Not to be read by psycholists

[Partac]

Just a suggestion – whenever a psycholist makes a howler on here, perhaps we
should start archiving them?

The only reason I’m suggesting this, is that (as we have seen recently),
after a period of time the psycholists tend to completely deny that
something particularly stupid has ever been said, then start stamping their
feet on the ground and demanding links or other proof of such. Now I don’t
know about everyone else, but I really can’t be bothered to spend any time
dancing to their tune. However, it would be nice to be able to have the
evidence on tap, as it were, if only to prove them wrong yet again.


Obviously, it wouldn’t be practical to archive *everything* silly that was
said by psycholists – there would be far too much material for that – just
the real corkers.
I know the 12 pints a night herbert from Hull has departed this NG, but I
think it would be fair play to include his words of wisdom from the
moderated group as well.


I think I might start with the one about wearing half a melon on your
head………

[Mrcheerful]

Partac wrote:
> Just a suggestion - whenever a psycholist makes a howler on here,

> perhaps we should start archiving them?
>
> The only reason I'm suggesting this, is that (as we have seen
> recently), after a period of time the psycholists tend to completely
> deny that something particularly stupid has ever been said, then
> start stamping their feet on the ground and demanding links or other
> proof of such. Now I don't know about everyone else, but I really
> can't be bothered to spend any time dancing to their tune. However,
> it would be nice to be able to have the evidence on tap, as it were,
> if only to prove them wrong yet again.
>
> Obviously, it wouldn't be practical to archive *everything* silly

> that was said by psycholists - there would be far too much material
> for that - just the real corkers.

> I know the 12 pints a night herbert from Hull has departed this NG,
> but I think it would be fair play to include his words of wisdom from
> the moderated group as well.
>
>
> I think I might start with the one about wearing half a melon on your

> head...

ah, how sweet.

Rotational couples and not going over the handlebars is always a classic.

Helmets cause crashes, likewise hi-viz.

Cyclists only technically ride over red lights.

Bicycles are disabled carriages.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Mrcheerful" <g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XBdKs.188$wl3...@fx12.fr7...

I loved the one about being stopped at red traffic lights which were out of
order, then phoning the Police to report an unlawful detention

[Squashme]

Please do. I for one certainly get fed up with the usual boring
repetition of the same few "howlers" from you cyclebaiters.

[Partac]

"Squashme" wrote in message
news:6bc3fc66-4140-403c...@c14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 18, 2:42 pm, "Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> Just a suggestion � whenever a psycholist makes a howler on here, perhaps

> we
> should start archiving them?
>

> The only reason I�m suggesting this, is that (as we have seen recently),

> after a period of time the psycholists tend to completely deny that
> something particularly stupid has ever been said, then start stamping
> their

> feet on the ground and demanding links or other proof of such. Now I don�t
> know about everyone else, but I really can�t be bothered to spend any time

> dancing to their tune. However, it would be nice to be able to have the
> evidence on tap, as it were, if only to prove them wrong yet again.
>

> Obviously, it wouldn�t be practical to archive *everything* silly that was
> said by psycholists � there would be far too much material for that � just

> the real corkers.
> I know the 12 pints a night herbert from Hull has departed this NG, but I
> think it would be fair play to include his words of wisdom from the
> moderated group as well.
>
> I think I might start with the one about wearing half a melon on your

> head���

Please do. I for one certainly get fed up with the usual boring
repetition of the same few "howlers" from you cyclebaiters.

If the psycholists didn't keep repeating them, we wouldn't either.
But you're right, some fresh material is certainly needed.
Thankfully, I don't think we'll have to wait too long at all.

[PhilO]

What a good idea. If we include links to where it was said, nobody can claim otherwise.

I'll start with the man that is "never wrong" claiming that 97% of drivers don't speed (Dave VOR Jan 16 2012).
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.rec.cycling/uqPhchJaexY/ybhJxyUIxb8J

[Partac]

"PhilO" wrote in message
news:f300b783-d13a-40ab...@googlegroups.com...

On Friday, January 18, 2013 2:42:36 PM UTC, Partac wrote:

> Just a suggestion � whenever a psycholist makes a howler on here, perhaps

> we
> should start archiving them?
>

> The only reason I�m suggesting this, is that (as we have seen recently),

> after a period of time the psycholists tend to completely deny that
> something particularly stupid has ever been said, then start stamping
> their

> feet on the ground and demanding links or other proof of such. Now I don�t
> know about everyone else, but I really can�t be bothered to spend any time

> dancing to their tune. However, it would be nice to be able to have the
> evidence on tap, as it were, if only to prove them wrong yet again.
>

> Obviously, it wouldn�t be practical to archive *everything* silly that was
> said by psycholists � there would be far too much material for that � just

> the real corkers.
>
> I know the 12 pints a night herbert from Hull has departed this NG, but I
> think it would be fair play to include his words of wisdom from the
> moderated group as well.
>
>
> I think I might start with the one about wearing half a melon on your

> head���

What a good idea. If we include links to where it was said, nobody can claim
otherwise.

I'll start with the man that is "never wrong" claiming that 97% of drivers
don't speed (Dave VOR Jan 16 2012).
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.rec.cycling/uqPhchJaexY/ybhJxyUIxb8J

Irony isn't your strong point, is it? I wonder what is, though?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Judith has quite a lot of these already.

Great idea though.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 18/01/2013 17:23, PhilO wrote:
> On Friday, January 18, 2013 2:42:36 PM UTC, Partac wrote:

>> Just a suggestion � whenever a psycholist makes a howler on here, perhaps we
>> should start archiving them?
>>
>> The only reason I�m suggesting this, is that (as we have seen recently),

>> after a period of time the psycholists tend to completely deny that
>> something particularly stupid has ever been said, then start stamping their

>> feet on the ground and demanding links or other proof of such. Now I don�t
>> know about everyone else, but I really can�t be bothered to spend any time

>> dancing to their tune. However, it would be nice to be able to have the
>> evidence on tap, as it were, if only to prove them wrong yet again.
>>

>> Obviously, it wouldn�t be practical to archive *everything* silly that was
>> said by psycholists � there would be far too much material for that � just

>> the real corkers.
>>
>> I know the 12 pints a night herbert from Hull has departed this NG, but I
>> think it would be fair play to include his words of wisdom from the
>> moderated group as well.
>>
>>
>> I think I might start with the one about wearing half a melon on your

>> head���

>
> What a good idea. If we include links to where it was said, nobody can claim otherwise.
>
> I'll start with the man that is "never wrong" claiming that 97% of drivers don't speed (Dave VOR Jan 16 2012).
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.rec.cycling/uqPhchJaexY/ybhJxyUIxb8J
>

What a shame that you have no proof, only supposition.

The facts are clear enough.

[Paul Cummins]

We were about to embark at Dover, when g.odon...@yahoo.co.uk
(Mrcheerful) came up to me and whispered:

> Bicycles are disabled carriages.

They can meet the legal definition of one...

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:alt5av...@mid.individual.net...

> Just a suggestion – whenever a psycholist makes a howler on here, perhaps
> we should start archiving them?

How about in the "One that Mr Cheerful" missed thread, where it's claimed
that bicycles can somehow cause pebbles, yes pebbles, to rise vertically
from the bottom of potholes, then be fired out at various trajectories once
clear of the top of said pothole, and perform even further changes of
direction whence airborne, allowing them to strike the rears of following
vehicles and pushchairs.

