Motorists above the law.
Doug
pollution but this only applies to PM10s, which are mainly emitted by
buses and lorries. Meanwhile motorists are completely free to emit
several other harmful pollutants, some of which are life threatening,
and get away with it.
One has to ask why the EU is ignoring those other harmful pollutants
in favour of motorists, who are 80% of all road transport?
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
webreader
One has to ask why this question is directed at a cycling NG.
WSR
Doug
> On Dec 14, 8:02 am, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> > The EU is threatening to take the UK to court and be fined for its air
> > pollution but this only applies to PM10s, which are mainly emitted by
> > buses and lorries. Meanwhile motorists are completely free to emit
> > several other harmful pollutants, some of which are life threatening,
> > and get away with it.
>
> > One has to ask why the EU is ignoring those other harmful pollutants
> > in favour of motorists, who are 80% of all road transport?
>
>
>
deliberately cross-posted from motorist NGs. I am merely trying to
restore some sense of balance. I hope you are not trying to censor me?
--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
The Medway Handyman
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
Are you seriously a member of this wacko outfit?
--
Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
Tony Dragon
> On 14 Dec, 08:06, webreader <websiterea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 8:02 am, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>>
OT rant
>> One has to ask why this question is directed at a cycling NG.
>>
> Because of a multiplicity of 'Cyclists above the law' threads
> deliberately cross-posted from motorist NGs. I am merely trying to
> restore some sense of balance. I hope you are not trying to censor me?
>
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
So you posted it as a form of revenge, how strange,
How was he going to censor you, cut your internet link?
--
Tony Dragon
Conor
21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>
> The EU is threatening to take the UK to court and be fined for its air
> pollution but this only applies to PM10s, which are mainly emitted by
> buses and lorries. Meanwhile motorists are completely free to emit
> several other harmful pollutants, some of which are life threatening,
> and get away with it.
>
> One has to ask why the EU is ignoring those other harmful pollutants
> in favour of motorists, who are 80% of all road transport?
That would be true if it weren't for the slightly inconvenient fact that
cars have to have catalytic convertors and very tight emissions test.
--
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
Conor
> pollution but this only applies to PM10s, which are mainly emitted by
> buses and lorries. Meanwhile motorists are completely free to emit
> several other harmful pollutants, some of which are life threatening,
> and get away with it.
>
> One has to ask why the EU is ignoring those other harmful pollutants
> in favour of motorists, who are 80% of all road transport?
A person who is cycling emits more CO2 than someone who is using a bus.
So why are cyclists free to emit excessive levels of greenhouse gases?
ChelseaTractorMan
>So why are cyclists free to emit excessive levels of greenhouse gases?
its the smugness which really pisses me off.
--
Mike. .. .
Gone beyond the ultimate driving machine.
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > On 14 Dec, 08:06, webreader <websiterea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Dec 14, 8:02 am, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> OT rant
>
> >> One has to ask why this question is directed at a cycling NG.
>
> > Because of a multiplicity of 'Cyclists above the law' threads
> > deliberately cross-posted from motorist NGs. I am merely trying to
> > restore some sense of balance. I hope you are not trying to censor me?
>
>
>
thread not a MULTIPLICITY of threads, all with the same title, like
your abusive, cross-posting motorist chums.
>
> How was he going to censor you, cut your internet link?
>
off-topic messages in an attempt to render it virtually useless.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's newsgroup is another man's censorship.
Doug
> In article <e5be0338-24bc-4a99-9330-142d662bacd0@
> 21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>
>
>
> > The EU is threatening to take the UK to court and be fined for its air
> > pollution but this only applies to PM10s, which are mainly emitted by
> > buses and lorries. Meanwhile motorists are completely free to emit
> > several other harmful pollutants, some of which are life threatening,
> > and get away with it.
>
> > One has to ask why the EU is ignoring those other harmful pollutants
> > in favour of motorists, who are 80% of all road transport?
>
> That would be true if it weren't for the slightly inconvenient fact that
> cars have to have catalytic convertors and very tight emissions test.
>
pollute as much as they like as long as there is no visible smoke.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
Doug
> In article <e5be0338-24bc-4a99-9330-142d662bacd0@
> 21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>
>
>
> > The EU is threatening to take the UK to court and be fined for its air
> > pollution but this only applies to PM10s, which are mainly emitted by
> > buses and lorries. Meanwhile motorists are completely free to emit
> > several other harmful pollutants, some of which are life threatening,
> > and get away with it.
>
> > One has to ask why the EU is ignoring those other harmful pollutants
> > in favour of motorists, who are 80% of all road transport?
>
> A person who is cycling emits more CO2 than someone who is using a bus.
> So why are cyclists free to emit excessive levels of greenhouse gases?
>
motorists. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Simon Mason
"Conor" <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.259027538...@news.eternal-
>
> A person who is cycling emits more CO2 than someone who is using a bus.
> So why are cyclists free to emit excessive levels of greenhouse gases?
Wrong again. I eat the same whether I cycle or not. All that happens is that
I gain weight which means more fossil fuels will be needed to shift my ever
increasing bulk on the odd occasion I drive my car.
Do you know that horses emit more CO2 than humans? Learn the difference
between sustainable energy from food and non sustainable energy from fossil
fuels before talking such nonsense.
--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/
Adrian
much like they were saying:
>> A person who is cycling emits more CO2 than someone who is using a bus.
>> So why are cyclists free to emit excessive levels of greenhouse gases?
> Wrong again. I eat the same whether I cycle or not. All that happens is
> that I gain weight which means more fossil fuels will be needed to shift
> my ever increasing bulk on the odd occasion I drive my car.
Has the thought of eating less to compensate for less exercise not
crossed your mind?
Silk
> The EU is threatening to take the UK to court and be fined for its air
> pollution but this only applies to PM10s, which are mainly emitted by
> buses and lorries. Meanwhile motorists are completely free to emit
> several other harmful pollutants, some of which are life threatening,
> and get away with it.
There's not much we are allowed to get away with these days, so this is
a good thing. FWIW, my car is one of the lowest emitting cars you can
buy. It probably emits less CO2 than your gob.
> One has to ask why the EU is ignoring those other harmful pollutants
> in favour of motorists, who are 80% of all road transport?
One doesn't have to ask anything if one doesn't want to. I tell you
what, you ask them and report back.
Adrian C
> A person who is cycling emits more CO2 than someone who is using a bus.
To cycle effectively, a person requires a higher food intake. There
could be more CO2 produced in getting that food than emitted in the
exercise of cycling. Depends what the cyclist eats and drinks. To make
it work, they *must* eat boring stuff to keep CO2 emisions down. And the
stuff they eat should be taxed with an equivalent to fuel duty.
On a bus, ye just divide the CO2 produced from the bus by sum of the
passengers.
<note: me cowardly snipping of crosspost>
--
Adrian C
Mas...@bp.com
The only time I don't cycle is when I am on holiday, so that is my
only experience and I put on about 6lbs in weight which takes about 2
months to get rid of. The cobblers about extra CO2 breathing cyclists
is so laughable that one imagines bus loads of people who happen not
to eat and breathe at all.
Conor, like Medway Man, who can't grasp non drivers paying vastly more
in taxes than him, can't imagine marathon runners who happen to use
the bus who spend their weekends running around the country expelling
"excess CO2", or the 1000's of amateur footballers breathing out
"unneeded CO2" or anyone else doing anything which might raise their
heart rate above resting rate.
In reality of course, his lauded bus passengers and drivers who never
get their heart rate up past resting are the biggest cost to the NHS,
as they are the very ones who are likely to be obese and end up with
all sorts of diseases that we have to pay to treat as they are too
bone idle to take care of themselves.
Telling them that the "extra CO2" they breathe out during exercise
will damage the environment is beyond parody.
