I Hate Motorists
Phil Wanker Lee
we do is help each other out by chiming in with generalised insults and
other distracting, obfuscating crap whenever anyone makes anti-motorist
measures look stupid, wins an argument with a car-hater (i.e. "has an
argument with a car-hater"), or otherwise talks sense on road safety.
We've also now got a new newsgroup, uk.rec.cycling.censored, where we
can stop such adverse comments from appearing in the first place,
thereby allowing us to pretend even more that the world is how we want
it to be.
If we pretend hard enough, who knows, maybe speed cameras really will
start saving lives, and then the motorist scum will just have to put up
with them, and of course motorists suffering can only be a good thing
(for some reason which is never actually explained, because we're too
cowardly to even admit to hating motorists in the first place).
--
"Staying below the speed limit is unquestionably the most important
safety factor when driving" - Phil Wanker Lee
mileburner
"Phil Wanker Lee" <guy.c...@hates.motorists> wrote in message
news:MPG.256bb133f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> And so do my fellow fuckwits Chapman, Spindrift, mileburner,
<blush>
I am honoured by your desire to seek my attention.
Keitht
> And so do my fellow fuckwits Chapman, Spindrift, mileburner, etc. What
> we do is help each other out by chiming in with generalised insults and
> other distracting, obfuscating crap whenever anyone makes anti-motorist
> measures look stupid, wins an argument with a car-hater (i.e. "has an
> argument with a car-hater"), or otherwise talks sense on road safety.
> We've also now got a new newsgroup, uk.rec.cycling.censored, where we
> can stop such adverse comments from appearing in the first place,
> thereby allowing us to pretend even more that the world is how we want
> it to be.
>
> If we pretend hard enough, who knows, maybe speed cameras really will
> start saving lives, and then the motorist scum will just have to put up
> with them, and of course motorists suffering can only be a good thing
> (for some reason which is never actually explained, because we're too
> cowardly to even admit to hating motorists in the first place).
>
jms
Your sock is now getting so thin it needs darning - and one of the
buttons used for eyes has fallen off.
--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
Keitht
Yet, just the other week, I had my own stalker.
Must try harder.
Judith M Smith
Yawn.
--
British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:
Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents
Phil Wanker Lee
Wow. I know the car-haters aren't exactly renowned for their
intelligence or rationality. I do know that. It's hard not to when
you've been subjected to as much of their crap as I have. But all the
same, it *still* surprises me again and again just how *incredibly*
fucking thick TeethKey is. Just when you think you've finally plumbed
the depths of where his IQ is, he shows that it's at least another 10
points lower. Simply astonishing. (Here's a clue, you fucking idiotic
moron: HOW OFTEN DOES JUDITH TALK ABOUT CAR-HATERS?)
It's been said before that all you need to do to determine whether speed
cameras work is to look at the sorts of people who advocate cameras.
Chapman and Spindrift are the two who immediately spring to mind: not a
single speed camera opponent is even 1% as much of a lying, twisted,
scheming, callous piece of shit as either of those two complete
bastards. But Keitht is another good example: there isn't anyone who is
*anywhere near* as stupid as him on the anti-camera side. Yet it's a
different story when it comes to camera advocates: many of them are
almost offensively thick, deciding that just because "Stick to the speed
limit and everything will be fine" is simple enough for their pathetic
little brains to comprehend, that must be how it actually is, and no-one
had better dare claim otherwise ("RTTM? 85th percentile? I don't
understand them so they're obviously not important.")
Lying, car-hating cnuts who know cameras are killing people (e.g.
Chapman, Spindrift), thick cretins who want everything to be as simple
as they are (e.g. Keitht), callous shits who are benefitting financially
from cameras and care more about that than about the carnage that
they're causing, and those who aren't aware of all the facts about
cameras: those groups of people make up at least 99% of all camera
supporters. Rational, decent, honest, sane people who know the facts
and don't have any vested interests or axes to grind are *extremely*
rarely out-and-out speed camera supporters: I wonder why?
mileburner
"Phil Wanker Lee" <guy.c...@hates.motorists> wrote in message
"Stick to the speed
> limit and everything will be fine"
Correction, stay within the speed limit, slow down and take more care.
