An unfair URCM rejection no 23

[URCM Monitor]

Someone in URCM quoted an article where an MP was commenting on accidents
involving cyclists. In thread: "Dooring incidents up by over a quarter"

True Blue appeared to be surprised by something that the MP had claimed: "The
number of serious injuries is up to more than 90 - a serious injury means you
never walk without pain again."

True Blue thought he would comment on this interpretation of the accident
statistics with : "I did not realise that that was the definition of a serious
injury; mind you, I am quite sceptical of much of what he claims.

Now that to most reasonable people would probably be considered to be a
reasonable comment to make in a moderated group.

Unfortunately True Blue was told he was on probation, and hence just not able
to post such things.

(x-posted to UNNC where the discussion on the moderated radio group is taking
place. People there need to be aware that a moderated group may not be the
panacea they are hoping for)

[The Todal]

It seems to be a reasonable post, and presumably he got this rejection
message:

"Thank you for your submission to uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
However, we regret it has not been accepted. Unfortunately, we have
found it necessary to operate an informal probationary period for new
posters. We would encourage you to read the group for a while, or
read past articles, before making posts on some contentious topics -
helmets being an obvious example. In many of these cases there are
certain points which have already been made repeatedly and running
over them for yet another time would be of no value".

That rejection message appears to be devoid of any meaning. It doesn't
give a reason for rejecting the message. It sort of implies that if they
regard you as a new poster your first few messages are likely to be
rejected until they decide you are the right sort of person to join the
club.

I would never post to URCM because I would inevitably be regarded as a
"new poster" and whatever I write would therefore, I suppose, be binned.
For that reason I would never *read* URCM because I wouldn't want to be
tempted to offer a reply to anyone's post.

[URA Monitor]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:29:01 +0000, URCM Monitor <me...@privacy.net>
wrote:

> (x-posted to UNNC where the discussion on the moderated radio group
is taking
> place. People there need to be aware that a moderated group may
not be the
> panacea they are hoping for)

Certainly not without a procedure for dealing with shroud-waving
trolls who nym-shift to avoid bans.

[Tony]

In uk.net.news.config, URCM Monitor <me...@privacy.net> wrote:

>(x-posted to UNNC where the discussion on the moderated radio group is taking
>place. People there need to be aware that a moderated group may not be the
>panacea they are hoping for)

It's off-topic for UNNC which has a very specific focus. If you insist on
cross-posting to UNNC 'to make people aware' then please set follow-ups
back to UNNM.

Otherwise, make your points in the specific thread that already exists in
UNNC and point people to the 'discussion' you feel is important to them in
UNNM.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

[URA Monitor]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:40:52 +0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:

> I would never post to URCM because I would inevitably be regarded
as a
> "new poster" and whatever I write would therefore, I suppose, be
binned.
> For that reason I would never *read* URCM because I wouldn't want
to be
> tempted to offer a reply to anyone's post.

a) no, it is *not* inevitable (and if you managed to quote the
rejection message perhaps next time you could read it first);

b) we can now safely conclude that as you have never read URCM then
your august pronouncements on the value of the moderated group
compared to the unmoderated version are unsupported by anything other
than your stated position of not "giv(ing) a flying fuck about
cyclists"; and

c) there are none so blind as they who will not see.

[John Benn]

"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:aqr4mk...@mid.individual.net...

It's utterly ridiculous isn't it?

[Sara]

In article <aqr4mk...@mid.individual.net>,

That certainly is one of the problems - how the hell do they know who
has or hasn't "read the group for a while"? What may be the same old
shit to the mods may be of burning importance to the poster who may well
feel they have a new question/POV to offer.

>
> I would never post to URCM because I would inevitably be regarded as a
> "new poster" and whatever I write would therefore, I suppose, be binned.
> For that reason I would never *read* URCM because I wouldn't want to be
> tempted to offer a reply to anyone's post.

--
Sara

cats cats cats cats cats

[URA Monitor]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:11:42 +0000, Sara
<sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> That certainly is one of the problems - how the hell do they know
who
> has or hasn't "read the group for a while"? What may be the same
old
> shit to the mods may be of burning importance to the poster who may
well
> feel they have a new question/POV to offer.

Well, of course they can only go by the information contained in the
headers.