--
Simon Mason
Adrian
were saying:
>> >> A person who is cycling emits more CO2 than someone who is using a
>> >> bus. So why are cyclists free to emit excessive levels of greenhouse
>> >> gases?
>> > Wrong again. I eat the same whether I cycle or not. All that happens
>> > is that I gain weight which means more fossil fuels will be needed to
>> > shift my ever increasing bulk on the odd occasion I drive my car.
>> Has the thought of eating less to compensate for less exercise not
>> crossed your mind?
> The only time I don't cycle is when I am on holiday, so that is my only
> experience and I put on about 6lbs in weight which takes about 2 months
> to get rid of.
That'll be a "No", then.
Simon Mason
"Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7onaqdF3...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> Has the thought of eating less to compensate for less exercise not
>>> crossed your mind?
>
>> The only time I don't cycle is when I am on holiday, so that is my only
>> experience and I put on about 6lbs in weight which takes about 2 months
>> to get rid of.
>
> That'll be a "No", then.
Not on holiday, no.
Tony Dragon
> On 14 Dec, 08:57, Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 14 Dec, 08:06, webreader <websiterea...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 14, 8:02 am, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>> OT rant
>>
>>>> One has to ask why this question is directed at a cycling NG.
>>> Because of a multiplicity of 'Cyclists above the law' threads
>>> deliberately cross-posted from motorist NGs. I am merely trying to
>>> restore some sense of balance. I hope you are not trying to censor me?
>>
>> So you posted it as a form of revenge, how strange,
>>
> No an attempt at balance. Though you will notice I only posted ONE
> thread not a MULTIPLICITY of threads, all with the same title, like
> your abusive, cross-posting motorist chums.
1 You are always starting threads such as this.
2 How do you accidentally cross post?
3 The first address was urc so the rest were a cross post
4 How do you know they are my chums?
>> How was he going to censor you, cut your internet link?
>>
> By calling on his motorist chums here to flood my thread with abusive
> off-topic messages in an attempt to render it virtually useless.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> One man's newsgroup is another man's censorship.
>
I saw no request to flood the thread.
If you do not like replies, do not post.
--
Tony Dragon
Tony Dragon
How often would you like a test to be done?
--
Tony Dragon
Tony Dragon
Who draws the line?
--
Tony Dragon
Conor
@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> > That would be true if it weren't for the slightly inconvenient fact that
> > cars have to have catalytic convertors and very tight emissions test.
> >
> Yes but they are only tested once a year and in the meantime can
> pollute as much as they like as long as there is no visible smoke.
Is the wrong answer. They can be pulled at any of the many random
roadside checkpoints there are.
Conor
Mason says...
> Wrong again. I eat the same whether I cycle or not.
See below
> All that happens is that
> I gain weight
So you actually eat more than you need.
> which means more fossil fuels will be needed to shift my ever
> increasing bulk on the odd occasion I drive my car.
>
I doubt a bus would notice the difference.
> Do you know that horses emit more CO2 than humans? Learn the difference
> between sustainable energy from food and non sustainable energy from fossil
> fuels before talking such nonsense.
I already apparently know far more than you.
Conor
@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Mas...@BP.com says...
> The cobblers about extra CO2 breathing cyclists
> is so laughable that one imagines bus loads of people who happen not
> to eat and breathe at all.
>
So you're saying that someone cycling breathes the same volume as
someone sat on a bus?
> In reality of course, his lauded bus passengers and drivers who never
> get their heart rate up past resting are the biggest cost to the NHS,
More unsubstantiated rubbish.
> Telling them that the "extra CO2" they breathe out during exercise
> will damage the environment is beyond parody.
Yet the eco-mentalists are doing exactly that.
Mas...@bp.com
> In article <zcmdnRu_xP2T87vWnZ2dnUVZ8g6dn...@eclipse.net.uk>, Simon
>
> > which means more fossil fuels will be needed to shift my ever
> > increasing bulk on the odd occasion I drive my car.
>
> I doubt a bus would notice the difference.
Just to put the tin hat on your lack of knowledge of physics, a bus
that that uses *no more energy* however much you increase the mass of
its cargo!
You could be a multi millionaire if only you could put that into
action.
--
Simon Mason
Mas...@bp.com
> In article <d2302fb7-518a-41c2-b063-a756e2a44ba9
> @m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Mas...@BP.com says...
>
> > The cobblers about extra CO2 breathing cyclists
> > is so laughable that one imagines bus loads of people who happen not
> > to eat and breathe at all.
>
> So you're saying that someone cycling breathes the same volume as
> someone sat on a bus?
Totally irrelevant and you know it is.
I notice you deleted all of my marathon runners and footballers on
buses questions.
Look into any gym car park, not only have these polluters burned
fossil fuels to get there and back, they are now expelling loads of
"excess CO2" in their breath on treadmills in your upside down world.
Google for "carbon cycle" before spouting tripe.
Don't bother here it is. Look at the animal in the middle and the car
on the left. See the difference?
http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/files/2009/04/carbon-cycle.gif
--
Simon Mason
Simon Mason
>
>> Do you know that horses emit more CO2 than humans? Learn the difference
>> between sustainable energy from food and non sustainable energy from
>> fossil
>> fuels before talking such nonsense.
>
> I already apparently know far more than you.
How much is a billion again?
Conor
9ec07b...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Mas...@BP.com says...
>
> On 14 Dec, 19:37, Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <zcmdnRu_xP2T87vWnZ2dnUVZ8g6dn...@eclipse.net.uk>, Simon
>
> >
> > > which means more fossil fuels will be needed to shift my ever
> > > increasing bulk on the odd occasion I drive my car.
> >
> > I doubt a bus would notice the difference.
>
> Just to put the tin hat on your lack of knowledge of physics, a bus
> that that uses *no more energy* however much you increase the mass of
> its cargo!
>
to cycle in your lifetime. Half a tonne extra wouldn't make any
noticable difference on performance or fuel consumption, let alone
100kg.
Conor
@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Mas...@BP.com says...
>
> On 14 Dec, 19:39, Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <d2302fb7-518a-41c2-b063-a756e2a44ba9
> > @m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Mas...@BP.com says...
> >
> > > The cobblers about extra CO2 breathing cyclists
> > > is so laughable that one imagines bus loads of people who happen not
> > > to eat and breathe at all.
> >
> > So you're saying that someone cycling breathes the same volume as
> > someone sat on a bus?
>
> Totally irrelevant and you know it is.
I'm sorry, I got told that CO2 was killing the planet. The more you
breathe, the more you exhale.
>
> I notice you deleted all of my marathon runners and footballers on
> buses questions.
Because they're not the subject of the conversation.
> Look into any gym car park, not only have these polluters burned
> fossil fuels to get there and back, they are now expelling loads of
> "excess CO2" in their breath on treadmills in your upside down world.
>
> Google for "carbon cycle" before spouting tripe.
>
So all the eminent scientists are wrong?
Conor
Mason says...
>
> "Conor" <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2590a4662...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >
> >> Do you know that horses emit more CO2 than humans? Learn the difference
> >> between sustainable energy from food and non sustainable energy from
> >> fossil
> >> fuels before talking such nonsense.
> >
> > I already apparently know far more than you.
>
> How much is a billion again?
UK, US or world?
Adrian
saying:
>> How much is a billion again?
> UK, US or world?
In the real world, there's no difference any more. The US have LONG since
won that one.
bolta...@boltar.world
In mathematics a billion has always been 10^9 anyway so we were on a hiding
to nothing with our odd interpretation of it being 10^12. Same with a trillion.
B2003
Mas...@bp.com
> In article <a209637e-02a7-4acd-960b-70d038109c17
> @a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Mas...@BP.com says...
>
>
>
> > On 14 Dec, 19:39, Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <d2302fb7-518a-41c2-b063-a756e2a44ba9
> > > @m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Mas...@BP.com says...
