mate, you are bordering on psychotic. I'm not called yggems anywhere,
where on earth did that come from?

That's a long post nuxxx but I'm still at a loss as to what I've
actually supposed to have done. If you mean speed cameras then saying
supporting them is "anti motorist" is daft, many drivers support them
and capable drivers have nothing to worry about.

Head of Road Safety at the AA Andrew Howard
"80% of motorists support speed cameras"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1157453.stm

So 80% of drivers AND the AA are anti-motorist!


Blimey!!

"Anyone who thinks that this government
isn't even slightly anti-car, and therefore hasn't implemented or
expanded any anti-car measures, is potty. "


Well, that's better, at last something concrete.

This government has cravenly capitulated to the motoring lobby, of
which you and those fake coppers on Safespeeding form an unpleasant
sub strata.

From conceding that safety cameras must be painted yellow to scrapping
the fuel duty lobby and pressing ahead with pointless, useless new
road schemes the rot that Prescott started has firmly settled in.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle410431.ece


The Safer Streets Coalition, made up of 29 organisations, including
Age Concern, the Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB), the
Institution of Civil Engineers and the Royal Society for the
Prevention of Accidents, accused the Government of pandering to the
motoring lobby.

The Bill proposes to reduce the number of points from three to two for
exceeding the limit by only a few miles an hour.

End quote.

Is your stock rsponse to appeals from blind people or the elderly that
they must be "anti-motorist"?

Genuine question.

And yes, you did make some very strange comments, in your very first
post"

" A clue lies in the report's findings about the attitudes of other
road users to the idea of motorcycles in bus lanes, with almost half
the surveyed pedestrians and a large proportion of cyclists
expressing
negative views (although only 40 of 800 cyclists [11 of which were
Spindrift, who isn't really a cyclist at all] "



Barmy.

On Feb 5, 2:54 pm, spindrift wrote:
I'm like a homophobe because of my antimotorist stance which you,
errrr, don't actually have any evidence for?

You keep saying that even though people keep supplying evidence. A
typical Cycling+ troll's tactic. Demand evidence or answers, then
keep demanding them even when they're supplied.

Quote

"Let's all share the roads peacefully, happily and considerately.
Tolerance in transport. A new era of understanding and positivity.
An end to trolling cyclists once and for all. Those who feel an
overwhelming need to be obnoxious and intolerant should take up a new
cause which doesn't involve people dying in their thousands, or
better
still, see their doctors. It's high time that the lying stopped.
It's high time for proper policies that are not dictated by spiteful,
deranged, hateful extremists. "

And this new reach-out stance involves claiming someone you've never
met isn't a cyclist, is a militant, has blood on his hands and does a
disservice to cyclists all based on evidenc you are unwilling to share
with us?

It's not a new stance. And just because I make claims about one
person, it doesn't say anything about my general opinion of cyclists.
I have said more than once that I don't have a problem with the
majority of cyclists who are sensible and happy to share the roads.
I'm not the only one who thinks you're a militant by a long chalk.
The fact is that there are different types of road users and there
will be for the forseeable future. Almost all motorists are happy to
campaign to improve their lot without interfering with cyclists (as
long as the cyclists don't jump red lights, cycle on the pavement or
pick fights). Live and let live. Unfortunately, there is a hardcore
of militant cyclists who are quite clearly more concerned with spiting
motorists than they are improving their own lot. How ****ed up is
that? Since you claim not to be one of them, presumably you agree
that such attitudes are fundamentally unhelpful, even to other
cyclists? Isn't it absurd that they're more concerned about
persecuting others than helping themselves? And do you accept that
such cyclists exist, whether or not you think that there are also
drivers like that?

You seem obsessed, seriously, tell me what it is i wrote that provoked
such and unbalanced attack.

*I'm* obsessed?! Ha ha! You're ridiculous. Honestly, I haven't read
such hypocrisy for a long time. You must have posted thousands of
times more than me.

What, exactly, is your problem nuxx bar?

What's yours? Why won't you admit that you're anti-motorist? Why do
you think so many people think you are? Can you not see at all why
they might come to such a conclusion? How many times have you slagged
off drivers in general? And how many times have you slagged off
cyclists in general? How many anti-motorist measures have you
supported, and how many anti-cyclist measures? When there's an
article about a collision between a motorist and a cyclist, how many
times have you defended the motorist, and how many times have you
defended the cyclist? And so on and so forth.

