a motor vehicle within twenty metres of
them? What "dangers" causes them to swerve onto the pavement at
junctions to bypass red lights and make a left-hand turn? I see
these happening all the time, but can't even remotely say the same of
drivers.

If you can prove that I have never made an adverse comment about motor
vehicle drivers, you might have a point, but since you can't, you're
just coming up with the same self-selecting ******** again.

You started a cyclist-baiting crosspost. Prior behaviour is
irrelevant.

No, I made an observation in light of an existing cross-post. Lacking
the sense of telepathy your pompous attitude of superiority suggests
you possess, I had no way of knowing if the originator of the thread -
and whose post I was responding to - was posting primarily via urc or
utl.

It is a strange and inconsistent view you have.
No, it's a strange an inconsistent defensive attitude you have.

On the contrary, my attitude is wholly consistent: all road users
should control their vehicles according to the law and the Highway
Code. I believe that if everybody drove and rode according to the HC
the roads would be much safer.

Please jsutify the use of illegal cyclist behaviour to excuse illegal
and potentially lethal bus driver behaviour.
And where am I supposed to have done that, smartarse?
Up through the thread history, that is how you started the whole
thing.
Really? I can't see any statement by me that "excuse illegal
and potentially lethal bus driver behaviour."

Ah, so you are making the pedantic point that you were merely singling
out cyclists from the much greater causes of risk, for some reason
known only to yourself. A difference which makes no difference in my
view, but I will concede the point if you like.

Again we seem to come back to this idea you have that cyclist are
beyond reproach - except, it seems, amongst _other_ cyclists - just
because drivers are worse. Where's the logic in that? Should be not
condemn human rights abuses perpetrated by the United States because
there are other countries that are worse?

So you feel it's perfectly acceptable to use the behaviour of crap
cyclists to excuse that of crap drivers, but not vice-versa?
Fascinating.
Since I haven't, then obviously not. Admit it - you don't even know
what you're talkign about, do you?
Indeed I do, having spent a lot of time researching the matter.
Nice set of reasearch blinkers you have, obviously.

The blinkers are to be found on those who use only one type of
vehicle, a group which does not include me.

Well, since I don't operate any type of vehicle, I can be truly
objective, then.

"Nick Cooper 625" wrote in message
om...

So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists
behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course,
car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right....

If you look at the title/beginning of the thread, I think you'll find it was
the other way round : somebody made an adverse comment on bus drivers, and
somebody else said 'cyclists are as bad/worse'.

clive

On 21 Oct 2004 04:42:46 -0700, (Nick
Cooper 625) wrote:

First, "not around here" - remember this is x-posted to
uk.rec.cycling, whihc is where I live.

Yes, well obviously every time I comment on bad drivers I think, "Oh,
I must remember to crosspost to urc, just so they know I don't just
have a go at cyclists...."

Alternatively, you could try not launching pointless attacks on
cyclists in the first place.

Second, I am not aware of *anybody* on urc who advocates cyclists
being excused from wrongdoing.

That's not a reason not to comment on the lawlessness of some
cyclists. By your line of reasoning, we shouldn't talk about X
medical condition being debilitating, because Y condition is _far_
worse.

So instead we should, to use your own analogy, focus on that one
medical condition, vilifying it and using derogatory language, and not
even acknowledging the fact that it is a tiny problem, portraying it
as if it /the/ major threat to life and limb. Brilliant.

That will work especially well if the medical condition in question
turns out to be something which extends life, but which, when combined
with one of the conditions we are determinedly ignoring, ends up with
death.

On second thoughts, it seems that your analogy falls apart as soon we
start to bring in reality.

So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists
behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course,
car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right....

Yeah, right. A moment's rational thought will reveal that the problem
is not cyclists, it is lawless and careless vehicle use.

So explain, then, how car drivers, even though they almost never
venture on the footway, still manage to kill 200 times as many
pedestrians on the footway as do cyclists?

I don't know, but I would be inclined to ask how many cars there are
on the roads compared to bicycles, because otherwise your statement is
meaningless.

Read it again. These are deaths /on the footway/. You have asserted
that large numbers of cyclists ride on the footway for much of their
journey, do you believe that the average annual passenger mileage of
cars on the footway is as high as it is for bicycles? An order of
magnitude lower? Two orders of magnitude? We are constantly being
told that no driver sets out to accomplish all or aany significant
part of his journey on the footway, yet at least some cyclists appear
to do just that. At some ages they are positively encouraged to do
so. In some locations adult cyclists are berated for not doing so.