>
> > > > The cobblers about extra CO2 breathing cyclists
> > > > is so laughable that one imagines bus loads of people who happen not
> > > > to eat and breathe at all.
>
> > > So you're saying that someone cycling breathes the same volume as
> > > someone sat on a bus?
>
> > Totally irrelevant and you know it is.
>
> I'm sorry, I got told that CO2 was killing the planet. The more you
> breathe, the more you exhale.
>
OK. we'll do it in baby steps shall we?
Adrian is an office bound desk worker who sits down nearly all day.
Adrian's office is only 2 miles away so he cycles there in 10 minutes
Conor sees Adrian breathing out CO2 and thinks this is bad.
Adrian gets to his office and sits on his rear end all day.
He only eats around 2000 calories a day of mainly locally sourced
food, so his food miles is very low
Adrian's carbon footprint is thus very low, either from fossils fuels
or food - Conor thinks they are the same, so we'll pretend they are.
Tom is a personal trainer and a very successful one - he is very rich.
He lives in a 5 bedroom house and has an outdoor heated pool, so his
energy demand is very high
He works in a large gym 20 miles from his house
As he likes to show off his wealth, he drives a Hummer which does 9
mpg on his stop/start commute
Conor sees Tom stuck in traffic and think this is very good for the
planet as Tom is not breathing very hard
Tom reaches his gym and then spends 8 hours in the gym doing just
that, but Conor can't see him
As Tom has such a highly demanding day job, he eats 4000 calories a
day
This is double what Adrian eats and it's a lot of processed stuff like
protein shakes -not from local sources like Adrian
Tom thus has a *much larger* carbon footprint than Adrian even though
in Conor's looking glass world, he cycles 4 miles a day.
If you can't understand that, then there is no hope for you.
--
Simon Mason
Adrian
were saying:
> OK. we'll do it in baby steps shall we?
>
> Adrian is an office bound desk worker who sits down nearly all day.
Yes, but leave me out of the rest of it...!
Anyway, if we're looking at total carbon footprint, mine's a damn sight
lower than Conor's, since I've not been egocentric enough to think my
genes are so special that overpopulation can be ignored...
Keitht
I think you missed a 'sonny-boy' there somewhere.
Bless.
--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
Mas...@bp.com
> Conor wrote:
> > In article <d323cf22-2e2c-4b56-b738-
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's not just him that thinks there is free energy. I heard that
Waitrose were slated for importing Fijian mineral water once. They
said it was OK as it was on board a ship that was coming here anyway!
--
Simon Mason
Mark
"Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:76dbda17-5a78-4138...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 14 Dec, 10:43, Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <e5be0338-24bc-4a99-9330-142d662bacd0@
>> 21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
>>
>>
>>
>> > The EU is threatening to take the UK to court and be fined for its air
>> > pollution but this only applies to PM10s, which are mainly emitted by
>> > buses and lorries. Meanwhile motorists are completely free to emit
>> > several other harmful pollutants, some of which are life threatening,
>> > and get away with it.
>>
>> > One has to ask why the EU is ignoring those other harmful pollutants
>> > in favour of motorists, who are 80% of all road transport?
>>
>> cars have to have catalytic convertors and very tight emissions test.
>>
> Yes but they are only tested once a year and in the meantime can
> pollute as much as they like as long as there is no visible smoke.
>
Not true. Get the right car & you can produce loads of smoke without
breaking the law. My old Peugeot 405 diesel has no cat, is running on Veg
Oil & you should see the clouds that can produce after I've taken it easy
for a while *1.
It's *very* good at getting rid of BMW & Audi drivers who find it amusing to
tailgate..
*1 - Nice chippy smell as well
Doug
> On 14/12/2009 08:02, Doug wrote:
>
> > The EU is threatening to take the UK to court and be fined for its air
> > pollution but this only applies to PM10s, which are mainly emitted by
> > buses and lorries. Meanwhile motorists are completely free to emit
> > several other harmful pollutants, some of which are life threatening,
> > and get away with it.
>
> There's not much we are allowed to get away with these days, so this is
> a good thing. FWIW, my car is one of the lowest emitting cars you can
> buy. It probably emits less CO2 than your gob.
>
a flagging conscience I suppose.
>
> > One has to ask why the EU is ignoring those other harmful pollutants
> > in favour of motorists, who are 80% of all road transport?
>
> One doesn't have to ask anything if one doesn't want to. I tell you
> what, you ask them and report back.
>
motorists are in a majority they are allowed to get away with it,
especially as most of the legislators are also motorists. That is why
pure democracy doesn't work and never has. Alas, the humble cyclist is
way down on any list of those who deserve consideration by
authorities.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's Aristotlean mob.
Pedt
08:52:29 on Mon, 14 Dec 2009, The Medway Handyman
<davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wibbled
>Doug wrote:
>
>World Carfree Network
>http://www.worldcarfree.net/
>Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
>Are you seriously a member of this wacko outfit?
>
Probably only when it suits him.
Bit like he is never at the demos he claims the protesters were subject
to unwarranted brutality and when he says he's been to a climate camp he
whinges that there was no police brutality to report.
--
Pedt
I used to be Unique, now I'm just Antique
Max
"Pedt" <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jsh5KYbK...@fishcake.eternal-september.org...
This is the Doug Bollen that has complained about cyclists using footpaths,
yet insists on using them himself.
This is the Doug Bollen that complains about people in motor vehicles, yet
used to drive a 4*4 land rover.
This is the Doug Bollen that complains about other people being
"hypermobile" yet still insists on travelling to central London.
This is the Doug Bollen that is a member of both CAMRA and alcholics
anonymous.
This is the Doug Bollen that used to insist on small un-economical aircraft
when he use to fly, but campaigns aginst Heathrow airport.
This is the Doug Bollen that has much of his food delivered via Heathrow
airport yet campaign against said airport.
This is the Doug Bollen that campaigns against destruction of the rain
forrests, yet insists his faddy diet need food from those regions.
This is the Doug Bollen that supported the IRA, yet complains about attacks
against himself
This is the Doug Bollen who denies the Nazi hollocaust......
Need I go on.
Doug
> In message <h1nVm.15049$Ym4.11...@text.news.virginmedia.com>, at
> 08:52:29 on Mon, 14 Dec 2009, The Medway Handyman
>
> >World Carfree Network
> >http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> >Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
> >Are you seriously a member of this wacko outfit?
>
> Probably only when it suits him.
>
> Bit like he is never at the demos he claims the protesters were subject
> to unwarranted brutality and when he says he's been to a climate camp he
> whinges that there was no police brutality to report.
>
kettling. It just so happens that since then the police have moderated
their behaviour towards public protesters somewhat, because of the
power of the camera no doubt. But it has left them with a very good
reason to dislike photographers, who seem to be their current target
of choice.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
One man's democracy is another man's Police State.
Tony Dragon
You forgot to mention, that he is the most rammed cyclist on the planet.
--
Tony Dragon
Silk
Alas, the humble cyclist is
> way down on any list of those who deserve consideration by
> authorities.
That's how it should be. You get out what you put in.
Doug
order to get the necessary attention? Maybe cyclists should pollute
with emissions and cause much more congestion just like motorists.
Yes, cyclists are too good for their own good.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
Tony Dragon
Oh look, another rubbish rant from the Catford Loon.
--
Tony Dragon
Mas...@bp.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I remembered today an old workmate, who should have known better,
stating that electric cars are 100% pollution free, as the coal
powered stations providing the electricity don't really notice the
extra demand by electric cars being plugged into the grid.
--
Simon Mason
JNugent
> I remembered today an old workmate, who should have known better,
> stating that electric cars are 100% pollution free, as the coal
> powered stations providing the electricity don't really notice the
> extra demand by electric cars being plugged into the grid.
