Re: "Footage of car collision released "
Doug
> Doug <jag...@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>
>
> > On 17 Nov, 21:17, "Steve Walker" <spam-t...@beeb.net> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >> > On 15 Nov, 08:28, "Ian" <i...@henden.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> Doug's sole point in life is to screw up any newsgroup that has
> >> >> posters willing to rise to his bait. He has trolled uk.rec.cycling
> >> >> to the extent that the sensible members went away and formed their
> >> >> own moderated group, now there is no-one left on u.r.c to talk to
> >> >> him, he is trying his hand here.
>
> >> > On the contrary, in uk.transport I was inundated with responses which
> >> > finally ended up as cyberbullying and Usenet abuse by them. I was
> >> > then followed by a few when I migrated to URC and UL. It is a fact
> >> > that if anyone consistently criticises drivers on any newsgroups this
> >> > sort of thing can happen, due to the sheer proliferation of drivers
> >> > throughout society.
>
> >> You'd be more welcome here if you stopped the rote posting of anti-car
> >> & pro-bunnyhugger stories. Even Guardian-reading lefties like me find
> >> you tedious and irritating at present.
>
> > What a shame!
>
> >> > I don't see why I should allow myself to be censored by a mob.
>
> >> You have right to free speech, but they don't? Interesting....
>
> > Mobs prevent free speech. It would be interesting to see how a pro-
> > cyclist/anti-motorist would fare on a motoring newsgroup. I wonder who
> > would dare?
>
> If they were prepared to actually discuss things in an intelligent and
> adult way, they would be a welcome addition, I suspect.
>
Except that they would be met with the usual shower of personal abuse
and "Riding on pavements, going through red lights, ignoring the law,
etc" stuff.
>
> Mind you, since you describe them as "anti-motorist", yet happy to come
> into a car group, I suspect their sole reason would be to troll.
>
Or put the cyclists POV.
>
> Still - since you seem to believe that "pro-cyclist" and "anti-motorist"
> are completely inseparable, it's no wonder that you fail to comprehend
> that the vast vast vast majority of people who use bikes also use cars.
> Different courses, different horses.
>
And therein lies the problem. We live in a motorist dominated world
that infests almost every avenue of society and where cyclists tend to
get a raw deal as a consequence. You have virtually admitted that
cycling newsgroups have many motorist contributors, who inevitably
must have a motorist's mindset, which quite often involves an
antipathy towards cyclists.
--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
Tony Dragon
You have read it here,
Doug thinks so little of his fellow cyclists that he believes they can
not think for them selves.
Cyclists who are also motorists (but I hope not at the same time) are
not allowed to have a POV that does not agree with Dougs.
If you read his post you will know that as a cyclist who is also a
motorist you hate yourselves.
--
Tony Dragon
Adrian
saying:
>> Still - since you seem to believe that "pro-cyclist" and
>> "anti-motorist" are completely inseparable, it's no wonder that you
>> fail to comprehend that the vast vast vast majority of people who use
>> bikes also use cars. Different courses, different horses.
> And therein lies the problem.
Correct. Therein lies the problem indeed...
> We live in a motorist dominated world that infests almost every avenue
> of society and where cyclists tend to get a raw deal as a consequence.
...but I don't think the problem is what you think it is...
> You have virtually admitted that cycling newsgroups have many motorist
> contributors
Why is it that somebody who uses a bike occasionally can't possibly be a
cyclist, whilst somebody who uses a car occasionally can only be a
motorist?
> who inevitably must have a motorist's mindset, which quite often
> involves an antipathy towards cyclists.
So somebody who cycles, posting about cycling, in a cycling newsgroup,
has an "antipathy towards cyclist", because they also sometimes use a
car? Interesting...
Paul - xxx
> You have virtually admitted that
> cycling newsgroups have many motorist contributors, who inevitably
> must have a motorist's mindset, which quite often involves an
> antipathy towards cyclists.
What about those of us, cyclists, who use cars in the pursuit of
cycling?