Do you see yet just how much cumulative evidence there is that you're
anti-motorist? Few of your posts in themselves are anti-motorist, but
when you put them together, there's undeniably a very clear anti-
motorist pattern. You might as well admit it. Then each time you
post you can come straight to the point, that you don't think people
should be driving, instead of bleating on about things that you
actually see as irrelevant, such as safety. It would save you, and
everyone else, a hell of a lot of time. And you would get a lot more
respect than you currently do, because then you'd at least be a
genuine campaigner, even if you were campaigning for something utterly
stupid. You could even start a website, and you'd stop having to hide
your identity.

I think you should give it some serious thought.

On Feb 5, 3:40 pm, spindrift wrote:
On 5 Feb, 15:33, "Budstaff"
wrote:



"spindrift" wrote in message

...

On 5 Feb, 15:14, "Budstaff"
wrote:
"spindrift" wrote in message

...

On 5 Feb, 15:00, "Budstaff"
wrote:
"spindrift" wrote in message

...

"Apparently there is evidence to
suggest that the figure may be _reduced_ if bikes and PTW's both use
bus
lanes. If that is the case, what will your position on sharing be? "

Based on 3 trials, one of which was stopped.

There's no data in the article or quotes from the report, just vague
statements like, "conditions for cyclists did not significantly
deteriorate". None of that is particularly reassuring. Apparently
the
methodology of the study is also in question.

I really don't want more mopeds and motorbikes trying to squeeze
into
cycle lanes - they do enough of that already. As for bus lanes, in
London there are already countless cabbies (and private coaches)
bullying cyclists in these.

I also have a general problem with motorbikes - they tend to break
the
speed limits even more that cars, and enjoy seeing how quickly they
can accelerate away from lights and put on bursts of speed between
lights. I really don't want them doing that a few inches from me in
a
bus lane thanks.

"I note with mild (if regretful) satisfaction that you no longer
take
issue
with the assertion that you are anti-motorcyclist. "

I'm not anti-motor cyclist or anti-motorist, I've asked you nine
times
now to show a quote from me that proves otherwise.

You've asked me twice, ref motorcycles. You've snipped the proof I
gave
from
this very post. No reasonable person could say what you say, or cite
what,
you site, and _not_ be either anti-motorcyclist or highly confused.

Take your pick.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I repeat, if highlighting the high accident rates between PTWs abnd
cyclists is "anti-motorist" then so are drink driving adverts.

Look, we both admit the data is sketchy.

Whether something is really safer or not is of secondary importance to
policy makers tasked with promoting cycling. What matters to them is
how safe cycling feels, and if sharing bus lanes with motorbikes feels
more scary to cyclists, especially the less confident "growth tip" of
the cycling population, which it does, it'll not fit with that policy.

I think you're confusing two things. I've not disputed your accident
rates
for PTW/cyclists, merely the relevance of that data to the issue of
bus-lane
sharing. And it's not your quoting of that data that makes you
anti-motorcycle. It's your view, re-stated above, that you would put the
feelings of cyclists above the safety of motorcyclists, which is 'of
secondary importance.... to promoting cycling'.

Really not much point in discussing the matter further.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Accidents are more frequent between PTWs and cyclists. In a discussion
relating to allowing PTWs where cyclists cycle I would have thought
mentioning this fact was pertinent. Crucial, even.

Not crucial, barely pertinent. This thread was started with a post quoting
an article in the Torygraph that suggested that a study of shared lanes in
london showed that they improved safety for all parties, and that this was
being suppressed by those whose prejudices were not confirmed. Your position
is similar to being anti seatbelt because those who _don't- wear them get
injured. Until the report comes out, and there is no suggestion of spin, I'd
say the jury was out, in the absence of any data to date that says that
cyclists are more at risk in bus lanes shared by PTW's. I live in a town
(Colchester) where most bus lanes are open to PTW's and have not yet heard
of a single incident - but I would not cite my personal experience as
evidence of the safety of the practice. I'd rather wait for a proper study,
and welcome the appearance of a conclusive answer when it comes. And if as I
result my motorbike is banned from the bus lanes, then I'll accept that. But
I somehow doubt that you'll accept it if it isn't.

If you have evidence that bus lanes are safer for cyclists please post
it, I rely on the evidence that it's more dangerous for cyclists and
discourages cycling.

