OT Banning of JMS - rejected posts
JMS
There has been some discussion of my banning in respect to the current
RFD. Here is some clarification.
I believe I made a total of 54 posts to URCM
36 of those were accepted and published.
18 of those were rejected.
Here are the rejected posts - as you can see they are outrageous in
the extreme
***************************************************************************
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 09:35:28 +0100, "OG" <ow...@gwynnefamily.org.uk>
wrote:
>
>"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:1ou*IB...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>> In article <82io6t...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>Well, yes. Which is why we as cyclists need to educate others who cycle
>>>on the pavement or jump red lights. They endanger us.
>>
>> I don't agree with this. I don't think it's right to criticise (and
>> call for the intervention of the law against, etc.) an
>> otherwise-harmless act just because it "gives us a bad name".
>>
>
>Except that it normalises behaviour that is all too often intrusive,
>antisocial and threatening to vulnerable pavement users.
>
I agree strongly.
***************************************************************************
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:49:17 +0100, "Simon Mason"
<si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Story of a newly installed cycle lane in Poole that would, on the face of
>it, "allow" cyclists to adopt the primary position up a steep hill and force
>drivers to use the other lane to overtake. I would love such a lane around
>here as you could say to any impatient drivers behind you "don't blame me,
>blame the council".
>
>
>http://qurl.com/pzh9l
If you are riding in the middle of the cycle lane - you would not be
"forcing" other drivers to use the other lane as the cycle lane is
advisory.
I think that perhaps this attitude of "forcing" drivers of vehicles
to do what you want gives cyclists as a whole a bad reputation.
Better to just do it and ride safely without an "up yours" attitude -
which may be how "forcing" is interpreted.
***************************************************************************
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:08:02 +0100, Ian Jackson
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <4veos5d0te3mcqaqg...@4ax.com>,
>JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>I have spoken to the man at my local bike shop.
>...
>>But - he says that he has been advised previously when the legality
>>of Dutch bikes has come up, that they are *not* illegal to use in this
>>country. Any bike he sells has to conform to the relevant standards;
>>but a Dutch bike which is here does not have to be modified.
>
>He is wrong.
>This was discussed extensively both here and in the thread you started
>on the same subject in uk.legal.moderated (apparently in an effort to
>get a second opinion).
I wonder why you felt it necessary to say "(apparently in an effort
to get a second opinion).". No need to answer - that would be "meta"
- hypothetical
>The question as to whether there was some "grandfathering" of bikes
>already constructed was also discussed and the consensus was that
>there isn't.
You are wrong.
I do not intend to respond to every part of your post which I disagree
with - but this one is worth a refutation as you are categorically
wrong.
The consensus, if you want to call it that, was:
"It's unlikely that you'll be challenged anyway, and in any event it
is quite likely to be "grandfathered" in if it complied with the
regulations in force at the time of manufacture."
I say "consensus" as you have used the word - in fact this was a
consensus of one - as this was the only reference to grandfathering
being applicable or otherwise; and there was no discussion of
grandfathering whatsoever.
Indeed - the "consensus" view (as no-one disagreed with it) - was that
it was probably applicable.
I found the remainder of your comprehensive post as inaccurate as that
single claim of yours - consequently it would be pointless getting in
to a discussion over it.
I would not want to be thought to be being too negative.
***************************************************************************
From: JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk >
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:05:29 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Most injury collisions involving cyclists are the fault of a driver,
That is a very sweeping statement - do you perhaps have some reference
to support that point of view?
***************************************************************************
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 23:51:37 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
>On 2010-04-16, Owen Dunn wrote:
>
>> JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> A cyclist has been fined £700 after going through a red light.
>>
>> I suspect not stopping for the police was actually the biggie, but...
>>
>>> http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/8094039.Brighton_cyclist_fined___700/
>>
>>> So I for one look forward to more prosecutions like this.
>>
>> I think I do too. It's popular to whinge when `your' group gets
>> prosecuted for breaking the law when the police should be going after
>> the `real criminals' (i.e. anyone but you, and preferably someone you
>> don't like) and I enjoy as much schadenfreude when a less law-abiding
>> cyclist gets done as I do when I'm driving and the car in front of me
>> gets flashed by a speed camera :-).
>
>I stopped at a red light the other day (on my bike) and a car zoomed
>past and ran the light. I'd be quite happy for the police to be out
>in force on the roads enforcing the traffic laws, including tickets
>for cyclists running red lights, as long as they are giving 3 points
>to every driver who overtakes a bike too close.
I think you will find that there is a slight difference.
There is a defined legal limit for speeds and for people crossing the
line at red.
There is no defined legal limit for proximity of overtaking.
***************************************************************************
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:57:18 +0100, Ian Jackson
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <+Eq*-iI...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
>Eleanor Blair <ele...@the-blairs.co.uk> wrote:
>>I see quite a few people who are turning left go through a red light and
>>then, so as not to get run over, hop up onto the pavement just after the
>>light to turn left. In the case I see most often that bit of pavement
>>is actually shared use, and the dropped kerb is the other side of the
>>light, so I can see why they do it there, even if it's technically
>>against the law. But if it's not shared use then we have an instant
>>exmaple of someone breaking both rules.
>
>I do this about 50% of mornings turning off Milton Road outbound into
>the Cambridge Science Park. If the main traffic light is green I'll
>stay on the road and turn from primary position in the left hand lane
>into the Science Park access road. If it's red and not going to
>change soon, I'll filter up the queue if there is one, and join the
>shared use pavement which runs up the LHS of the access road.
>
>Crossing the stop line there when the light is red may be technically
>illegal but it seems to me that it's the way the traffic planners
>expect the junction to be used. Since it's definitely legal and
>expected for cyclists to cross across the road on the shared-use
>pedestrian/cycle crossing there, it seems illogical to suggest that
>there's something wrong with turning off the road onto the cycle route
>at that time. Obviously you do have to look out for other people on
>the pavement or using the crossing, including both pedestrians and
>cyclists (both of whom may be approaching on the pavement from behind
>me).
>
>All this would be a lot easier if there were a dropped kerb somewhere
>earlier to allow me to join the shared use pavement well before the
>lights, but the closest one is quite a way away.
No - all this would be a lot easier if you used the cycle path for its
duration rather than picking and choosing when *you* want to.
***************************************************************************
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:57:18 +0100, Ian Jackson
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Crossing the stop line there when the light is red may be technically
>illegal
I just love the way that people here are bandying around the words :
"technically illegal". Is it a bit like speeding in a car when on the
motorway and conditions are good.
Both things are against the law.
They are illegal.
Technical does not come in to it.
***************************************************************************
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:29:16 +0100, geomannie
<ge0m...@g00glema1l.c0m> wrote:
>JMS laid this down on his screen :
>> So I for one look forward to more prosecutions like this.
>
>Note so sure its that simple. Lets first take the question of why he
>was fined £700. Not for riding without lights, not for going through a
>red light, and not for pavement cycling.
He was found guilty of *all* of those offences.
If he had not been riding on the pavement and had obeyed the red
light, then he would have been found guilty of none of them.
***************************************************************************
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 22:24:34 +0100, thirty-six <thirt...@live.co.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
>> Are you were saying that the staff in WH Smith permitted you to take
>> your bike in the shop and lean it up something?
>>
>> When was this - the 1950s?
>
>Perhaps you should learn to smile, it can help...
Oh sorry - I had not realised that he was joking. I must admit I
thought it was probably untrue.
***************************************************************************
Post from a "non-member" rejected in URCM
He said:
"But doesn't it make sense for everyone if faster traffic is
segregated from slower, more vulnerable traffic?
In direct response to the following thread.
> > >I don't understand the fascination with using cycle paths.
> >
> > You don't? I thought it was obvious - take cycles off the road and
> > it's one less thing for car drivers to worry about. Simples.
> >
> > Whether it's better for cyclists isn't really a factor.
His post was rejected:
This conversation is largely about this cycle path which has been
extensively discussed in detail. I don't think we want to sidetrack
the thread even more into a general discussion of the merits of cycle
tracks, especially with such an open-ended question. Perhaps you
wanted to start a new thread.
Well yes of course - unlike the posts to which he was responding.
They could have been rejected in the same way - but they were from
members - so they didn't.
Sub-plot:
("You are not welcome here - if we wear you down by unreasonable
rejections then you may realise and stop posting")
***************************************************************************
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:57:17 +0100, Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Not content with spying on Tory ministers "cycling through red
>lights", the Mirror's hacks have a go at their leader for doing
>nothing wrong at all.
>
>Kudos to him for riding in a short sleeve jersey though - I'm still in
>a winter jacket.
>
>http://qurl.com/chdv2
What is the point of him having the helmet on his handle bars?
Either he should wear it - or leave it at home - wouldn't you agree?
***************************************************************************
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:50:48 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:04:11 +0100, David Hansen
><SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:22:40 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
>>you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote this:-
>>
>>>Funny, I thought the OP was a stickler for legality and safety. Maybe
>>>there is some device they think will protect them from the
>>>consequences of this rather dangerous setup :-)
>>
>>It is mildly amusing to see someone who often goes on about cyclists
>>not obeying the law hoist by their own petard.
>>
>>However, we should not labour the point as that would be against the
>>concept of pleasant discussions about cycling, without the heat
>>which certain people deliberately generated in another newsgroup,
>>which this group was set up for.
>
>Perish the thort. Hem-hem.
>
>Guy
I find it very surprising that this post was allowed in a moderated
group.
***************************************************************************
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:04:11 +0100, David Hansen
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:22:40 +0100 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
>you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote this:-
>
>>Funny, I thought the OP was a stickler for legality and safety. Maybe
>>there is some device they think will protect them from the
>>consequences of this rather dangerous setup :-)
>
>It is mildly amusing to see someone who often goes on about cyclists
>not obeying the law hoist by their own petard.
>
>However, we should not labour the point as that would be against the
>concept of pleasant discussions about cycling, without the heat
>which certain people deliberately generated in another newsgroup,
>which this group was set up for.
I find it very surprising that this post was allowed in a moderated
group.
***************************************************************************
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 10:22:40 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 23:30:24 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Well, I wouldn't be too happy about the single brake, but I'm glad
>>you're enjoying the bike.
>
>It's illegal to use it on the road with only one brake, and a coaster
>brake on the back wheel is probably the worst possible setup in an
>emergency.
>
>Funny, I thought the OP was a stickler for legality and safety. Maybe
>there is some device they think will protect them from the
>consequences of this rather dangerous setup :-)
>
>Guy
I am very surprised that this post was allowed in a moderated group.
***************************************************************************
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 11:34:47 +0100, Peter Clinch
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>JMS wrote:
>>
>> Also, I would think that you are quite low down - not as easy to see
>> as other sorts of traffic.
>
>A popular misconception, a fear for folk new to recumbents (as it
>was with me at first) but one that isn't borne out by real-world
>experience.
>
>On my recumbent (a little higher than Mike's, but not by /that/
>much) I'm at car seat height. A typical conversation, head level
>with head, eye level with eye at a car window goes like this:
>
>"you're very low, you must be very vulnerable!"
>"but I'm at the same height as you"
>"errrrrr".
>
>Pete.
Yes - so you are indeed not as easy to see as other forms of traffic -
be that cars, lorries, or conventional cycles.
If that is not the case - then why do some recumbent riders put flags
on their machines.
If you are in front of a car on a recumbent - then a car behind the
first car will probably not see you.
If you were a conventional cyclists then you would be above the height
of the first car.
So - as I said : "not as easy to see as other sorts of traffic."
***************************************************************************
On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 22:02:06 +0100, "mikes...@googlemail.com"
<mikes...@googlemail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>It's not as though the cycle path has anything to do with avoiding
>this incident with the HGV either.
Is your observation always this poor?
The HGV was not on the cycle lane.
If the cyclist had been on the cycle lane, then there would have been
no incident.
***************************************************************************
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:42:49 +0000, "Simon Mason"
<si...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"bod43" <Bo...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:2c9108e6-9b70-4e33...@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> Seems that wilful killing is permitted in non-road
>> circumstances too.
