One for Nuxxman.

Danny Colyer

On 07/06/2008 00:06, Martin wrote:
> I have seen people cycling down park street in Bristol using there feet
> as brakes, that requires plenty of courage/stupidity.

And a new pair of shoes every couple of days, I should imagine!

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

Nuxx Bar

On Jun 6, 10:25*am, "Simon Mason" <simonma...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> "Nuxx Bar" <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:deb01001-e178-47b9-8e3c-57692dca956c@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 5, 5:53 pm, "Simon Mason" <simonma...@simonmason.karoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> by pretending not to understand someone's position is
> pretty lame TBH. *If you want to attempt to explain why cyclists
> shouldn't be punished for every little infraction, but motorists
> should, then go ahead.
>
> On the contrary, I would like both motorists and cyclists to be held to
> account for all lawbreaking, minor or not. However, it would be a change if
> people accepted that they did wrong, paid the penalty and then *stopped
> moaning* how badly done to they are.

Well, if you *genuinely* want both motorists and cyclists to be
punished for every single infringement, no matter how trivial and
victimless (potentially or actually), then at least (unlike the vast
majority here) you're not guilty of discriminating against the
motorist. But I think you'll find that most here do believe that
cyclists should have common sense applied to them, while motorists
shouldn't, "because cars are heavier" (or some such pathetic
justification). They are simply anti-motorist for political reasons,
and all this "safety" stuff is just window dressing. Still, if you
think that motorists should always be done for speeding, *and*
cyclists should always be done for absolutely every infringement, you
are at least consistent, if (IMHO) dead wrong.

I can't understand why you would attach so much importance to the
letter of the law, and you (apparently) find the idea of discretion so
abhorrent. You seem to think that the law is an end in itself, rather
than the means to an end. I think it's a means to an end, and if that
end is not going to be achieved by enforcing the law in a particular
instance, then why bother? There have been some incredibly unfair
laws over the years, both here and abroad, and I'm sure you'd be the
first to agree with that. Are you that confident that the law is so
perfect now that it should be applied without exception? Or is it a
case of "It may not be perfect but it should still be applied, no
matter what the negative consequences are, because it's the law"? If
you believed (and I'm not saying you do) that the proliferation of
speed cameras was costing lives, would you still be in favour of
them? Is "the law" more important than people's lives?

Nuxx Bar

On Jun 6, 9:29*am, spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 8:26*am, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 20:46:31 +0100 someone who may be Nick Kew
> > <n...@grimnir.webthing.com> wrote this:-
>
> > >>http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zcrackdown.jpg
>
> > >"Those using pavements may also be stopped."
>
> > Then I look forward to reading that the police bod in the second
> > photograph was stopped and dealt with for riding on the pavement.
>
> > --
> > * David Hansen, Edinburgh
> > *I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
> > *http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
>
> This is exactly how Nazi Germany started. Everyone knows that cycling
> on the pavement reduces risk, it's on my website Safepedalling.co.uk,
> where you will find convincing graphs that I've coloured in to show
> how, in fact, blah blah blah.

It's so easy to snipe at other people's work from the sidelines when
you've contributed nothing yourself, isn't it? You're a complete
fruitcake, and anyone who believes that you care one iota about road
safety is a fruitcake as well. It couldn't possibly be clearer that
your sole motive is an irrational, psychopathy-inspired crusade
against powered private transport. Are you jealous because you've
been deemed too mental to drive/ride? If not, then why don't you
break the habit of a lifetime, admit to being anti-motorist, and tell
us all why? Are you concerned that your justification won't stack up?

> I've seen coppers stop cyclists in The City as trucks trundle through
> red lights.

Where "seen" = "imagined and convinced myself that I'd seen". It's
what crazy people do when reality doesn't fit in with their warped
views.

I really hope you've taken your tablets by now. Otherwise, I fear for
the safety of those on your ward...at least we get to choose whether
we read your anti-motorist lies, and you can't hurt any of us
(although you did get someone's workplace evacuated, so it's best not
to be overconfident.)