Referred to rather amusingly by JNugent as the "Magic Gravel Trajectory"
theory.

[Squashme]

On Jan 18, 8:47 pm, "Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:alt5av...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Just a suggestion – whenever a psycholist makes a howler on here, perhaps
> > we should start archiving them?
>
> How about in the "One that Mr Cheerful" missed thread, where it's claimed
> that bicycles can somehow cause pebbles, yes pebbles, to rise vertically
> from the bottom of potholes, then be fired out at various trajectories once
> clear of the top of said pothole, and perform even further changes of
> direction whence airborne, allowing them to strike the rears of following
> vehicles and pushchairs.

Great stuff! You'll have a link for that, of course? Or perhaps a
direct quote?

[Squashme]

On Jan 18, 3:56 pm, "Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "Squashme"  wrote in message
>
> news:6bc3fc66-4140-403c...@c14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jan 18, 2:42 pm, "Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Just a suggestion – whenever a psycholist makes a howler on here, perhaps

> > we
> > should start archiving them?
>

> > The only reason I’m suggesting this,  is that (as we have seen recently),

> > after a period of time the psycholists tend to completely deny that
> > something particularly stupid has ever been said, then start stamping
> > their

> > feet on the ground and demanding links or other proof of such. Now I don’t
> > know about everyone else, but I really can’t be bothered to spend any time

> > dancing to their tune. However, it would be nice to be able to have the
> > evidence on tap, as it were, if only to prove them wrong yet again.
>

> > Obviously, it wouldn’t be practical to archive *everything* silly that was
> > said by psycholists – there would be far too much material for that – just

> > the real corkers.
> > I know the 12 pints a night herbert from Hull has departed this NG, but I
> > think it would be fair play to include his words of wisdom from the
> > moderated group as well.
>
> > I think I might start with the one about wearing half a melon on your

> > head………

>
> Please do. I for one certainly get fed up with the usual boring
> repetition of the same few "howlers" from you cyclebaiters.
>
> If the psycholists didn't keep repeating them, we wouldn't either.
> But you're right, some fresh material is certainly needed.
> Thankfully, I don't think we'll have to wait too long at all.

Heaven has heard your prayer my Lord Sheriff

Here's Mentalguy2k8 today, replying to:-
"No. "He thinks the attack happened because his bike went over a pot
hole and sent a pebble into the car’s wing mirror.""

with the immortal:-

"No, he smashed the wing mirror quite deliberately and knows that
sooner or
later the Police may well trace the rather pissed off driver who is
going to
tell them what sparked his anger. So he's come up with a reason why
the wing
mirror is broken that doesn't implicate himself.

If you've ever done anything similar, you can spot it a mile off."

Takes your breath away, doesn't it?

[Squashme]

On Jan 18, 5:30 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 18/01/2013 14:42, Partac wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Just a suggestion – whenever a psycholist makes a howler on here,
> > perhaps we should start archiving them?
>
> > The only reason I’m suggesting this,  is that (as we have seen
> > recently), after a period of time the psycholists tend to completely
> > deny that something particularly stupid has ever been said, then start
> > stamping their feet on the ground and demanding links or other proof of
> > such. Now I don’t know about everyone else, but I really can’t be
> > bothered to spend any time dancing to their tune. However, it would be
> > nice to be able to have the evidence on tap, as it were, if only to
> > prove them wrong yet again.
>
> > Obviously, it wouldn’t be practical to archive *everything* silly that
> > was said by psycholists – there would be far too much material for that
> > – just the real corkers.
> > I know the 12 pints a night herbert from Hull has departed this NG, but
> > I think it would be fair play to include his words of wisdom from the
> > moderated group as well.
>
> > I think I might start with the one about wearing half a melon on your
> > head………
>
> Judith has quite a lot of these already.
>
> Great idea though.

Isn't it?

Here are some howlers of yours in reaction to an attack on a charity
fundraiser cycle race:-

"How fucking funny is that?

'Hundreds of cyclists were left with punctures'

Ha ha ha! "

"Its quite clear that the local residents simply didn't want hundreds
of
cyclotwats fucking up their road network. Because they regard
cyclists as a
PITA - just like the majority of the population."

"Cutting to the chase, people just don't like wanker cyclists closing
roads
for their rather silly schoolboy bike races."

"Face it - the majority of people don't like cyclists."

3 years ago, but really timeless.

Put it in the database.

[Squashme]

On Jan 18, 2:42 pm, "Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

Howabout "Nobody likes cyclists."
Want a link? Or should I just say Dave/Medway?

[Squashme]

How about "I wonder if the cyclist was one of the 'carry a pocket
full of gravel to
hurl at car drivers' brigade." Mrcheerful. 18th Jan, 2013 (I put the
year because this archive is likely to grow and grow).

[Partac]

"Squashme" wrote in message
news:a0911ffb-fe9e-45f9...@g6g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 18, 2:42 pm, "Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> Just a suggestion � whenever a psycholist makes a howler on here, perhaps

> we
> should start archiving them?
>

> The only reason I�m suggesting this, is that (as we have seen recently),

> after a period of time the psycholists tend to completely deny that
> something particularly stupid has ever been said, then start stamping
> their

> feet on the ground and demanding links or other proof of such. Now I don�t
> know about everyone else, but I really can�t be bothered to spend any time

> dancing to their tune. However, it would be nice to be able to have the
> evidence on tap, as it were, if only to prove them wrong yet again.
>

> Obviously, it wouldn�t be practical to archive *everything* silly that was
> said by psycholists � there would be far too much material for that � just

> the real corkers.
> I know the 12 pints a night herbert from Hull has departed this NG, but I
> think it would be fair play to include his words of wisdom from the
> moderated group as well.
>
> I think I might start with the one about wearing half a melon on your

> head���

Howabout "Nobody likes cyclists."
Want a link? Or should I just say Dave/Medway?

No -if it's going to work, it has to be something stupid.

[Squashme]

On Jan 19, 1:27 pm, "Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "Squashme"  wrote in message
>
> news:a0911ffb-fe9e-45f9...@g6g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jan 18, 2:42 pm, "Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Just a suggestion – whenever a psycholist makes a howler on here, perhaps

> > we
> > should start archiving them?
>

> > The only reason I’m suggesting this,  is that (as we have seen recently),

> > after a period of time the psycholists tend to completely deny that
> > something particularly stupid has ever been said, then start stamping
> > their

> > feet on the ground and demanding links or other proof of such. Now I don’t
> > know about everyone else, but I really can’t be bothered to spend any time

> > dancing to their tune. However, it would be nice to be able to have the
> > evidence on tap, as it were, if only to prove them wrong yet again.
>

> > Obviously, it wouldn’t be practical to archive *everything* silly that was
> > said by psycholists – there would be far too much material for that – just

> > the real corkers.
> > I know the 12 pints a night herbert from Hull has departed this NG, but I
> > think it would be fair play to include his words of wisdom from the
> > moderated group as well.
>
> > I think I might start with the one about wearing half a melon on your

> > head………

>
> Howabout "Nobody likes cyclists."
> Want a link? Or should I just say Dave/Medway?
>
> No -if it's going to work, it has to be something stupid.