>>
>> "I only drove over him. What else could I have done?"
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/17/gyrocopter-hunt-monitor-kills-supporter
>>
>> A very sad day for public road cyclists.
>
>The same day I was knocked off and injured last September, a guy was killed
>about 1/2 a mile away from my "accident". The driver is now on trial and the
>prosecution solicitor is trying to shift blame to him having no lights on in
>the middle of the day.
>
>
>http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/Woman-admits-careless-driving-killed-teen/article-1923646-detail/article.html
>
>http://qurl.com/wf213
I am not justifying the woman's driving - she is at fault.
I do not see that anyone is "shifting" blame.
However, accidents do happen, and unfortunately a momentary lapse may
lead to the loss of a life. It is defined as an accident.
In this case you forgot say that it is a motorcycle - and I would have
thought that the prudent motorcyclist should have his headlamp on
during the day.
Having no headlamp on could be considered as mitigating circumstances
in the apportionment of blame. In much the same way that a cyclists
without a helmet may be considered to have contributed to his own
injuries as a judge has commented in a recent case.
bugbear
> There has been some discussion of my banning in respect to the current
> RFD. Here is some clarification.
>
> I believe I made a total of 54 posts to URCM
> 36 of those were accepted and published.
> 18 of those were rejected.
>
>
> Here are the rejected posts - as you can see they are outrageous in
> the extreme
Yes - you should be banned.
BugBear
JMS
--
Hello Bugbear - I juts love the way that you have to comment on my every post.
I really do appreciate it.
bugbear
?
BugBear
JMS
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
I really do appreciate it.
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>
>There has been some discussion of my banning in respect to the current
>RFD. Here is some clarification.
>
> I believe I made a total of 54 posts to URCM
> 36 of those were accepted and published.
>18 of those were rejected.
>
>
>Here are the rejected posts - as you can see they are outrageous in
>the extreme
Clearly taking posts out of context will not give the full picture and
to be consistent I have to point that out.
However, on the face of it these posts are a mild irritation at worst.
In another group there is a long standing tradition that sensitivity
to certain words can cause spillage of a certain alcoholic beverage.
The sensitivity of the moderators of this group seems similar. But
(and I mean no disrespect to ye shedde) in this case it's not remotely
funny.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
Matt B
>
> There has been some discussion of my banning in respect to the current
> RFD. Here is some clarification.
>
> I believe I made a total of 54 posts to URCM
> 36 of those were accepted and published.
> 18 of those were rejected.
>
>
> Here are the rejected posts - as you can see they are outrageous in
> the extreme
>
Incredible. Are you sure that they are the ones that were rejected?
There are a few that /are/ "meta", and perhaps one or two that add
nothing to the discussion, but none at all that are abusive,
inflammatory or unpalatable to any reasonable cyclist or person
interested in cycling.
There is only one apparent reason why any of them were rejected at all,
and that is not related to the actual content.
--
Matt B
soup
>
> RFD. Here is some clarification.
>
> I believe I made a total of 54 posts to URCM
> 36 of those were accepted and published.
> 18 of those were rejected.
Why does it bother you so much that you can't(are [allegedly]not
allowed) to post to a newsgroup that you have repeatedly said is a
(paraphrasing) closed club?
Geoff Berrow
A lot of people may be wondering this. Let me try to put my point of
view.
Usenet articles are not stored in any one place. Instead Usenet is
distributed around the Internet by news servers. The spirit of
co-operation that makes Usenet work at all and the somehow anarchic
nature of how it came about are part of the appeal. If you want to
blow the whistle on something post it to Usenet, it will be very hard
to eradicate. But Usenet is egalitarian in nature and non-partisan;
it is, and should be, open to all to express their views without
hindrance.
Anyway, for some groups this free-for-all attitude is a problem.
Groups used by people who hold controversial views or talk about
controversial subjects can attract some very nasty posts. So such
groups such as religious groups and groups for discussing
homosexuality are often moderated. And it's right that they are
because otherwise things can get very nasty indeed. Free speech is a
worthy aim but stand on a pew and shout obscenities at the vicar and
you could get arrested.
Now it seems that cycling, yes cycling, is also a controversial
subject. Apparently talk about cycling gets so heated that a
moderated group was seen as the only way forward.
Now I can accept the fact that there may be people out there who might
like to have a go at cyclists, to swear at them, to threaten them and
to generally make life unpleasant for them. And this was indeed the
case that was made for the moderated group. A moderated group that
stopped that behaviour would have my support.
But the moderation for this group has gone far beyond that. Talk of
cycle helmets is now almost a forbidden subject, posts are routinely
rejected for being repetitious or boring and one poster has been
disenfranchised completely on sexed up evidence for being at worst
mildly annoying. The moderators have become 'power mad' (not my
words, these are the views of a former moderator!) and yet another
moderator resigned over the unfair moderation of one particular
poster. The moderation team have disregarded the ruling of the UK
Usenet committee and have generally displayed a 'like it or lump it'
attitude.
This is a gross misuse of the moderated status of this group and IMO
they should all go. That's not the Usenet I love.
These are my views, and my views alone. If you don't agree and think
I shouldn't be part of the UK Usenet Committee for holding them then
you can vote for someone else then next time I put myself up for
election.
Some people may think I'm making a big deal over this, let them have
their private club, ignore them. Maybe so, but if nothing matters any
more perhaps we should just wrap the whole lot up, committee and
everything?
Sorry, no can do. I'm proud of this hierarchy and while people want
me to do my best to look after it, that's what I'll do.
JMS
Geoff Berrow has answered your question in an admirable way.
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
>Geoff Berrow has answered your question in an admirable way.
>
>The only part of his post I disagree with, is when he says:
>
>"These are my views, and my views alone."
That was my committee disclaimer. Naturally I hope a good many share
my views.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>But the moderation for this group has gone far beyond that. Talk of
>cycle helmets is now almost a forbidden subject,
Geoff, I know you are a smart and sincere person. Do you actually
grasp just how divisive and inflammatory the subject of cycle helmets
is? I'm not trying to engage in ludicrous hyperbole here, but an
unhelmeted cyclist is treated right now in some ways not unlike a
woman in Kabul who does not wear a Hijab.
I was run off my bike on Friday last. In hospital I was treated to a
relentless tide of propaganda. In each case I either said nothing or
responded that "we are not having that discussion" (I might be an
argumentative sod but my heart's not in it when I'm strapped to a
spinal board). A doctor told me in all seriousness that I must either
buy a helmet or give up cycling. Most of my injuries were not to my
head. Nothing was said about the lack of body armour, though that may
have reduced the excruciating pain I now have from several ribs.
I know from the experience of many other cyclists that the issue of
headgear (and now also high visibility clothing) will dominate the
legal aftermath. I think it's fair to say that I make a fully informed
decision what to wear on the bike, whether people agree with my
choices or not it's pretty clear that I have taken the time to
research the subject, but although I am under no obligation to wear
any particular headgear or colour of clothing when on the bike, when I
am injured, due entirely to the negligence of another road user, such
negligence openly and contritely admitted to police, the term
"contributory negligence" will be used.
Contributory negligence, as you know, is the official way of saying
that it serves you right, at least in part. I BLOODY WELL WAS NOT
NEGLIGENT! I was riding a well-maintained bike, in accordance with the
best advice I can find on road position and so on, on an ordinary road
at an ordinary speed wearing ordinary clothing.
Nobody cries contributory negligence if you fail to read Cyclecraft or
fail to take any cycle training. In order not to be negligent you must
overtly buy in to the idea of everyday cycling as some kind of
high-risk activity, even though objectively the risk appears to be
well within the bounds of what is considered normal (after all,
regular cyclists live longer than average, not shorter). Apparently we
are to be considered negligent if we do not, effectively, ride around
going "look at me, I'm doing something dangerous". How does that
subconscious message influence the behaviour of others around us, I
wonder?
You may not think that this is as bad as rape victims being told it's
their own fault for not covering up from head to foot, but to me it
feels that way. This collision was a life-changing event. I know that
because I have been knocked off once before and that experience has
never left me, nearly 30 years later. I now get flashbacks from both.
Discussion of helmets was never banned. What is unwelcome, and
rightly, is people coming along to proselytise helmets.
Sorry to go off on one, but to me this really is rather important, and
some people seem to be dismissing it as those delicate flowers not
wanting to talk about helmets. I am not convinced that a lot of those
here who are not themselves regular cyclists will understand *just*
how divisive that particular subject is. It may be that you are right
and we should take ourselves off to a web forum where we can set all
the rules, but some of us like Usenet for various reasons.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.
Simon Brooke
> But the moderation for this group has gone far beyond that. Talk of
> cycle helmets is now almost a forbidden subject,
Is a lie, of course. there is one such thread active at present, and
another has recently died an entirely natural death.
> posts are routinely
> rejected for being repetitious or boring
Is wilfully misleading, of course. Posts are rejected on grounds of
repetition because that's one of the jobs the moderators were charged
with during the CFV process. Posts are not rejected for being 'boring',
and moderators as a panel would sit pretty hard on any moderator who
stepped out of line on that.
> and one poster has been
> disenfranchised completely on sexed up evidence for being at worst
> mildly annoying.
Is a lie, of course. No-one has had any voting rights removed,
whatsoever. One person has been banned from posting to the group; no
'sexed up' evidence was involved, except possibly in an ex post facto
justification offered by one moderator on his own behalf.
> The moderators have become 'power mad' (not my words,
> these are the views of a former moderator!) and yet another moderator
> resigned over the unfair moderation of one particular poster. The
> moderation team have disregarded the ruling of the UK Usenet committee
> and have generally displayed a 'like it or lump it' attitude.
Is dead right. We are responsible to the users who elected us and not to
the committee, whose constitution and remit give it no powers whatever to
interfere with the running of a moderated group, and whose actions
throughout this matter have been ultra vires and grossly improper.
Bear in mind that the committee has power only as a loan from the news
administrators of the major ISPs. You do not own (any) of the major news
servers, and you do not control any of the major news servers. That loan
of power is granted in so far as you fairly represent the users, and no
further. The users voted by an overwhelming margin for the creation of
uk.rec.cycling.moderated, and the nomination of the moderation team
formed part of the basis for that cote.
We are presently engaging om a properly constituted RFD process; as a
user of Usenet you are entitled to take part in it, to propose amendments
to the RFD, and, if it comes to a CFV, to cast your vote - your /single/
vote, like any other user - as you choose. Your status as a member of the
committee has constitutionally no bearing on the matter whatsoever, and
the committee oversteps its powers at its considerable peril.
--
;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundam variat
Matthew Vernon
> But the moderation for this group has gone far beyond that. Talk of
> cycle helmets is now almost a forbidden subject, posts are routinely
There is currently a thread about helmets on urcm.
Matthew
--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org
Percy Picacity
news:896os4...@mid.individual.net:
>
> Bear in mind that the committee has power only as a loan from the
> news administrators of the major ISPs. You do not own (any) of the
> major news servers, and you do not control any of the major news
> servers. That loan of power is granted in so far as you fairly
> represent the users, and no further. The users voted by an
> overwhelming margin for the creation of uk.rec.cycling.moderated,
> and the nomination of the moderation team formed part of the basis
> for that cote.
>
But do you have any idea how many of the people who voted for the group
were cycling zealots who are unlikely to change their minds, and how
many were sympathetic outsiders, who might?
--
Percy Picacity
Tom Crispin
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 14:39:19 +0100, Geoff Berrow
><blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>But the moderation for this group has gone far beyond that. Talk of
>>cycle helmets is now almost a forbidden subject,
>
>Geoff, I know you are a smart and sincere person. Do you actually
>grasp just how divisive and inflammatory the subject of cycle helmets
>is? I'm not trying to engage in ludicrous hyperbole here, but an
>unhelmeted cyclist is treated right now in some ways not unlike a
>woman in Kabul who does not wear a Hijab.
Rubbish!
I have not worn a helmet for cycling for some three or more years.
Never have I felt persecuted for not wearing one. My mother has
offered to buy me one, and the odd pupil has asked why I don't wear
one but that is nothing compared to the ridicule some Afghan women *in
some parts of Afghanistan* face if they go outside in a manner that
some consider improper attire.