What next? Many ASLs have feeder lanes from bus lanes, will PTWs start
abusing ASLs more than they already do?

What next? will you call for bus lanes to be redesignated as cycle lanes
because of th undoubted danger that buses pose?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They have excluded the results of the A13 study because that showed a
major impact on cycle use - a fall of over 80% forcing cyclists out of
it. This is a statistical fudge similar to helmet compunction in
australia saving lives cos fewer cyclists were hurt cos there were
much fewer cyclists!

We can agree to disagree budstaff, and thanks for your courtesy, I'm
far more interested in nuxx bar's unhealthy interest in me and
dishonesty regarding my views but it looks like he's buggered orff
now....

Unlike you, I have a job, and therefore can't spend every waking hour
posting on newsgroups and forums. I have now replied to your latest
poison, but as usual it's like banging my head against a brick wall,
so I won't be replying many more times, until at any rate you admit
that you're anti-motorist and start arguing like a man.

I can assure you that I don't have any interest in you. I would be
ecstatically happy if you disappeared off the face of the Internet.
You're a cancer on transport, it's fair to say.

On Feb 5, 3:54 pm, Nick wrote:
I'm quite happy to see cyclists riding on the pavements in a responsible
manner or going through red lights when it is safe to do so.

Well done for at least admitting it. Although I fear that you still
think that motorists can never exceed the speed limit safely or in a
responsible manner, which would be a logical continuation of what you
say. If I'm wrong about you thinking that then I apologise.

On Feb 5, 4:29 pm, calum wrote:
On 5 Feb, 16:08, "Brimstone" wrote:
.



Did he stop anyone else using the ASL?- Hide quoted text -

Yes.

The cop positioned himself at the front of lane two for travelling
straight ahead. A cyclist, also intent on travelling straight ahead,
had to position himself to the left of the cop and at the front of
lane one (left turning traffic). He had to wait for the cop to scoot
off before making his way across to lane two where he should have been
in the first place but for the policeman.

So if he hadn't stopped anyone using the ASL, would you have objected
to him using it?

"Almost all motorists are happy to
campaign to improve their lot without interfering with cyclists "

I think you are taking this a bit seriously, how am I interfering with
anyone? What are you talking about?

"And how many times have you slagged off
cyclists in general?"

Loads of times, I started this RLJ thread:

http://tinyurl.com/2vb64l


It talked about how flipping annoying RLJers are, I think I admitted
shoulder-charging an RLJer in that thread. I told him he was making
London more dangerous for cyclists which he agreed with immediately,
it deflated him that this WASN'T a car driver versus cyclist thing.
You are unable to see this I'm afraid so instead we're 180 posts in
and I still don't know why you reacting so strangely.

On Feb 5, 5:03 pm, spindrift wrote:
On 5 Feb, 16:43, JNugent
wrote:

spindrift wrote:
"I think it's pathetic that the most vocally and notoriously anti-
motorist/anti-motorcyclist poster on the whole Internet denies being
anything of the sort. "

You'll have to take his word for the fact that he finds you pathetic.
I dare say he's not the only one. In fact, I know he's not.

I can take being called pathetic for no reason, not much I can do
about that, but if I'm accused of having an irrational hatred of
anyone it's reasonable to ask for some evidence. Anything, actually.

They're building a maximum security segregated cycle lane on Southwark
Bridge, one of the quietest bridges in London (bridges in London are
particularly dangerous for cyclist, one killed by a moped rider on
London Bridge a couple of years ago). This lane has probablt eaten up
an entire year's cycling budget, and it's pointless and counter-
productive, I think. The limit of 30 on the bridges has never been
enforced bar Tower. Stopping and punishing idiot drivers would make
more difference and that, by the way, is anti idiot motorist, NOT
anti-motorist.

It is anti-motorist, because it's anti-any motorist that speeds, and
in practice all motorists speed.

And talking of Tower Bridge, the 20mph limit is only there to protect
the bridge's structure. But I bet that wouldn't stop you complaining
about anyone driving at 21-30mph "endangering cyclists".

And as you said, you're not against the cycle lane per se, you're
against it because it's "eaten up budget". If it could have been
built for free then you would have been fine with it. Budget issues
aside, you're always without exception happy with anti-motorist
measures, including pro-cyclist measures that "reallocate" (steal)
roadspace from motorists that they have already paid for.