Rational, decent, honest, sane people who know the facts
> and don't have any vested interests or axes to grind are *extremely*
> rarely out-and-out speed camera supporters: I wonder why?
Because they only see things from a drivers point of view.
HTH
Louis Genou
> In article <Y5idnZrJiK1x75_WnZ2dnUVZ8nRi4...@bt.com>, Keitht says...
> I wonder why?
Because you're a thick bastard made of piss, Mr. Cuthbertson.
--
Louis Genoux
Five foot one and conqueror of Italy
JNugent
> "Phil Wanker Lee" <guy.c...@hates.motorists> wrote:
> "Stick to the speed limit and everything will be fine"
> Correction, stay within the speed limit, slow down and take more care.
>> Rational, decent, honest, sane people who know the facts
>> and don't have any vested interests or axes to grind are *extremely*
>> rarely out-and-out speed camera supporters: I wonder why?
> Because they only see things from a drivers point of view.
Is that the only rational, sane and honest way to look at things, or did you
mean something different?
Keitht
> same, it *still* surprises me again and again just how *incredibly*
Well then, a load of unsubstantiated bollocks with a rather wild claim
about my views on cameras.
I can only assume that whoever this twat is who has assumed one of jms'
chosen names regarding onanism has never actually read anything I've
even commented on about cameras.
To call me 'thick' is choice from something matching a neutron star in
density.
mileburner
"JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message
news:atmdneDbVZH_ipjW...@pipex.net...
They are only "rational, decent, honest and sane" people from a drivers
point of view. Otherwise, if they were really all those things they would
support speed cameras.
The ones who oppose speed cameras are drivers who habitually break the speed
limits, which lets face it is the majority of drivers. Those who don't
drive, (or don't break speed limits) tend to think they are a good idea.
Those who have found that they increase safety (due to reducing traffic
speed) tend to support them. For obvious reasons, cyclists tend to like
them. There is only one near me, if I am driving past it no one tailgates,
if I cycle past it no one overtakes. It has turned an accident blackspot
into a safer road to use.
I like them :-)
JNugent
Let's just have a closer look at that ... your point is that the majority of
drivers (who in turn are a majority of the adult population) oppose speed
cameras because they habitually break speed limits. OK, let's take that at
face value for the sake of argument.
Simply taking that at its face value (and discounting the views of that part
of the population which is composed of minors), what democratic reason is
there for supporting something that you say the majority is against?
mileburner
Lets take a closer look at that...
Supposing what you say is correct: that the majority of people are against
speed cameras (which I don't believe to be so but you are entitled to your
opinion) it does not make them right, it just makes them the majority.
In terms of democracy, it is like having two foxes and one chicken take a
vote on what they are going to have for dinner: it does not make it fair or
right.
You do not need a "democratic reason" to support something. Especially if it
is for the good of all. Speed cameras are for the good of all (apart from
freaks like Nuxxy).
I also strongly suspect that when poor driving habits are curbed, drivers
will become ultimately happier. But the process of curbing drivers poor
habits is always unpopular as they do not like having their poor driving
habits criticised. JNugent and his 12 inches (or 100mm depending on which
argument he is using at the time) is a prime example of that.
JNugent
I have expressed *no* opinion.
Please re-read and verify that.
I have merely recited *youir* argument and asked a question.
> it does not make them right, it just makes them the majority.
The majority gets to rule in a democracy. A system where the majority does
not rule is not fit to be called a democracy. Of course, that's not to say
that speed cameras are the biggest problem facing the population of Britain.
> In terms of democracy, it is like having two foxes and one chicken take a
> vote on what they are going to have for dinner: it does not make it fair or
> right.
> You do not need a "democratic reason" to support something. Especially if it
> is for the good of all. Speed cameras are for the good of all (apart from
> freaks like Nuxxy).
They may well be. It is still hard to see why the wishes of a majority should
be over-ruled.
> I also strongly suspect that when poor driving habits are curbed, drivers
> will become ultimately happier. But the process of curbing drivers poor
> habits is always unpopular as they do not like having their poor driving
> habits criticised. JNugent and his 12 inches (or 100mm depending on which
> argument he is using at the time) is a prime example of that.