And yet, despite the fact that it appears vastly more bicyclist miles
are ridden on the pavement than motorist miles, the risk /on the
pavement/ from motor traffic is over two orders of magnitude higher.

On the face of it that says to me that focusing on pavement cycling
alone in this way is absurd.

It suggests to me that the risk from cyclists is rather small, and
would be better tackled by addressing the source of most danger, which
is also conicidentally responsible for encouraging the cyclists onto
the footway in the first place.

So what "danger" causes cyclists to ride through reds at Pelican
crossings, when there isn't a motor vehicle within twenty metres of
them?

That is different from the question of pavement cycling. There are
two main reasons why cyclists go through red lights: first, because
they can get away with it, and second, because the energy required to
restart after coming to a halt is equivalent to extending your journey
by up to 200 metres.

They can get away with it because, in the main, they do not conflict
with other traffic when doing so. If they did, they would die, and
they know that. It is quite difficult to weave through a stream of
crossing pedestrians in somethign 6ft wide and 15ft long, much easier
to do so on something 18" wide and 5ft long - especially when it is
very manoeuvrable.

Which is not an excuse, any more than the fact that we know why
drivers jump lights is an excuse.

So now we look at the fatality figures on pedestrian crossings, which
are about equal to those for footways (crossing the road is dangerous,
even when you have priority). Of these fatalities, how many are
caused by cyclists? And the answer is, once again, somewhere below a
quarter of 1% - and once again this is despite your assertion that
cyclists do this all the time, and drivers only rarely. So once
again, any rational measure of risk leaves tackling cyclists well down
on the "if we get around to it" pile.

What "dangers" causes them to swerve onto the pavement at
junctions to bypass red lights and make a left-hand turn? I see
these happening all the time, but can't even remotely say the same of
drivers.

As previously posted, there are bolards on the pavement at a set of
lights near my home precisely to prevent drivers from doing this.

You started a cyclist-baiting crosspost. Prior behaviour is
irrelevant.

No, I made an observation in light of an existing cross-post.

Yes, I see that my newsreader has expired the earlier posts. But you
did bring up the issue of cyclists.

Ah, so you are making the pedantic point that you were merely singling
out cyclists from the much greater causes of risk, for some reason
known only to yourself. A difference which makes no difference in my
view, but I will concede the point if you like.

Again we seem to come back to this idea you have that cyclist are
beyond reproach

Absolutely not. Nor are they uniquely (or even especially) worthy of
reproach. That is my point.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Clive George" wrote in message ...
"Nick Cooper 625" wrote in message
om...

So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists
behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course,
car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right....

If you look at the title/beginning of the thread, I think you'll find it was
the other way round : somebody made an adverse comment on bus drivers, and
somebody else said 'cyclists are as bad/worse'.

So you think there is something fundamentally wrong with saying some
cyclists as "as bad" ("worse" was never mentioned)? Are cyclists
beyond reproach?

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
On 21 Oct 2004 04:42:46 -0700, (Nick
Cooper 625) wrote:

First, "not around here" - remember this is x-posted to
uk.rec.cycling, whihc is where I live.

Yes, well obviously every time I comment on bad drivers I think, "Oh,
I must remember to crosspost to urc, just so they know I don't just
have a go at cyclists...."

Alternatively, you could try not launching pointless attacks on
cyclists in the first place.

Obviously we're back to your 11th Commandment again: "Thous shalt not
criticise cyclists."

Second, I am not aware of *anybody* on urc who advocates cyclists
being excused from wrongdoing.

That's not a reason not to comment on the lawlessness of some
cyclists. By your line of reasoning, we shouldn't talk about X
medical condition being debilitating, because Y condition is _far_
worse.

So instead we should, to use your own analogy, focus on that one
medical condition, vilifying it and using derogatory language, and not
even acknowledging the fact that it is a tiny problem, portraying it
as if it /the/ major threat to life and limb. Brilliant.

That chip on you shoulder is obviously weighing you down again.

That will work especially well if the medical condition in question
turns out to be something which extends life, but which, when combined
with one of the conditions we are determinedly ignoring, ends up with
death.

On second thoughts, it seems that your analogy falls apart as soon we
start to bring in reality.

I get the impression that isn't a place you visit very often.

So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists
behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course,
car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right....

