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 12:41:20 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:06:52 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Oct, Nick Cooper wrote
(or did he? maybe he'll shortly deny it):
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:49:50 +0000 (UTC), 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?

Actually, yes

You deny you said what I quoted?

I think you should go back and read what actually read what I said.

OK - "I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists
are as bad"". Yep, read that, parsed it, reached conclusions about
the only thing it can possibly mean, compared it with teh statement "I
see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry
drivers", and I don't see any need to revise anything I said.

You _are_ moaning about people believing what you said.

Guy has repeatedly made claims such as the following:

I'm not talking about what Guy has said. He may or may not be talking
rubbish. He may or may not be lying about what he has previously
said. I fail to see how that has any relevance to teh fact that you
said "I see just as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as
car/van/lorry drivers", and also that you never said that.

Of course, this isn't the limits of Guy's fantasy accusations:

I don't care. I was considering what you said. You said "I see just
as many cyclists behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers" and
you also said that claims you said cylists are as bad was a "mythical
statement".

You seem to be claiming that if anyone else ever said something that's
not true, you should not be questioned about saying things that aren't
true. Two wrongs, apparently, make a right.

My response was badly worded, as I have acknowledged that (twice).
However, the fact remains that I have _never_ anywhere used the
behaviour or bad cyclists as an "excuse" for bad drivers.

Fine. I didn't claim you did. I claimed you said "I see just as many
cyclists behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers" after you
denied saying that cyclists were as bad as motorists. Specifically,
you asked "I'd ask you to identify this mythical statement that "cyclists
are as bad"". I did so. I thought you'd be pleased, since I did what
you asked.

That's what I'm denying I ever said,

That's what you're denying you said _now_. It's not what you denied
you said when you said "I'd ask you to identify this mythical
statement that "cyclists are as bad"", is it.

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

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:26:38 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

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".

No. Let's consider what I actually said in my first post (10/10/04
16:41):

Alternatively, who can I complain to about all the ****s on bikes who
think that red lights - particularly those at pedestrian crossing -
somehow don't count for them? Especially annoying are the ones who
think they're entitled to shout abuse at the pedestrians they have to
swerve round them because they're already half way across the road.
Funny, that, isn't it? Pedestrians having the temerity to cross a
road when the lights are in their favour, just because to
knobend-in-lycra is too impatient to obey the red and wait a few
seconds.

No mention of drivers in there at all, but despite that Guy's
immediate response (10/10/04 18:40) was:

You can complain to uk.tosspot, who will greet you as a long-lost
brother. They think the fact that "yoofs" on bikes commit offences
justifies whatever behaviour they see fit to inflict on those unlucky
enough to have to share the road with them, and the disparity in
danger posed by cyclists and motorists is of no relevance.

From the outset he introduced the inference that somehow I was using
the behaviour of cyclists to excuse or "justif(y)" the behaviour of
motorists.


You _did_ say cyclists were as bad as various motor vehicles drivers.

Operative word "some" missing twice there.

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.

No, I've said I did _not_ mean more than I said, and that I did _not_
say what Guy and various others have repeatedly either implied or
directly suggested, i.e. that I was making "excuses" or offering
"justification" for the behaviour of bad drivers.

--
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 13:36:40 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

[snip now totally boring repetition of something I said, ignoring my
own correction the day after I said it, as follows]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:29:30 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

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.

The posting you are persisting in referring to was made just after
9am, when I was just leaving home. I did it in a hurry, I wasn't
clear, so sue me. My correction makes my position clear. If you
won't accept it, then I couldn't care less.
--
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, Nick Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:26:38 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

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".

No. Let's consider what I actually said in my first post

I was commenting on what you said on a particular occasion. An
occasion that you subsequently repeatedly denied occurred. That you
said something slightly differnet on other occasions doesn't alter the
fact that you said what you did in fact say, and what you subsequently
denied saying.

You _did_ say cyclists were as bad as various motor vehicles drivers.

Operative word "some" missing twice there.

"just as many" was what you actually said, I believe. The word 'some'
did not feature in teh statement I recal.

