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

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
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.

Well now you know - whining about cyclist's behaviour on u.r.c will result
in robust rebuttals, because we're so used to people attempting to justify
motorist's bad behaviour by saying cyclists are as bad.

This will happen whether or not you mean to.

clive

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:16:47 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Nick Cooper" wrote in
message ...
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.

Well now you know - whining about cyclist's behaviour on u.r.c will result
in robust rebuttals, because we're so used to people attempting to justify
motorist's bad behaviour by saying cyclists are as bad.

This will happen whether or not you mean to.

You see, this is the problem. I made one throwaway comment/
observation and then had to elaborate or defend myself from a bunch of
over-sensitive and trigger-happy cyclists who leapt spectacularly to
the wrong conclusion about what I actually said, and you characterise
it as "whining"? Yeah, right....
--
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 Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:40:23 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote:

You see, this is the problem. I made one throwaway comment/
observation and then had to elaborate or defend myself from a bunch of
over-sensitive and trigger-happy cyclists who leapt spectacularly to
the wrong conclusion about what I actually said,

ITYM "leapt to the conclusion I meant what I actually said". You
_did_ say cyclists were as bad as various motor vehicles drivers. I
provided the quote and teh message-id.

I agree you've subsequently claimed you meant more than you said, and
what you didn't say may or may not be reasonable. What's not
reasonable, however, is complaining that people aren't agreeing with
what you didn't say.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:40:23 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote in
message :

I made one throwaway comment/observation

I think next time you should do exactly that: throw it away :-)

Or use a smiley, if it is posted with ironic intent.

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

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.

So your question which started this subthread was a non-sequitur was
it? Quite how raising the false idea that cyc;ists are uniquely
lawless works as a non-sequitur when it fails as a justification fro
dangerous behaviour by bus drivers escapes me just at the moment.

bus drivers [...] the comparison simply doesn't stand up.

Well, it's a comparison of your own making, so it's nothing to do with
me.

It is either a comparison of your own making, as per the start of this
subthread, or your first post here was a non-sequitur, as above.
Neither puts you in a particularly strong position.

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.

Considerably more so, since the bus driver is personally at very
little risk. Which is probably why, despite widespread allegations of
complete lawlessness, the major danger posed by cyclists appears to be
to themselves, and even that apparently to a lesser extent than for
pedestrians, who are far more likely to be at fault in fatal and
serious injury crashes involving them.

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.

Ah, so your singling them out was an /irrelevant/ non-sequitur. Well
that makes al the difference, doesn't it?

"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.

Are we not constantly told that the number of bicycles crossing red
lights outweighs by many multiples the number of motor vehicles so
doing? So surely if anything that makes the 1% look even less
significant.

Either way, in numerical terms, your complaint sounds like a man
concerned about splinters while walking the plank.

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.

Really? So it was a typo, when you said cyclists; you meant vehicle
users?

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.

Not disputed. Strange, really, when you consider that the majority of
road riders are also drivers. Anyone would think that road users were
ignorant or contemptuous of the rules of the road.

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.

And yet the fatalities caused by those cyclists are negligible. Which
just shows that they must /seem/ much more dangerous than they /are/.

This amply
illustrates the extent to which some cyclists think the law does not
apply to them.

Exhibit A: SafeSpeed, a site which is entirely dedicated to the idea
that the law does not apply to drivers. I know of no site advocating
reduced enforcement for cyclists. Once again your targeting mechanism
seems to be a few degrees off.

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

In message , "Just zis Guy,
you know?" writes

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.
O.K. This argument has gone far enough, and to be honest it's all
about point scoring and no facts are allowed to intervene. If a
cyclist has to brake hard at any obstruction be it traffic lights, road
works what ever he is prepared and it's his own fault if he's not. A
bus driver on the other hand has to take into account maybe up to 70
other persons who are not expecting sudden braking, especially whilst on
their feet walking for the door. If you are a cyclist with half a
brain then you would know why I would hit you rather that injure my load
who may be children or O.A.P.s. Give it a seconds thought, or more
accurately take a PCV test then come back and argue your case if you
think you still have one.
--
Clive.