Yeah, right. A moment's rational thought will reveal that the problem
is not cyclists, it is lawless and careless vehicle use.

So explain, then, how car drivers, even though they almost never
venture on the footway, still manage to kill 200 times as many
pedestrians on the footway as do cyclists?

I don't know, but I would be inclined to ask how many cars there are
on the roads compared to bicycles, because otherwise your statement is
meaningless.

Read it again. These are deaths /on the footway/. You have asserted
that large numbers of cyclists ride on the footway for much of their
journey, do you believe that the average annual passenger mileage of
cars on the footway is as high as it is for bicycles?

I asserted no such thing, I couldn't give a **** about the latter.

An order of magnitude lower? Two orders of magnitude? We are
constantly being told that no driver sets out to accomplish all or aany
significant part of his journey on the footway, yet at least some
cyclists appear to do just that. At some ages they are positively
encouraged to do so. In some locations adult cyclists are berated for
not doing so.

Ditto.

And yet, despite the fact that it appears vastly more bicyclist miles
are ridden on the pavement than motorist miles, the risk /on the
pavement/ from motor traffic is over two orders of magnitude higher.

On the face of it that says to me that focusing on pavement cycling
alone in this way is absurd.

However, since I wasn't....

It suggests to me that the risk from cyclists is rather small, and
would be better tackled by addressing the source of most danger, which
is also conicidentally responsible for encouraging the cyclists onto
the footway in the first place.

So what "danger" causes cyclists to ride through reds at Pelican
crossings, when there isn't a motor vehicle within twenty metres of
them?

That is different from the question of pavement cycling.

The "question" you have largely invented here....

There are two main reasons why cyclists go through red lights: first,
because they can get away with it, and second, because the energy required
to restart after coming to a halt is equivalent to extending your journey
by up to 200 metres.

Well, tough ****ing ****. Do you see car drivers coming up with the
same excuse? "I don't stop for red lights, because the action of
bringing the vehicle back upto speed is like spending another X amount
on petrol." Do you realise what a total idiot you sound like?

They can get away with it because, in the main, they do not conflict
with other traffic when doing so. If they did, they would die, and
they know that. It is quite difficult to weave through a stream of
crossing pedestrians in somethign 6ft wide and 15ft long, much easier
to do so on something 18" wide and 5ft long - especially when it is
very manoeuvrable.

Which is not an excuse, any more than the fact that we know why
drivers jump lights is an excuse.

So now we look at the fatality figures on pedestrian crossings, which
are about equal to those for footways (crossing the road is dangerous,
even when you have priority). Of these fatalities, how many are
caused by cyclists? And the answer is, once again, somewhere below a
quarter of 1% - and once again this is despite your assertion that
cyclists do this all the time, and drivers only rarely. So once
again, any rational measure of risk leaves tackling cyclists well down
on the "if we get around to it" pile.

Again we come back to your weird "worst first" set of priorities....

What "dangers" causes them to swerve onto the pavement at
junctions to bypass red lights and make a left-hand turn? I see
these happening all the time, but can't even remotely say the same of
drivers.

As previously posted, there are bolards on the pavement at a set of
lights near my home precisely to prevent drivers from doing this.

You started a cyclist-baiting crosspost. Prior behaviour is
irrelevant.

No, I made an observation in light of an existing cross-post.

Yes, I see that my newsreader has expired the earlier posts. But you
did bring up the issue of cyclists.

Ah, so you are making the pedantic point that you were merely singling
out cyclists from the much greater causes of risk, for some reason
known only to yourself. A difference which makes no difference in my
view, but I will concede the point if you like.

Again we seem to come back to this idea you have that cyclist are
beyond reproach

Absolutely not. Nor are they uniquely (or even especially) worthy of
reproach. That is my point.

Pointless more like it.

"Nick Cooper 625" wrote in message
om...
"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Nick Cooper 625" wrote in message
om...

So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists
behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course,
car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right....

If you look at the title/beginning of the thread, I think you'll find it
was
the other way round : somebody made an adverse comment on bus drivers,
and
somebody else said 'cyclists are as bad/worse'.

So you think there is something fundamentally wrong with saying some
cyclists as "as bad" ("worse" was never mentioned)? Are cyclists
beyond reproach?

Yes, no.

Fundamentally, a bad cyclist would have to try incredibly hard to be more
dangerous than a bad bus driver, so it is unreasonable to excuse bad bus
drivers by claiming that cyclists are as bad. Which is what the comment that
sparked all this nasty disagreement was doing.