Remind me of that context again.
I mean the *exact* context, together with a URL for your citation.
I shan't hold my breath waiting for it. I wouldn't advise anyone else to do
so either.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Supposing what you say is correct: that the majority of people are against
>speed cameras (which I don't believe to be so but you are entitled to your
>opinion) it does not make them right, it just makes them the majority.
The last survey I saw said that the majority support cameras.
It will of course depend on who commissions the survey and what
context is given. Remember the Scott Report? Vote Aye to stay in
power and incidentally exonerate the government even though this
report proves beyond doubt that they tried to send innocent men to
jail to cover up for a minister lying to Parliament, vote No and it's
a no-confidence vote and you're out of a job at the resultant
election.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc
GPG public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
mileburner
> I have expressed *no* opinion.
>
> Please re-read and verify that.
>
> I have merely recited *youir* argument and asked a question.
This is your problem isnt it? You try very hard to recite somone elses
argument (where no argument existed). And then you go on to ask questions
which you do not want to know the answer to (or just want to argue with the
answer).
> Remind me of that context again.
>
> I mean the *exact* context, together with a URL for your citation.
>
> I shan't hold my breath waiting for it. I wouldn't advise anyone else to
> do so either.
12 inches to overtake is really *not* enough to overtake anyone, least of
all a cyclist.
Are you back-pedalling now?
mileburner
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:lgpdg5hpb8mi29drr...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:48:58 -0000, "mileburner"
> <mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>Supposing what you say is correct: that the majority of people are against
>>speed cameras (which I don't believe to be so but you are entitled to your
>>opinion) it does not make them right, it just makes them the majority.
>
> The last survey I saw said that the majority support cameras.
That does not really come as any surprise.
Most people, (drivers or not) support measures to improve road safety. Speed
cameras undoubtedly improve road safety. At least that is on planet earth.
Things are obviously very different on planet Nuxxy/Nugent (12 inches to
pass a cyclist is enough).
Jeeeze!
mileburner
"mileburner" <mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:he6td6$qkm$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> I mean the *exact* context, together with a URL for your citation.
>
> 12 inches to overtake is really *not* enough to overtake anyone, least of
> all a cyclist.
I am not going to trawl the archives to prove what a knob you are when it
comes to driving, you do that perfectly well yourself.
JNugent
> "mileburner" <mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> I mean the *exact* context, together with a URL for your citation.
>> 12 inches to overtake is really *not* enough to overtake anyone, least of
>> all a cyclist.
> I am not going to trawl the archives to prove what a knob you are when it
> comes to driving, you do that perfectly well yourself.
What you mean is that you are lying, and don't want to admit it. Your main
problem is that if you had to stick to the truth, you'd have nothing to say.
JNugent
> "JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> I have expressed *no* opinion.
>> Please re-read and verify that.
>> I have merely recited *youir* argument and asked a question.
> This is your problem isnt it?
It doesn'rt feel like a problem to me. If you can't answer questions (or
daren't because doing so would undermine other things you've said), that
sounds like a problem for you.
> You try very hard to recite somone elses
> argument (where no argument existed). And then you go on to ask questions
> which you do not want to know the answer to (or just want to argue with the
> answer).
Still waiting for the answer...
>> Remind me of that context again.
>> I mean the *exact* context, together with a URL for your citation.
>> I shan't hold my breath waiting for it. I wouldn't advise anyone else to
>> do so either.
> 12 inches to overtake is really *not* enough to overtake anyone, least of
> all a cyclist.
It is certainly enough to pass a stationary car. Sometimes it has to be done.
Be careful what you wish for if you demand the same clearance as would be
given to a car. It isn't always as much as you'd like.
> Are you back-pedalling now?
No, that's you, that is. You don't dare to cite the non-existent source of
your lies because... well... because they're lies.
mileburner
> mileburner wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>
>>> I have expressed *no* opinion.
>>> Please re-read and verify that.
>>> I have merely recited *youir* argument and asked a question.
>
>> This is your problem isnt it?
>
> It doesn'rt feel like a problem to me. If you can't answer questions (or
> daren't because doing so would undermine other things you've said), that
> sounds like a problem for you.