Sounds like enough to guarantee a dishonourable discharge at BP.
Doug
streets where it is at its worse, especially in London. Better than
all those filthy Chelsea tractors bombing around.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
The Medway Handyman
> Doug wrote:
>
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
>
> Are you seriously a member of this wacko outfit?
It's OK, I've twigged. It was a wind up right?
Had me fooled, for a while I thought http://www.worldcarfree.net/ was for
real!
--
Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
Simon Dean
> The EU is threatening to take the UK to court and be fined for its air
> pollution but this only applies to PM10s, which are mainly emitted by
> buses and lorries. Meanwhile motorists are completely free to emit
> several other harmful pollutants, some of which are life threatening,
> and get away with it.
>
> in favour of motorists, who are 80% of all road transport?
>
Umm I don't think it's a problem with cars as such.
It's one of mobility and economic migrants. Now it's never been so easy
to travel, and instead of living and working in the local area and
having house prices that are affordable to the local workforce, I think
we find that the more affluent come in looking to save money (as only
the affluent can do) and buy up all the cheap houses, taking the best
paid jobs, and travel many miles by 4x4.
Then the poor mugs you're actually having a go at, get the dregs of
what's left and still need a reasonably paid job just to make ends meet
and end up becoming quite frankly victims of circumstance.
So Im all for scaling back transport actually, all the cars, planes,
boats, even trains and buses to a certain extent.
Doug
and literally on our very own doorsteps and threatening us on every
road we use as cyclists. It is also deeply entrenched in the police
and legal system and in government. The very fact that virtually any
individual, after a brief test, is allowed to climb into a car and
proceed to pollute, congest and pose a threat to lives is a complete
anathema. In no other context would they be allowed to do this.
--
Simon Dean
You had me up until cyclists when you started showing your bias. Though
I agree there are many dangerous car drivers, driving illegal cars, and
if the government actually took some action to enable police to get
these menaces off the road - then we might actually end up helping the
environment too.
But don't pretend all car drivers are a menace to cyclists and that no
cyclist is a menace to anyone else.
There are menances everywhere.
Don't forget in your anecdote, after passing a brief test, one must
(legally) also have a vehicle that is fit for the road (MOT - not to
mention actually maintained after the MOT), be fit for purpose (ie no
drink or drugs), must have an insured vehicle etc, and must drive
safely. Of course speed cameras do not detect unsafe actions (eg mobile
phone use or drunkenness), despite a deterrant of points on your license.
Im surprised you think it's as simple as getting into a vehicle and
driving. It isn't.
Unfortunately our pre-requisites aren't enforced, and of course we have
many illegal drivers anyway without MOT or Insurance. It's not that
they're allowed to get into a vehicle, it's that by and large, we do
nothing about it.
But Im quite sick of being tarred with the same brush as a dangerous
driver and being told cyclists never transgress.
It is however much easier to buy a bike unrestricted and ride on the
pavement or on the road without a helmet, or lights, or high vis, ride
like a loon, suddenly switch from the pavement to the road, be
inconsiderate driving in the middle of a lane for no reason, smash into
the side of someones car and the cycling lobby will blame the car driver
for doing nothing wrong.
Doug
cyclists.
>
> Don't forget in your anecdote, after passing a brief test, one must
> (legally) also have a vehicle that is fit for the road (MOT - not to
> mention actually maintained after the MOT), be fit for purpose (ie no
> drink or drugs), must have an insured vehicle etc, and must drive
> safely. Of course speed cameras do not detect unsafe actions (eg mobile
> phone use or drunkenness), despite a deterrant of points on your license.
>
> Im surprised you think it's as simple as getting into a vehicle and
> driving. It isn't.
>
Anyone who half way knows how to drive can use a car.
>
> Unfortunately our pre-requisites aren't enforced, and of course we have
> many illegal drivers anyway without MOT or Insurance. It's not that
> they're allowed to get into a vehicle, it's that by and large, we do
> nothing about it.
>
should really be treated as a lethal weapon in law.
>
> But Im quite sick of being tarred with the same brush as a dangerous
> driver and being told cyclists never transgress.
>
of other hassle. As I frequently point out, cars are much more
dangerous than bicycles.
>
> It is however much easier to buy a bike unrestricted and ride on the
> pavement or on the road without a helmet, or lights, or high vis, ride
> like a loon, suddenly switch from the pavement to the road, be
> inconsiderate driving in the middle of a lane for no reason, smash into
> the side of someones car and the cycling lobby will blame the car driver
> for doing nothing wrong.
>
the blame, even for their own death, instead of the completely
uninjured killer driver.
Simon Dean
Well that's a different argument IMHO, they have the potential for
causing more damage so should be, if not more strictly controlled, more
strictly policed on more than just arbitrary speed limits that pay no
attention to the quality of the road. There is a section of wide open
dual carriageway between Coleshill and Balsall Common. 70mph most of the
way, then you get 50mph for absolutely no reason, then 40mph in the
middle of a congested town which is far too fast IMHO but then the
Heartlands Spine Road is 40mph!
> There's about a million unlicenced and uninsured drivers on our roads.
> Anyone who half way knows how to drive can use a car.
But that's not an argument to ban cars. It's an argument to better
police it. Again all this stuff is illegal for a reason.
>> Unfortunately our pre-requisites aren't enforced, and of course we have
>> many illegal drivers anyway without MOT or Insurance. It's not that
>> they're allowed to get into a vehicle, it's that by and large, we do
>> nothing about it.
>>
> Indeed. There is nothing stopping them getting in a vehicle, which
> should really be treated as a lethal weapon in law.
Your argument is much too emotive. It is not a weapon anymore than a
baseball bat is. But both can be used irresponsibly. Your fists could be
treated as a weapon, but rightly so we have laws against GBH etc.
The argument isn't simply to get rid of things that may cause harm, the
argument has to be how to ensure the legitimate and safe use of things
without encroaching on the freedoms of those who wish to use said things
responsibly.
If you pick your pick up and smash it around someones face, that's no
argument to get rid of bikes. It is an argument to lock you up though!
>> But Im quite sick of being tarred with the same brush as a dangerous
>> driver and being told cyclists never transgress.
>>
> It goes with the territory, along with parking fines/fees and a load
> of other hassle. As I frequently point out, cars are much more
> dangerous than bicycles.
They have the potential to be more dangerous in the wrong hands.
>> It is however much easier to buy a bike unrestricted and ride on the
>> pavement or on the road without a helmet, or lights, or high vis, ride
>> like a loon, suddenly switch from the pavement to the road, be
>> inconsiderate driving in the middle of a lane for no reason, smash into
>> the side of someones car and the cycling lobby will blame the car driver
>> for doing nothing wrong.
>>
> On the contrary, the vulnerable victim cyclist is often made to take
> the blame, even for their own death, instead of the completely
> uninjured killer driver.
Hey, you aren't going to hear a peep out of me about an irresponsible
driver who rams over a cyclist. I will back the cyclist all the way. But
I will moan about the "victim" cyclist who runs a red light, rides on
the pavement, sails through crossing, doesn't use lights at night,
doesn't ride with courtesy, the cyclist who is drunk, the cyclist who
attempts to undertake a vehicle already clearly turning left etc etc.
Adrian
saying:
> On the contrary, the vulnerable victim cyclist is often made to take the
> blame, even for their own death, instead of the completely uninjured
> killer driver.
<sigh> One day, Duhg, you'll understand that the cause and the outcome
are different things.
Dr Zoidberg
> On the contrary, the vulnerable victim cyclist is often made to take
> the blame, even for their own death, instead of the completely
> uninjured killer driver.
>
--
Alex
Silk
> I agree completely but the car culture is more immediate and powerful
> and literally on our very own doorsteps and threatening us on every
> road we use as cyclists.