I have used my 4x4 to help set up mountain bike races and other
'events'. Without it and it's ability to tow large loads across
country/farm/forest tracks these events wouldn't (probably) go ahead as
easily as they do.
What about those of us cyclists that use cars when cycling simply isn't
possible?
What about those car drivers who use cycles when driving simply isn't
possible?
What about those drivers and cyclists who don't use either form of
transport and 'become' pedestrians?
You have a strange idea that a cyclist can't be a driver and that a
driver can't be a cyclist and yet so many of us use cars and bikes, as
well as other modes of transport, every day.
I honestly can't say I personally know anyone who is 'only' a cyclist,
or 'only' a driver, or indeed who fits your pattern of vehicular use or
mindset.
--
Paul - xxx
'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp
Doug
newsgroups in order to criticise cyclists.
--
London Carfree
http://www.london.carfree.org.uk/
1.5 million adults in London live without a car.
oldMaxim
> 1.5 million adults in London live without a car.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
....still not accepting the simple fact that a lot of folk own and use
more than one form of transport then Doug?
Tony Dragon
Would you care to name names?
--
Tony Dragon
JNugent
> Doug wrote:
[ ... ]
[in response to:]
>>> I honestly can't say I personally know anyone who is 'only' a cyclist,
>>> or 'only' a driver, or indeed who fits your pattern of vehicular use or
>>> mindset.
>> What this is really about is motorists who pose as cyclists on cycling
>> newsgroups in order to criticise cyclists.
> Would you care to name names?
And why would it be necessary to "pose" anyway?
There is nothing to stop a non-cyclist from posting in ukrc (even for the
sole purpose of criticising poor behaviour by cyclists), any more than there
is anything to stop a non-driver from posting on uk.rec.driving. Assuming
he/she posts in a reasonable manner and follows basic netiquette, that is;
obviously, ISPs might withdraw service from individuals who commit
significant acts of abuse.
Paul - xxx
Only in your mind .. unless you can prove otherwise ...
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > On 18 Nov, 10:23, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I honestly can't say I personally know anyone who is 'only' a
> > > cyclist, or 'only' a driver, or indeed who fits your pattern of
> > > vehicular use or mindset.
>
> > What this is really about is motorists who pose as cyclists on cycling
> > newsgroups in order to criticise cyclists.
>
> Only in your mind .. unless you can prove otherwise ...
>
the pursuit of cycling'. Statistically a majority of adults use cars.
So why not a similar majority posting to this NG?
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
Doug
> Tony Dragon wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> [in response to:]
>
> >>> I honestly can't say I personally know anyone who is 'only' a cyclist,
> >>> or 'only' a driver, or indeed who fits your pattern of vehicular use or
> >>> mindset.
> >> What this is really about is motorists who pose as cyclists on cycling
> >> newsgroups in order to criticise cyclists.
> > Would you care to name names?
>
> And why would it be necessary to "pose" anyway?
>
>
> There is nothing to stop a non-cyclist from posting in ukrc (even for the
> sole purpose of criticising poor behaviour by cyclists), any more than there
> is anything to stop a non-driver from posting on uk.rec.driving. Assuming
> he/she posts in a reasonable manner and follows basic netiquette, that is;
> obviously, ISPs might withdraw service from individuals who commit
> significant acts of abuse.
>
NG, merely that they should be honest about it when they do so and
admit their anti-cyclist/pro-motorist agenda, instead of trying to
pose as a dedicated cyclist when criticising cyclists.
Tony Dragon
Tell me Doug, why if somebody owns a car, can they not be a cyclist?
Tell me Doug, why can't a cyclist criticise another cyclist?
Tell me Doug, if I use PT more than my car, does that make me not a
;real motorist'?
--
Tony Dragon
Norman Wells
> I am not suggesting that they should be stopped from posting to this
> NG, merely that they should be honest about it when they do so and
> admit their anti-cyclist/pro-motorist agenda, instead of trying to
> pose as a dedicated cyclist when criticising cyclists.
To avoid a well-founded accusation of hypocrisy, Doug, how about you going
first?