You've helped supply that.

Still, how about this:-

JNugent: "Because of course, everybody should be free to "seek" (after
the event) "witnesses" who mysteriously could not be idenified at the
scene of an
incident, shouldn't they?" JNugent inventing the concept of
Nugentwitnesses. (They are witnesses who turn up later to contradict a
motorist in contest with a cyclist, and are very likely to be fellow-
members of the cycling mafia).(They are not to be confused with
witnesses who turn up later to contradict a cyclist in contest with a
motorist. They are the unsung heroes of our day.)

[Squashme]

On Jan 19, 1:27 pm, "Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> "Squashme"  wrote in message
>
> news:a0911ffb-fe9e-45f9...@g6g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jan 18, 2:42 pm, "Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Just a suggestion – whenever a psycholist makes a howler on here, perhaps

> > we
> > should start archiving them?
>

> > The only reason I’m suggesting this,  is that (as we have seen recently),

> > after a period of time the psycholists tend to completely deny that
> > something particularly stupid has ever been said, then start stamping
> > their

> > feet on the ground and demanding links or other proof of such. Now I don’t
> > know about everyone else, but I really can’t be bothered to spend any time

> > dancing to their tune. However, it would be nice to be able to have the
> > evidence on tap, as it were, if only to prove them wrong yet again.
>

> > Obviously, it wouldn’t be practical to archive *everything* silly that was
> > said by psycholists – there would be far too much material for that – just

> > the real corkers.
> > I know the 12 pints a night herbert from Hull has departed this NG, but I
> > think it would be fair play to include his words of wisdom from the
> > moderated group as well.
>
> > I think I might start with the one about wearing half a melon on your

> > head………

>
> Howabout "Nobody likes cyclists."
> Want a link? Or should I just say Dave/Medway?
>
> No -if it's going to work, it has to be something stupid.

Well then, here's one:-

"Cyclists are not human beings. " (Of course it's Dave! And hot off
the press.)

[Partac]

"Squashme" wrote in message
news:1a1823a7-c841-415b...@i1g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 19, 1:27 pm, "Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> "Squashme" wrote in message
>
> news:a0911ffb-fe9e-45f9...@g6g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Jan 18, 2:42 pm, "Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Just a suggestion � whenever a psycholist makes a howler on here,

> > perhaps
> > we
> > should start archiving them?
>

> > The only reason I�m suggesting this, is that (as we have seen

> > recently),
> > after a period of time the psycholists tend to completely deny that
> > something particularly stupid has ever been said, then start stamping
> > their

> > feet on the ground and demanding links or other proof of such. Now I don�t
> > know about everyone else, but I really can�t be bothered to spend any

> > time
> > dancing to their tune. However, it would be nice to be able to have the
> > evidence on tap, as it were, if only to prove them wrong yet again.
>

> > Obviously, it wouldn�t be practical to archive *everything* silly that
> > was
> > said by psycholists � there would be far too much material for that �

> > just
> > the real corkers.
> > I know the 12 pints a night herbert from Hull has departed this NG, but
> > I
> > think it would be fair play to include his words of wisdom from the
> > moderated group as well.
>
> > I think I might start with the one about wearing half a melon on your

> > head���

>
> Howabout "Nobody likes cyclists."
> Want a link? Or should I just say Dave/Medway?
>
> No -if it's going to work, it has to be something stupid.

Well then, here's one:-

"Cyclists are not human beings. " (Of course it's Dave! And hot off
the press.)

But he's right - they are very much a sub-species.

[PhilO]

On Friday, January 18, 2013 6:01:36 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>
> > I'll start with the man that is "never wrong" claiming that 97% of drivers don't speed (Dave VOR Jan 16 2012).
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.rec.cycling/uqPhchJaexY/ybhJxyUIxb8J
> >
>
> What a shame that you have no proof, only supposition.
>
> The facts are clear enough.
>

Yes, and you've had a link posted showing that in free flowing traffic, about half of cars exceed the speed limit.

Sometimes it is best to just admit you made a mistake.

Do you really want to be remebered as the man who thinks 97% of drivers don't speed?

[Simon Weissel]

I think the idea that archiving this stuff is a good one. I thought I
would cobble together a website and get some of these comments all in
one place. However, I need to work at the moment but I will crack on
with this later.

[nik.morgan]

IIRC there was a similar archive of the famous Doug's espousings, about ten
years ago, anyone know how to access it?
--
ennemm

[M Wicks]

On Jan 18, 2:42 pm, "Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> Just a suggestion – whenever a psycholist makes a howler on here, perhaps we
> should start archiving them?
>
> The only reason I’m suggesting this,  is that (as we have seen recently),
> after a period of time the psycholists tend to completely deny that
> something particularly stupid has ever been said, then start stamping their
> feet on the ground and demanding links or other proof of such. Now I don’t
> know about everyone else, but I really can’t be bothered to spend any time
> dancing to their tune. However, it would be nice to be able to have the
> evidence on tap, as it were, if only to prove them wrong yet again.

This is a brilliant idea. It's one of the standard tactics of
psycholists (and trolls in general) to be proved wrong on a particular
subject, then "lay low" on that subject for a while, and then "play
dumb" about having been proven wrong and make the same discredited
statements again later, at which point one either has to correct them
all over again (fun if it's a complicated subject) or dig out a link,
which as you say is dancing to their tune.

I've seen this again and again from trolls over the years,
particularly on subjects like speed enforcement ("But surely slower is
safer?" "Regression to the mean...what's that?" Etc). Any subject
where the troll can make deliberately simplistic (and wrong)
statements which then have to be corrected at length (because
sometimes in life the truth isn't straightforward) is fair game for
these "hilarious" and "clever" posters.

Of course when the psycholists do this "pretending to forget" thing it
does pretty much prove that they know (at some level of consciousness)
that they're in the wrong and that the claims they make are incorrect.
The reason they carry on with it is presumably partly to irritate
their opponents and partly because they don't want to accept how
things are (which in the end is what being a psycholist is largely
about).

[M Wicks]

On Jan 18, 2:42 pm, "Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>

> I know the 12 pints a night herbert from Hull has departed this NG, but I
> think it would be fair play to include his words of wisdom from the
> moderated group as well.

Actually I've got a better idea than yours. Let's flood the group with
anti-cyclist threads, and then every time a psycholist starts a
thread, immediately reply and change the thread title to something
anti-cyclist. That is a proven method in getting rid of undesirable
posters (or at least the arrogant "Herbert" (from Family Guy?) that
you mention seemed to think so, and would doubtless refuse to admit
that his efforts were a complete and utter farcical failure, just like
he dishonestly refuses to admit *anything* that he thinks will make
him or his ilk look bad in any way).

[M Wicks]

On Jan 18, 3:15 pm, "Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

Judith has already compiled a list of Phil Lee's finest. And very fine
they are. Whenever I see that he's posted I can't wait to read it
because I just know that it'll be highly amusing in some unintentional
way.

[Paul Cummins]

In article
<32275972-d93e-4bed...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,

mwick...@gmail.com (M Wicks) wrote:

> It's one of the standard tactics of
> psycholists (and trolls in general) to be proved wrong on a
> particular subject, then "lay low" on that subject for a while, and
> then "play dumb" about having been proven wrong and make the same
> discredited statements again later, at which point one either has to
> correct them all over again (fun if it's a complicated subject) or dig
> out a link, which as you say is dancing to their tune.