And the worse abuse I faced from Judith in urc was a mild ribbing
after I said that if asked by a pupil if they should wear a helmet I
might say something like, "A helmet can reduce the severity of head
injury but can do nothing to make it less likely for you to fall off
your bike. Whether or not you wear a helmet is a matter between you
and your parents."
Tom Crispin
<stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> But the moderation for this group has gone far beyond that. Talk of
>> cycle helmets is now almost a forbidden subject,
>
>Is a lie, of course. there is one such thread active at present, and
>another has recently died an entirely natural death.
I had a post rejected in a helmet thread when I asked why one
particular poster appeared to harbour personal animosity towards a
charity worker promoting the use of cycle helmets.
Simon Brooke
I only know of two cycling zealots on UK Usenet, and I'm fairly sure one
of them voted against; he's certainly never posted to the group.
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
<rant with things totally out of proportion and perspective- the
wearing of cyclehelmets and Chapman's sore head : compared with rapes
and problems of woman in Kabul who does not wear a Hijab.>
>Guy
Hello Guy - I am surprised that you did not mention the doctor's
comments when you first reported your little sorry tale; perhaps you
were concussed and forgot about it :-) (Now don't go back and update
your original account - know what I mean - nudge, nudge)
Is someone saying that your not wearing a helmet is a contributory
factor in your head injuries? If so, that is not surprising
I thought I had pointed out the precedent :
"There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the
cyclist to the risk of greater injury.
The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances and
it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence should
wear one.
Mr Justice Griffith Williams"
--
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
JMS
<stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 14:39:19 +0100, Geoff Berrow wrote:
>
>> But the moderation for this group has gone far beyond that. Talk of
>> cycle helmets is now almost a forbidden subject,
>
>Is a lie, of course. there is one such thread active at present, and
>another has recently died an entirely natural death.
>
>> posts are routinely
>> rejected for being repetitious or boring
>
>Is wilfully misleading, of course. Posts are rejected on grounds of
>repetition because that's one of the jobs the moderators were charged
>with during the CFV process. Posts are not rejected for being 'boring',
>and moderators as a panel would sit pretty hard on any moderator who
>stepped out of line on that.
>
>> and one poster has been
>> disenfranchised completely on sexed up evidence for being at worst
>> mildly annoying.
>
>Is a lie, of course. No-one has had any voting rights removed,
>whatsoever. One person has been banned from posting to the group; no
>'sexed up' evidence was involved, except possibly in an ex post facto
>justification offered by one moderator on his own behalf.
"to deprive of a franchise, privilege, or right"
What a privilege it would be to be able to post in URCM - I can't - I
am disenfranchised.
when you say : "no 'sexed up' evidence was involved" - I think that
"sexed up" may not be necessary"
Percy Picacity
news:guis26l05i0aonbeg...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:04:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
><guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
><rant with things totally out of proportion and perspective- the
> wearing of cyclehelmets and Chapman's sore head : compared with
> rapes and problems of woman in Kabul who does not wear a Hijab.>
>
>
>>Guy
>
>
> Hello Guy - I am surprised that you did not mention the doctor's
> comments when you first reported your little sorry tale; perhaps
> you were concussed and forgot about it :-) (Now don't go back and
> update your original account - know what I mean - nudge, nudge)
>
> Is someone saying that your not wearing a helmet is a contributory
> factor in your head injuries? If so, that is not surprising
I don't think he had a significant head injury. If I was an idiot, I
would now accuse you of lying. But I'm not, so I'll just point out
that chest injuries are more likely to be avoided by 4" thick
polystyrene jacket. The logical Judge Williams will no doubt point
out that Guy's failure to wear one was imprudent.
>
> I thought I had pointed out the precedent :
>
> "There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose
> the
> cyclist to the risk of greater injury.
>
> The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances
> and it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence
> should wear one.
>
> Mr Justice Griffith Williams"
>
> --
>
> I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
> I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I
> encourage my children to wear helmets. I encourage my children to
> wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
--
Percy Picacity
JMS
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk > wrote in
>news:guis26l05i0aonbeg...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:04:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>><guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>><rant with things totally out of proportion and perspective- the
>> wearing of cyclehelmets and Chapman's sore head : compared with
>> rapes and problems of woman in Kabul who does not wear a Hijab.>
>>
>>
>>>Guy
>>
>>
>> Hello Guy - I am surprised that you did not mention the doctor's
>> comments when you first reported your little sorry tale; perhaps
>> you were concussed and forgot about it :-) (Now don't go back and
>> update your original account - know what I mean - nudge, nudge)
>>
>> Is someone saying that your not wearing a helmet is a contributory
>> factor in your head injuries? If so, that is not surprising
>
>I don't think he had a significant head injury. If I was an idiot, I
>would now accuse you of lying. But I'm not, so I'll just point out
>that chest injuries are more likely to be avoided by 4" thick
>polystyrene jacket. The logical Judge Williams will no doubt point
>out that Guy's failure to wear one was imprudent.
Oh dear, oh dear - I now do see that reading is in fact not a strong
point of yours - this may have resulted in some of your more nasty
accusations.
I referred to his head injury - I did not say it was "significant" -
but thanks for trying to put words in to my mouth.
Indeed if he has a significant head injury - he may wish to lie about
it in case it goes to court. But then of course - if he had worn a
helmet, some would say his injuries may have been worse.
You may also note the use of a question mark - I was actually asking a
question about his head injuries - knowing that he had suffered some.
I guess that not wearing a helmet must have contributed to them
I suspect that the motorist's insurance company may take more notice
of Judge William's view on the matter than they will of your's or
Chapman's.
Anyway - thanks for reading and commenting on my post - but please try
and get your facts right otherwise things may be open to
misinterpretation.
(PS Have you found those nasty posts I made yet - or perhaps you are
not looking?)
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:04:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
><guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 14:39:19 +0100, Geoff Berrow
>><blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>But the moderation for this group has gone far beyond that. Talk of
>>>cycle helmets is now almost a forbidden subject,
>>
>>Geoff, I know you are a smart and sincere person. Do you actually
>>grasp just how divisive and inflammatory the subject of cycle helmets
>>is? I'm not trying to engage in ludicrous hyperbole here, but an
>>unhelmeted cyclist is treated right now in some ways not unlike a
>>woman in Kabul who does not wear a Hijab.
>
>Rubbish!
You say. But as I said I was told just last week that I *must* either
buy a helmet or give up cycling, and we know from past experience
that utterly blameless cyclists are routinely subject to claims of
"contributory negligence" because of their choice of clothing
(headgear or high visibility). So I say you're wrong, at least to the
extent that I stated in my post. Which was, in any case, an
explanation of just how contentious the issue is - and it is, I don't
think that's deniable.
Peter Parry
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Geoff, I know you are a smart and sincere person. Do you actually
>grasp just how divisive and inflammatory the subject of cycle helmets
>is?
It isn't, except to those who treat it as a religion and are obsessed
by it.
> I'm not trying to engage in ludicrous hyperbole here, but an
>unhelmeted cyclist is treated right now in some ways not unlike a
>woman in Kabul who does not wear a Hijab.
You are pathetic (and engaging in offensive and ludicrous hyperbole).
When was the last time a bicycle rider in the UK was dragged from
their bicycle and butchered at the roadside? When was the last
cyclist hung from a tree to slowly suffocate for not wearing a plastic
helmet? Is there no depth you will not stoop to ?
>I was run off my bike on Friday last. In hospital I was treated to a
>relentless tide of propaganda. In each case I either said nothing or
>responded that "we are not having that discussion" (I might be an
>argumentative sod but my heart's not in it when I'm strapped to a
>spinal board).
_Your_ endless tides of propaganda are OK though?
>Contributory negligence, as you know, is the official way of saying
>that it serves you right, at least in part. I BLOODY WELL WAS NOT
>NEGLIGENT! I was riding a well-maintained bike, in accordance with the
>best advice I can find on road position and so on, on an ordinary road
>at an ordinary speed wearing ordinary clothing.
Last winter, on a narrow unlit back road in the evening when it was
dark, I frequently encountered a bicycle rider on a dark bike and clad
in black. If it was raining he was all but invisible. He had a rear
light under the saddle but it was usually obscured by his coat. One
day I saw the remains of his bike by the side of the road. Did he
contribute to his presumed downfall?
>Nobody cries contributory negligence if you fail to read Cyclecraft or
>fail to take any cycle training. In order not to be negligent you must
>overtly buy in to the idea of everyday cycling as some kind of
>high-risk activity,
Judging by the video sequences of "my trip to work" posted by the
likes of Jackson which has him berating passing motorists and
explaining how he avoided death by only a fraction, plus the endless
postings of "kill of the month" made by bicyclist one would be
forgiven for thinking the survival rate is quite low. In the last 30
years I haven't shouted at other road users as much as Jackson does in
one day (and it seems, every day)..
>Apparently we
>are to be considered negligent if we do not, effectively, ride around
>going "look at me, I'm doing something dangerous".
Haven't you ever thought it means exactly what it does elsewhere "look
at me I'm vulnerable"?
>You may not think that this is as bad as rape victims being told it's
>their own fault for not covering up from head to foot, but to me it
>feels that way.
I really don't think you have any idea just how offensive and silly
you are showing yourself to be with that disgusting selfish statement
>This collision was a life-changing event. I know that
>because I have been knocked off once before and that experience has
>never left me, nearly 30 years later. I now get flashbacks from both.
Perhaps bicycle riding is too high risk for you?
>Discussion of helmets was never banned. What is unwelcome, and
>rightly, is people coming along to proselytise helmets.
The opposite is all you do all the time. Why is that not unwelcome?
>Sorry to go off on one, but to me this really is rather important,
If it is you should go out more.
>and
>some people seem to be dismissing it as those delicate flowers not
>wanting to talk about helmets.
Correct.
>I am not convinced that a lot of those
>here who are not themselves regular cyclists will understand *just*
>how divisive that particular subject is.
You and your ilk are the ones who have turned it into a religion, you
can't blame others for that.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>I don't think he had a significant head injury. If I was an idiot, I
>would now accuse you of lying. But I'm not, so I'll just point out
>that chest injuries are more likely to be avoided by 4" thick
>polystyrene jacket. The logical Judge Williams will no doubt point
>out that Guy's failure to wear one was imprudent.
Well, significant, but nowhere near the upper end of significant -
I've been caused much more pain by the other injuries.
>> I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
>> I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I
>> encourage my children to wear helmets. I encourage my children to
>> wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
^ See that, Percy? Let's just tweak that slightly:
>> I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
>> I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I
>> encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman, 2008)
>> I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman, 2004)
Now, does that juxtaposition look *honest* to you, in the context of
the (easily verifiable) dates? This is the person who spends much of
her online life accusing other people of being dishonest; sauce for
the goose I'd have said. I'm guessing she used a broken sigsep to
ensure it got quoted, but that's cynicism born of long experience, not
any kind of technical judgment.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>I had a post rejected in a helmet thread when I asked why one
>particular poster appeared to harbour personal animosity towards a
>charity worker promoting the use of cycle helmets.
Which rejection was discussed here and the consensus among uninvolved
posters appeared to be that your post was indeed unnecessarily
personalised. One of the problems here is that the dead horses are
continually dragged out for another beating.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>You are pathetic (and engaging in offensive and ludicrous hyperbole).
>When was the last time a bicycle rider in the UK was dragged from
>their bicycle and butchered at the roadside? When was the last
>cyclist hung from a tree to slowly suffocate for not wearing a plastic
>helmet? Is there no depth you will not stoop to ?
The last time a cyclist was dragged fomr their bicycle and butchered
at the roadside was last week, I believe. It was a Keltbray truck.
Thanks for the input. Actually, no, because you went out of your way
to avoid understanding the point I was making. Oh well.