Clearly anyone who creates a nym out of whole cloth in order to make
their first post to a moderated newsgroup could be up to no good (and
by the by, I am shocked, *shocked* I tell you, to think there might
be some unscrupulous individuals who would actually contemplate such
actions); or not. If the former, the caution exercised by the
moderators is proportionate, and if the latter they should be able to
find their answer by reading the rejection message.

[Judith]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:11:42 +0000, Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

<snip>

>That certainly is one of the problems - how the hell do they know who
>has or hasn't "read the group for a while"? What may be the same old
>shit to the mods may be of burning importance to the poster who may well
>feel they have a new question/POV to offer.

But however you look at it, the point which True Blue appears to have tried to
make, was not a repetition, it was just a sensible post potentially clarifying
something which was incorrect. Given how much KSI figures are discussed by
cyclists - the definition of a serious injury should not be open to such
interpretation (by an MP or anyone else) ; and hence clarification was
reasonable.

This post should clearly have been allowed if it was posted by anyone: a
probationer or otherwise.

[Sara]

In article <2apgk89km0880671t...@4ax.com>,

I wasn't discussing this particular post.

[Sara]

In article <almarsoft.7473...@news.aioe.org>,

WTF are you talking about?

[Percy Picacity]

Of course it should not have been rejected. But equally it wasn't
'clarifying something which was incorrect". No-one except an imbecile
with terminal concrete thinking problems would think the MP was trying
to *define* a seriouls injury, he was clearly just trying to empjhasise
the sort of thing having a serious injury means to people, pointing out
people don't generally get over serious injuries unscathed. This is
certainly true, though obviously the after-effects depend on the
individual and the injury. No normal person would want to 'correct'
this, or suggest the MP was in some sense misleading normal people.
Either the poster is blinkered by an irrational hatred of anyone who
supports cycling, or he has a serious comprehension problem. No reason
to reject his posts - we should not mock the afflicted.

--

Percy Picacity

[The Todal]

I haven't been following the discussion, of course. But I have looked
online and found this piece:
http://road.cc/content/news/78298-number-cyclists-injured-dooring-incidents-quarter-2009-2011-says-mp

The gist of what the MP is saying is that there has been a huge increase
in the number of incidents where cyclists have been injured by
inconsiderate car drivers opening their doors into the path of a
cyclist. He has said that there has also been an increase in the number
of "serious injuries" but spoils it by arbitrarily defining this as "a

serious injury means you never walk without pain again".

Those who work in the field of personal injuries would find such a
definition laughable. What if your injury was to your wrist or your
head? Would that make it non-serious? This has nothing to do with being
pro or anti cyclist. It is (in my opinion, based on my own interest in
the topic) to do with being accurate about whether serious injuries are
on the increase. Some might say that it doesn't matter, and that "never
walk without pain again" should be read as "continue to feel some sort
of pain in one's body, however slight, two years later". Another
possibility is that the MP hasn't bothered to research his subject
properly but wants to pursue a campaign on the basis of spurious
statistics. Perhaps the truth is that the vast majority of these
incidents result in minor cuts and bruises. Perhaps the serious injuries
tend to involve cyclists who are riding at an inappropriately excessive
speed and being inattentive. Or perhaps not. It is rather important to
establish whose fault it generally is, if one is to mount an effective
campaign to reduce such incidents.

[Percy Picacity]

Not being in the personal injury business, I would have thought
establishing how to prevent these injuries is much more important than
finding out whose fault they are. Pretty clearly if they are on the
offside of a car on the public highway they are all primarily the car
occupant's fault, but this does not help prevent them. Encouraging,
and tolerating, cyclists leaving a big enough gap seems the only
possible remedy.

--

Percy Picacity

[Clive George]

On 19/03/2013 15:52, The Todal wrote:
> He has said that there has also been an increase in the number
> of "serious injuries" but spoils it by arbitrarily defining this as "a
> serious injury means you never walk without pain again".
>
> Those who work in the field of personal injuries would find such a
> definition laughable.

Not just them. I've had a serious injury, and it didn't result in long
term pain.

[Judith]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:31:36 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:

>Either the poster is blinkered by an irrational hatred of anyone who
>supports cycling, or he has a serious comprehension problem. No reason
>to reject his posts - we should not mock the afflicted.

Oh dear, oh dear - has it touched a nerve.

You seem to have the precise attitude that is a pre-requisite for moderating
URCM. Have you offered you services yet?

