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

"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 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 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

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:08:54 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote in
message :

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

And the other half is idiots whose hatred of cyclists overwhelms any
sense of perspective.

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

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:24:27 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:08:54 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote in
message :

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

And the other half is idiots whose hatred of cyclists overwhelms any
sense of perspective.

I don't "hate" cyclists any more than I "hate" drivers (I am neither).
--
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 21 Oct 2004 13:03:50 -0700, (Nick
Cooper 625) wrote in message
:

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

Is the wrong answer. You started this subthread by advancing the bad
behaviour of cyclists as some kind of defence or excuse for the bad
behaviour of bus drivers. Given that bus drivers are paid to drive,
trained to an advanced standard and specially licensed, driving large
and dangerous vehicles, responsible for the safety of their passengers
as well as the general public - the comparison simply doesn't stand
up.

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.

Projection, n

(Psychology)
1. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or
suppositions to others: “Even trained anthropologists have
been guilty of unconscious projectionof clothing the subjects
of their research in theories brought with them into the
field” (Alex Shoumatoff).

2. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or
desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious
defense against anxiety or guilt.

Seems to cover your attitude here, I think.

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.

Ah, so you only care about red light jumping / pedestrian crossing
offences. In which case...

"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."

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?

The range of excuses used by drivers (all road users, in fact) for
their illegal behaviour is legendary. To suggest that this is unique
to cyclists is absurd.

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

LOL! So weird, in fact, that Mr Pareto famously invented a law to
describe it!

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

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:24:37 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On 21 Oct 2004 13:03:50 -0700, (Nick
Cooper 625) wrote in message
:

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

Is the wrong answer. You started this subthread by advancing the bad
behaviour of cyclists as some kind of defence or excuse for the bad
behaviour of bus drivers.

yawn No I didn't. Why should I? Stop doggedly sticking to you own
misassumption.

Given that bus drivers are paid to drive, trained to an advanced
standard and specially licensed, driving large and dangerous vehicles
responsible for the safety of their passengers as well as the general
public - the comparison simply doesn't stand up.

Well, it's a comparison of your own making, so it's nothing to do with
me. I would make the observation, though, that a bus driver
disgregarding their training and behaving in a dangerous manner is no
less irrational than a cyclist disregarding all common sense and
nehaving in a dangerous manner. They may have different potential
consequences, but the basic fact that both behave in a way they should
know is wrong is similar.

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.

Projection, n

(Psychology)
1. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or
suppositions to others: “Even trained anthropologists have
been guilty of unconscious projectionof clothing the subjects
of their research in theories brought with them into the
field” (Alex Shoumatoff).

2. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or
desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious
defense against anxiety or guilt.

Seems to cover your attitude here, I think.

Nope, yours, I think you'll find. Above you suggested - yet again -
that I portray cyclists as "/the/ major threat to life and limb" -
essentially that cyclists are _more_ of a threat. This is a total
fantasy of your own making.

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.

Ah, so you only care about red light jumping / pedestrian crossing
offences. In which case...

"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."

1% is meaningless when you can't quantify the number of motor vehicles
compared to the number of bicycles.

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?

The range of excuses used by drivers (all road users, in fact) for
their illegal behaviour is legendary. To suggest that this is unique
to cyclists is absurd.

The absurdity, again, is of your own making. Nowhere have I ever said
that the _threat_ posed by cyclists is greater, but I have said that
the _behaviour_ of some cyclists is as bad as some drivers. It is
your own prejudices that seem to make you incapable of understanding
the difference between the two.

One thing I will say is that as a pedestrian I have reached the
experience-based conclusion that cyclists are far less predictable
than drivers. If I am using a Pelican crossing - whether waiting for
the traffic signal to go read, or actually on the crossing - I know
that in the vast majority cases approaching motor vehicles will and do
slow and stop. Cyclists, however, are far less prone to do so. In
fact, it is a regular sight for me to see both types approaching a
crossing that his already on red for them, and while the driver will
stop, the cyclist will not, regardless of how crowded the crossing may
be with pedestrians at the time. I've see the latter happen several
times a week, but the former only very rarely. Similarly if no-one is
one the crossing, cyclists will often ignore the red and go straight
through (witnessed frequently - twice yestrrday, in fact), while
drivers far less so (seen maybe once or twice a week). This amply
illustrates the extent to which some cyclists think the law does not
apply to them.
--
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 ...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:24:37 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On 21 Oct 2004 13:03:50 -0700, (Nick
Cooper 625) wrote in message
:

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

Is the wrong answer. You started this subthread by advancing the bad
behaviour of cyclists as some kind of defence or excuse for the bad
behaviour of bus drivers.

yawn No I didn't. Why should I? Stop doggedly sticking to you own
misassumption.

It's a pretty common misassumption. Why didn't you even bother to change the
thread title?

clive

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:55:45 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:24:37 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On 21 Oct 2004 13:03:50 -0700, (Nick
Cooper 625) wrote in message
:

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

Is the wrong answer. You started this subthread by advancing the bad
behaviour of cyclists as some kind of defence or excuse for the bad
behaviour of bus drivers.

yawn No I didn't. Why should I? Stop doggedly sticking to you own
misassumption.

It's a pretty common misassumption.

Which says far more about the over-sensitivity of those making it.
Just because five people jump to the same false conclusion, it doesn't
mean it is no longer false.

Why didn't you even bother to change the thread title?

Perhaps because at that stage I didn't even remotely consider such an
irrationally over-defensive reaction. It was just a tangential
observation I would have been surprised had it resulted in more than
half a dozen follow-ups. In fact, it's been a bit like a doctor
tapping a patient's knee, only for the whole body to go into spasm.
--
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