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:02:08 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:04:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>><guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 14:39:19 +0100, Geoff Berrow
>>><blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>But the moderation for this group has gone far beyond that. Talk of
>>>>cycle helmets is now almost a forbidden subject,
>>>
>>>Geoff, I know you are a smart and sincere person. Do you actually
>>>grasp just how divisive and inflammatory the subject of cycle helmets
>>>is? I'm not trying to engage in ludicrous hyperbole here, but an
>>>unhelmeted cyclist is treated right now in some ways not unlike a
>>>woman in Kabul who does not wear a Hijab.
>>
>>Rubbish!
>
>You say. But as I said I was told just last week that I *must* either
>buy a helmet or give up cycling
Tell us who told you that - was it your wife?
Have you explained Darwin to her?
--
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
[rant]
>You and your ilk are the ones who have turned it into a religion, you
>can't blame others for that.
Blimey, Peter. What has a cyclist done to you such that we all deserve
such rage? Surely you should reserve your anger for a particular person
rather than a group of people?
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip a large Chapman wriggle>
>
>Guy
You've missed off the bit about altering the web page.
--
"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets." Guy Chapman
Judith then produced the web page where he said "I encourage my children to wear helmets."
Later that day Chapman immediately added the following to the web page:
"This page is out of date and preserved only for convenience" but he left the date last updated as 31/08/2004.
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 23:16:20 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>You are pathetic (and engaging in offensive and ludicrous hyperbole).
>>When was the last time a bicycle rider in the UK was dragged from
>>their bicycle and butchered at the roadside? When was the last
>>cyclist hung from a tree to slowly suffocate for not wearing a plastic
>>helmet? Is there no depth you will not stoop to ?
>
>The last time a cyclist was dragged fomr their bicycle and butchered
>at the roadside was last week, I believe. It was a Keltbray truck.
>
>Thanks for the input. Actually, no, because you went out of your way
>to avoid understanding the point I was making. Oh well.
>
>Guy
I hadn't realised that she had been "dragged from her bike and
butchered"
Do you perhaps have a pointer to a news article - I suppose that they
did actually use those terms - perhaps it was what a witness said??
Peter Parry
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 23:16:20 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>wrote:
>>You are pathetic (and engaging in offensive and ludicrous hyperbole).
>>When was the last time a bicycle rider in the UK was dragged from
>>their bicycle and butchered at the roadside? When was the last
>>cyclist hung from a tree to slowly suffocate for not wearing a plastic
>>helmet? Is there no depth you will not stoop to ?
>
>The last time a cyclist was dragged fomr their bicycle and butchered
>at the roadside was last week, I believe. It was a Keltbray truck.
The driver got out, gathered others around them, pulled out knives and
butchered the cyclist because they were not wearing a helmet? Do not
try to make yourself appear even more silly than you already have.
You are obsessive and completely irrational on the subject of helmets.
Anyone is of course entitled to be equally irrational. We have a flat
earth society and numerous religions which are equally unhinged. Some
have opinions on those who lack the same beliefs as themselves which
are as odious as yours.
To equate being told you should wear a helmet with being raped or
butchered shows a staggering lack of proportionality. You are of
course simply following in the footsteps of your predecessors. The
cyclists touring club in the first quarter of the 1900's fought
incessantly to prevent laws requiring cycles to carry rear lights at
night being introduced.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>To equate being told you should wear a helmet with being raped or
>butchered shows a staggering lack of proportionality. You are of
>course simply following in the footsteps of your predecessors. The
>cyclists touring club in the first quarter of the 1900's fought
>incessantly to prevent laws requiring cycles to carry rear lights at
>night being introduced.
Wow, you appear to have a very real problem, Peter. Who made you so
angry?
Derek C
> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:04:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>
>
> <rant with things totally out of proportion and perspective- the
> wearing of cyclehelmets and Chapman's sore head : compared with rapes
> and problems of woman in Kabul who does not wear a Hijab.>
>
> >Guy
>
> Hello Guy - I am surprised that you did not mention the doctor's
> comments when you first reported your little sorry tale; perhaps you
> were concussed and forgot about it :-) (Now don't go back and update
> your original account - know what I mean - nudge, nudge)
>
> Is someone saying that your not wearing a helmet is a contributory
> factor in your head injuries? If so, that is not surprising
>
> I thought I had pointed out the precedent :
>
> "There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the
> cyclist to the risk of greater injury.
>
> The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances and
> it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence should
> wear one.
>
> Mr Justice Griffith Williams"
>
> --
>
hospital under observation after skidding off his bike on ice, I
believe not wearing a helmet. Concussion is a potentially serious
brain injury requiring an impact of 100g or more to the skull, which
can lead to complications and long term neurological problems, which
probably explains a lot.
Simon Brooke
>>The last time a cyclist was dragged fomr their bicycle and butchered at
>>the roadside was last week, I believe. It was a Keltbray truck.
>
> The driver got out, gathered others around them, pulled out knives and
> butchered the cyclist because they were not wearing a helmet? Do not
> try to make yourself appear even more silly than you already have.
Pot, meet kettle.
Somebody died, horribly, going peaceably about their lawful business. You
think that's not merely acceptable but a reasonable subject for levity.
Guy may be something of a monomaniac - as he himself says of Matt B, a
mission poster. But people like you go a long way towards justifying
Guy's behaviour.
Tom Crispin
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:02:08 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:04:09 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>><guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 14:39:19 +0100, Geoff Berrow
>>><blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>But the moderation for this group has gone far beyond that. Talk of
>>>>cycle helmets is now almost a forbidden subject,
>>>
>>>Geoff, I know you are a smart and sincere person. Do you actually
>>>grasp just how divisive and inflammatory the subject of cycle helmets
>>>is? I'm not trying to engage in ludicrous hyperbole here, but an
>>>unhelmeted cyclist is treated right now in some ways not unlike a
>>>woman in Kabul who does not wear a Hijab.
>>
>>Rubbish!
>
>You say. But as I said I was told just last week that I *must* either
>buy a helmet or give up cycling, and we know from past experience
>that utterly blameless cyclists are routinely subject to claims of
>"contributory negligence" because of their choice of clothing
>(headgear or high visibility). So I say you're wrong, at least to the
>extent that I stated in my post. Which was, in any case, an
>explanation of just how contentious the issue is - and it is, I don't
>think that's deniable.
Nearly anything can be made contentious if people are prepared to
argue the toss:
- counter steer
- spoke lacing
- parking brakes
- HGV left hook
- cycle lanes
- shared use paths
- red light jumping
- two good locks
- pavement cycling
All these topics and more have descended into flame fests in recent
years. The trick is to agree that others are allowed to have different
opinions.
Tom Crispin
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>The last time a cyclist was dragged fomr their bicycle and butchered
>at the roadside was last week, I believe. It was a Keltbray truck.
I posted a link to that report. The young female cyclist survived.
http://www.london-se1.co.uk/forum/read/1/128207
However, there was a cyclist fatality on the Greenwich gyratory on
Wednesday this week. Very sad.
Tom Crispin
<stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Somebody died, horribly, going peaceably about their lawful business.
Perhaps - but not in the incident Guy cited, unless further news has
been released about the condition of the unfortunate victim which I am
unaware about.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>Guy Chapman has admitted to being concussed and spending a night in
>hospital under observation after skidding off his bike on ice, I
>believe not wearing a helmet. Concussion is a potentially serious
>brain injury requiring an impact of 100g or more to the skull, which
>can lead to complications and long term neurological problems, which
>probably explains a lot.
I have never been concussed as a result of skidding on ice. The last
time I was admitted for overnight observation was around thirty years
ago, since when I have gained an engineering degree.
What is your source for the figure of 100g? And do you understand why
your comment embodies a logical fallacy?
Peter Parry
<stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 00:13:57 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:
>Somebody died, horribly, going peaceably about their lawful business.
Actually they didn't, nor do we yet know the cause of the incident but
honesty has never been valued highly by religions.
> You
>think that's not merely acceptable but a reasonable subject for levity.
What makes you think levity was involved? He is an odious disgrace.
Guy claimed that, for him, being asked to wear a helmet was akin to
being butchered by zealots or a rape victim being told it was all
their fault. To put it mildly this is irrational and opprobrious.
>Guy may be something of a monomaniac - as he himself says of Matt B, a
>mission poster. But people like you go a long way towards justifying
>Guy's behaviour.
You mean by not agreeing with his irrational obsession? Quite what is
meant to justify his fatuous opinion that being asked to wear a helmet
and be visible is akin to torture, murder and rape?
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>>Guy may be something of a monomaniac - as he himself says of Matt B, a
>>mission poster. But people like you go a long way towards justifying
>>Guy's behaviour.
>You mean by not agreeing with his irrational obsession? Quite what is
>meant to justify his fatuous opinion that being asked to wear a helmet
>and be visible is akin to torture, murder and rape?
It's a funny thing, the one who's looking irrational here is probably
not me. I'm a middle-aged professional man, the only thing that leads
to me being harangued in public by complete strangers is my choice of
headgear when cycling.
My "mission" is to promote the seditious idea that cycling is a safe
and healthy activity. It's not really that seditious, to be honest,
but you'd think so to see the hysterical reaction of some people to
seeing an adult riding a bicycle as if it were something completely
ordinary and everyday. We've even seen foam hats photoshopped into
pictures of Danish and Dutch utility cyclists. That's just weird.
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:00:34 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
><del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Guy Chapman has admitted to being concussed and spending a night in
>>hospital under observation after skidding off his bike on ice, I
>>believe not wearing a helmet. Concussion is a potentially serious
>>brain injury requiring an impact of 100g or more to the skull, which
>>can lead to complications and long term neurological problems, which
>>probably explains a lot.
>
>I have never been concussed as a result of skidding on ice. The last
>time I was admitted for overnight observation was around thirty years
>ago, since when I have gained an engineering degree.
>
>What is your source for the figure of 100g? And do you understand why
>your comment embodies a logical fallacy?
>
>Guy
I think he was explaining why you are a nutter.
I think your reply proves the point.
--
"I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. I would challenge judith
JMS
<stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Oh dear, oh dear :
First we had dragged from the bike - then we had butchered - now we
have that they were killed.
Once again you prove that you are a loony
I see that :
"The woman was taken to hospital with a suspected broken ankle after
becoming trapped between the Keltbray lorry and a metal railing
opposite Borough Tube station, at the junction of Borough High Street
and Great Dover Street."
ie
She was not dragged from her bike
She was not butchered
She is still alive.
ffs
Peter Parry
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:39:01 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>wrote:
>>You mean by not agreeing with his irrational obsession? Quite what is
>>meant to justify his fatuous opinion that being asked to wear a helmet
>>and be visible is akin to torture, murder and rape?
>
>It's a funny thing, the one who's looking irrational here is probably
>not me. I'm a middle-aged professional man, the only thing that leads
>to me being harangued in public by complete strangers is my choice of
>headgear when cycling.
Most odd, I've never heard anyone saying anything to any bicyclist
about their choice or not of headgear, it is a matter of complete
unimportance to most people. (On the other hand I am frequently
harangued by bicyclists traveling at speed screaming at me to get out
their way on footpaths). I've asked two colleagues who are daily
cyclists how often they get comments about not wearing helmets
(neither do) shouted at them and they both replied they never have.
Might your unfortunate experiences be something more to do with the
way you ride and treat other road users?
>My "mission" is to promote the seditious idea that cycling is a safe
>and healthy activity.
You might care to start by looking at video clips showing quite the
opposite posted frequently by many cyclists. Those showing endless
screaming matches between bicyclists and others which purport to show
the daily war on the roads fought by bicycle riders with imminent
death avoided by microseconds. Then there are the interminable shroud
waving propaganda posts of "cyclist killed by tipper truck" (even when
they are not, much to the obvious disappointment of some
propagandists). These are made within minutes of any incident and
without a shred of evidence as to the facts.
I would guess that with an hours search of YouTube and a few bicycle
forums anyone could make up a DVD which, if shown at any school to
parents, would ensure bicycles were banned from the school for
eternity.
> It's not really that seditious, to be honest,
I don't think equating the trivial and inconsequential anguish of
being told you should be wearing a helmet with the pain of a woman
being stabbed to death or told her rape was her fault is honest,
proportional, rational or acceptable. You seem to think otherwise.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
Is it just me that thinks Mr Parry has a proportion error?