I look forward to your response to The Todal's excellent comments.

[Judith]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:03:20 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:

<snip>

>Not being in the personal injury business, I would have thought
>establishing how to prevent these injuries is much more important than
>finding out whose fault they are. Pretty clearly if they are on the
>offside of a car on the public highway they are all primarily the car
>occupant's fault, but this does not help prevent them. Encouraging,
>and tolerating, cyclists leaving a big enough gap seems the only
>possible remedy.

It is of course a pity that you were not permitted by the moderators to have
this debate in URCM.

[M Wicks]

On Mar 19, 12:40 pm, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> "Thank you for your submission to uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
> However, we regret it has not been accepted.  Unfortunately, we have
> found it necessary to operate an informal probationary period for new
> posters.  We would encourage you to read the group for a while, or
> read past articles, before making posts on some contentious topics -
> helmets being an obvious example.  In many of these cases there are
> certain points which have already been made repeatedly and running
> over them for yet another time would be of no value".
>
> That rejection message appears to be devoid of any meaning. It doesn't
> give a reason for rejecting the message. It sort of implies that if they
> regard you as a new poster your first few messages are likely to be
> rejected until they decide you are the right sort of person to join the
> club.

It really is just a chillingly unwelcoming and alienating message for
any genuinely new user to get. It is a message which is clearly aimed
at socks (as Ian Jackson said), but what if the moderators think that
someone really is a new user? Either the moderators choose to use the
"probation" category, thus probably stopping the user from ever
posting again (perhaps they want that), or they don't, in which case
why bother with the "probation" shit at all and not just have a
"reject sock" category?

As ever with new URCM policies, this is not only vindictive, but it
also doesn't make sense.

> I would never post to URCM because I would inevitably be regarded as a
> "new poster" and whatever I write would therefore, I suppose, be binned.
> For that reason I would never *read* URCM because I wouldn't want to be
> tempted to offer a reply to anyone's post.

I have a feeling that you'd be treated with a lot more deference than
most, because you're regarded as a "respected poster" (perhaps
grudgingly so, since you have admitted to being a non-cyclist).

I doubt they would be looking for an excuse to reject your posts, or
that they would think there was likely to be "malicious intent" behind
them. So I doubt your posts would mostly be rejected at all, and if
they were then the "probation" category would be avoided like the
plague. It is after all an "up yours" category which will only be used
on posters they dislike (and supposed socks of those posters). Like
the "mission" category, but more useful because they can apply it to
any post they wish.

[M Wicks]

On Mar 19, 3:31 pm, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>
> Of course it should not have been rejected.  But equally it wasn't
> 'clarifying something which was incorrect".  No-one except an imbecile
> with terminal concrete thinking problems would think the MP was trying
> to *define* a seriouls injury, he was clearly just trying to empjhasise
> the sort of thing having a serious injury means to people, pointing out
> people don't generally get over serious injuries unscathed.

Of course, a broken finger is classed as a serious injury. The term
"serious injury" as used by the general public usually means something
more severe.

> we should not mock the afflicted.

I love the way that when someone says that, it's almost always done in
order to, er, mock the [person they are claiming is] afflicted. Jolly
good, Percy the Green Engine.

I have noticed, though, that the snide insults that you and Tony come
up with only tend to be aimed at particular people who you think
you'll get away with insulting. When, for example, Ian Jackson does
something catastrophically stupid, you fail to even comment on it, let
alone in a derogatory way. Yet when someone like Judith has posted
something not unreasonable, you start thumbing your nose in response.

Insults have their place, of course (although you do try to carry
yourself as a "respected poster" who is above the sort of "petty
bickering" that others engage in). But I feel that perhaps your choice
of whether to issue an insult should be based on the stupidity (or
maybe hostility) of what someone has said/done, rather than on how
frightened you are of their position.

You also seem reluctant to insult anyone on the "side" of URCM: where
are your condescending, withering retorts to some of Phil Lee's
bizarre claims? Somehow I don't think Ian Jackson will really care
enough to track you down or anything, if that's what you're worried
about.

[Percy Picacity]

I would have to agree with you there.