Is that a bit like Dave and his insistence that cars pay Road Tax?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 21/01/2013 11:10, PhilO wrote:

> On Friday, January 18, 2013 6:01:36 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>>
>>> I'll start with the man that is "never wrong" claiming that 97%
>>> of drivers don't speed (Dave VOR Jan 16 2012).
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.rec.cycling/uqPhchJaexY/ybhJxyUIxb8J
>>>
>>
>>
>>>
What a shame that you have no proof, only supposition.
>>
>> The facts are clear enough.
>>
>
> Yes, and you've had a link posted showing that in free flowing
> traffic, about half of cars exceed the speed limit.

It showed nothing of the sort.

>
> Sometimes it is best to just admit you made a mistake.

I never do. How many times to I have to tell you?

>
> Do you really want to be remebered as the man who thinks 97% of
> drivers don't speed?
>

I don't want to be "remebered" as anything.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 21/01/2013 18:58, Paul Cummins wrote:
> In article
> <32275972-d93e-4bed...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
> mwick...@gmail.com (M Wicks) wrote:
>
>> It's one of the standard tactics of
>> psycholists (and trolls in general) to be proved wrong on a
>> particular subject, then "lay low" on that subject for a while, and
>> then "play dumb" about having been proven wrong and make the same
>> discredited statements again later, at which point one either has to
>> correct them all over again (fun if it's a complicated subject) or dig
>> out a link, which as you say is dancing to their tune.
>
> Is that a bit like Dave and his insistence that cars pay Road Tax?
>

They do.

[Simon Weissel]

On 21/01/2013 20:39, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
> On 21/01/2013 18:58, Paul Cummins wrote:
>> In article
>> <32275972-d93e-4bed...@u7g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
>> mwick...@gmail.com (M Wicks) wrote:
>>
>>> It's one of the standard tactics of
>>> psycholists (and trolls in general) to be proved wrong on a
>>> particular subject, then "lay low" on that subject for a while, and
>>> then "play dumb" about having been proven wrong and make the same
>>> discredited statements again later, at which point one either has to
>>> correct them all over again (fun if it's a complicated subject) or dig
>>> out a link, which as you say is dancing to their tune.
>>
>> Is that a bit like Dave and his insistence that cars pay Road Tax?
>>
>
> They do.
>

I will be asking my cars to pay Road Tax in the future, it might save me
a packet forking out for them.

[PhilO]

On Monday, January 21, 2013 8:37:36 PM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:

> > Do you really want to be remebered as the man who thinks 97% of
> > drivers don't speed?
> >
> I don't want to be "remebered" as anything.
>

Dave, do you still claim that 97% of drivers don't speed?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Can you prove otherwise?

[PhilO]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:35:29 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>>
> > Dave, do you still claim that 97% of drivers don't speed?
> >
> Can you prove otherwise?
>

Was that a yes or a no?
Is there something wrong with my question?

Dave, you have claimed here that 97% of drivers don't speed. So you still believe that to be true?

[Squashme]

On Jan 18, 2:42 pm, "Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> Just a suggestion – whenever a psycholist makes a howler on here, perhaps we

> should start archiving them?
>
> The only reason I’m suggesting this,  is that (as we have seen recently),
> after a period of time the psycholists tend to completely deny that
> something particularly stupid has ever been said, then start stamping their
> feet on the ground and demanding links or other proof of such. Now I don’t
> know about everyone else, but I really can’t be bothered to spend any time
> dancing to their tune. However, it would be nice to be able to have the
> evidence on tap, as it were, if only to prove them wrong yet again.
>
> Obviously, it wouldn’t be practical to archive *everything* silly that was

> said by psycholists – there would be far too much material for that – just

> the real corkers.
> I know the 12 pints a night herbert from Hull has departed this NG, but I
> think it would be fair play to include his words of wisdom from the
> moderated group as well.
>
> I think I might start with the one about wearing half a melon on your

> head………

You might wish to add this hinge-free item from urc in 2008. I guess
that most of us recognise the style:-

"- Voicing support for every anti-motorist measure ever discussed,
while claiming not to be anti-motorist*.

- Running hate campaigns against legitimate road safety campaigners,
simply because they expose truths which he'd rather were suppressed.

- Generally being unbelievably offensive towards those who disagree
with him, and trying to censor and/or ban them wherever possible (e.g.
on here, Wikipedia, etc).

- Being evasive time and time again when "debating" anything; when he
is beaten, he never admits it, but instead starts dodging points,
blatantly lying and insulting his opponents. When he is asked a
question that he doesn't want to answer (because it would expose one
of his lies or make his position look foolish), he makes up some
pathetic excuse (or just ignores it or calls it "drivel"), and insults
his opponent (for example, he was asked what would bother him more out
of a cyclist being decapitated and a motorcyclist being decapitated,
and he said it was a "false dilemma", when really the answer was "the
first one"). In short, he's a thoroughly bad loser, and he has zero
tolerance towards anyone who disagrees with his stated opinions in any
way whatsoever.

- He has done the above things so many times, and to such a degree,
that he is hated by a *massive* number of people from a *huge* number
of different sites. These aren't just "pro-motorist" people or
whatever, they have an extremely wide range of viewpoints, and are
only united by their realisation that Chapman is deeply obnoxious and
totally impossible to reason with. He has been banned from countless
forums (including every cycling forum that he's set foot on), and
recently he has also been banned from Wikipedia, for abusing his
administrator powers to ban those who disagreed with him or put the
"wrong" truths in articles (now that doesn't sound like Chapman at
all, does it?)

If you *really* don't know why someone would target him, have a look
on Google, and you will very quickly find many, many different sites
where scores of people hate him, like this one:

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/JzG

What evidence do you have that he *isn't* a nasty piece of work? The
say-so of him and a few other lying motorist-haters on here? Look
around you. He's scum, and that's why he will ALWAYS be targetted and
reviled by Internet users until he fucks off and (preferably) dies.

--
* I don't automatically have a problem with people who are
anti-motorist (e.g. David Damerell), even if I do think that they're
barking. I just hate people who lie about being anti-motorist and
claim instead to be interested in "road safety", when really they're
just pretending to be as an excuse to advocate anti-motorist measures
(speed cameras being a prime example...what a pity that they don't
save lives, not that you're allowed to say that round here without
being called a "troll"). Anyone who genuinely believes that what
they're doing is right should feel no need to be so utterly dishonest
and deceptive."

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 22/01/2013 09:26, PhilO wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:35:29 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>>>
>>> Dave, do you still claim that 97% of drivers don't speed?
>>>
>> Can you prove otherwise?
>>
>
> Was that a yes or a no?
> Is there something wrong with my question?

It was "faulty". But I'm not telling you why.

>
> Dave, you have claimed here that 97% of drivers don't speed. So you still believe that to be true?
>

Prove otherwise.