No, cyclists are not beyond reproach.

Happy now?

clive

Nick Cooper 625 blathered, in response to Guy:
On second thoughts, it seems that your analogy falls apart as soon we
start to bring in reality.

I get the impression that isn't a place you visit very often.

Guy is a Christian, but otherwise seems to be pretty firmly rooted in
reality.

There are two main reasons why cyclists go through red lights: first,
because they can get away with it, and second, because the energy required
to restart after coming to a halt is equivalent to extending your journey
by up to 200 metres.

Well, tough ****ing ****. Do you see car drivers coming up with the
same excuse?

Do you have difficulty reading? Guy stated 2 *reasons* why cyclists go
through red lights, not *excuses*. In fact, 2 paragraphs later Guy
wrote: "Which is not an excuse..."

Which is not an excuse, any more than the fact that we know why
drivers jump lights is an excuse.

Oh look, you didn't even snip it! Actually, you /do/ seem to have
difficulty trimming, as well.


--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:13:02 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:


"Nick Cooper 625" wrote in message
. com...
"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Nick Cooper 625" wrote in message
om...

So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists
behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course,
car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right....

If you look at the title/beginning of the thread, I think you'll find it
was
the other way round : somebody made an adverse comment on bus drivers,
and
somebody else said 'cyclists are as bad/worse'.

So you think there is something fundamentally wrong with saying some
cyclists as "as bad" ("worse" was never mentioned)? Are cyclists
beyond reproach?

Yes, no.

Fundamentally, a bad cyclist would have to try incredibly hard to be more
dangerous than a bad bus driver, so it is unreasonable to excuse bad bus
drivers by claiming that cyclists are as bad. Which is what the comment that
sparked all this nasty disagreement was doing.

This is starting to develop into a theme of cyclists leaping
spectacurly to the conclusion they want, rather than actually reading
what was said. I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that
"cyclists are as bad," but I'm getting a bit bored with this obsessive
over-defensiveness from the Lycra Lobby....
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 23:00:21 +0100, Danny Colyer
wrote:

Nick Cooper 625 blathered, in response to Guy:
On second thoughts, it seems that your analogy falls apart as soon we
start to bring in reality.

I get the impression that isn't a place you visit very often.

Guy is a Christian, but otherwise seems to be pretty firmly rooted in
reality.

There are two main reasons why cyclists go through red lights: first,
because they can get away with it, and second, because the energy required
to restart after coming to a halt is equivalent to extending your journey
by up to 200 metres.

Well, tough ****ing ****. Do you see car drivers coming up with the
same excuse?

Do you have difficulty reading? Guy stated 2 *reasons* why cyclists go
through red lights, not *excuses*. In fact, 2 paragraphs later Guy
wrote: "Which is not an excuse..."

Which is not an excuse, any more than the fact that we know why
drivers jump lights is an excuse.

Oh look, you didn't even snip it! Actually, you /do/ seem to have
difficulty trimming, as well.

Half the problem with this thread is cyclist-apologists
overly-trimming and then claiming that things were said which weren't.
--
Nick Cooper

[Carefully remove the detonators from my e-mail address to reply!]

The London Underground at War:
http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/...ra/lu/tuaw.htm
625-Online - classic British television:
http://www.625.org.uk
'Things to Come' - An Incomplete Classic:
http://www.thingstocome.org.uk

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists
behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course,
car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right....

If you look at the title/beginning of the thread, I think you'll find
it
was
the other way round : somebody made an adverse comment on bus
drivers,
and
somebody else said 'cyclists are as bad/worse'.

So you think there is something fundamentally wrong with saying some
cyclists as "as bad" ("worse" was never mentioned)? Are cyclists
beyond reproach?

Yes, no.

Fundamentally, a bad cyclist would have to try incredibly hard to be more
dangerous than a bad bus driver, so it is unreasonable to excuse bad bus
drivers by claiming that cyclists are as bad. Which is what the comment
that
sparked all this nasty disagreement was doing.

This is starting to develop into a theme of cyclists leaping
spectacurly to the conclusion they want, rather than actually reading
what was said. I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that
"cyclists are as bad," but I'm getting a bit bored with this obsessive
over-defensiveness from the Lycra Lobby....

Your first post in this thread, I believe. Google groups confirms. You imply
that the cyclist behaviour you complain about is as bad as the bus driver
behaviour originally complained about.

clive