--

Percy Picacity

[M Wicks]

On Mar 19, 5:01 pm, Judith <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:31:36 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >Either the poster is blinkered by an irrational hatred of anyone who
> >supports cycling, or he has a serious comprehension problem.  No reason
> >to reject his posts - we should not mock the afflicted.
>
> Oh dear, oh dear - has it touched a nerve.
>
> You seem to have the precise attitude that is a pre-requisite for moderating
> URCM.   Have you offered you services yet?

He emailed them before the group even started, along with Clive
George. You'd think they would have both got the message by now that
it wasn't going to happen.

Although to be fair Clive seems to have quietly cut back on the
"defending every moderation decision" stuff recently (and, ISTR, may
even have sounded a note or two of caution about URCM's running). So
that only leaves Percy, Tony and Phil Lee (what a wacky bunch!) in the
"diehard defender" category (though two of them would probably deny
being in that category).

(BTW, does anyone else "hear" Phil Lee's posts in a snarling voice in
their head?)

> I look forward to your response to The Todal's excellent comments.

Selective about what he responds to, though... (Nothing wrong with
ignoring particular people of course, but it's when someone only
"doesn't read" the posts containing the difficult questions...)

[Colin Reed]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:43:35 -0700, M Wicks wrote:


>
> (BTW, does anyone else "hear" Phil Lee's posts in a snarling voice in
> their head?)
>

No - I think it's just you who hears voices in their head.

[M Wicks]

LOL! How long did that "gem" take you? My god, if that's the extent of
your "wit" then no wonder you were completely out of your depth on
URC, and had to run off to URCM, where you could be protected from
losing every battle of wits you were foolish enough to engage in.

I hate to break it to you, but for me, you're in that category of "I'd
be worried if they *didn't* take a dislike to me". You are, after all,
a pretty standard clone psycholist.

(Oh, and if you're a supporter of Phil Lee, then make no mistake,
you're most definitely in the minority round here...)

[Steve Firth]

There is a side point. Empirically, he may have a point about the door
flingers. I've observed that it now seems to be common for drivers to throw
their door wide when exiting their vehicle, most of them don't look before
doing so. But I have no stats to support my observation and neither does
he. If there were such an effect cyclists would not be the only ones
affected. Passing car drivers would be as likely or even more likely to run
into a carelessly opened door. So an increase in door collisions could
support his point. However I don't believe that this data is collected.

So I can see how he may have arrived at his view but I can't see that he
would have access to data to support it. Also an unbiased data set would
refer to all "dooring" incidents irrespective of road user type but
classified by road user type. This would give insight into whether dooring
incidents were increasing or whether cyclists were disproportionately
represented, which would indicate if cyclists' awareness of hazards was
declining.

Either case could be tackled by an emphasis on training and awareness.

--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/

[The Todal]

On 20/3/13 07:31, Steve Firth wrote:

> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

>>
>> I haven't been following the discussion, of course. But I have looked
>> online and found this piece:
>> http://road.cc/content/news/78298-number-cyclists-injured-dooring-incidents-quarter-2009-2011-says-mp
>>
>> The gist of what the MP is saying is that there has been a huge increase
>> in the number of incidents where cyclists have been injured by
>> inconsiderate car drivers opening their doors into the path of a cyclist.
>> He has said that there has also been an increase in the number of
>> "serious injuries" but spoils it by arbitrarily defining this as "a
>> serious injury means you never walk without pain again".
>
> There is a side point. Empirically, he may have a point about the door
> flingers. I've observed that it now seems to be common for drivers to throw
> their door wide when exiting their vehicle, most of them don't look before
> doing so.

I've seen that quite a lot, too. Perhaps a few of those old-style public
information broadcasts would be useful, to warn people of the danger of
flinging open a car door. Apart from anything else you might have the
hassle of a damaged door and the need to organise a repair and lose your
no claims discount.

But I have no stats to support my observation and neither does
> he. If there were such an effect cyclists would not be the only ones
> affected. Passing car drivers would be as likely or even more likely to run
> into a carelessly opened door. So an increase in door collisions could
> support his point. However I don't believe that this data is collected.
>
> So I can see how he may have arrived at his view but I can't see that he
> would have access to data to support it. Also an unbiased data set would
> refer to all "dooring" incidents irrespective of road user type but
> classified by road user type. This would give insight into whether dooring
> incidents were increasing or whether cyclists were disproportionately
> represented, which would indicate if cyclists' awareness of hazards was
> declining.
>
> Either case could be tackled by an emphasis on training and awareness.
>

A motorist in a hurry probably does glance in his mirror or glance over
his shoulder before opening a car door into the path of traffic. It is
easy to imagine how a cyclist riding silently at top speed might not be
noticed until it's too late and the speed at the moment of impact would
have an effect on the seriousness of the injury. Perhaps cyclists should
be discouraged from riding at 30mph in city centres with parked cars
nearby. That should not be taken as a criticism of such cyclists - they
might feel that they are obeying the rules of the road and it isn't
their fault when other road users are inconsiderate.