You dumb cunt. You've had the situation explained to you but your
obvious mental illness has meant you've completely missed the point and
gone on yet another rant about poor cyclists. Why don't they move nearer
to where they work and walk?
Doug
risk instead of treating them with kid gloves.
>
> >> Unfortunately our pre-requisites aren't enforced, and of course we have
> >> many illegal drivers anyway without MOT or Insurance. It's not that
> >> they're allowed to get into a vehicle, it's that by and large, we do
> >> nothing about it.
>
> > Indeed. There is nothing stopping them getting in a vehicle, which
> > should really be treated as a lethal weapon in law.
>
> Your argument is much too emotive. It is not a weapon anymore than a
> baseball bat is. But both can be used irresponsibly. Your fists could be
> treated as a weapon, but rightly so we have laws against GBH etc.
>
slaughter on our roads.
>
> The argument isn't simply to get rid of things that may cause harm, the
> argument has to be how to ensure the legitimate and safe use of things
> without encroaching on the freedoms of those who wish to use said things
> responsibly.
>
inattention to turn a responsible person into a killer due to the
inherently dangerous choice of personal transport. Hence the freedom
to kill.
>
> If you pick your pick up and smash it around someones face, that's no
> argument to get rid of bikes. It is an argument to lock you up though!
>
> >> But Im quite sick of being tarred with the same brush as a dangerous
> >> driver and being told cyclists never transgress.
>
> > It goes with the territory, along with parking fines/fees and a load
> > of other hassle. As I frequently point out, cars are much more
> > dangerous than bicycles.
>
> They have the potential to be more dangerous in the wrong hands.
>
>
> >> It is however much easier to buy a bike unrestricted and ride on the
> >> pavement or on the road without a helmet, or lights, or high vis, ride
> >> like a loon, suddenly switch from the pavement to the road, be
> >> inconsiderate driving in the middle of a lane for no reason, smash into
> >> the side of someones car and the cycling lobby will blame the car driver
> >> for doing nothing wrong.
>
> > On the contrary, the vulnerable victim cyclist is often made to take
> > the blame, even for their own death, instead of the completely
> > uninjured killer driver.
>
> Hey, you aren't going to hear a peep out of me about an irresponsible
> driver who rams over a cyclist. I will back the cyclist all the way. But
> I will moan about the "victim" cyclist who runs a red light, rides on
> the pavement, sails through crossing, doesn't use lights at night,
> doesn't ride with courtesy, the cyclist who is drunk, the cyclist who
> attempts to undertake a vehicle already clearly turning left etc etc.
>
weapon? According to many cases in law it does, where the vulnerable
dead or injured victim is often blamed. As long as this climate of
protection for drivers is maintained the slaughter will,continue.
Simon Dean
>>> There's about a million unlicenced and uninsured drivers on our roads.
>>> Anyone who half way knows how to drive can use a car.
>> But that's not an argument to ban cars. It's an argument to better
>> police it. Again all this stuff is illegal for a reason.
>>
> Its also and argument to impose stiffer penalties for putting lives at
> risk instead of treating them with kid gloves.
How the hell is stiffer penalties going to catch anybody? We have
stiffer penalties against mobile phone use, but people disregard the law
- not because of the penalty, but because they think they won't get
caught. There's a reason for that.
Why do you think so many drivers go around with malfunctioning lights,
rust bucket vehicles, dangerous driving, mobile phones. Because even
with a police car following them, the police officer doesn't care.
I saw a guy behind me on a mobile phone. Saw a traffic officer to the
left slowed down and got out my car to report the guy behind. Officer
came back and said all he can do is give him a chat because he hadn't
seen anything himself!
It's not the penalty that you have to sort out, its how to catch them!
>> Your argument is much too emotive. It is not a weapon anymore than a
>> baseball bat is. But both can be used irresponsibly. Your fists could be
>> treated as a weapon, but rightly so we have laws against GBH etc.
>>
> Actually I am involved with campaigns against the system which allows
> slaughter on our roads.
Are you obtuse? Don't you get its not about the mode, manner, or choice
of weapon? It's about human nature. You shouldn't be against slaughter
on the roads, but against slaughter in general in anyway shape or form.
But again the problem isn't the car, it is the driver. How do we better
police the driver?
You don't really have much do you, apart from anger to an inanimate
object with no mind of its own, and you want to see them off the road,
even mine, with which I have never killed or injured anybody because I
don't drink and drive, don't do drugs, drive safe, don't use a mobile phone.
>> The argument isn't simply to get rid of things that may cause harm, the
>> argument has to be how to ensure the legitimate and safe use of things
>> without encroaching on the freedoms of those who wish to use said things
>> responsibly.
>>
> There is no guarantee of responsibility. It only takes a moment's
> inattention to turn a responsible person into a killer due to the
> inherently dangerous choice of personal transport. Hence the freedom
> to kill.
Ok, good. If we take that argument, we may as well get rid of planes,
boats, buses, trains. There's no guarantee of responsibility for any of
those. Mechanical defect, a moments inattention COULD cause severe
problems.
And that's all you are basing your argument on, the "COULD" factor.
Im sure a bike could turn into a lethal weapon too when cycling down the
pavement as I saw one cyclist doing yesterday past the Church in Colmore
Row in Birmingham. A bit too fast, smack into a pedestrian. That COULD
happen. So we should ban bicycles too.
Of course, a moments inattention, a unknown freak mechanical defect, I
think would be classed more as an accident. Killer the person may be,
but not a murderer, which is the picture you're painting.
(and that's all you are basing your argument on, the "COULD" factor)
>> They have the potential to be more dangerous in the wrong hands.
>>
> They ARE more dangerous in any hands.
No they're not. If they were dangerous full stop, I wouldn't be able to
drive anywhere. The fact that I can get from A to B without danger,
without problem, in full safety without hurting myself or anybody else,
proves they're not dangerous full stop.
They have the potential to be dangerous. I suppose that question is, how
to reduce that potential?
>> Hey, you aren't going to hear a peep out of me about an irresponsible
>> driver who rams over a cyclist. I will back the cyclist all the way. But
>> I will moan about the "victim" cyclist who runs a red light, rides on
>> the pavement, sails through crossing, doesn't use lights at night,
>> doesn't ride with courtesy, the cyclist who is drunk, the cyclist who
>> attempts to undertake a vehicle already clearly turning left etc etc.
>>
> So does that justify killing them
Yes. If the cyclist is drunk and gets on a bike and rides into the path
of a car at the last minute, putting themselves and other people in
danger, then although I can't justify death, the cyclist is totally 100%
unequivocally to blame for their own death. I won't shed a tear but I
would hope it paints a picture for cyclists to be MORE RESPONSIBLE ON
THE ROAD.
> weapon? According to many cases in law it does, where the vulnerable
> dead or injured victim is often blamed.
How can you be a victim when you endanger your own life? That is a
disastrous use of twisted logic.
> As long as this climate of
> protection for drivers is maintained the slaughter will,continue.
Im for protection of everybody. Im for personal freedom. I don't see
anything wrong with driving a car safely and will accept the
consequences if I killed anybody.
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
But you've just explained that being a cyclist is a license to endanger
your own life through drink or drugs or no lights and still be called
the victim.
You're quite a perverse individual aren't you?
Simon Dean
> On 14 Dec, 17:03, Silk <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On 14/12/2009 08:02, Doug wrote:
>>
>>> The EU is threatening to take the UK to court and be fined for its air
>>> pollution but this only applies to PM10s, which are mainly emitted by
>>> buses and lorries. Meanwhile motorists are completely free to emit
>>> several other harmful pollutants, some of which are life threatening,
>>> and get away with it.
>> There's not much we are allowed to get away with these days, so this is
>> a good thing. FWIW, my car is one of the lowest emitting cars you can
>> buy. It probably emits less CO2 than your gob.