Talking of cycle lanes, are you happy with the plans to
"decriminalise" cycle lane enforcement, and issue PCNs to motorists
who temporarily use cycle lanes to get past other motorists who are
turning right, even when there are no cyclists anywhere near and it is
quite clearly a safe and logical thing to do? Something tells me the
answer is "yes", and we can of course check your previous posts. It's
support of clearly vicious, unfair and anti-car measures like that
which shows that someone is a motorist-hater. (And anyone who thinks
that Livingstone and TfL aren't anti-car needs their head examining.
Livingstone has made it perfectly clear.)

Hang on, you've been claiming for 180 posts that I'm anti-motorist! I
asked for evidence, you provided none, you claimed I never slag off
cyclists and I show you I did! Just a bit of exposition there, think
you may have missed it...

The bridge cycle lane's daft cos it's segregation, yes of course I
support fines for driver who "stray" or "wander" or "drift" into a
place they shouldn't be because cemeteries are full of people hit by
straying, drifting and wandering cars. You get a cycle lane near my
house that feeds you exclusively slap bang into the door zone.
Seriously, it's quite common, like the cycle lane on Blackfriars
BETWEEN TWO LANES OF TRAFFIC where a young doctor was killed on her
bike. A few £60 fines are a small price to pay to avoid something like
that happening again.

Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Feb 5, 3:54 pm, Nick wrote:
I'm quite happy to see cyclists riding on the pavements in a responsible
manner or going through red lights when it is safe to do so.

Well done for at least admitting it. Although I fear that you still
think that motorists can never exceed the speed limit safely or in a
responsible manner, which would be a logical continuation of what you
say. If I'm wrong about you thinking that then I apologise.

Its not a logical conclusion at all. The only conclusion is that I do
not believe laws are absolute or always right.

In actual fact I'm happy for motorists to go over the speed limit on the
motorway.

However when it comes to towns and areas where motorist mix with
pedestrians and cyclists I do not believe it is ok to exceed the speed
limit because this does put additional risk on the pedestrian and I
believe the risk posed to pedestrians should be decreased not increased.
It is worth remembering that cars do kill and maim a very considerable
number of pedestrians where as bikes don't.

I never said that everyone who supported speed cameras was anti-
motorist. Those who support cameras either don't know enough of the
facts, are ignorant/stupid/simple ("speed kills", "slower must be
safer and that's that", "RTTM is just being clever with statistics"),
have a vested interest, or are anti-motorist. You know all of the
facts, you (AFAIK) don't have a vested interest, and whatever else you
are, you're not quite that stupid, so therefore you fall into the
latter category. You know that speeding in itself is usually safe,
but you still support cameras because they're an effective way of
persecuting, intimidating, stealing from, ruining the careers of and
causing misery in a selection from all motorists at random. They're
cost-effective spite on a stick for motorists, and you just love it.
Yet if bicycles got licence plates and they put up speed cameras and
red light cameras to catch them, you'd be up in arms. It's just one
of a huge number of pieces of evidence of your rabid, irrational and
ridiculous wish to purge the roads of powered private transport, and
screw the economy, progress, freedom and all the other little
trivialities like that.

How is your complaint about the "fake" policeman going, by the way?
It's been at least a year since you submitted it, so it must have been
resolved one way or the other. Do tell. Asuming it's come to
nothing, do you think it's a good idea to keep libelling someone who's
in a position of power? I hope you get what's coming to you. You go
on and on about other people not having evidence for their accusations
(even though they do), so what is your evidence for this "fake"
rubbish? I've seen proof that he's not fake, by the way, but I'm sure
that won't stop you. The truth figures very little for you overall.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if you had somehow connected from
another reality, either actual or in your head.

Yep, you're the barmy and psychotic one. Psychosis of course involves
delusional beliefs that can't be dispelled by reason, e.g. a belief
that speed cameras work, or a belief that driving is inherently evil,
or a belief that a real policeman is a fake one. (Although actually,
you know really that cameras don't work, but maybe you've managed to
persuade yourself that they do, since you *want* them to so much.)
And you're blatantly, horribly, disgustingly and constantly anti-
motorist. You're a liar, a cad and much more besides. I'm not going
to discuss anything more with you until you tell the truth and admit
that you hate cars and the perfectly normal and reasonable people who
drive them without feeling "guilty". Until then, you're just a
pathetic liar who is too much of a coward to admit what he really
thinks.

BL