It causes you to post other people opinions (or what you think other peoples
opinions are) and then try to argue with them. I'd say you have a problem.
You possibly do not recognise it due to your immaturity or senility.
>> You try very hard to recite somone elses argument (where no argument
>> existed). And then you go on to ask questions which you do not want to
>> know the answer to (or just want to argue with the answer).
>
> Still waiting for the answer...
You can wait all you like. I am not compelled to be drawn into you pathetic
little self-created arguments. You habitually create arguments where they do
not exist.
>>> Remind me of that context again.
>>> I mean the *exact* context, together with a URL for your citation.
>>> I shan't hold my breath waiting for it. I wouldn't advise anyone else to
>>> do so either.
>
>> 12 inches to overtake is really *not* enough to overtake anyone, least of
>> all a cyclist.
>
> It is certainly enough to pass a stationary car. Sometimes it has to be
> done. Be careful what you wish for if you demand the same clearance as
> would be given to a car. It isn't always as much as you'd like.
There you go again, telling the cyclists what they wish for. If you think 12
inches is enough you are a very very silly little boy/old man.
>> Are you back-pedalling now?
>
> No, that's you, that is. You don't dare to cite the non-existent source of
> your lies because... well... because they're lies.
12 inches is not enough, regardless of whether the car is stationary, in
fact if the car is stationary the door zone needs to be avoided. A car will
just bend the door backwards if it is opened suddenly in its path (I have
seen it). A cyclist will almost certainly suffer injury (I have seen it).
mileburner
There you go again, no opinion of your own. All you can do is post what
other posters mean.
JNugent
What on Earth *are* you wittering about?
JNugent
> "JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> mileburner wrote:
>>> "mileburner" <mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> I mean the *exact* context, together with a URL for your citation.
>>>> 12 inches to overtake is really *not* enough to overtake anyone, least
>>>> of all a cyclist.
>>> I am not going to trawl the archives to prove what a knob you are when it
>>> comes to driving, you do that perfectly well yourself.
>> What you mean is that you are lying, and don't want to admit it. Your main
>> problem is that if you had to stick to the truth, you'd have nothing to
>> say.
> There you go again, no opinion of your own. All you can do is post what
> other posters mean.
It's called enquiry or cross-examination.
Someone (you, for instance) says something which is inconsistent with other
things that person has said or with other ideas they've expressed. A series
of questions is asked which leads them into a corner where they either have
to hold to two contradictory positions or accept that (at least) one of them
is wrong. Sometimes they can see where things are going and refuse to answer
the questions. You aren't the only one who refuses to answer.
JNugent
>>> 12 inches to overtake is really *not* enough to overtake anyone, least of
>>> all a cyclist.
>> It is certainly enough to pass a stationary car. Sometimes it has to be
>> done. Be careful what you wish for if you demand the same clearance as
>> would be given to a car. It isn't always as much as you'd like.
> There you go again, telling the cyclists what they wish for.
I don't need to - the demand has been made many times: for "as much clearance
as you would give a car".
> If you think 12 inches is enough you are a very very silly little boy/old man.
It certainly isn't ideal; but in some sorts of conditions (eg, terraced
streets with vehicles parked down both sides, it's all you have available.
Not proceeding with limited clearance means not moving.
>>> Are you back-pedalling now?
>> No, that's you, that is. You don't dare to cite the non-existent source of
>> your lies because... well... because they're lies.
> 12 inches is not enough, regardless of whether the car is stationary, in
> fact if the car is stationary the door zone needs to be avoided. A car will
> just bend the door backwards if it is opened suddenly in its path (I have
> seen it). A cyclist will almost certainly suffer injury (I have seen it).
Nevertheless, there are situations where tht sort of distance is all that's
available. It doesn't actually present a difficulty as long as everyone is
careful. Being careful and considerate might be a problem for you though, to
judge from your odd reaction to everyday reality.
d...@telent.net
> >> If you think 12 inches is enough you are a very very silly little boy/old man.
> >
> > It certainly isn't ideal; but in some sorts of conditions (eg,
> > terraced streets with vehicles parked down both sides, it's all you
> > have available. Not proceeding with limited clearance means not
> > moving.