>>
> That's what they all say, "My car is greener than most." LOL! It helps
> a flagging conscience I suppose.
Ok, how do we get people out of their cars? Bearing in mind Public
Transport is useless and quite a lot of people need to use their cars
actively in their work. If we focus on people getting to work first, I
presume the first thing is getting people living near to where they work.
How do you propose we do that?
I suppose the next thing then, is ensuring the houses in the local area
are affordable in terms of the wages on offer for the local area.
How do we achieve that?
Perhaps reduction in economic migration might help that, and the big
thing that would really help is cut back on availability of transport.
But how do you manage the transition?
> I know why, pragmatism, the economy and above all votes. Because
> motorists are in a majority they are allowed to get away with it,
Get away with what exactly? If a drunk cyclist goes through a red light
and puts themselves in danger and gets run over and killed, you want us
to blame the motorist.
If a motorist goes through a red light and kills a cyclist, you want us
to blame the motorist.
And in both circumstances, you class the victim as being the cyclist,
regardless of whether the victim endangered their own life or not.
Mike Barnes
>We have stiffer penalties against mobile phone use, but people
>disregard the law - not because of the penalty, but because they think
>they won't get caught.
Also they think they won't kill anyone. That's not always true either.
--
Mike Barnes
Adrian
like they were saying:
> Simon Dean <sjd...@home.cubeone.co.uk>:
Newsflash.
Fuckwittery behind the wheel kill people.
Phone, drink, excess speed, whatever - they're merely symptoms, not the
cause.
Bar people from driving fuckwittedly.
Oh, wait. We already (long since) did.
Perhaps we ought to actually start enforcing that? Just a thought...
Mas...@bp.com
>
> Bar people from driving fuckwittedly.
>
> Oh, wait. We already (long since) did.
>
> Perhaps we ought to actually start enforcing that? Just a thought...
No need. They have to take a written and practical test that cyclists
don't.
Apparently that's the argument drivers use to prove that they are all
law abiding and perfect drivers after the L plates and HC have been
binned.
Ho hum.
--
Simon Mason
webreader
Doug has promised in the past to answer many of your questions, all
you need to do is request that he posts a copy of 'Vince's Report'
>
> > I know why, pragmatism, the economy and above all votes. Because
> > motorists are in a majority they are allowed to get away with it,
>
> Get away with what exactly? If a drunk cyclist goes through a red light
> and puts themselves in danger and gets run over and killed, you want us
> to blame the motorist.
>
> If a motorist goes through a red light and kills a cyclist, you want us
> to blame the motorist.
>
> And in both circumstances, you class the victim as being the cyclist,
> regardless of whether the victim endangered their own life or not.
Do not forget that in DougWorld (tm) the cyclist is always the victim
& is never at fault.
The motorist is allways at fault because he is a motorist.
How exactly he equates this with 'acyclist who drives is not a propper
cyclist' has not yet been answered.
WSR
Conor
9e253e...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Mas...@BP.com says...
> No need. They have to take a written and practical test that cyclists
> don't.
> Apparently that's the argument drivers use to prove that they are all
> law abiding and perfect drivers after the L plates and HC have been
> binned.
> Ho hum.
Do you drive? Do you use the bus or take a taxi?
--
Conor
www.notebooks-r-us.co.uk
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.
Mas...@bp.com
> In article <14733297-7889-40e5-a79d-
> 9e253e9c1...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Mas...@BP.com says...
I passed my motorbike test in 1977 and car test in 1980.
I have driven for nearly 30 years then. Don't use buses or taxis - no
need.
Currently driving an 07 Alfa 2.2 JTS.
--
Simon Masom
Conor
@g7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Mas...@BP.com says...
> I passed my motorbike test in 1977 and car test in 1980.
> I have driven for nearly 30 years then. Don't use buses or taxis - no
> need.
> Currently driving an 07 Alfa 2.2 JTS.
So you are, in fact, a hypocrite.
--
Conor
Mas...@bp.com
Eh? How do come to that conclusion?
I'd like to think of myself as "paying for the roads" as you put it,
but not damaging them as I cycle 6000 miles a year instead.
In fact, this year I paid "road tax" in Austria, Hungary, Romania,
Moldova, Slovakia and tolls in Poland, so paid for the upkeep of
European roads as well as my own.
--
Simon Mason
Doug
drivers.
>
> The motorist is allways at fault because he is a motorist.
>
>
> How exactly he equates this with 'acyclist who drives is not a propper
> cyclist' has not yet been answered.
>
want the freedom to travel from A to B as fast as possible without any
impediments". Of course, cyclists are impediments and are treated as
such and motorists kill cyclists but not vice versa. It is highly
unlikely therefore that someone who combines motoring and cycling is
well disposed towards cyclists.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Tony Dragon
So because you are 'vulnerable' you can never be at fault.
If a pedestrian walks in the road without looking & gets hit by a
cyclist, it must be the cyclists fault?
>> The motorist is allways at fault because he is a motorist.
>>
> No because he is much more dangerous.
So if a motorist drives the wrong way down a motorway & hit a truck, it
must be the truck drivers fault because it is more dangerous?
>> How exactly he equates this with 'acyclist who drives is not a propper
>> cyclist' has not yet been answered.
>>
> Yes it has. It is explained by the motorist's mindset, which is, "I
> want the freedom to travel from A to B as fast as possible without any
> impediments".
That of course is only in your mind, many (most) motorists do not think
like that.
> Of course, cyclists are impediments
In your mind
> and are treated as
> such
Not by myself & most other motorists that I know.
> and motorists kill cyclists but not vice versa. It is highly
> unlikely therefore that someone who combines motoring and cycling is
> well disposed towards cyclists.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
>
I would think that anybody who does both would understand the problems
of both modes of types of transport, but of course you would not be able
to understand that.
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
law.
>
> If a pedestrian walks in the road without looking & gets hit by a
> cyclist, it must be the cyclists fault?
>
>
> >> The motorist is allways at fault because he is a motorist.
>
> > No because he is much more dangerous.
>
> So if a motorist drives the wrong way down a motorway & hit a truck, it
> must be the truck drivers fault because it is more dangerous?
>
not.
>
> >> How exactly he equates this with 'acyclist who drives is not a propper
> >> cyclist' has not yet been answered.
>
> > Yes it has. It is explained by the motorist's mindset, which is, "I
> > want the freedom to travel from A to B as fast as possible without any
> > impediments".
>
> That of course is only in your mind, many (most) motorists do not think
> like that.
>
> > Of course, cyclists are impediments
>
> In your mind
>
>
> > and are treated as
> > such
>
> Not by myself & most other motorists that I know.
>
situation.
>
> > and motorists kill cyclists but not vice versa. It is highly
> > unlikely therefore that someone who combines motoring and cycling is
> > well disposed towards cyclists.
>
>
> of both modes of types of transport, but of course you would not be able
> to understand that.
>
annual cycle training to help them avoid killing cyclists. On the
other hand, a motorist who sometimes cycles might not have the right
sort of training.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
The Medway Handyman
So, the motorist who has passed an extensive practical & written examination
of competance and has compulsory annual safety checks on his vehicle, is
always more dangerous than a completely untrained cyclist on a potentially
unsafe bike?
>>
>> How exactly he equates this with 'a cyclist who drives is not a
>> propper cyclist' has not yet been answered.
>>
> Yes it has. It is explained by the motorist's mindset, which is, "I
> want the freedom to travel from A to B as fast as possible without any
> impediments". Of course, cyclists are impediments and are treated as
> such and motorists kill cyclists but not vice versa. It is highly
> unlikely therefore that someone who combines motoring and cycling is
> well disposed towards cyclists.
Cyclists have killed pedestrians though. Not often granted, but it has
happened.
