"Nick" wrote
However I also work with statistics and I particularly dislike people like
yourself who distort the meaning of statistics to try and prove their own
particular theory.

Aren't you arguing about which statistic is the right one to use? It is
arguable that accidents per mile cycled is the important one for cyclists.
Or have I misunderstood?

Mike Sales

Can I just thank you for cross-posting this into utl and bringing a
long-running flamewar from some other group here. It's been most
fascinating.

Nick (Nick ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

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.

But not off the motorway? Ever?

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.

So all non-motorway roads have pedestrians about at all times? Because if
they don't, it would be an inconsistent application of your otherwise
consistent views.

x-no-archive:Budstaff wrote:


The CTC position (and I'm a member) on motorcycles is a disgrace. Despite
the special pleading on previous threads here, it is clearly anti motorcycle
(explicitly stating that motorcycling should be discouraged).


What was most telling on those threads was that even when the specific
words were quoted from the ctc site, some prominent members of urc, eg
Tony Raven and Simon Brooke, seemed to be incapable of comprehending
that the ctc stance was anti-motorcyclist.

x-no-archive:spindrift wrote:
"I do not feel sympathy for those who become
advocates for their own pastime, and screw the rest."

Provide examples of anyone here doing any such thing.


Sixth time.


Calm down!

Thats the first time you've replied to me.

I can refer specifically to the anti-motorcyclist lobby among certain
members of urc and yourself on this thread.

"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...

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


His use of the ASL renders the area that he occupies unavailable to a
legitimate user, so yes.

Calum

x-no-archive:spindrift wrote:
On 5 Feb, 14:35, "Budstaff"
wrote:
"spindrift" wrote in message

...



On 5 Feb, 12:30, Adrian wrote:
spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:
It's becoming clear that they can't.
Oh, we can. And we have. We've told you to re-read your posts in this
thread.
I already have. I posted evidence that PTW's in bus lanes increase
danger.
No, you didn't. You posted links to some fluffy "But I don't like it" -
and you ADMITTED that there was no evidence that your claims for Bristol
were valid.
Oh, and congrats on learning how to quote. Now, as a follow-up, how about
posting so that your Newsgroup line doesn't contain spurious spaces which
I'm having to manually remove? Everybody else manages.
"you ADMITTED that there was no evidence that your claims for Bristol
were valid. "
I did nothing of the kind, stop posting silly lies.
PTWs are more likely to be involved in accidents with cyclists.
Increasing the mix makes no sense and addds to the danger. Try the
cycle lane on Bishopsgate to see how the mix is so incredibly
dangerous.
I find it interesting that you'll spend half your day bickering with people
on an 'Oh yes you are'/'Oh no I'm not' basis, but haven't managed to find
the time to address my clear response to your challenge to demonstrate your
anti-motorcycle views. So as you'r not averse to a bit of cut-and -paste
repetition yourself, here it is again:

quotes selfTo refer you to your own post in which you cited three url's
(I'm assuming
you were citing material you agree with):

The cambridge site is reporting campaign against the 'threat' that
motorcycle might be allowed to use bus lanes in Cambridge, despite their
being no such intention on the part of the council, and is doing this in
oppostion to a motorcyclists group. The only evidence that it offers is
'unpleasantness' in Bristol.

The CTC does not believe that the use of motorcycles can be justified.

The croydon site discounts the data syuggesting that PTW use of bus lanes
may improve safety as being insufficient, and instead uses the irrelevant
safety statistics applicable to the roads as a whole. If the these
statistics were applicable then there would be no safety benefit to cycles
using the lanes. quote ends

I'd also be interested to know just how 'incredibly dangerous' Bishopsgate
is. Are you aware of any casualties caused to cyclists by PTW's, where the
cyclist was blameless? And did any of these occur as a direct result of the
PTW being permitted to use a bus lane.

As a cyclist who also owns a motorcycle, I'm not much enamoured of zealots
who would block safety improvements on the basis of personal prejudice,
which is all you've demonstrated so far on the specific issue of PTW's in
bus lanes.

I'll ask once more, behind all the invective, where is the data?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The data, posted above, is that PTWs are 1.5 times more likely to be
involved in accidents with cyclists. My own experiences reinforce this
view.

I have not snipped any of the above. Where is the data posted above to
show ptws are 1.5 times more likely etc etc. Your argument is as
substantial as wind blown sea spray.

"Where is the data posted above to
show ptws are 1.5 times more likely etc etc."

Please don't barge into threads you haven't read.

x-no-archive:spindrift wrote:
"Where is the data posted above to
show ptws are 1.5 times more likely etc etc."

Please don't barge into threads you haven't read.

I read the message three times, every word 'above' your comment. I read
it upside down and standing on my head. I still didn't see any data.

spindrift wrote:
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.

Not those elusive multiple cemeteries of yours again?

I'm sure that this time, since you are so bullish about it, you'll be
able to name just one of them (perhaps give us the grid reference of a
Google Maps URL). Make sure it's *full* of people hit by straying,
drifting and wandering cars, though. A few names and Coroners' reports
wouldn't go amiss, either.