[Squashme]

On Jan 22, 4:11 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 22/01/2013 09:26, PhilO wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:35:29 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>
> >>> Dave, do you still claim that 97% of drivers don't speed?
>
> >> Can you prove otherwise?
>
> > Was that a yes or a no?
> > Is there something wrong with my question?
>
> It was "faulty".  But I'm not telling you why.
>
> > Dave, you have claimed here that 97% of drivers don't speed. So you still believe that to be true?
>
> Prove otherwise.
>

"The Department for Transport says as many as 49% of drivers flout the
current 70mph limit."
(29th Sept., 2011)

Prove otherwise.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

"Says"? How many are given tickets?

Innocent until proven guilty.

[Squashme]

On Jan 22, 4:36 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>

wrote:
> On 22/01/2013 16:20, Squashme wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 4:11 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> On 22/01/2013 09:26, PhilO wrote:
>
> >>> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:35:29 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>
> >>>>> Dave, do you still claim that 97% of drivers don't speed?
>
> >>>> Can you prove otherwise?
>
> >>> Was that a yes or a no?
> >>> Is there something wrong with my question?
>
> >> It was "faulty".  But I'm not telling you why.
>
> >>> Dave, you have claimed here that 97% of drivers don't speed. So you still believe that to be true?
>
> >> Prove otherwise.
>
> > "The Department for Transport says as many as 49% of drivers flout the
> > current 70mph limit."
> > (29th Sept., 2011)
>
> > Prove otherwise.
>
> "Says"?  How many are given tickets?
>
> Innocent until proven guilty.
>

Dave or the Department of Transport - tough call.

------------------------------------------------------------------
"Former Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ... said the number of
people drivers breaking the law was undermining the principle of
policing by consent.

Mr Hammond told The Times: 'I take the view that we operate in a
democracy of policing by consent.

'If 50 per cent of the population are routinely breaking the law it's
actually the law that needs looking at."

"Mr Hammond added that half of drivers flouted the 70mph rule anyway,
and most police authorities turn a blind eye if drivers are caught at
80mph. But there are worries that if the official limit is put up to
80mph, many will start to drive at 90mph."

RLJing on the other hand ...

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

So, if 49%, 50% or 'over half' haven't been convicted of an offence,
therefore they are innocent.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Why are they all reading this?

Cyclists just can't do what they are told.

[Squashme]

On Jan 22, 5:23 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>

Prove it.

[Squashme]

On Jan 22, 5:24 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

> Why are they all reading this?
>
> Cyclists just can't do what they are told.
>

Prove it.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Deduct the figures you quoted from 100.

If they haven't been convicted - and bear in mind just how easily
motorists can be traced - they must be innocent.

[Squashme]

On Jan 22, 4:11 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 22/01/2013 09:26, PhilO wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:35:29 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>
> >>> Dave, do you still claim that 97% of drivers don't speed?
>
> >> Can you prove otherwise?
>
> > Was that a yes or a no?
> > Is there something wrong with my question?
>
> It was "faulty".  But I'm not telling you why.
>
> > Dave, you have claimed here that 97% of drivers don't speed. So you still believe that to be true?
>
> Prove otherwise.
>

"Almost four in five motorists admit driving over the speed limit,
according to a survey.

As many as 16% of male drivers and 6% of women motorists said they
frequently exceeded limits, the poll by insurance company Admiral
found."

Meanwhile Dave burbles.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

You just did - by reading this.

[Squashme]

On Jan 22, 5:40 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>

No "must" about it. Define innocent.

[Squashme]

On Jan 22, 5:41 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>

wrote:
> On 22/01/2013 17:30, Squashme wrote:> On Jan 22, 5:24 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> Why are they all reading this?
>
> >> Cyclists just can't do what they are told.
>
> > Prove it.
>
> You just did - by reading this.
>

So your question "Why are they all reading this?" was a command to
cyclists. I see.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Innocent until proven guilty.

[Mrcheerful]

50 percent of the population would give around 30 million, which is all of
the drivers in the UK, near enough.
I suspect the quote is somewhat inaccurate.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Not 'guilty' as proven in a court of law.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 22/01/2013 19:46, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
> On 22/01/2013 17:40, Squashme wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 4:11 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2013 09:26, PhilO wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:35:29 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Dave, do you still claim that 97% of drivers don't speed?
>>>
>>>>> Can you prove otherwise?
>>>
>>>> Was that a yes or a no?
>>>> Is there something wrong with my question?
>>>
>>> It was "faulty". But I'm not telling you why.
>>>
>>>> Dave, you have claimed here that 97% of drivers don't speed. So you
>>>> still believe that to be true?
>>>
>>> Prove otherwise.
>>>
>>
>> "Almost four in five motorists admit driving over the speed limit,
>> according to a survey.
>>
>> As many as 16% of male drivers and 6% of women motorists said they
>> frequently exceeded limits, the poll by insurance company Admiral
>> found."
>>
>
>
>> Meanwhile Dave burbles.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Innocent until proven guilty.
>

And before any dim witted psycholist finally spots it......


No, cyclists are not innocent of RLJ etc because they are not convicted.
They escape conviction in the main because they are unregulated,
unregistered, unidentifiable rabble.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Doh!

Clue in the title of the post.

[Squashme]

On Jan 22, 7:52 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>

Put him in the database, Partac!

[Squashme]

On Jan 22, 7:53 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>

wrote:
> On 22/01/2013 18:03, Squashme wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 5:41 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> On 22/01/2013 17:30, Squashme wrote:> On Jan 22, 5:24 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Why are they all reading this?
>
> >>>> Cyclists just can't do what they are told.
>
> >>> Prove it.
>
> >> You just did - by reading this.
>
> > So your question "Why are they all reading this?" was a command to
> > cyclists. I see.
>
> Doh!
>
> Clue in the title of the post.
>

I can help you with your problem there. I'm not a psycholist.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Ooooooh yes you are!

[Squashme]

On Jan 22, 10:06 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>

wrote:
> On 22/01/2013 21:13, Squashme wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 7:53 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> On 22/01/2013 18:03, Squashme wrote:
>
> >>> On Jan 22, 5:41 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 22/01/2013 17:30, Squashme wrote:> On Jan 22, 5:24 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Why are they all reading this?
>
> >>>>>> Cyclists just can't do what they are told.
>
> >>>>> Prove it.
>
> >>>> You just did - by reading this.
>
> >>> So your question "Why are they all reading this?" was a command to
> >>> cyclists. I see.
>
> >> Doh!
>
> >> Clue in the title of the post.
>
> > I can help you with your problem there. I'm not a psycholist.
>
> Ooooooh yes you are!
>

No, I'd know.

[Partac]

"Squashme" wrote in message
news:87ac62f1-80d7-4826...@gu9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

How about unconvicted?

As per British law - unless of course you have some overriding definition?
Psycholists Law, perhaps?

[Squashme]

As in "Jimmy Savile was innocent", you mean.

>
> As per British law - unless of course you have some overriding definition?
> Psycholists Law, perhaps?

As Dave almost said:-
No, motorists are not innocent of speeding etc because they are not
convicted.
They escape conviction because "most police authorities turn a blind

[PhilO]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:43:09 PM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
> > 'If 50 per cent of the population are routinely breaking the law it's
> > actually the law that needs looking at."
>
>
>
> 50 percent of the population would give around 30 million, which is all of
> the drivers in the UK, near enough.
>
> I suspect the quote is somewhat inaccurate.

Do you think he meant 50% of the driving population (as those that do not drive find it almost impossible to break speeding laws)?