The Medway Handyman
>>>>>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>>>>>The very fact
>>>>> that virtually any individual, after a brief test, is allowed to
>>>>> climb into a car and proceed to pollute, congest and pose a
>>>>> threat to lives is a complete anathema. In no other context would
>>>>> they be allowed to do this.
>>> Yes but relatively speaking motorists are much more dangerous than
>>> cyclists.
> Its also and argument to impose stiffer penalties for putting lives at
> risk instead of treating them with kid gloves.
>>> Indeed. There is nothing stopping them getting in a vehicle, which
>>> should really be treated as a lethal weapon in law.
> Actually I am involved with campaigns against the system which allows
> slaughter on our roads.
> There is no guarantee of responsibility. It only takes a moment's
> inattention to turn a responsible person into a killer due to the
> inherently dangerous choice of personal transport. Hence the freedom
> to kill.
>>
>>> It goes with the territory, along with parking fines/fees and a load
>>> of other hassle. As I frequently point out, cars are much more
>>> dangerous than bicycles.
>>
>>> On the contrary, the vulnerable victim cyclist is often made to take
>>> the blame, even for their own death, instead of the completely
>>> uninjured killer driver.
> So does that justify killing them with what amounts to a dangerous
> weapon? According to many cases in law it does, where the vulnerable
> dead or injured victim is often blamed. As long as this climate of
> protection for drivers is maintained the slaughter will,continue.
This bloke is completely & utterly barking mad.
The Medway Handyman
>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
My daughter frequently drives around London at above the speed limit and
occassionally drives through red lights.
I take it you would classify her as a potential killer?
Ian Dalziel
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>"The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered
>Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:03:12 GMT the perfect time to write:
>
>>Doug wrote:
>>
>>>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>>
>>My daughter frequently drives around London at above the speed limit and
>>occassionally drives through red lights.
>>
>>I take it you would classify her as a potential killer?
>
>If she deliberately chooses to drive that recklessly, then her chances
>of becoming a killer are far higher than those of a more careful and
>considerate driver.
Who mentioned recklessly?
--
Ian D
The Medway Handyman
Did I forget to mention that she does so in the course of her job as a
Paramedic with London Ambulance Service? In a Fast Response Vehicle?
I rather thought they saved lives?
d...@telent.net
> So have golf balls, and with about the same frequency.
Balls don't kill people. People do.
-dan
JNugent
> Ian Dalziel wrote:
>> Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk>:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>>>> My daughter frequently drives around London at above the speed
>>>> limit and occassionally drives through red lights.
>>>> I take it you would classify her as a potential killer?
>>> If she deliberately chooses to drive that recklessly, then her
>>> chances of becoming a killer are far higher than those of a more
>>> careful and considerate driver.
>> Who mentioned recklessly?
> Did I forget to mention that she does so in the course of her job as a
> Paramedic with London Ambulance Service? In a Fast Response Vehicle?
> I rather thought they saved lives?
I could see that one coming from a mile off. I wonder why PWL couldn't.
Tony Dragon
I thought I heard a whoosh, but it was better to let him dig his own hole.
--
Tony Dragon
Tony Dragon
Blinkers?
--
Tony Dragon
The Medway Handyman
Possibly because he is an idiot? I was pretty sure I'd get away with it.
Doug
capable of causing much more damage from human error or mechanical
failure..
>
>
> >> How exactly he equates this with 'a cyclist who drives is not a
> >> propper cyclist' has not yet been answered.
>
> > Yes it has. It is explained by the motorist's mindset, which is, "I
> > want the freedom to travel from A to B as fast as possible without any
> > impediments". Of course, cyclists are impediments and are treated as
> > such and motorists kill cyclists but not vice versa. It is highly
> > unlikely therefore that someone who combines motoring and cycling is
> > well disposed towards cyclists.
>
> Cyclists have killed pedestrians though. Not often granted, but it has
> happened.
>
holes in the walls of houses and endanger those inside, which no
cyclist is capable of doing, and this clearly indicates the much
greater danger posed by a car.
It follows that cyclists should receive much more lenient treatment in
law as they are much less dnagerous.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Tony Dragon
> additional training and lights/sirens.
>
> But I don't think I am the only person to find it difficult to believe
> that anyone with the handjob's genes would be sufficiently educable.
>
> Are you sure she's your daughter?
Ah, good answer.
Because a blinkered, knee jerk answer make you look a fool, instead of
admitting your mistake you resort to abuse.
--
Tony Dragon
The Medway Handyman
Typical lycra lout response really. I'll add it to the list.
delboy
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am a motorist and an occasional cyclist, mostly off road. In my
local area several pedestrians have been knocked over and killed or
seriously injured by 'speeding' cyclists in the pedestrianised town
centre and in a local park. So although bikes and their riders have
less mass than a car, they are still potentially lethal!
As a motorist my pet hate is cyclists who insist on riding dark
coloured bikes, wearing dark coloured clothes, at night, without
lights, and often without helmets. I almost knocked one over at a
roundabout on a very dark night only a few weeks ago, only spotting
him at the last second. When I was a young chap, I am sure that riding
a bike without lights at night was an offence. Cyclists should not be
above the law just because they are more likely to be injured than
motorists. If I had have hit the above cyclist I am sure that I would
have been in a lot of trouble with the law. I have lights on my own
bike by the way. They cost less than a tenner each and weigh almost
nothing.
Del C
The Medway Handyman
> delboy <del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> considered Thu, 24 Dec 2009
> 01:17:38 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:
>
>>
>> I am a motorist and an occasional cyclist, mostly off road. In my
>> local area several pedestrians have been knocked over and killed or
>> seriously injured by 'speeding' cyclists in the pedestrianised town
>> centre and in a local park. So although bikes and their riders have
>> less mass than a car, they are still potentially lethal!
>
> because the national statistics indicate that any such local problem
> would be such a huge proportion of that recorded nationally that it
> almost never happened anywhere else.
The gentleman has personal knowledge of several pedestrians killed or
seriously injured by cyclists,
but you just can't accept it. How do cyclists get those helmets on over
their halos?
> So the best evidence available indicates you're lying.
Cyclists are potentially lethal. No question.
The Medway Handyman
> "The Medway Wankstain" <davi...@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered
'Medway Wankstain', 'FOAD' and 'areshole' all in one post?
Oh dear. I suspect you might be a little pissed off about making a complete
prat of yourself.
'Paramedics are all killers' IIRC. I can't believe you were stupid enough
to fall for it.
Typical lycra loon response. No valid argument.
--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
Doug
>
> mostly off road. In my
> local area several pedestrians have been knocked over and killed or
> seriously injured by 'speeding' cyclists in the pedestrianised town
> centre and in a local park. So although bikes and their riders have
> less mass than a car, they are still potentially lethal!
>
instead is relative risk. BTW, when was a motorist last killed by a
cyclist following a collision between the two?
>
> As a motorist my pet hate is cyclists
>
>
> who insist on riding dark
> coloured bikes, wearing dark coloured clothes, at night, without
> lights, and often without helmets. I almost knocked one over at a
> roundabout on a very dark night only a few weeks ago, only spotting
> him at the last second.
>
attention?
>
> When I was a young chap, I am sure that riding
> a bike without lights at night was an offence. Cyclists should not be
> above the law just because they are more likely to be injured than
> motorists. If I had have hit the above cyclist I am sure that I would
> have been in a lot of trouble with the law.
>
the cyclist, if he was still alive, on having no lights, no reflective
vest and no crash helmet. If any of those had been lacking the cyclist
would be blamed. Of course this would be little consolation for a dead
cyclist who had all of those when struck by a much more dangerous
vehicle.
>
> I have lights on my own
> bike by the way. They cost less than a tenner each and weigh almost
> nothing.
>
car?