Maybe his wife ran off with a cyclist or something like that but this
amount of ire deserves treatment IMO.
Matthew Vernon
> Most odd, I've never heard anyone saying anything to any bicyclist
> about their choice or not of headgear,
This is woefully off-topic, but. The most common intelligible thing
shouted at me as a cyclist by passing motorists that isn't an
obscenity is "helmet", or variations on that theme.
Matthew
--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>>It's a funny thing, the one who's looking irrational here is probably
>>not me. I'm a middle-aged professional man, the only thing that leads
>>to me being harangued in public by complete strangers is my choice of
>>headgear when cycling.
>Most odd, I've never heard anyone saying anything to any bicyclist
>about their choice or not of headgear, it is a matter of complete
>unimportance to most people.
Apparently not, since complete strangers appear to feel it's perfectly
acceptable to present their choice to cyclists unsolicited and on the
assumption that they are bearers of some great truth. You've not
encountered this? Either you're not a regular bareheaded cyclist or
you've been lucky.
>(On the other hand I am frequently
>harangued by bicyclists traveling at speed screaming at me to get out
>their way on footpaths).
That's because they are cunts. Stand in their way and stop them.
Cyclists should never travel at speed on footways, even where the
council has made it perfectly safe and legal by the application of
Magic White Paint (TM).
>Might your unfortunate experiences be something more to do with the
>way you ride and treat other road users?
Very unlikely. It may be to do with /where/ I ride, which is mainly
round London. There are a lot of busybodies in London.
>>My "mission" is to promote the seditious idea that cycling is a safe
>>and healthy activity.
>
>You might care to start by looking at video clips showing quite the
>opposite posted frequently by many cyclists.
Or I might not.
>I don't think equating the trivial and inconsequential anguish of
>being told you should be wearing a helmet with the pain of a woman
>being stabbed to death or told her rape was her fault is honest,
>proportional, rational or acceptable. You seem to think otherwise.
I did say it was in some ways analogous. The situation is that I will
be blamed, in court, for the extent of my injuries, despite the fact
that there is no known case where cyclist injury rates have improved
as a result of increases in helmet use. It will be asserted, in court,
as it has been for numerous other cyclists before me, that my informed
choice is negligent and that by failing to wear a certain type of hat
and a certain colour of clothing I have in some way brought misfortune
on myself.
I suppose one might be satirical instead and compare it with Muslim
clerics claiming that immodestly dressed women cause earthquakes.
Sorry, it's a hot topic for me, right now, because of events last
Friday. I am sure that I will regain my sense of perspective at some
future time. Just as soon as I've found the necessary piece of fairy
cake.
JMS
wrote:
>Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> writes:
>
>> Most odd, I've never heard anyone saying anything to any bicyclist
>> about their choice or not of headgear,
>
>This is woefully off-topic, but. The most common intelligible thing
>shouted at me as a cyclist by passing motorists that isn't an
>obscenity is "helmet", or variations on that theme.
>
>Matthew
I do not believe you.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 10:34:01 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
><guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:39:01 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>>wrote:
>
>>>You mean by not agreeing with his irrational obsession? Quite what is
>>>meant to justify his fatuous opinion that being asked to wear a helmet
>>>and be visible is akin to torture, murder and rape?
>>
>>It's a funny thing, the one who's looking irrational here is probably
>>not me. I'm a middle-aged professional man, the only thing that leads
>>to me being harangued in public by complete strangers is my choice of
>>headgear when cycling.
>
>Most odd, I've never heard anyone saying anything to any bicyclist
>about their choice or not of headgear, it is a matter of complete
>unimportance to most people. (On the other hand I am frequently
>harangued by bicyclists traveling at speed screaming at me to get out
>their way on footpaths).
Most cyclists don't do that. I expect if a vote was taken in urcm it
would be against cyclist travelling at speed on pavements or footpaths
and yelling at people to get out of their way.
> I've asked two colleagues who are daily
>cyclists how often they get comments about not wearing helmets
>(neither do) shouted at them and they both replied they never have.
OK, so your colleagues don't see this mythical pavement rider but you
do. How about you just give him a nudge so he crashes and call the
police. If he is doing something wrong he should be arrested. I think
most people who contribute to urcm don't like that sort of person
either.
>Might your unfortunate experiences be something more to do with the
>way you ride and treat other road users?
I think Guy is actually a user of multiple means of transport.
>>My "mission" is to promote the seditious idea that cycling is a safe
>>and healthy activity.
>
>You might care to start by looking at video clips showing quite the
>opposite posted frequently by many cyclists. Those showing endless
>screaming matches between bicyclists and others which purport to show
>the daily war on the roads fought by bicycle riders with imminent
>death avoided by microseconds.
I think there is a link to pornography here. If you don't like it why
are you looking at it?
> Then there are the interminable shroud
>waving propaganda posts of "cyclist killed by tipper truck" (even when
>they are not, much to the obvious disappointment of some
>propagandists). These are made within minutes of any incident and
>without a shred of evidence as to the facts.
People have been killed. You may want to make that a minor point. I
can't see why you want to do that. Someone died. Is their life less
important because they were on a bicycle?
>I would guess that with an hours search of YouTube and a few bicycle
>forums anyone could make up a DVD which, if shown at any school to
>parents, would ensure bicycles were banned from the school for
>eternity.
OK, it appears now that you are saying bicycles are per se bad.
>> It's not really that seditious, to be honest,
>
>I don't think equating the trivial and inconsequential anguish of
>being told you should be wearing a helmet with the pain of a woman
>being stabbed to death or told her rape was her fault is honest,
>proportional, rational or acceptable. You seem to think otherwise.
Proportion, please, Peter!
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>The situation is that I will
>be blamed, in court, for the extent of my injuries, despite the fact
>that there is no known case where cyclist injury rates have improved
>as a result of increases in helmet use. It will be asserted, in court,
>as it has been for numerous other cyclists before me, that my informed
>choice is negligent and that by failing to wear a certain type of hat
>and a certain colour of clothing I have in some way brought misfortune
>on myself.
Hello, hello - have we had more economy with the truth?
But now it creeps out - exactly as I predicted; indeed what I
predicted months ago - there IS going to be a court case - and you ARE
going to be blamed for contributory negligence.
Excellent- exactly how it should be
You cannot say that you were not warned
Still - you will be able to call Percy P for his expert advice to the
court.
--
JMS
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Maybe his wife ran off with a cyclist or something like that but this
>amount of ire deserves treatment IMO.
Chapman was a fuckwit for using rape and attacks for comparison
purposes with wearing cycle helmets.
Peter P quite rightly pointed this out.
You are a fuckwit for not understanding.
Peter Parry
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Sat, 3 Jul 2010 11:40:40 <gu1u26lginlbhr74p...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>>Most odd, I've never heard anyone saying anything to any bicyclist
>>about their choice or not of headgear, it is a matter of complete
>>unimportance to most people. (On the other hand I am frequently
>>harangued by bicyclists traveling at speed screaming at me to get out
>>their way on footpaths).
>
>Most cyclists don't do that. I expect if a vote was taken in urcm it
>would be against cyclist travelling at speed on pavements or footpaths
>and yelling at people to get out of their way.
If you wish to observe such behaviour a few hours on the towpath
(where pedestrians have priority over cyclists) of the Grand Union
canal near here will unfortunately give you ample examples. The
miscreants appear to be mainly "enthusiasts" as they tend to be of the
"Lycra clad expensive looking bike with GPS" persuasion.
>> I've asked two colleagues who are daily
>>cyclists how often they get comments about not wearing helmets
>>(neither do) shouted at them and they both replied they never have.
>
>OK, so your colleagues don't see this mythical pavement rider but you
>do.
What are you on about? I didn't mention pavements nor a singular
rider and as neither colleague rides the towpath to work why should
they be aware of what goes on on it?
> How about you just give him a nudge so he crashes and call the
>police.
He? There are both male and female, although the male are far worse.
>> Then there are the interminable shroud
>>waving propaganda posts of "cyclist killed by tipper truck" (even when
>>they are not, much to the obvious disappointment of some
>>propagandists). These are made within minutes of any incident and
>>without a shred of evidence as to the facts.
>
>People have been killed. You may want to make that a minor point. I
>can't see why you want to do that. Someone died. Is their life less
>important because they were on a bicycle?
Of course not.
The point I was making was that if the cycling community wishes to
promote cycling as safe (which for most people it is) then a good way
of _not_ achieving that aim is to indulge in the exaggeration of
incidents and witless allocation of blame before any investigation
takes place.
>>I would guess that with an hours search of YouTube and a few bicycle
>>forums anyone could make up a DVD which, if shown at any school to
>>parents, would ensure bicycles were banned from the school for
>>eternity.
>
>OK, it appears now that you are saying bicycles are per se bad.
Not at all, I'm saying that the very people who are trying to say that
bicycles are good are at the same time producing and publishing
evidence which appears to show they are terribly dangerous.
If someone was opposed to bicycle riding it would be the work of a few
minutes to take the information posted by the _proponents_ of bicycle
riding and use it to show that cycling appears to be hideously
dangerous. For some reason while there are many "my latest escape
from death" clips there are no obvious ones of "my pleasant ride to
work"
>>> It's not really that seditious, to be honest,
>>
>>I don't think equating the trivial and inconsequential anguish of
>>being told you should be wearing a helmet with the pain of a woman
>>being stabbed to death or told her rape was her fault is honest,
>>proportional, rational or acceptable. You seem to think otherwise.
>
>Proportion, please, Peter!
I do not consider it to be proportionate to equate comment about not
wearing a helmet with rape and murder.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net>
>Sorry, it's a hot topic for me, right now, because of events last
>Friday. I am sure that I will regain my sense of perspective at some
>future time. Just as soon as I've found the necessary piece of fairy
>cake.
Would a communal hug be acceptable right now? If so have one from me.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Sat, 3 Jul 2010 12:25:12 <k27u261m839qd73si...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net>
>
>>Sorry, it's a hot topic for me, right now, because of events last
>>Friday. I am sure that I will regain my sense of perspective at some
>>future time. Just as soon as I've found the necessary piece of fairy
>>cake.
>
>Would a communal hug be acceptable right now? If so have one from me.
Thanks, mate, to be honest the inevitable legal crap is rather winding
me up at the moment, not helped by an initially unsatisfactory
experience with the recommended firm of landsharks. I suspect things
will settle down in time. I'm intending to at least try to get to the
office on Monday, I'll take it from there.
Peter Parry
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:40:40 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>wrote:
>>Most odd, I've never heard anyone saying anything to any bicyclist
>>about their choice or not of headgear, it is a matter of complete
>>unimportance to most people.
>Apparently not, since complete strangers appear to feel it's perfectly
>acceptable to present their choice to cyclists unsolicited and on the
>assumption that they are bearers of some great truth. You've not
>encountered this? Either you're not a regular bareheaded cyclist or
>you've been lucky.
>>Might your unfortunate experiences be something more to do with the
>>way you ride and treat other road users?
>Very unlikely. It may be to do with /where/ I ride, which is mainly
>round London. There are a lot of busybodies in London.
I suspect you are right about this. The behaviour I mentioned seems
to be centred around a new development of flats aimed at young London
commuters. Both cyclists and drivers in London seem to be far more
aggressive and intolerant of others than those anywhere else.
>I did say it was in some ways analogous. The situation is that I will
>be blamed, in court, for the extent of my injuries, despite the fact
>that there is no known case where cyclist injury rates have improved
>as a result of increases in helmet use. It will be asserted, in court,
>as it has been for numerous other cyclists before me, that my informed
>choice is negligent and that by failing to wear a certain type of hat
>and a certain colour of clothing I have in some way brought misfortune
>on myself.
You have the opportunity to bring your own evidence to refute any such
claim. However, consider the cyclist I mentioned earlier, riding a
dark bike in black clothes with an obscured rear light (and no
noticeable reflectors) on an unlit road on winters nights. What
happened to him, or who he was, I have no idea but the remains of his
bike are still on the edge of the woods months after I last saw him.