Be honest and admit which of the following you support when carried out in
the name of animal rights:
death threats
mail bombs
bricks through windows
hitting people on the head with baseball bats
intimidation
arson
paint stripper on cars
poisoning food on supermarket shelves
blackmail, and
digging up dead grannies
instead of trying to pose as a peaceful, lovable old bunnyhugger.
Paul - xxx
> On 19 Nov, 10:11, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 18 Nov, 10:23, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I honestly can't say I personally know anyone who is 'only' a
> > > > cyclist, or 'only' a driver, or indeed who fits your pattern of
> > > > vehicular use or mindset.
> >
> > > What this is really about is motorists who pose as cyclists on
> > > cycling newsgroups in order to criticise cyclists.
> >
> > Only in your mind .. unless you can prove otherwise ...
> >
> You have already admitted in this thread that 'cyclists use cars in
> the pursuit of cycling'. Statistically a majority of adults use cars.
> So why not a similar majority posting to this NG?
So why can't a cyclist use a car?
Why can't a driver also be a cyclist?
Adrian
like they were saying:
> So why can't a cyclist use a car?
>
> Why can't a driver also be a cyclist?
Because it'd be really rather tricky to balance and pedal whilst reaching
through the car window for the steering wheel.
One person can - easily - be a driver, a cyclist, a pedestrian, a bus/
train passenger and lots of other things. Just not simultaneously. It's
just when you try to do more than one simultaneously that it gets a bit
difficult.
Somebody on a bike is a cyclist.
Somebody behind the wheel of a car is a driver.
If they get out of the car and walk to the bike, they're a pedestrian.
francis
> "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much
But according to Doug, if you use a car you can never be a cyclist.
Francis
francis
>
> - Show quoted text -
When will you get it into your head that people use different forms of
transport at different times for different reasons.
You are accusing the cyclists here of not being cyclists because they
have spoken out against they way that some cyclists act.
If anything such comments are more relevant coming from a cyclist than
from a motorist.
Francis
Adrian
they were saying:
>> > So why can't a cyclist use a car?
>> >
>> > Why can't a driver also be a cyclist?
>> Because it'd be really rather tricky to balance and pedal whilst
>> reaching through the car window for the steering wheel.
>>
>> One person can - easily - be a driver, a cyclist, a pedestrian, a bus/
>> train passenger and lots of other things. Just not simultaneously. It's
>> just when you try to do more than one simultaneously that it gets a bit
>> difficult.
>>
>> Somebody on a bike is a cyclist.
>> Somebody behind the wheel of a car is a driver. If they get out of the
>> car and walk to the bike, they're a pedestrian.
> But according to Doug, if you use a car you can never be a cyclist.
Which merely reinforces my argument, ityf.
Adrian
they were saying:
>> I am not suggesting that they should be stopped from posting to this
>> NG, merely that they should be honest about it when they do so and
>> admit their anti-cyclist/pro-motorist agenda, instead of trying to pose
>> as a dedicated cyclist when criticising cyclists.
> You are accusing the cyclists here of not being cyclists because they
> have spoken out against they way that some cyclists act.
Umm, why is it relevant whether somebody is a cyclist, motorist or both
when they post here...?
d...@telent.net
FVO "here" being "uk.rec.cycling", and assuming the topic of discussion
to be cycling- or motoring-related, it's often strongly correlated with
whether they know what the fuck they're talking about.
Can't speak for the uk.legal viewers, or course
-dan
Adrian
>>>> I am not suggesting that they should be stopped from posting to this
>>>> NG, merely that they should be honest about it when they do so and
>>>> admit their anti-cyclist/pro-motorist agenda, instead of trying to
>>>> pose as a dedicated cyclist when criticising cyclists.
>>> You are accusing the cyclists here of not being cyclists because they
>>> have spoken out against they way that some cyclists act.
>> Umm, why is it relevant whether somebody is a cyclist, motorist or both
>> when they post here...?