Sure, I've done it myself. But given that one almost never sees a
terraced street where the carriageway is encroached on by bicycles
parked both sides, it's not a particularly interesting example. So, in
what circumstances _would_ you overtake a cyclist with only 12 inches to
spare?
-dan
JNugent
Strawman strikes again, eh?
I have never said I would do that. I said that if you (and that includes you)
demand "as much room as a car gets", you must understand that sometimes that
is less than you actually want.
mileburner
>
> It's called enquiry or cross-examination.
>
> Someone (you, for instance) says something which is inconsistent with
> other things that person has said or with other ideas they've expressed. A
> series of questions is asked which leads them into a corner where they
> either have to hold to two contradictory positions or accept that (at
> least) one of them is wrong. Sometimes they can see where things are going
> and refuse to answer the questions. You aren't the only one who refuses to
> answer.
It's a bit like this:
http://tinyurl.com/q3982k
mileburner
It is also interesting to note that a throwaway remark made in response to
the resident troll Nuxxy (or whoever he is trying to be at the time) is then
used as a source of argument for our resident retard.
d...@telent.net
>> Sure, I've done it myself. But given that one almost never sees a
>> terraced street where the carriageway is encroached on by bicycles
>> parked both sides, it's not a particularly interesting example. So, in
>> what circumstances _would_ you overtake a cyclist with only 12 inches to
>> spare?
>
> Strawman strikes again, eh?
>
> I have never said I would do that.
I didn't actually ask whether you have *said* you would do that, I asked
in what circumstances you *would*. If you wouldn't, the answer is
"none" or "in no circumstances", and I would be happy to hear it.
> I said that if you (and that
> includes you) demand "as much room as a car gets", you must understand
> that sometimes that is less than you actually want.
I don't think I've ever "demanded" anything - no doubt if I have you'll
be able to provide references. But the context is Highway Code rule
163, which says "at least as much room", not "at most as much room", and
I expect that whatever "demands" are being made are with that in mind.
-dan
mileburner
<d...@telent.net> wrote in message news:87r5rr7...@lsip.4a.telent.net...
It's the Nugent twist. That is where Nugent says: you wanted something,
claimed something, suggested something, or made some other point (which you
didn't) and he then goes on to argue with it, expecting you to jump to the
defence. Of course, if you do not play his silly game you are *obviously*
the loser.
Loser, winner, we are in retard territory...
Judith M Smith
<mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
<snip>
>The ones who oppose speed cameras are drivers who habitually break the speed
>limits, which lets face it is the majority of drivers.
And your evidence for this is what please?
>For obvious reasons, cyclists tend to like
>them.
Not obvious to me - care to explain.
>There is only one near me, if I am driving past it no one tailgates,
>if I cycle past it no one overtakes.
Please can you explain why you think that "no one tailgates" and why
"no-one overtakes".
--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.
The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly vizible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
Judith M Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:48:58 -0000, "mileburner"
><mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>Supposing what you say is correct: that the majority of people are against
>>speed cameras (which I don't believe to be so but you are entitled to your
>>opinion) it does not make them right, it just makes them the majority.
>
>The last survey I saw said that the majority support cameras.
You will of course have a reference to that survey?
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> writes:
>>> Sure, I've done it myself. But given that one almost never sees a
>>> terraced street where the carriageway is encroached on by bicycles
>>> parked both sides, it's not a particularly interesting example. So, in
>>> what circumstances _would_ you overtake a cyclist with only 12 inches to
>>> spare?
>> Strawman strikes again, eh?
>> I have never said I would do that.
> I didn't actually ask whether you have *said* you would do that, I asked
> in what circumstances you *would*. If you wouldn't, the answer is
> "none" or "in no circumstances", and I would be happy to hear it.
Since the subject has never arisen, there is absolutely no need for me to
dignify your attempts at "argument" by responding to that piece of sheer
irrelevance.
>> I said that if you (and that
>> includes you) demand "as much room as a car gets", you must understand
>> that sometimes that is less than you actually want.
> I don't think I've ever "demanded" anything - no doubt if I have you'll
> be able to provide references. But the context is Highway Code rule
> 163, which says "at least as much room", not "at most as much room", and
> I expect that whatever "demands" are being made are with that in mind.