Assuming he was in a collision - did he bear no responsibility for his
misfortune?
>I suppose one might be satirical instead and compare it with Muslim
>clerics claiming that immodestly dressed women cause earthquakes.
I thought it caused a rain of frogs?
Wm...
uk.net.news.config JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk>
>Hello, hello - have we had more economy with the truth?
Nope.
>But now it creeps out - exactly as I predicted; indeed what I
>predicted months ago - there IS going to be a court case - and you ARE
>going to be blamed for contributory negligence.
>
>Excellent- exactly how it should be
>
>You cannot say that you were not warned
>
>Still - you will be able to call Percy P for his expert advice to the
>court.
If Guy wants a witness in court I am available, I think PP is also an
honest person.
You, JMS, are blatantly dishonest and unreliable.
Trevor A Panther
news:gu1u26lginlbhr74p...@4ax.com...
I have been reading the comments of Mr Chapman, Mr Brooke, Mr Parry and Mr
Crispin and I must say that am not surprised to find that it is Mr Chapman
and Mr Brooke who appear to be irrational in their responses as is often
their wont. In fact, of course they just make themselves look silly and
crankie
Mr Parry and Mr Crispin have put forward clear statements and replies.
But Mr Chapman is well known for his inability to maintain a reasoned
argument and will fly off into his favourite occupation of being a first
class "troll". He is, after all, one of the main reasons that urcm was
founded.
Mr Brooke speaks "far too loud, too often and flat" ( apologies to Messrs
Flanders and Swann) and would be wiser if he withdrew from his endless
postings and took a long sabbatical well away from these pages.
I actually do feel that if both Messrs Chapman and Brooke took several paces
step back and removed themselves from posting for several weeks then they
might find that others on here might then find them ( C & B) much less
divisive on their return. A case of "absence makes the heart grow fonder"
I can only say that looking in very occasionally as I now do it seems to be
the same case as it was from the moment that "urcm" was set up === where
these matters should be disussed in open house in urcm!
It is clear that urcm does not provide free access for those with cycling
interests. Instead all the "washing of dirty linen " is done in public, much
to the detriment of "cyclists" and of urcm itself.
--
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
JMS
Hello Maggot.
"dishonest and unreliable" - said the person who asked for any
personal information anyone had about me.
Said the person who agreed to send me that information if I emailed
him - which I did - he did not complete his side of the bargain.
Since when have you been an expert on contributory negligence (or
anything else for that matter)
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 13:12:45 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sat, 3 Jul 2010 12:25:12 <k27u261m839qd73si...@4ax.com>
>>uk.net.news.config "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net>
>>
>>>Sorry, it's a hot topic for me, right now, because of events last
>>>Friday. I am sure that I will regain my sense of perspective at some
>>>future time. Just as soon as I've found the necessary piece of fairy
>>>cake.
>>
>>Would a communal hug be acceptable right now? If so have one from me.
>
>Thanks, mate, to be honest the inevitable legal crap is rather winding
>me up at the moment, not helped by an initially unsatisfactory
>experience with the recommended firm of landsharks. I suspect things
>will settle down in time. I'm intending to at least try to get to the
>office on Monday, I'll take it from there.
>
>Guy
Could you share the details of the "legal crap" - perhaps you should
post in ULM - they have a very good team of moderators and run a very
good newsgroup.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 12:24:56 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sat, 3 Jul 2010 11:40:40 <gu1u26lginlbhr74p...@4ax.com>
>>uk.net.news.config Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>
>>>Most odd, I've never heard anyone saying anything to any bicyclist
>>>about their choice or not of headgear, it is a matter of complete
>>>unimportance to most people. (On the other hand I am frequently
>>>harangued by bicyclists traveling at speed screaming at me to get out
>>>their way on footpaths).
>>
>>Most cyclists don't do that. I expect if a vote was taken in urcm it
>>would be against cyclist travelling at speed on pavements or footpaths
>>and yelling at people to get out of their way.
>
>If you wish to observe such behaviour a few hours on the towpath
>(where pedestrians have priority over cyclists) of the Grand Union
>canal near here will unfortunately give you ample examples. The
>miscreants appear to be mainly "enthusiasts" as they tend to be of the
>"Lycra clad expensive looking bike with GPS" persuasion.
Push them into the canal, they'll realise they were wrong when they are
wet and gasping and their bike has become part of the canal's detritus.
Do you, Peter, really think most cyclists are that rude?
Most of us are just people trying to get from one place to another as
cheaply and efficiently as possible. Why are you fighting with a person
like me? I don't support the bad behaviour of other people.
>>> I've asked two colleagues who are daily
>>>cyclists how often they get comments about not wearing helmets
>>>(neither do) shouted at them and they both replied they never have.
>>
>>OK, so your colleagues don't see this mythical pavement rider but you
>>do.
>
>What are you on about?
I'm trying to work out what you are on about.
> I didn't mention pavements nor a singular
>rider and as neither colleague rides the towpath to work why should
>they be aware of what goes on on it?
k, this is about a specific path and you at specific times. I think you
should have said that to begin with.
>> How about you just give him a nudge so he crashes and call the
>>police.
>
>He? There are both male and female, although the male are far worse.
Male or female they are not doing cyclists any favours. Just do it,
Peter. Make sure you call the police too, otherwise bad stuff happens.
>>> Then there are the interminable shroud
>>>waving propaganda posts of "cyclist killed by tipper truck" (even when
>>>they are not, much to the obvious disappointment of some
>>>propagandists). These are made within minutes of any incident and
>>>without a shred of evidence as to the facts.
>>
>>People have been killed. You may want to make that a minor point. I
>>can't see why you want to do that. Someone died. Is their life less
>>important because they were on a bicycle?
>
>Of course not.
>The point I was making was that if the cycling community wishes to
>promote cycling as safe (which for most people it is) then a good way
>of _not_ achieving that aim is to indulge in the exaggeration of
>incidents and witless allocation of blame before any investigation
>takes place.
I think you make a good point there, Peter. I don't think cyclists in
urcm glorify death, sometimes it is necessary for it to be reported. Are
you objecting to that?
>>>I would guess that with an hours search of YouTube and a few bicycle
>>>forums anyone could make up a DVD which, if shown at any school to
>>>parents, would ensure bicycles were banned from the school for
>>>eternity.
>>
>>OK, it appears now that you are saying bicycles are per se bad.
>
>Not at all, I'm saying that the very people who are trying to say that
>bicycles are good are at the same time producing and publishing
>evidence which appears to show they are terribly dangerous.
Who are these bad people? Skip the obvious people and say who you think
is mad or bad. I don't want to know them either, promise.
>If someone was opposed to bicycle riding it would be the work of a few
>minutes to take the information posted by the _proponents_ of bicycle
>riding and use it to show that cycling appears to be hideously
>dangerous. For some reason while there are many "my latest escape
>from death" clips there are no obvious ones of "my pleasant ride to
>work"
I own a cheap pay as you go phone without video ability. I also think
you'd find my usual journey rather dull. It involves a few large London
housing estates and I don't get attacked. I smile at people and they
smile back at me. I suppose I could get a video of that but doubt it
would be as interesting as the bad people doing stuff.
>>>> It's not really that seditious, to be honest,
>>>
>>>I don't think equating the trivial and inconsequential anguish of
>>>being told you should be wearing a helmet with the pain of a woman
>>>being stabbed to death or told her rape was her fault is honest,
>>>proportional, rational or acceptable. You seem to think otherwise.
>>
>>Proportion, please, Peter!
>
>I do not consider it to be proportionate to equate comment about not
>wearing a helmet with rape and murder.
Yikes! Have you tried reading that without the negation, Peter?
Wm...
>On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 13:12:45 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sat, 3 Jul 2010 12:25:12 <k27u261m839qd73si...@4ax.com>
>>uk.net.news.config "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net>
>>
>>>Sorry, it's a hot topic for me, right now, because of events last
>>>Friday. I am sure that I will regain my sense of perspective at some
>>>future time. Just as soon as I've found the necessary piece of fairy
>>>cake.
>>
>>Would a communal hug be acceptable right now? If so have one from me.
>
>Thanks, mate, to be honest the inevitable legal crap is rather winding
>me up at the moment, not helped by an initially unsatisfactory
>experience with the recommended firm of landsharks. I suspect things
>will settle down in time. I'm intending to at least try to get to the
>office on Monday, I'll take it from there.
I think someone (not me) suggested you were work shy. I wonder if that
person has a job.
Be who you are, Guy, it may upset some people but I value real people
saying what they think.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>>I suppose one might be satirical instead and compare it with Muslim
>>clerics claiming that immodestly dressed women cause earthquakes.
>
>I thought it caused a rain of frogs?
Doesn't one have to believe in Jesus for that to happen?
Wm...
uk.net.news.config JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk>
>"dishonest and unreliable" - said the person who asked for any
>personal information anyone had about me.
>Said the person who agreed to send me that information if I emailed
>him - which I did - he did not complete his side of the bargain.
You were unable to receive it. I did send it.
>Since when have you been an expert on contributory negligence (or
>anything else for that matter)
A while.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Trevor A Panther <ta...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk>
>I can only say that looking in very occasionally as I now do it seems to be
>the same case as it was from the moment that "urcm" was set up === where
>these matters should be disussed in open house in urcm!
>
>It is clear that urcm does not provide free access for those with cycling
>interests. Instead all the "washing of dirty linen " is done in public, much
>to the detriment of "cyclists" and of urcm itself.
I think this is the 37'th time you have said you weren't going to post
again.
Make your mind up.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>I think someone (not me) suggested you were work shy. I wonder if that
>person has a job.
Heh! I don't know, but they certainly don't have much of a grip on
reality.
Peter Parry
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Sat, 3 Jul 2010 13:15:13 <no8u26dcm64u8ijho...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>Do you, Peter, really think most cyclists are that rude?
I made no comment about cyclists in general. My remark was that
whilst I have never heard a cyclist being berated for not wearing a
helmet I have on several occasions been shouted at rudely by cyclists
to get out of their way (when it was my right of way).
>> I didn't mention pavements nor a singular
>>rider and as neither colleague rides the towpath to work why should
>>they be aware of what goes on on it?
>
>k, this is about a specific path and you at specific times. I think you
>should have said that to begin with.
I thought I had, obviously not clearly enough.
>>Of course not.
>>The point I was making was that if the cycling community wishes to
>>promote cycling as safe (which for most people it is) then a good way
>>of _not_ achieving that aim is to indulge in the exaggeration of
>>incidents and witless allocation of blame before any investigation
>>takes place.
>
>I think you make a good point there, Peter. I don't think cyclists in
>urcm glorify death, sometimes it is necessary for it to be reported. Are
>you objecting to that?
No. I simply find the exaggeration and accusations of blame before
investigation rather counter productive.
>>Not at all, I'm saying that the very people who are trying to say that
>>bicycles are good are at the same time producing and publishing
>>evidence which appears to show they are terribly dangerous.
>
>Who are these bad people? Skip the obvious people and say who you think
>is mad or bad. I don't want to know them either, promise.
Who said bad? Take for example
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/
If you wanted to put a mother off letting her child ride a bike you
need no more. An average journey to work shown there seems to contain
more bile, bad temper and foul language than I've encountered in
decades of traveling by various means. That is before you get to the
"my bike fell apart and I landed on my nose" one. As with many
motoring incidents it seems excessive speed is a major risk factor for
bicyclists as well.
Similar are found throughout Youtube
>For some reason while there are many "my latest escape
>>from death" clips there are no obvious ones of "my pleasant ride to
>>work"
>I own a cheap pay as you go phone without video ability. I also think
>you'd find my usual journey rather dull.
Dull can be good - especially if it can show something like how
intelligent use of not obvious roads and tracks can make a journey
relatively free of traffic and more enjoyable. People contemplating
starting cycling or parents worried about letting a child go to school
on a cycle might welcome some boring videos rather than "Deathwish
Dulwich"
> It involves a few large London
>housing estates and I don't get attacked. I smile at people and they
>smile back at me. I suppose I could get a video of that but doubt it
>would be as interesting as the bad people doing stuff.