> FVO "here" being "uk.rec.cycling"
<fx: looks around> Which, of course, it isn't. You'd have thought Duhg'd
know that, of course, since he started this thread - and several others
cross-posted to both uk.rec.cycling and uk.legal.
<checks back>
In fact, it appears that he started this thread in uk.legal ONLY, and
it's been cross-posted somewhere down the line...
> Can't speak for the uk.legal viewers, or course
Duhg seems quite happy to try.
JNugent
*Who* does what you describe?
It strikes me that everyone I've ever read here who has mentioned a choice of
vehicle mode has been pretty honest about their choices.
Doug
cyclists.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Paul - xxx
> > Who does what you describe?
> >
> > It strikes me that everyone I've ever read here who has mentioned a
> > choice of vehicle mode has been pretty honest about their choices.
> >
> No, most motorists here would have us believe that they are also keen
> cyclists.
Which motorists aren't keen cyclists then? With such a claim you
obviously have good evidence and can prove what you say ...
Oh, sorry .. you're so vague with your accusations you probably can't
actually prove them ..
Doug
weren't keen cyclists they would have little credibility on the
subject.
Paul - xxx
In my case because I'm not just a motorist or just a cyclist, and I
have interests in both. I can't speak for others.
> If they weren't keen cyclists they would have little credibility on
the subject.
?
A motorist can have a pertinent view of cycling sufficient for it to be
worth posting to a cycling newsgroup. Or are you suggesting that ONLY
cyclists who aren't also motorists can post to urc?
Tony Dragon
There would not be many posts in that case would there?
--
Tony Dragon
Tony Dragon
Is there any reason that a motorist can not be a keen cyclist?
--
Tony Dragon
Adrian
saying:
> Why else would a motorist be posting to a cycling newsgroup?
This.
Isn't.
A.
Cycling.
Newsgroup.
You really ought to know that, since you started the thread here and here
alone.
JNugent
I don't think that everyone here has said that.
You're making it up (or imagining it).
Doug
Norman Wells
>> A motorist can have a pertinent view of cycling sufficient for it to
>> be worth posting to a cycling newsgroup. Or are you suggesting that
>> ONLY cyclists who aren't also motorists can post to urc?
>>
> No I am suggesting they should be more honest about their agenda.
But why are you never honest about yours, Doug? Why will you never say
which of the following you support or disown, approve or disapprove, in
connection with animal rights:
death threats
mail bombs
bricks through windows
hitting people on the head with baseball bats
intimidation
arson
paint stripper on cars
poisoning food on supermarket shelves
blackmail, and
digging up dead grannies?
Paul - xxx
But I don't have 'an agenda'. I post when I feel I have something
pertinent to say or something to add. That may be a view against a
cyclist or it may be a view against a motorist .. I really don't care
whether anyone is a motorist or a cyclist, they can all have pertinent
views for and against anyone else, that's what argument and debate is
about, and not all cyclists agree with all others ...
There isn't always a simple black versus white, motorist versus
cyclist, argument ... especially on some of the 'accident report style.
posts you copy here .. there are almost always opposing views as to
what happened and just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't
mean they are, per se, a motorist, or indeed a cyclist.
As I said, some people are both cyclist and motorist and can change
their views to see two sides of a story.
You appear to be somewhat paranoid.
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > On 21 Nov, 08:58, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > A motorist can have a pertinent view of cycling sufficient for it
> > > to be worth posting to a cycling newsgroup. Or are you suggesting
> > > that ONLY cyclists who aren't also motorists can post to urc?
>
> > No I am suggesting they should be more honest about their agenda.
>
> But I don't have 'an agenda'. I post when I feel I have something
> pertinent to say or something to add. That may be a view against a
> cyclist or it may be a view against a motorist .. I really don't care
> whether anyone is a motorist or a cyclist, they can all have pertinent
> views for and against anyone else, that's what argument and debate is
> about, and not all cyclists agree with all others ...
>
only present objective viewpoints, which is obviously untrue of
virtually everyone. Judging by your posts you have a bias in favour of
motorists and against cyclists, like many on this NG.