[Nick]

On 20/03/2013 11:09, The Todal wrote:

> A motorist in a hurry probably does glance in his mirror or glance over
> his shoulder before opening a car door into the path of traffic. It is
> easy to imagine how a cyclist riding silently at top speed might not be
> noticed until it's too late and the speed at the moment of impact would
> have an effect on the seriousness of the injury. Perhaps cyclists should
> be discouraged from riding at 30mph in city centres with parked cars
> nearby.

The actual advice to cyclists is to ride at least a doors width away
from a parked car. The overwhelming majority of cyclists who are going
30mph would also be taking the lane and hence not at risk. You would
know this if you were a cyclist who could ride at 30mph.

The dooring problem mainly occurs when cyclists are riding much slower,
manoeuvring through traffic jams or riding in cycle lanes.

> That should not be taken as a criticism of such cyclists - they
> might feel that they are obeying the rules of the road and it isn't
> their fault when other road users are inconsiderate.

But it has the age old effect that when cyclists are taught (as
children) to avoid motorists dangerous and inconsiderate behaviour, they
are also as a side effect taught it is their fault if such an accident
occurs. They take this cyclist at fault attitude with them as they grow
up and become more dangerous car drivers as a consequence. This is why
cyclists are wary of cyclist training as the answer.

[Andy Leighton]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:09:39 +0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
> On 20/3/13 07:31, Steve Firth wrote:
>> The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I haven't been following the discussion, of course. But I have looked
>>> online and found this piece:
>>> http://road.cc/content/news/78298-number-cyclists-injured-dooring-incidents-quarter-2009-2011-says-mp
>>>
>>> The gist of what the MP is saying is that there has been a huge increase
>>> in the number of incidents where cyclists have been injured by
>>> inconsiderate car drivers opening their doors into the path of a cyclist.
>>> He has said that there has also been an increase in the number of
>>> "serious injuries" but spoils it by arbitrarily defining this as "a
>>> serious injury means you never walk without pain again".
>>
>> There is a side point. Empirically, he may have a point about the door
>> flingers. I've observed that it now seems to be common for drivers to throw
>> their door wide when exiting their vehicle, most of them don't look before
>> doing so.
>
> I've seen that quite a lot, too. Perhaps a few of those old-style public
> information broadcasts would be useful, to warn people of the danger of
> flinging open a car door. Apart from anything else you might have the
> hassle of a damaged door and the need to organise a repair and lose your
> no claims discount.

A bit more than that. You may find yourself in court and having to
pay a fine. In one case the result was a manslaughter charge as the
cyclist swerved to avoid the door (and ended up in the path of a bus).

> A motorist in a hurry probably does glance in his mirror or glance over
> his shoulder before opening a car door into the path of traffic. It is
> easy to imagine how a cyclist riding silently at top speed might not be
> noticed until it's too late and the speed at the moment of impact would
> have an effect on the seriousness of the injury. Perhaps cyclists should
> be discouraged from riding at 30mph in city centres with parked cars
> nearby. That should not be taken as a criticism of such cyclists - they
> might feel that they are obeying the rules of the road and it isn't
> their fault when other road users are inconsiderate.

You seem to put the onus on the cyclist (btw I don't know many who go at
30mph in a town centre) when they are not breaking the law, but not on the
people in the car (and it is not always a driver) who are.

Opening car doors into traffic isn't just inconsiderate it is
specifically mentioned in the Road Vehicles (Construction And Use)
Regulations as being an offence.

--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

[Judith]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:09:39 +0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:

<snip>

> Perhaps cyclists should
>be discouraged from riding at 30mph in city centres with parked cars
>nearby. That should not be taken as a criticism of such cyclists - they
>might feel that they are obeying the rules of the road and it isn't
>their fault when other road users are inconsiderate.