How accurate do you think Dave's figure of 97% of drivers not speeding is?

[Partac]

"Squashme" wrote in message
news:bf12f320-81ed-420a...@x13g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

I noticed you slipped the word "almost" in. Were you hoping we wouldn't
notice?

I don't think you would be able to get away with that as a typo. Rather more
like a poor but deliberate attempt to twist the facts. As usual.

[Mrcheerful]

not convicted. evidently accurate.

[PhilO]

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:16:52 AM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
> > How accurate do you think Dave's figure of 97% of drivers not
> > speeding is?
>
> not convicted. evidently accurate.

That wasn't the question.
Dave did not state 97% of drivers are not convicted, he stated 97% of drivers don't speed.

Do you still think he was accurate?

[Simon Weissel]

As much as it breaks my little blackened heart to do so I have to agree
with Dave on this. There is no “unconvicted”. It is a premise that
everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

The police might not see it that way.
The courts, magistrates, and judges might not see it that way.
The media might not see it that way.
And without any shadow of doubt, the general public do not see it that way.

But Dave does see it that way, and so do I.

Also, innocent does not mean that: “he didn’t do it”. It just means, he
has not yet been found guilty in a court of law.

[Simon Weissel]

http://www.weissel.co.uk/dave-cyclists-vor/

I think that the margin of error in that is about 97%

The reason I state that is because we have just bought a GPS SatNav
thingy and it announces whenever you exceed the speed limit. The first
time I used it I set it off 4 times in a 45 minute journey

Doing 31 going into a 30 limit. Accelerating to 41 in 40 limit. And then
twice on a clear straight stretch of NSL single carriageway when I hit
61, twice.

I would say that I obsessively adhere to speed limits, I am known to
drive like an old codger, and people often ask why I drive so slowly.

I have come to the conclusion that the only way to drive within the
speed limits is to try to drive about 5mph below the limit. If you do
try to drive *at* the limit it is inevitable that you will accidentally
go over the limit at some point.

Therefore 100% of drivers speed. I accept that there may be a margin of
error of less than 1%. Dave could have not been much more wrong, well,
only 3% more wrong :-)

[Mrcheerful]

If there is provable evidence, then why are the other drivers not convicted?

I think that many drivers exceed the speed limit (and that is an anecdote
and therefore not evidence)

[Simon Weissel]

On 22/01/2013 17:40, Squashme wrote:

> On Jan 22, 4:11 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> On 22/01/2013 09:26, PhilO wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:35:29 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>>
>>>>> Dave, do you still claim that 97% of drivers don't speed?
>>
>>>> Can you prove otherwise?
>>
>>> Was that a yes or a no?
>>> Is there something wrong with my question?
>>
>> It was "faulty". But I'm not telling you why.
>>
>>> Dave, you have claimed here that 97% of drivers don't speed. So you still believe that to be true?
>>
>> Prove otherwise.
>>
>
> "Almost four in five motorists admit driving over the speed limit,
> according to a survey.

And the other 80% are liars or just don’t realise it.

> As many as 16% of male drivers and 6% of women motorists said they
> frequently exceeded limits, the poll by insurance company Admiral
> found."
>
> Meanwhile Dave burbles.
>

Oh sorry, there was a proviso "*frequently* exceeded limits".

"I try not to", "don't usually", "not if I can help it" yada yada.

It's a bit like the one:
"I always give cyclists lots of space".

"If there is room", "if they are riding properly", If I think they need
it" yada yada

[Squashme]

No.

[Squashme]

On Jan 23, 2:33 pm, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> PhilO wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:16:52 AM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
> >>> How accurate do you think Dave's figure of 97% of drivers not
> >>> speeding is?
>
> >> not convicted. evidently accurate.
>
> > That wasn't the question.
> > Dave did not state 97% of drivers are not convicted, he stated 97% of
> > drivers don't speed.
>
> > Do you still think he was accurate?
>
> If there is provable evidence, then why are the other drivers not convicted?
>

Not enough policemen. Employ more policeman, and more criminals may be
caught. Then they will be tried and some will be convicted. The
statistics of convictions will show a rise in crime.
If that is so, well who wants that?

[John Benn]

"Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message
news:kdosmo$75p$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 22/01/2013 17:40, Squashme wrote:
>> On Jan 22, 4:11 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2013 09:26, PhilO wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:35:29 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Dave, do you still claim that 97% of drivers don't speed?
>>>
>>>>> Can you prove otherwise?
>>>
>>>> Was that a yes or a no?
>>>> Is there something wrong with my question?
>>>
>>> It was "faulty". But I'm not telling you why.
>>>
>>>> Dave, you have claimed here that 97% of drivers don't speed. So you
>>>> still believe that to be true?
>>>
>>> Prove otherwise.
>>>
>>
>> "Almost four in five motorists admit driving over the speed limit,
>> according to a survey.
>
> And the other 80% are liars or just don’t realise it.

Have you ever driven over the speed limit Simon?

[Simon Weissel]

>> And the other 80% are liars or just don�t realise it.

>
> Have you ever driven over the speed limit Simon?

Yes, if you see my other post, 4 times in 45 minutes.

Today I exceeded 30 in a 30 zone. Wide road, no pedestrians, little
traffic. It is very very easy to do. Do you drive John, have you ever
exceeded the speed limit?

[jnugent]

On 22/01/2013 11:46, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

> On 22/01/2013 17:40, Squashme wrote:
>> Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2013 09:26, PhilO wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:35:29 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>
>>>>>> Dave, do you still claim that 97% of drivers don't speed?
>
>>>>> Can you prove otherwise?
>
>>>> Was that a yes or a no?
>>>> Is there something wrong with my question?
>
>>> It was "faulty". But I'm not telling you why.
>
>>>> Dave, you have claimed here that 97% of drivers don't speed. So you
>>>> still believe that to be true?
>
>>> Prove otherwise.
>
>> "Almost four in five motorists admit driving over the speed limit,
>> according to a survey.
>> As many as 16% of male drivers and 6% of women motorists said they
>> frequently exceeded limits, the poll by insurance company Admiral
>> found."
>> Meanwhile Dave burbles.
>
> Innocent until proven guilty.

A frequently-encountered mis-statement.

In order to be correct, it has to be: "Innocent unless proven guilty".

Most people are never guilty of anything significant.

[jnugent]

The exceptions to the "no guilty verdict must mean innocent" are
relatively few, but include cases where a trial cannot happen for one of
various reasons.

Adolf Hitler and Mr James Savile each died innocent men, for example.

Another exception is a case where an investigation and/or trial is not
necessary because the offence is manifest. Cycling along the footway,
through a red light or the wrong way along a one-way street, for
instance. That does not need to be measured or proved.

[jnugent]

He's behind you!

[jnugent]

Define "speed" (as a verb).

[John Benn]

"Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message

news:kdouud$cug$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

Well done, you passed the test.

You know I drive. Yes, I have exceeded the posted speed limit when driving,
more so when I was younger. These days, I generally respect speed limits
and drive within them. I rarely exceed the limits these days. I am
generally happy with the limits set although there are some roads where I
believe the limit should be raised or reduced. For example, it seems daft
that many rural windy narrow lanes have a speed limit of 60mph when it is
clear to most people that it would be reckless to travel at that speed along
them.