No, I've said I did _not_ mean more than I said, and that I did _not_
say what Guy and various others have repeatedly either implied or
directly suggested, i.e. that I was making "excuses" or offering
"justification" for the behaviour of bad drivers.

I haven't claimed you did. I said you did say something you
subsequently claimed not to have said. That this is fact is a matter
of public record. I'm not sure why you keep denying you said it -
even when furnished with the message-id and quote, you bizarrely
claimed you didn't say what you said.

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

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:17:33 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

On Sun, Nick Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:26:38 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

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".

No. Let's consider what I actually said in my first post

I was commenting on what you said on a particular occasion. An
occasion that you subsequently repeatedly denied occurred. That you
said something slightly differnet on other occasions doesn't alter the
fact that you said what you did in fact say, and what you subsequently
denied saying.

Now, for you benefit, Ian, I've just gone back and re-read all 22 of
my previous posts in this thread. The one you are taking issue with
was the 11th (posted 22/10/04 09:07). The following day (23/10/04
13:29) I corrected myself, as I recognised that in my haste previously
I'd not been specific enough in my answer. I don't deny I made the
post on 22/10, just that it wasn't clear. I note that you are doing
you best not to acknowledge my clarification the following day, and in
fact the only sense I have "repeatedly denied" anything is on two
occasions, both drawing _your_ attention to my post of 23/10 that you
can't or won't acknowledge.

You _did_ say cyclists were as bad as various motor vehicles drivers.

Operative word "some" missing twice there.

"just as many" was what you actually said, I believe. The word 'some'
did not feature in teh statement I recal.

Is English your first language? I only ask because you seem to be
quibbling over two things that are not actually contradictory. The
evidence of my own eyes is that cyclists are no less inclined to bad
behaviour as drivers, but obviously neither represent the totality of
either group.

No, I've said I did _not_ mean more than I said, and that I did _not_
say what Guy and various others have repeatedly either implied or
directly suggested, i.e. that I was making "excuses" or offering
"justification" for the behaviour of bad drivers.

I haven't claimed you did. I said you did say something you
subsequently claimed not to have said. That this is fact is a matter
of public record. I'm not sure why you keep denying you said it -
even when furnished with the message-id and quote, you bizarrely
claimed you didn't say what you said.

I'm not quite sure why _you_ keep failing to even acknowledge my
subsequent correction/clarification. You seem very keen on fixating
on the thing I said that suits your agenda, but incapable of
recognising the other.

Tell me, Ian, can you now - hand-on-heart - steadfastly stick by every
single thing you have ever said on Usenet? Have you never given an
answer only to realise later that it wasn't complete, or you'd
overlooked some detail, and so it gave a completely different
impression to to the one you intended?
--
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

In message , David Hansen
writes
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
Could you explain this a bit more please? I can't find a reference to
PGP keys in the act you cite.
--
Clive.

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:40:40 GMT, Nick Cooper wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:17:33 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

I was commenting on what you said on a particular occasion. An
occasion that you subsequently repeatedly denied occurred.

Tell me, Ian, can you now - hand-on-heart - steadfastly stick by every
single thing you have ever said on Usenet? Have you never given an
answer only to realise later that it wasn't complete, or you'd
overlooked some detail, and so it gave a completely different
impression to to the one you intended?

Of the occasions where I have said something that turns out not to be
true, both in real life and on usenet, I am not aware of a single one
where I have repeatedly denied saying what I actually did say. If you
believe otherwise, I am happy to re-examine any particular case you
have in mind.

You will note that I have not made any comment here on whether or not
cyslists are as bad as motorists - the factual accuracy or otherwise
of your statement is not what interests me in this case. My
observations are purely limited to your repeated denial that you said
what you did. As such, teh accuracy or otherwise of everything I have
ever said is not only irrelevant, but also not even a comparable or
reciprocal case.

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

In message , at 13:11:43 on Mon,
25 Oct 2004, Clive Coleman remarked:
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
Could you explain this a bit more please? I can't find a reference to
PGP keys in the act you cite.

There's a gagging clause in Pt3 of the Act, about acquisition of keys in
general (not especially PGP). It's intended to prevent crooks tipping
one another off. That part of the Act is years away from being put into
force, anyway.
--
Roland Perry

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