Depends upon your audience :-)
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>consider the cyclist I mentioned earlier, riding a
>dark bike in black clothes with an obscured rear light (and no
>noticeable reflectors) on an unlit road on winters nights. What
>happened to him, or who he was, I have no idea but the remains of his
>bike are still on the edge of the woods months after I last saw him.
>Assuming he was in a collision - did he bear no responsibility for his
>misfortune?
I was once stopped outside Henley police station reporting a fallen
tree on Remenham Hill when a woman came up and complained that she'd
crashed into it. She wanted to know who would pay for the damage.
After a few attempts to instill Clue, the sergeant finally said to her
"madam, when you drive into something that's in the carriageway, it's
usually considered to be your own silly fault".
Cyclists' groups campaigned against the mandatory fitting of rear
reflectors and lights for exactly that reason: a driver is supposed
always to be able to stop within the distance he can see to be clear.
That applies whether it's a tree, a pedestrian (unlit country roads
rarely have footways), a deer, a horse or indeed a cyclist.
Now, you would never catch me riding at night without lights. I happen
to think that relying on other people to spot me without shining
lights at them is a foolish and unnecessary way to test their
observational abilities. The lights fitted to each of my regular bikes
cost more than most people spend on an entire bike, the dynamo alone
on the Brom was well over £100. But I'm not going to say that just
because someone sometimes rode without lights (illegal and very
foolish though it might be) then he must be the author of his own
demise. Maybe he was. Maybe he hit a pothole he did not see. But we
don't actually know from the data presented. Would it be his fault if
he were a pedestrian walking along the same road?
Don't make the mistake of believing that I support people who ride
unlit or unroadworthy bikes, my reserves of sympathy are pretty low in
such cases.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<ta...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
[snippety]
Gosh, Trevor, in all that screed you didn't address a single point,
all you did was cast aspersions on individuals based on your own
opinion of them. I suppose that's what you consider a rational
approach, is it? I think the pot may be calling the sospan fach here,
to borrow another phrase from my favourite light entertainers.
Percy Picacity
news:n6hu26h4ler1vj6hm...@4ax.com:
>
> Now, you would never catch me riding at night without lights. I
> happen to think that relying on other people to spot me without
> shining lights at them is a foolish and unnecessary way to test
> their observational abilities. The lights fitted to each of my
> regular bikes cost more than most people spend on an entire bike,
> the dynamo alone on the Brom was well over �100. But I'm not going
> to say that just because someone sometimes rode without lights
> (illegal and very foolish though it might be) then he must be the
> author of his own demise. Maybe he was. Maybe he hit a pothole he
> did not see. But we don't actually know from the data presented.
> Would it be his fault if he were a pedestrian walking along the
> same road?
Regrettably, it is nowadays quite unwise to walk on narrow country
roads at night without a torch, even if you don't actually need one to
see the way.
--
Percy Picacity
Peter Parry
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 13:31:46 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>wrote:
>Cyclists' groups campaigned against the mandatory fitting of rear
>reflectors and lights for exactly that reason: a driver is supposed
>always to be able to stop within the distance he can see to be clear.
>That applies whether it's a tree, a pedestrian (unlit country roads
>rarely have footways), a deer, a horse or indeed a cyclist.
By that wonderfully Darwinian logic should not all vehicles have been
exempt?
>But I'm not going to say that just
>because someone sometimes rode without lights (illegal and very
>foolish though it might be) then he must be the author of his own
>demise.
Not the author, but certainly a willing assistant.
>Maybe he was. Maybe he hit a pothole he did not see. But we
>don't actually know from the data presented.
There have been no reports of fatalities on that road so whatever
occurred he appears to have at least survived.
>Would it be his fault if
>he were a pedestrian walking along the same road?
It wouldn't be his fault, but if he was walking at night dressed in
black along an unlit and relatively busy minor road it is difficult to
see other than he would bear some responsibility for any damage he
incurred.
It is little different from what would happen if a factory worker
decided not to wear a protective device supplied to him and was
injured. The responsibility for causing the injury would be the
factory owner, the responsibility for at least some of the severity of
the injury would be that of the worker who refused to wear the
protective device which might have lessened the injury.
JMS
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Sat, 3 Jul 2010 14:01:55 <v0du2655csf43jskc...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk>
>
>>"dishonest and unreliable" - said the person who asked for any
>>personal information anyone had about me.
>>Said the person who agreed to send me that information if I emailed
>>him - which I did - he did not complete his side of the bargain.
>
>You were unable to receive it. I did send it.
Oh this is new - feel free to expand.
What are you actually saying - that you sent the email - but I was not
able to receive it for some reason?
Do you use chiark?
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 14:14:32 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>I think someone (not me) suggested you were work shy. I wonder if that
>>person has a job.
>
>Heh! I don't know, but they certainly don't have much of a grip on
>reality.
>
>Guy
It wasn't me - I know full well that Guy is an IT expert - he tells us
so many times.
He has actually been told by three different mainstream IT
organisations that he is a "thought leader".
I found it quite odd that three different organisations should say
such a thing.
Perhaps he wrote to them : "Please Sir, please sir, - would you say
that I am a "thought leader" - or perhaps they just wrote to him out
of the blue and told him so.
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> The lights fitted to each of my regular bikes
>cost more than most people spend on an entire bike, the dynamo alone
>on the Brom was well over £100.
You are good value Guy.
Who gives a fuck how much your dynamo cost?
You've not told us how much your house is worth, what your salary is,
or how much tax you paid this year for at least a couple of months
now.
I should sell the dynamo on ebay now - it will contribute to your
court costs.
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 13:37:21 +0100, "Trevor A Panther"
><ta...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[snippety]
>
>Gosh, Trevor, in all that screed you didn't address a single point,
>all you did was cast aspersions on individuals based on your own
>opinion of them. I suppose that's what you consider a rational
>approach, is it? I think the pot may be calling the sospan fach here,
>to borrow another phrase from my favourite light entertainers.
>
>Guy
A useful contribution Guy:
Or as Ian Smith said:
"He's making trouble.
He likes to wallow in shit, then raise an almighty protest that he's
covered in shit. It's terrible that all the shit sticks to him, when
all he does is lie down in it, roll around in it, throw it up in the
air and give it a good stir whenever an opportunity arises."
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>No. I simply find the exaggeration and accusations of blame before
>investigation rather counter productive.
I think points are made rather than exaggerated. If I try and see it
from your POV maybe we are exaggerating. But surely a person killed
remains that? A person is dead. We can't undo that. Ask any regular
contributor to urcm and they'll tell you not to get into a situation
where you are likely to get killed. We don't want people to die!
>>>Not at all, I'm saying that the very people who are trying to say that
>>>bicycles are good are at the same time producing and publishing
>>>evidence which appears to show they are terribly dangerous.
>>
>>Who are these bad people? Skip the obvious people and say who you think
>>is mad or bad. I don't want to know them either, promise.
>
>Who said bad? Take for example
>http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/bikecams/
>If you wanted to put a mother off letting her child ride a bike you
>need no more. An average journey to work shown there seems to contain
>more bile, bad temper and foul language than I've encountered in
>decades of traveling by various means. That is before you get to the
>"my bike fell apart and I landed on my nose" one. As with many
>motoring incidents it seems excessive speed is a major risk factor for
>bicyclists as well.
>
>Similar are found throughout Youtube
I think it is broadly known that IanJ isn't my favourite person. He
happens to "own" urcm; not all cyclists think he should. Work from
there.
>Dull can be good - especially if it can show something like how
>intelligent use of not obvious roads and tracks can make a journey
>relatively free of traffic and more enjoyable. People contemplating
>starting cycling or parents worried about letting a child go to school
>on a cycle might welcome some boring videos rather than "Deathwish
>Dulwich"
Dulwich is a bit middle class these days.
>> It involves a few large London
>>housing estates and I don't get attacked. I smile at people and they
>>smile back at me. I suppose I could get a video of that but doubt it
>>would be as interesting as the bad people doing stuff.
>
>Depends upon your audience :-)
True. I'm wondering why you won't accept my word that IanJ isn't the
right person to moderate our group.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
>Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> considered Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:40:40
>+0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> I've asked two colleagues who are daily
>>cyclists how often they get comments about not wearing helmets
>>(neither do) shouted at them and they both replied they never have.
>>
>I don't believe you, unless your idea of a daily cyclist is someone
>who sits on a stationary bike in a gym.
>If you'd said rarely, it might have been believable, but never?
>That's bullshit.
I may be at odds with the world at large here but when I first read that
I thought it was from JMS.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk>
Yes.
>Do you use chiark?
No.
Peter Parry
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:43 <k8fu265g9fcocfhp2...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>
>>No. I simply find the exaggeration and accusations of blame before
>>investigation rather counter productive.
>I think points are made rather than exaggerated. If I try and see it
>from your POV maybe we are exaggerating. But surely a person killed
>remains that?
Luckily, not always. Several initially reported as dead to great
fanfare in the past appear to have fortuitously returned to life
shortly thereafter. Some have also undergone a sex change in
accidents as female victims seem to be preferred to male.
>True. I'm wondering why you won't accept my word that IanJ isn't the
>right person to moderate our group.
Oh I'm perfectly prepared to accept that. Having observed his antics
for over a decade I would not trust him to run a piss-up in a brewery.
He is consistent though and appears to hate everyone who doesn't agree
with his every whim with equal enthusiasm.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>>Cyclists' groups campaigned against the mandatory fitting of rear
>>reflectors and lights for exactly that reason: a driver is supposed
>>always to be able to stop within the distance he can see to be clear.
>>That applies whether it's a tree, a pedestrian (unlit country roads
>>rarely have footways), a deer, a horse or indeed a cyclist.
>By that wonderfully Darwinian logic should not all vehicles have been
>exempt?
As indeed hay carts were, yes. I'm not sure to what extent the
agricultural exemptions still apply. Horses are also not required to
carry lights when ridden on road after dark, as far as I'm aware.
At the other end of the scale the operators of recovery vehicles asked
to be allowed to use red flashing lights instead of amber because of
the number of people who crash into their vehicles and operators
during recovery operations. So apparently retro-reflective material,
flashing orange beacons and high visibility materials still don't
actually get you seen (and indeed a friend who is a firefighter
recounted with incredulity the tale of a woman who failed to see a
fire appliance at a scene, with blue strobes running, so crashed into
it).
>>But I'm not going to say that just
>>because someone sometimes rode without lights (illegal and very
>>foolish though it might be) then he must be the author of his own
>>demise.
>Not the author, but certainly a willing assistant.
It certainly sounds unwise, and I wouldn't do it for sure, still less
recommend anyone else to, but consider the case where he is walking
instead of cycling and I think you will see my point.
>>Would it be his fault if
>>he were a pedestrian walking along the same road?
>It wouldn't be his fault, but if he was walking at night dressed in
>black along an unlit and relatively busy minor road it is difficult to
>see other than he would bear some responsibility for any damage he
>incurred.
I don't know the road. I do know a number of fairly busy minor roads
which regularly do have people walking along them, dressed in whatever
clothing they happened to be wearing at the time. This is quite normal
in villages and hamlets, as I guess you know.
>It is little different from what would happen if a factory worker
>decided not to wear a protective device supplied to him and was
>injured. The responsibility for causing the injury would be the
>factory owner, the responsibility for at least some of the severity of
>the injury would be that of the worker who refused to wear the
>protective device which might have lessened the injury.
No, it's completely different, actually. If car crashes involving
employees driving on company business were handled as industrial
accidents then I think we'd see an awful lot of changes. Use of the
roads for transport is generally exempt from work-related H&S
legislation - I don't know whether tachograph offences are pursued as
traffic or H&S offences, but for cars and bicycles I'm pretty
confident that H&S legislation does not apply.
Tom Crispin
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 09:39:01 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>>Guy may be something of a monomaniac - as he himself says of Matt B, a
>>>mission poster. But people like you go a long way towards justifying
>>>Guy's behaviour.