Which bit of "if" was too difficult for you?
Dear me... it was easy to see that mileburner was getting desperate for a
contrived argument, but I didn't think you were as badly off as he is.
JNugent
Neither of you seem to understand the use of the conditional. Look up the
word "if" in a dictionary, eh?
Easier still, just click here...
<http://www.usingenglish.com/articles/english-conditionals-first-conditional.html>
mileburner
"Judith M Smith" <judith...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ukmgg5172ors2d65t...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:18:05 -0000, "mileburner"
> <mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>The ones who oppose speed cameras are drivers who habitually break the
>>speed
>>limits, which lets face it is the majority of drivers.
>
> And your evidence for this is what please?
There has been plenty pointed out on here from drivers who don't break speed
limits who are not bothered by speed cameras. It stands to reason that if a
driver does not break speed limits, they will not be bothered by them. The
only people who appear to be bothered by them are those who break the speed
limits. Speed cameras exist to help ensure drivers drive within the legal
limit. The only peoples behaviour that speed cameras curb are drivers who
habitually speed.
>>For obvious reasons, cyclists tend to like
>>them.
>
> Not obvious to me - care to explain.
Sure. They reduce the traffic speed to a more acceptable level making things
safer.
>>There is only one near me, if I am driving past it no one tailgates,
>>if I cycle past it no one overtakes.
>
> Please can you explain why you think that "no one tailgates" and why
> "no-one overtakes".
Sure, speed cameras (like a cop car at the side of the road) make drivers
instinctively behave better, slow down and take more care.
JNugent
> "Judith M Smith" <judith...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> "mileburner" <mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> The ones who oppose speed cameras are drivers who habitually break the
>>> speed limits, which lets face it is the majority of drivers.
>> And your evidence for this is what please?
> There has been plenty pointed out on here from drivers who don't break speed
> limits who are not bothered by speed cameras. It stands to reason that if a
> driver does not break speed limits, they will not be bothered by them. The
> only people who appear to be bothered by them are those who break the speed
> limits. Speed cameras exist to help ensure drivers drive within the legal
> limit. The only peoples behaviour that speed cameras curb are drivers who
> habitually speed.
Quote: "It stands to reason that if a driver does not break speed limits,
they will not be bothered by them".
That is simply untrue and completely unsupportable.
As a direct analogue, and whilst I don't agree with them, I accept that many
of those who would oppose the reintroduction of adequate punishment for the
ultimate crime of murder do so on conscientious grounds and out of a sense of
moral obligation. It is absolutely not because they fear that they are going
to suffer the death penalty for themselves. They are literally concerned on
behalf of others.
And so it is with any disproportionate punishment or enforcement efforts. I
can't remember the stats offhand, but I understand that automated speed
enforcement has meant that some hitherto impossibly large number of drivers
currently have endorsements on their licences - a million, maybe more. It's
of that order. I have no doubt that you are not among them (and I certainly
am not), but you don't have to be one of "the million" (or whatever the
figure actually is) to have a feeling that something is wrong here. Something
done so routinely and so instinctively by so many (probably, as often
remarked, a majority) simply cannot be treated as a heinous offence which is
worth so much oppressive effort. It isn't logical.
>>> For obvious reasons, cyclists tend to like them.
>> Not obvious to me - care to explain.
> Sure. They reduce the traffic speed to a more acceptable level making things
> safer.
<shrug>
Clearly, there are some people - albeit a tiny minority - about who are *so*
self-centred that they think (if that's not too strong a word) that the world
should be run for their benefit and that the interests of majorities are
meaningless.
>>> There is only one near me, if I am driving past it no one tailgates,
>>> if I cycle past it no one overtakes.
>> Please can you explain why you think that "no one tailgates" and why
>> "no-one overtakes".
> Sure, speed cameras (like a cop car at the side of the road) make drivers
> instinctively behave better, slow down and take more care.
If that were true, there wouldn't be so many automated "offences" detected
and so many fines and licence endorsements issued.
I've never been convinced of the "revenue raising" argument, believing
instead that the road safety lobby does (or originally did) actually have
some sort of justifiable concerns within its core beliefs, even if it has now
gone OTT and out of control. But sometimes one wonders whether the revenue
arguments are in fact justified, though clearly not the only factor at work.