[Simon Weissel]

This might help, so long as you were not too old to remember:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmx5pJBMOT8

[jnugent]

Dictionary, please.

[Simon Weissel]

On 23/01/2013 15:27, John Benn wrote:
> "Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message
> news:kdouud$cug$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On 23/01/2013 15:06, John Benn wrote:
>>> "Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message
>>> news:kdosmo$75p$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> On 22/01/2013 17:40, Squashme wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 22, 4:11 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/01/2013 09:26, PhilO wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:35:29 AM UTC, Dave VOR wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dave, do you still claim that 97% of drivers don't speed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can you prove otherwise?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Was that a yes or a no?
>>>>>>> Is there something wrong with my question?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was "faulty". But I'm not telling you why.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dave, you have claimed here that 97% of drivers don't speed. So you
>>>>>>> still believe that to be true?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Almost four in five motorists admit driving over the speed limit,
>>>>> according to a survey.
>>>>

>>>> And the other 80% are liars or just don’t realise it.

>>>
>>> Have you ever driven over the speed limit Simon?
>>
>> Yes, if you see my other post, 4 times in 45 minutes.
>>
>> Today I exceeded 30 in a 30 zone. Wide road, no pedestrians, little
>> traffic. It is very very easy to do. Do you drive John, have you ever
>> exceeded the speed limit?
>
> Well done, you passed the test.
>
> You know I drive. Yes, I have exceeded the posted speed limit when
> driving, more so when I was younger. These days, I generally respect
> speed limits and drive within them. I rarely exceed the limits these
> days. I am generally happy with the limits set although there are some
> roads where I believe the limit should be raised or reduced. For
> example, it seems daft that many rural windy narrow lanes have a speed
> limit of 60mph when it is clear to most people that it would be reckless
> to travel at that speed along them.

Indeed, back in the day, most drivers would totally ignore limits. I
remember an older relative boasting how he always exceeded the speed
limit by at least 10%. They were the days when men would boast how they
could drink 6 pints of beer *and* drive home. I too as a younger man
used to drive at silly speeds, according to “what I thought was OK”. As
time has passed, I have realised that courtesy and respect for others
are more important than driving as fast as you can. With experience I
have learned that speed limits are there for a reason and that those
limits are often not restrictive enough.

My own view is that virtually all 30 limits should be 20.

Most 40 limits should be no more than 35

50 limits are generally OK

The NSL limits (60 and 70) should be 50.

Motorway limits could be higher perhaps even up to 90, but they should
be observed and driving standards could be greatly improved especially
things like tail-gating, correct use of lane, correct use of indicators,
and speed reduction due to poor weather. No one appears to ever obey the
temporary limits that flash up from time to time.

[PhilO]

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:33:41 PM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
>
> > That wasn't the question.
> > Dave did not state 97% of drivers are not convicted, he stated 97% of
> > drivers don't speed.
> >
> > Do you still think he was accurate?
>
> If there is provable evidence, then why are the other drivers not convicted?
>

Do you really believe that if you are not convicted, you have not been speeding?

>
> I think that many drivers exceed the speed limit (and that is an anecdote
> and therefore not evidence)

And the evidence when traffic speeds are measured agrees with you.

Dave was wrong.

[Simon Weissel]

Look it up.

In context, I think it is pretty safe to assume that wot wos meant is
"exceeding the speed limit".

If Dave were to claim he did not mean that then it will look like a
major wriggle on his part.

I am sure JNugent can find an argument of sorts in there.

Crack on sonny :-)

[Simon Weissel]

Ha ha ha, have a look at:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speeding

Word wrangle time :-)

[Squashme]

On Jan 18, 2:42 pm, "Partac" <any...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Just a suggestion – whenever a psycholist makes a howler on here, perhaps we
> should start archiving them?
>
> The only reason I’m suggesting this,  is that (as we have seen recently),
> after a period of time the psycholists tend to completely deny that
> something particularly stupid has ever been said, then start stamping their
> feet on the ground and demanding links or other proof of such. Now I don’t
> know about everyone else, but I really can’t be bothered to spend any time
> dancing to their tune. However, it would be nice to be able to have the
> evidence on tap, as it were, if only to prove them wrong yet again.
>
> Obviously, it wouldn’t be practical to archive *everything* silly that was
> said by psycholists – there would be far too much material for that – just
> the real corkers.
> I know the 12 pints a night herbert from Hull has departed this NG, but I
> think it would be fair play to include his words of wisdom from the
> moderated group as well.
>
> I think I might start with the one about wearing half a melon on your
> head………

Mentalguy2k8 on compo cams:-

"They only tend to start recording *after* the cyclist provokes
someone but
*before* the violence. This was an ambush so it wouldn't have been
recording."

I know that he is only lisping what he has heard his elders and
betters claim about these mythical magic cameras, but surely one for
your d/b, Partac.

Index M2k8jan23/13

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Scameras don't have blind eyes.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 23/01/2013 14:34, Simon Weissel wrote:
> On 23/01/2013 11:58, PhilO wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:16:52 AM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>
>>>> How accurate do you think Dave's figure of 97% of drivers not
>>>> speeding is?
>>>
>>> not convicted. evidently accurate.
>>
>> That wasn't the question. Dave did not state 97% of drivers are not
>> convicted, he stated 97% of drivers don't speed.
>>
>> Do you still think he was accurate?
>>
>
> http://www.weissel.co.uk/dave-cyclists-vor/
>
> I think that the margin of error in that is about 97%
>
> The reason I state that is because we have just bought a GPS SatNav
> thingy and it announces whenever you exceed the speed limit. The
> first time I used it I set it off 4 times in a 45 minute journey

Sat navs read accurately, speedometers over read. There is is a
tolerance on speed limits anyway.31mph in a 30 limit won't get you a ticket.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 23/01/2013 16:15, PhilO wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 2:33:41 PM UTC, Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>> That wasn't the question.
>>> Dave did not state 97% of drivers are not convicted, he stated 97% of
>>> drivers don't speed.
>>>
>>> Do you still think he was accurate?
>>
>> If there is provable evidence, then why are the other drivers not convicted?
>>
>
> Do you really believe that if you are not convicted, you have not been speeding?

I believe you have not been convicted of speeding, therefore you are
innocent.

>
>>
>> I think that many drivers exceed the speed limit (and that is an anecdote
>> and therefore not evidence)
>
> And the evidence when traffic speeds are measured agrees with you.

But not the conviction rate.
>
> Dave was wrong.
>
How many times do I have to tell you? Are you retarded?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Oh no he isn't!

[PhilO]

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 4:31:55 PM UTC, Simon Weissel wrote:
>
> >>> Define "speed" (as a verb).
> >>>
> >>
> >> This might help, so long as you were not too old to remember:
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmx5pJBMOT8
> >
> > Dictionary, please.
>
> Look it up.
> In context, I think it is pretty safe to assume that wot wos meant is
> "exceeding the speed limit".
>
> If Dave were to claim he did not mean that then it will look like a
> major wriggle on his part.
>

Dave kindly provided an explanation of what he meant by speed:

> Come on then Dave, what did you mean by "speed" when yoou said:
> "97% of drivers therefore don't speed"
>

<SIGH>

I meant exceeding the speed limit.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.rec.cycling/uqPhchJaexY/GnFNqSZYKX8J

Dave's excuses that he meant convicted for speeding are looking a bit like wriggling now.