>
>>You mean by not agreeing with his irrational obsession? Quite what is
>>meant to justify his fatuous opinion that being asked to wear a helmet
>>and be visible is akin to torture, murder and rape?
>
>It's a funny thing, the one who's looking irrational here is probably
>not me. I'm a middle-aged professional man, the only thing that leads
>to me being harangued in public by complete strangers is my choice of
>headgear when cycling.
I have just completed a 65 mile urban cycle ride: Blackheath -
Woolwich - Beckton - Tilbury - Gravesend - Dartford - Erith - Woolwich
- Becton - Canary Wharf - Tower Bridge - Rotherhithe - Blackheath.
I completed the entire 65 mile ride wearing nothing more on my head
than a straw Panama. Not one person, I repeat, not one person said a
word to me about my choice of headwear. I am not saying it doesn't
happen - but it is hardly worthy of note, and less worthy of note than
the 14 year old schoolgirls in Sainsbury's on Wednesday who took one
look at my man boobs and said, "nice pecs!" then disappeared in mild
hysterics.
JMS
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>>What are you actually saying - that you sent the email - but I was not
>>able to receive it for some reason?
>
>Yes.
Do you know what happened?
Was it bounced back to you?
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 17:26:21 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:12:43 <k8fu265g9fcocfhp2...@4ax.com>
>>uk.net.news.config Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>>
>>>No. I simply find the exaggeration and accusations of blame before
>>>investigation rather counter productive.
>
>>I think points are made rather than exaggerated. If I try and see it
>>from your POV maybe we are exaggerating. But surely a person killed
>>remains that?
>
>Luckily, not always. Several initially reported as dead to great
>fanfare in the past appear to have fortuitously returned to life
>shortly thereafter. Some have also undergone a sex change in
>accidents as female victims seem to be preferred to male.
I'll admit to not having a clue about that. Can anyone else help? I am
not aware of the sex change in accidents, if Peter says it happens then
I will try to believe him but ... maybe Peter has been reading more
Cronenberg scripts than necessary.
>>True. I'm wondering why you won't accept my word that IanJ isn't the
>>right person to moderate our group.
>
>Oh I'm perfectly prepared to accept that. Having observed his antics
>for over a decade I would not trust him to run a piss-up in a brewery.
>He is consistent though and appears to hate everyone who doesn't agree
>with his every whim with equal enthusiasm.
Hmmmn, equal hate does have some merits.
Just in case I want to know you are human, Peter, give me a bit of
music, anything will do so long as you like it.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config JMS <jmsmi...@live.co.uk>
No
>Was it bounced back to you?
Yes
Peter Parry
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Sat, 3 Jul 2010 18:03:44 <pnqu26dla4h1cuiia...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>>Luckily, not always. Several initially reported as dead to great
>>fanfare in the past appear to have fortuitously returned to life
>>shortly thereafter. Some have also undergone a sex change in
>>accidents as female victims seem to be preferred to male.
>I'll admit to not having a clue about that.
On at least one occasion a casualty reported as female (with much
emphasis upon the vulnerability of young female cyclists) turned out
to be male. Similarly casualties reported to have been killed have
fortunately been found later to have suffered only minor injuries.
>Just in case I want to know you are human, Peter, give me a bit of
>music, anything will do so long as you like it.
I have never claimed to be human.
Peter Parry
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 16:59:22 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>wrote:
>At the other end of the scale the operators of recovery vehicles asked
>to be allowed to use red flashing lights instead of amber because of
>the number of people who crash into their vehicles and operators
>during recovery operations. So apparently retro-reflective material,
>flashing orange beacons and high visibility materials still don't
>actually get you seen (and indeed a friend who is a firefighter
>recounted with incredulity the tale of a woman who failed to see a
>fire appliance at a scene, with blue strobes running, so crashed into
>it).
Oh, I'm well aware of that problem. Many years ago on a road called
(appropriately) the seven mile straight we would put out a hundreds of
yards of warning signs and flashing lights - enough to confuse pilots
landing at a nearby airport - and then sit on the bank whilst watching
headlights from several miles away get closer and closer before
eventually crashing into the vehicles blocking the road. Rather oddly
we once had a cyclist (of the impecunious variety) also ride into said
barrier but he at least had the excuse of being as nissed as a pewt.
>>It is little different from what would happen if a factory worker
>>decided not to wear a protective device supplied to him and was
>>injured. The responsibility for causing the injury would be the
>>factory owner, the responsibility for at least some of the severity of
>>the injury would be that of the worker who refused to wear the
>>protective device which might have lessened the injury.
>
>No, it's completely different, actually. If car crashes involving
>employees driving on company business were handled as industrial
>accidents
They can be, for example the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate
Homicide Act 2007 covers drivers on company business. Similarly the
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulation - 1992 (updated
1999) affect company car drivers as does the Health and Safety
(Offences) Act - 2008. The Health and Safety at Work Act - 1974 has
always applied to company drivers and vehicles.
- I don't know whether tachograph offences are pursued as
>traffic or H&S offences, but for cars and bicycles I'm pretty
>confident that H&S legislation does not apply.
That has never been the case. Even company supplied bicycles are
covered (hence the police amongst others requiring cyclist to undergo
formal training courses before being allowed to lift a pedal).
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
> - I don't know whether tachograph offences are pursued as
>>traffic or H&S offences, but for cars and bicycles I'm pretty
>>confident that H&S legislation does not apply.
>
>That has never been the case. Even company supplied bicycles are
>covered (hence the police amongst others requiring cyclist to undergo
>formal training courses before being allowed to lift a pedal).
Are you *absolutely* sure about that? There are an awful lot of
company supplied bicycles in use right now.
Peter Parry
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>Are you *absolutely* sure about that? There are an awful lot of
>company supplied bicycles in use right now.
Yes, for company supplied bicycles used for company business. It
would not apply to bicycles provided for private use (including riding
to work) under the subsidised Cycle to Work scheme.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 22:49:24 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
So are you saying that the HSAWA and other such legislation applies to
drivers of company cars on company business? I have been told with
some confidence that this is exempt. The person who told me is a
lawyer, not that this confers infallibility.
Peter Parry
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 22:54:58 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>wrote:
>So are you saying that the HSAWA and other such legislation applies to
>drivers of company cars on company business?
Of course, it always has. While there is no specific health and
safety legislation which covers the liability of an employer to
protect employees who may be using motor vehicles on company business
the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 places a general duty of
care on employers to protect the health and safety of those who may be
harmed by a company's activities.
Section 2(2) expands on the previous section by saying that
"without prejudice to the generality of an employers duty under the
preceding subsection, the matters to which that duty extends include
in particular::-
*the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work that are,
so far as is reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health
*the provision and maintenance of a working environment for his
employees that is, so far as is reasonably practicable, without risks
to health, and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for
their welfare at work"
Regulation (3) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work
Regulations 1999 (MHSWR) requires that "Every employer shall make a
suitable and sufficient assessment of:
* the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they
are exposed whilst they are at work; and
* risks to persons not in his employment arising out of his
undertaking"
There is no doubt that that includes vehicular operations and
convictions have taken place for transgretion.
For example
<http://www.shponline.co.uk/incourt-content/full/haulage-firm-and-senior-managers-acquitted-of-manslaughter>
<http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2010/coi-yh-07310.htm>
<http://www.brunswicks-web.co.uk/regulatory-news/vol3-08/june.phuse>
> I have been told with some confidence that this is exempt. The person who told me is a
>lawyer, not that this confers infallibility.
You should ask advice at better quality bars.
Chris French
you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> writes
>On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 23:16:20 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>You are pathetic (and engaging in offensive and ludicrous hyperbole).
>>When was the last time a bicycle rider in the UK was dragged from
>>their bicycle and butchered at the roadside? When was the last
>>cyclist hung from a tree to slowly suffocate for not wearing a plastic
>>helmet? Is there no depth you will not stoop to ?
>
>The last time a cyclist was dragged fomr their bicycle and butchered
>at the roadside was last week, I believe. It was a Keltbray truck.
>
I understand the point you are trying to make Guy, and I understand that
it might be a bit of a sore point at the moment.
But I'm finding the analogy you are making somewhat stretching the point
to say the least, and really rather offensive.
--
Chris French
Chris French
<ph...@lee-family.me.uk> writes
>Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> considered Sat, 03 Jul 2010 11:40:40
>+0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>> I've asked two colleagues who are daily
>>cyclists how often they get comments about not wearing helmets
>>(neither do) shouted at them and they both replied they never have.
>>
>I don't believe you, unless your idea of a daily cyclist is someone
>who sits on a stationary bike in a gym.
>If you'd said rarely, it might have been believable, but never?
>That's bullshit.
I can't say I can ever remember any shouted comments from random
strangers whilst riding (and I used to ride in London among other
places)
Though my most amusing insult was when I was driving, was almost cut up
by this chap whilst exiting a roundabout, beeped him. He then pulled
alongside me in the traffic queue and was ranting at me , and then
called me a 'speccy bastard' before driving off.
I'd not been called that since school I don't think :-)
--
Chris French
James
wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 22:54:58 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 22:49:24 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> ><guy.chap...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> >>Are you *absolutely* sure about that? There are an awful lot of
> >>company supplied bicycles in use right now.
>
> >Yes, for company supplied bicycles used for company business. It
> >would not apply to bicycles provided for private use (including riding
> >to work) under the subsidised Cycle to Work scheme.
>
> So are you saying that the HSAWA and other such legislation applies to
> drivers of company cars on company business? I have been told with
> some confidence that this is exempt. The person who told me is a
> lawyer, not that this confers infallibility.
There may be confusion over the fact that commuting is not covered,
and commuting is what many people are really talking about when they
discuss the matter.
In Japan, commuting *is* considered to be the company's
responsibility, though I'm not sure exactly what this actually means
in reality. It did provide our employer with an excuse to harass us
for daring to ride a tandem! (Which we still ride, but park round the
corner off company premises rather than using their cycle parking, and
walk in wearing cycling gear, and no-one asks any questions...)
Oh, this is going to unnc and unnm. I had assumed it was a urcm
thread. Never mind.
James
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 19:31:08 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Sat, 3 Jul 2010 18:03:44 <pnqu26dla4h1cuiia...@4ax.com>
>>uk.net.news.config Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>
>>>Luckily, not always. Several initially reported as dead to great
>>>fanfare in the past appear to have fortuitously returned to life
>>>shortly thereafter. Some have also undergone a sex change in
>>>accidents as female victims seem to be preferred to male.
>
>>I'll admit to not having a clue about that.
>
>On at least one occasion a casualty reported as female (with much
>emphasis upon the vulnerability of young female cyclists) turned out
>to be male. Similarly casualties reported to have been killed have
>fortunately been found later to have suffered only minor injuries.
I am struggling to make sense of that. You seem to be saying a person
died and it was reported as being a young man not a young woman. Why
would someone do that? Who gets the benefit?
>>Just in case I want to know you are human, Peter, give me a bit of
>>music, anything will do so long as you like it.
>
>I have never claimed to be human.
It has been noticed. I thought being human was a requirement for
participating here.
Andy Burns
> It has been noticed.
Can you elaborate on that?
> I thought being human was a requirement for participating here.
Does it please you that being human was a requirement for participating
here?
Wm...
<s-2dnWVqTdyqra3R...@brightview.co.uk> uk.net.news.config
Andy Burns <usenet....@adslpipe.co.uk>
>Wm... wrote:
>
>> It has been noticed.
>
>Can you elaborate on that?
Yes. How much do you need to know? ukv seem to have trusted my
existence so far.
>> I thought being human was a requirement for participating here.
>
>Does it please you that being human was a requirement for participating
>here?
I'm not sure about your use of the past tense.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 22:58:59 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
><guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Jul 2010 22:54:58 +0100, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>>wrote:
>
>>So are you saying that the HSAWA and other such legislation applies to
>>drivers of company cars on company business?
>
>Of course, it always has. While there is no specific health and
>safety legislation which covers the liability of an employer to
>protect employees who may be using motor vehicles on company business
>the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 places a general duty of
>care on employers to protect the health and safety of those who may be
>harmed by a company's activities.
I don't think that's right, but I will check again with my source.