Eleanor Blair
>
>I don't need to - the demand has been made many times: for "as much clearance
>as you would give a car".
>
>terraced streets with vehicles parked down both sides, it's all you
>have available. Not proceeding with limited clearance means not
>moving.
The highway code is talking about *overtaking*. Yes, there will be
instances where you're in a narrow street and in order for you and a
cyclist to pass in opposite directions you'll have to be quite close
together, and that's fair enough provided you both take it slowly and
carefully and considerately. But if you're in a situation where you'd
have to leave that little gap in order to *overtake* then you should
wait until there's more room, or until the bike finds somewhere to pull
over and let you past - just as you would if trying to overtake a car in
a narrow road.
JNugent
Make no mistake - there are occasions when two vehicles passing each other in
opposite directions cannot get as much as a foot clear on each side and
between them.
Mileburner seems never to have encountered such real life situations; no
wonder he thinks that a car on the road anywhere in the same county as him is
a "threat".
mileburner
> Eleanor Blair wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> I don't need to - the demand has been made many times: for "as much
>>> clearance as you would give a car".
>>>
>>> [12 inches] certainly isn't ideal; but in some sorts of conditions (eg,
>>> terraced streets with vehicles parked down both sides, it's all you
>>> have available. Not proceeding with limited clearance means not
>>> moving.
>>
>> The highway code is talking about *overtaking*. Yes, there will be
>> instances where you're in a narrow street and in order for you and a
>> cyclist to pass in opposite directions you'll have to be quite close
>> together, and that's fair enough provided you both take it slowly and
>> carefully and considerately. But if you're in a situation where you'd
>> have to leave that little gap in order to *overtake* then you should
>> wait until there's more room, or until the bike finds somewhere to pull
>> over and let you past - just as you would if trying to overtake a car in
>> a narrow road.
>
> Make no mistake - there are occasions when two vehicles passing each other
> in opposite directions cannot get as much as a foot clear on each side and
> between them.
Indeed, and there are occasions where the is so little space that one
vehicle needs to give way to the other before passing a narrow point or one
vehicle will need to reverse to a wider point before they can pass. If one
of those vehicles is a bicycle, it does not make the road any wider.
> Mileburner seems never to have encountered such real life situations; no
> wonder he thinks that a car on the road anywhere in the same county as him
> is a "threat".
I encounter these "real life" situations regularly due to the amount of
single track rural roads I use. If there are two vehicles approaching each
other, both must work it out by either using the verge, a passing point, or
reversing, but always with care. If it happens to be a car and a bike the
same care is needed. Although it astounds me the number of drivers who seem
to think that heading at a cyclists at 60mph is OK as the cyclist will just
get out of the way allowing the driver to pass with little more than <ahem>
12 inches.
However, the point was *overtaking* with 12 inches which is another matter.
On many of these single track roads if you ride on the edge cars will pass
with a mere 12 inches to spare. One wobble and you could be under the wheels
of something going in excess of 60mph. Which is why I tend to ride toward
the centre of the road and if a car comes up behind I will pull over and
wave them past, that is after they have slowed down to an acceptable passing
speed.
You raise a good point though and that is if a car is in the same county
they are potentially a threat, but you are (yet again) trying to post *other
peoples* opinions rather than your own. Presumably so that you can argue
with them, and retain the title of King of the Retards :-)
mileburner
>
> Neither of you seem to understand the use of the conditional. Look up the
> word "if" in a dictionary, eh?
Sounds to me like you are trying to create an argument...
mileburner
> Quote: "It stands to reason that if a driver does not break speed limits,
> they will not be bothered by them".
>
> That is simply untrue and completely unsupportable.
Sounds to me like you are (yet again) trying to create an argument...
cellurl
mileburner
"cellurl" <gpsc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f33b684-52da-4ea4...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
I was just wondering James, what the long term outcome would be of entering
the limit which we feel is *appropriate* rather than what is on the actual
sign.
Could we perhaps see whole towns becoming 20mph zones where currently they
as high speed rat-runs.
Hmmm...