>
> There isn't always a simple black versus white, motorist versus
> cyclist, argument ... especially on some of the 'accident report style.
> posts you copy here .. there are almost always opposing views as to
> what happened and just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't
> mean they are, per se, a motorist, or indeed a cyclist.
>
> As I said, some people are both cyclist and motorist and can change
> their views to see two sides of a story.
>
story where personal preferences dominate.
>
> You appear to be somewhat paranoid.
>
unsafe public roads which have been allowed to become prioritised in
favour of very fast through traffic.
Tony Dragon
> On 22 Nov, 11:12, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 21 Nov, 08:58, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> A motorist can have a pertinent view of cycling sufficient for it
>>>> to be worth posting to a cycling newsgroup. Or are you suggesting
>>>> that ONLY cyclists who aren't also motorists can post to urc?
>>> No I am suggesting they should be more honest about their agenda.
>> But I don't have 'an agenda'. I post when I feel I have something
>> pertinent to say or something to add. That may be a view against a
>> cyclist or it may be a view against a motorist .. I really don't care
>> whether anyone is a motorist or a cyclist, they can all have pertinent
>> views for and against anyone else, that's what argument and debate is
>> about, and not all cyclists agree with all others ...
>>
> What you seem to be trying to say is that you are totally unbiased and
> only present objective viewpoints, which is obviously untrue of
> virtually everyone.
In your opinion.
Judging by your posts you have a bias in favour of
> motorists and against cyclists,
In your opinion.
? like many on this NG.
In your opinion.
>> There isn't always a simple black versus white, motorist versus
>> cyclist, argument ... especially on some of the 'accident report style.
>> posts you copy here .. there are almost always opposing views as to
>> what happened and just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't
>> mean they are, per se, a motorist, or indeed a cyclist.
>>
>> As I said, some people are both cyclist and motorist and can change
>> their views to see two sides of a story.
>>
> In theory perhaps but in practice I maintain it is a very different
> story where personal preferences dominate.
In your opinion.
>> You appear to be somewhat paranoid.
>>
> If I am it is due to routinely risking my life on our inherently
> unsafe public roads which have been allowed to become prioritised in
> favour of very fast through traffic.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
In your opinion.
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > On 22 Nov, 11:12, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 21 Nov, 08:58, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> A motorist can have a pertinent view of cycling sufficient for it
> >>>> to be worth posting to a cycling newsgroup. Or are you suggesting
> >>>> that ONLY cyclists who aren't also motorists can post to urc?
> >>> No I am suggesting they should be more honest about their agenda.
> >> But I don't have 'an agenda'. I post when I feel I have something
> >> pertinent to say or something to add. That may be a view against a
> >> cyclist or it may be a view against a motorist .. I really don't care
> >> whether anyone is a motorist or a cyclist, they can all have pertinent
> >> views for and against anyone else, that's what argument and debate is
> >> about, and not all cyclists agree with all others ...
>
> > What you seem to be trying to say is that you are totally unbiased and
> > only present objective viewpoints, which is obviously untrue of
> > virtually everyone.
>
> In your opinion.
>
>
> Judging by your posts you have a bias in favour of
>
> > motorists and against cyclists,
>
> In your opinion.
>
>
> ? like many on this NG.
>
> In your opinion.
>
>
> >> There isn't always a simple black versus white, motorist versus
> >> cyclist, argument ... especially on some of the 'accident report style.
> >> posts you copy here .. there are almost always opposing views as to
> >> what happened and just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't
> >> mean they are, per se, a motorist, or indeed a cyclist.
>
> >> As I said, some people are both cyclist and motorist and can change
> >> their views to see two sides of a story.
>
> > In theory perhaps but in practice I maintain it is a very different
> > story where personal preferences dominate.
>
> In your opinion.
>
>
> >> You appear to be somewhat paranoid.
>
> > If I am it is due to routinely risking my life on our inherently
> > unsafe public roads which have been allowed to become prioritised in
> > favour of very fast through traffic.
>
>
>
Naturally. Though it should be self evident.