So Dave, do you still believe "97% of drivers therefore don't speed" where speed (by your definition) means exceeding the speed limit?

[M Wicks]

Um, no, you haven't quite grasped what the database is going to
contain yet, have you? It's not for when reasonable posters express
reasonable opinions (even when those opinions are only probably rather
than definitely correct, as with the above about compo cam footage
which just happens to start mid-confrontation...I'd love to hear your
explanation for the start time of some clips I've seen...and if a
cyclist *did* do what is being suggested then I bet you'd applaud it).

The database is (I think!) for logging when psycholists are proven
wrong, when they say particularly stupid/amusing things, and for
storing all the counterarguments to the incorrect statements that
psychoilsts make, so that when they "forget" and make those statements
again in an attempt to waste their opponents' time, they are
frustrated in that aim, and only a quick link to the database is
needed in reply. In fact I suppose the best general description of the
database as I see it is a readily accessible archive of posts which
the psycholists would rather pretend hadn't happened for one reason or
another. Now we will be able to show that "Oh yes the post DID happen
and here's all the information one needs to see what the psycholist is
up to in this case: <url>". Everyone reading the thread is immediately
brought up to speed just with that, and the database pages can go into
a lot more detail than a single post.

The obfuscation and "forgetfulness" in relation to past discussions
that the psycholists are so fond of will no longer be effective. Now
they'll only have to be proven wrong once on a particular subject, and
that will be it...even if it's buried deep in a 500-post thread mostly
about something else, it can still be readily recalled...waiting a few
weeks then pretending that they were never proven wrong on the subject
concerned (and hoping that everyone else will either have forgotten
about or not be able to locate the discussion where they were proven
wrong) will no longer work, much to the anger of the psycholists I'm
sure. (Isn't life a bitch when you insist on taking irrational stances
which constantly need shoring up with silly deceitful tactics? Is it
not easier in the end just to be right? Dishonesty is hard work!)

Now, Squishy, if you still pretend not to know what the database is
for, then you'll rather have proven the case for its existence, won't
you? There's no doubt in my mind that "pretending to have no memory of
previously covered ground in an attempt to waste opponents' time and/
or evade particular points" is one of the major (and particularly
tedious) psycholist tactics, that I've seen a *hell* of a lot over a
long time, and if there is an elegant and easy way of fighting that
particular tactic then surely it's worth doing.

Phil Lee won't like it, of course. But even though he's the voice of
reason, even he must be disregarded in this case.

[M Wicks]

Speeding is not the same as driving at "silly speeds", or drink
driving, so stop disingenuously equating them please.

> My own view is that virtually all 30 limits should be 20.
>
> Most 40 limits should be no more than 35
>
> 50 limits are generally OK
>
> The NSL limits (60 and 70) should be 50.

Anti-motorist. No other term for someone who wants to prosecute anyone
who drives at 57mph on a clear motorway.

[Simon Weissel]

Dave's claim was 97% of drivers do not speed, and he meant and clarified
that he meant "exceeding the speed limit". Speed limits are absolute.
There was nothing disingenuous.

>> My own view is that virtually all 30 limits should be 20.
>>
>> Most 40 limits should be no more than 35
>>
>> 50 limits are generally OK
>>
>> The NSL limits (60 and 70) should be 50.
>
> Anti-motorist. No other term for someone who wants to prosecute anyone
> who drives at 57mph on a clear motorway.
>

Which bit of

"Motorway limits could be higher perhaps even up to 90, but they should
be observed and driving standards could be greatly improved especially
things like tail-gating, correct use of lane, correct use of indicators,
and speed reduction due to poor weather. No one appears to ever obey the
temporary limits that flash up from time to time."

Did you miss?

[John Benn]

"Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message

news:kdrl77$uch$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

In the right conditions, 90mph is perfectly safe on the motorway.
Unfortunately, some drivers are unable to identify the right conditions and
will attempt to drive at that speed under any conditions.

I am not sure that all 30mph limits need to be reduced. In some heavily
built-up residential streets where there are a lot of parked vehicles, there
is a case for lower limits.

[Simon Weissel]

On 24/01/2013 16:05, John Benn wrote:
> "Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message
>>

>> "Motorway limits could be higher perhaps even up to 90, but they
>> should be observed and driving standards could be greatly improved
>> especially things like tail-gating, correct use of lane, correct use
>> of indicators, and speed reduction due to poor weather. No one appears
>> to ever obey the temporary limits that flash up from time to time."
>
> In the right conditions, 90mph is perfectly safe on the motorway.
> Unfortunately, some drivers are unable to identify the right conditions
> and will attempt to drive at that speed under any conditions.

Yes, it astounds me that in fog or heavy thunderstorms driver will still
want to drive up to and in excess of the posted limit.

> I am not sure that all 30mph limits need to be reduced. In some heavily
> built-up residential streets where there are a lot of parked vehicles,
> there is a case for lower limits.

I tend to agree. If the roads are clear, wide, free of parked cars and
not in built up areas the a 30 limit should be fine. There are quite a
few roads like this already with a 30 limit. But they apply the same 30
limit where there are parked cars, houses and are busy with pedestrians.
This makes no sense.

[Squashme]

Partac's database will be handy. Look what I found:-

"Most of the regulars here are so in love with cameras' motorist-
banning properties that they couldn't care less whether they save
lives. Nothing else would explain their utterly shameful attitude
towards Paul Smith and anyone else who dares to propagate anti-camera
opinions and/or facts."

"It's now up to over a thousand a year (a THIRD of all fatalities).
Road deaths were falling at the same rate, extremely reliably, year on
year until cameras came in. Since cameras and the obsession with
"speed kills" were inflicted on us, that fall has been dramatically
slowed, and the number of road deaths we now have each year is about a
thousand more than it would have been had the loss of trend not
occurred." (Some pseudonymous person, 2008)

People forget.

[Stanley Daniel de Liver]

This is not a cycling issue, it is a car/transport issue; no wonder urcm
exists.
Especially when the thread header is so obviously antagonistic.


--
[dash dash space newline 4line sig]

Money/Life question

[Simon Weissel]

You seem to misunderstand, URC is a playground to discuss transportation
issues which may be in some way vaguely related to cycling. If you want
proper cycling discussion, please move over to URCM. URC is where the
big boys hang out :-)

[Squashme]

Oh, whoops! I thought that URC was an anti-cyclist hate site for
insomniacs with nothing else to do.

[Partac]

"Squashme" wrote in message
news:b3a75395-bbc3-42d7...@x18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...

Posted at 29 minutes to midnight. ....(snigger)

[John Benn]

"Simon Weissel" <si...@weaseltemper.INVALID> wrote in message

news:kdtp7h$4cs$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

It's ok when it's thread drift. If people start posting about topics
completely unrelated to cycling, then it's inappropriate. [1]

[1] Because I said so!

[John Benn]

"John Benn" <MrBenn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kdttrc$ejv$1...@dont-email.me...

> It's ok when it's thread drift. If people start posting about topics *

> completely unrelated to cycling, then it's inappropriate. [1]
>
> [1] Because I said so!

* I meant new posting topics