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 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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...

[snip]


...... 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.

There's a third reason, too, although thankfully it's not as common
in London as it is in some places.

There are traffic engineers who don't consider vehicles without
motors to be proper vehicles, so they simply set the traffic light
vehicle detectors so they don't detect cyclists. This trains
cyclists to believe that there is no point in waiting at lights,
because lights don't turn green for cyclists. Furthermore it sends
out the message that the professionals who cause the inevitably
resulting red light running don't consider that red light running to
be a problem.

I gather that bad detectors are sometimes a problem even for
motorcycles.

Jeremy Parker

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:07:51 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote:
I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that
"cyclists are as bad,"

Ooh, ooh, I know this one!

Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:13:11 GMT
However, I see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as
car/van/lorry drivers,

That appears to be by you in a direct ancestor of this post. Do you
deny you said it?

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

Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:07:51 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote:
I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that
"cyclists are as bad,"

Ooh, ooh, I know this one!

Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:13:11 GMT
However, I see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as
car/van/lorry drivers,

That appears to be by you in a direct ancestor of this post. Do you
deny you said it?

Miss, miss! Teh nasty man's confusing us with FACTS, miss!

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

(Nick Cooper 625) wrote in
om:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
. ..

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....

Can you justify *not* setting your priorities this way?

--
Chris

In article ,
David Hansen wrote:
It is irrelevant. From the point of view of a pedestrian what
matters is how likely they are to be killed by a cyclist or killed
by a motorist.

Debatable[1], but irrelevant. My curiousity still has not been sated!

Does anyone know - roughly - how many cyclists there are? Or the
relative number of journeys each mode makes?

[1] The pedestrian may want to make adjustments to their own behaviour
when they see vehicles approaching them. And others may wish to
make a cost/benifit analysis for measures to reduce the number -
the benefits are larger if you target cars (by the factor of 200
you cite); but the costs are likely also larger (because there are
- probably - more cars to fit bubble wrap to. Or whatever).

--
You dont have to be illiterate to use the Internet, but it help's.

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

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:31:14 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"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.

That was unclear of me. I should have said I'd ask you to identify
this mythical statement that "cyclists are as bad... to _excuse_ bad
bus drivers" (my emphasis). I wasn't making any excuses for motor
vehicle drivers, and I have no reason to do so. I'm not a driver
(never have been), and I'm not a cyclist (at least not for a long
time) - I don't owe any allegiance to either group.
--
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 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