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
delboy
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just a small detail. The headlights on my car point forward, but the
darkly coloured unlit cyclist on a very dark moonless night was coming
from my right! What am I supposed to do, wear night vision goggles?
I last rode my own bike at night (with lights on) just over a week
ago. Haven't been out on it since due to all the ice and snow on the
roads.
DC
Tony Dragon
Only to you, othere make reasoned judgemants.
>> mostly off road. In my
>> local area several pedestrians have been knocked over and killed or
>> seriously injured by 'speeding' cyclists in the pedestrianised town
>> centre and in a local park. So although bikes and their riders have
>> less mass than a car, they are still potentially lethal!
>>
> Lots of things are potentially lethal but what you should consider
> instead is relative risk. BTW, when was a motorist last killed by a
> cyclist following a collision between the two?
>> As a motorist my pet hate is cyclists
>>
> No kidding! Do you ever ram them?
Any reason that he should, most don't (except in your mind)
>> who insist on riding dark
>> coloured bikes, wearing dark coloured clothes, at night, without
>> lights, and often without helmets. I almost knocked one over at a
>> roundabout on a very dark night only a few weeks ago, only spotting
>> him at the last second.
>>
> So either your lights were faulty or you weren't paying proper
> attention?
Or the cyclist was not where the headlights were pointing 9e'g' from the
side)
He must have been paying attention, he saw him.
No comments about the stupid cyclist?
>> When I was a young chap, I am sure that riding
>> a bike without lights at night was an offence. Cyclists should not be
>> above the law just because they are more likely to be injured than
>> motorists. If I had have hit the above cyclist I am sure that I would
>> have been in a lot of trouble with the law.
>>
> Nope. the first thing the cops would have done would be to question
> the cyclist,
They would question both, does there have to be an order.
>if he was still alive, on having no lights,
Quite correct.
>no reflective
> vest and no crash helmet. If any of those had been lacking the cyclist
> would be blamed.
Obvious rubbish, but if the cyclist had no lights he would have some of
the blame at least attributed to him.
> Of course this would be little consolation for a dead
> cyclist who had all of those when struck by a much more dangerous
> vehicle.
But this cyclist did not have these things.
>> I have lights on my own
>> bike by the way. They cost less than a tenner each and weigh almost
>> nothing.
>>
> Good for you. When did you last use it in the dark, instead of your
> car?
>
Does it matter?
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
>
>
--
Tony Dragon
Doug
glittery bits on the bike and even a few reflectors.
>
> I last rode my own bike at night (with lights on) just over a week
> ago. Haven't been out on it since due to all the ice and snow on the
> roads.
>
critical approach to cyclists. Need I remind you that cars/motorists
are much more dangerous than bicycles/cyclists and cause many more
deaths? That is why motoring needs to be exercised with much greater
restraint and care, which unfortunately it is not.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Tony Dragon
Lets see, he did se him.
Glittery bits & reflectors need a light source.
But I see you still don't comment on riding without lights.
>> I last rode my own bike at night (with lights on) just over a week
>> ago. Haven't been out on it since due to all the ice and snow on the
>> roads.
>>
> Thought asd much, more of a motorist than a cyclist then,
Did I miss where he said that he had used a car since he used his bike.
> hence your
> critical approach to cyclists.
Who cycle in a stupid manner. with no regard to their or anybody elses
safety.
> Need I remind you that cars/motorists
> are much more dangerous than bicycles/cyclists and cause many more
> deaths?
Even more reason then to look after your own safety, like using lights
at night.
> That is why motoring needs to be exercised with much greater
> restraint and care, which unfortunately it is not.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns
> www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.
>
--
Tony Dragon
The Medway Handyman
>>
>> Oh dear. I suspect you might be a little pissed off about making a
>> complete prat of yourself.
>
> I'm afraid I don't suffer fools gladly.
I'm not surprised you don't like yourself much. Thats probably why you have
developed this fanatical obcession with cycling.
>> 'Paramedics are all killers' IIRC. I can't believe you were stupid
>> enough to fall for it.
>
> No, you decided to conceal the advanced training and warning
> equipment, and focus on speeding and light jumping.
Just admit it, you made a complete and utter fool of yourself by falling for
a ruse that wouldn't have fooled a 12 year old. Then you became abusive &
claimed my daughter was illegitimate.
>
> But since you brought it up:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8428481.stm
So, we have an ambulance clearly responding to a Cat A call, where life is
in immediate danger and their is an 8 minute Govmint target, in icy
conditions? And you are surprised they crashed? No one however was
injured.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/8421247.stm
Another case of emergency response to a lfe threatening situation. An the
comment from the Police? "The paramedic crew was on its way to a road
accident. Police are investigating the cause of the crash". So no one
actually knows what happened?
>
> Those only took a couple of minutes to find, so it's far from an
> exhaustive list - both in the last month, too.
I assume this is meant to prove some kind of idiot point? I assume you
would like Paramedics to respond on ultra safe bicycles?
To anyone of sound mind (e.g. not you) there has to be a balance between a
minor risk against the saving of a life.
If you wobble & fall off your push bike & suffer a life threatening injury,
I take it you would be happy to lie by the roadside whilst the crew drove at
the exact speed limit & obeyed all the traffic signals?
> I wonder how many a year there are?
Why don't you find out and compare it with the 1 million calls a year
answered by London Ambulance? Because the figure would be so low as to be
insignificant.
> Obviously far more common than pedestrian deaths and injuries caused
> by dangerous cycling.
In your delusional mind.
> Of course, an ambulance is zero rated for VED too, so I suspect you
> think they have no right on the road.
No, because unlike you I am not completely stupid.
> Since they apparently cause a greater number of deaths than cyclists
> do, maybe you should shift your bigotry towards them instead.
>>
>> Typical lycra loon response. No valid argument.
Still no valid argument.
> You've been given plenty of valid arguments.
> It's just that you don't have the equipment to recognise them.
Lets see, your idea of showing a vailid argument is to deny any evidence
that doesn't support your claim?
--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the underarm.
The Medway Handyman
>>
>> I am a motorist and an occasional cyclist,
>>
> Enough said! So its plain where you are coming from.
>>
>> mostly off road. In my
>> local area several pedestrians have been knocked over and killed or
>> seriously injured by 'speeding' cyclists in the pedestrianised town
>> centre and in a local park. So although bikes and their riders have
>> less mass than a car, they are still potentially lethal!
>>
> Lots of things are potentially lethal but what you should consider
> instead is relative risk. BTW, when was a motorist last killed by a
> cyclist following a collision between the two?
Which is irreleant. Who's fault the collision was is relevant.
>>
>> As a motorist my pet hate is cyclists
>>
> No kidding! Do you ever ram them?
>>
>> who insist on riding dark
>> coloured bikes, wearing dark coloured clothes, at night, without
>> lights, and often without helmets. I almost knocked one over at a
>> roundabout on a very dark night only a few weeks ago, only spotting
>> him at the last second.
>>
> So either your lights were faulty or you weren't paying proper
> attention?
Which part of "riding dark coloured bikes, wearing dark coloured clothes, at
night, without lights" didn't you understand fuckwit?
>>
>> When I was a young chap, I am sure that riding
>> a bike without lights at night was an offence. Cyclists should not be
>> above the law just because they are more likely to be injured than
>> motorists. If I had have hit the above cyclist I am sure that I would
>> have been in a lot of trouble with the law.
>>
> Nope. the first thing the cops would have done would be to question
> the cyclist, if he was still alive, on having no lights, no reflective
> vest and no crash helmet. If any of those had been lacking the cyclist
> would be blamed. Of course this would be little consolation for a dead
> cyclist who had all of those when struck by a much more dangerous
> vehicle.
No consolation for the innocent motorist who will be traumatised for life
due to the stupidity of the cyclist either.