The psycholists in URC have pointed out many times that speed limits do not
apply to cyclists. If cyclists wish to cycle at more than the speed limit of
20mph outside schools and in residential areas - they are quite free to do so.
(Unless they have a conscience of course)


(fu to uk.legal and uk.rec.cycling)

[Judith]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 12:04:25 +0000, Nick <Nick...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 20/03/2013 11:09, The Todal wrote:
>
>> A motorist in a hurry probably does glance in his mirror or glance over
>> his shoulder before opening a car door into the path of traffic. It is
>> easy to imagine how a cyclist riding silently at top speed might not be
>> noticed until it's too late and the speed at the moment of impact would
>> have an effect on the seriousness of the injury. Perhaps cyclists should
>> be discouraged from riding at 30mph in city centres with parked cars
>> nearby.
>
>The actual advice to cyclists is to ride at least a doors width away
>from a parked car. The overwhelming majority of cyclists who are going
>30mph would also be taking the lane and hence not at risk.

I am sorry - what is "taking the lane" - is it a cycling term?

[Alex]

"Taking the lane" or taking "primary position" is essentially riding
in the centre of the road lane. Cyclists are advised to take primary
position, for example, when passing parked cars whose doors may
suddenly open, as well as when they are cycling in narrow roads to
discourage vehicles from overtaking them where it would be dangerous
for traffic to do so.

I can not really believe a cyclist such as yourself hasn't hear of
this term, but I can't think of any ulterior motive you could have for
asking.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/01/cyclist-take-the-lane

--
Alexis
"The secret of success is to go from mistake to mistake without
losing your enthusiasm."

[Iain]

The Todal wrote:
> A motorist in a hurry probably does glance in his mirror or glance
> over his shoulder before opening a car door into the path of traffic.
> It is easy to imagine how a cyclist riding silently at top speed
> might not be noticed until it's too late and the speed at the moment
> of impact would have an effect on the seriousness of the injury.
> Perhaps cyclists should be discouraged from riding at 30mph in city
> centres with parked cars nearby. That should not be taken as a
> criticism of such cyclists - they might feel that they are obeying
> the rules of the road and it isn't their fault when other road users
> are inconsiderate.

It would be interesting to know whether it is more the passengers that do
this, rather than the driver.

Normally, I put the child lock on on the door behind the driver, to stop the
passengers from opening it into traffic, be it cars or cyclists.

I know, from my own experience, about doors being opened in front of
cyclists - I have a permanent dent in one side of my collar-bone from it
happening around 50 years ago to me.

--
Iain

[M Wicks]

On Mar 20, 11:09 am, The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>
> I've seen that quite a lot, too. Perhaps a few of those old-style public
> information broadcasts would be useful, to warn people of the danger of
> flinging open a car door.

Yes, it would be great to see a whole host of new public information
broadcasts, warning people about the above, middle lane hogging,
eyesight requirements, cycling courteously, and everything in between.
But sadly the loonies have in many cases taken charge of (or at least
gained critical influence over) the asylum, and wish for everyone to
believe that the most important road safety message by far is "don't
speed".

All just to protect the children, and for no other reason, of course.

[Colin Reed]

You can't actually read, can you!

[Mentalguy2k8]

"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:aqr4mk...@mid.individual.net...

> I would never post to URCM because I would inevitably be regarded as a
> "new poster" and whatever I write would therefore, I suppose, be binned.
> For that reason I would never *read* URCM because I wouldn't want to be
> tempted to offer a reply to anyone's post.

So why did you vote against changing the URCM charter last month? If you
would never post to URCM or read URCM I fail to see why you felt the need to
vote to support a charter that you don't agree with in regard to a group you
never use.

[The Todal]

I didn't "vote to support a charter" nor for that matter did I vote to
support a moderation policy which I strongly feel is amateurish and foolish.

I voted against an amendment which in my opinion would not have
addressed the real criticisms of the moderation policy and would
probably have made matters worse, by naming and shaming those posters
who are arbitrarily "banned".

[Mentalguy2k8]

"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message

news:ar0lq5...@mid.individual.net...

But why would it matter to you either way?

[John Benn]

"Andy Leighton" <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote in message
news:slrnkkjjij...@azaal.plus.com...

Please can you discuss this in a cycling newsgroup.