And make no mistake, cyclists are criminals.

Sir Jeremy

On 25 Jun, 19:26, Paul Boyd <a...@invalid.net> wrote:
> On 25/06/2008 13:04, Daniel Barlow said,
>
> > They do. *"Other motorists" come in for regular criticism from
> > motorists everywhere - think about the stereotypes of women drivers,
> > middle lane hogs, Sunday drivers, crap parkers, taxi drivers, minicab
> > drivers ... or the perceived tension between four wheels and two:
> > "cagers" vs "power rangers".
>
> True, but what you don't get is the extreme vitriol in the press about
> women drivers etc. *I mean, just look at the page title on the
> thisisbristol link in the OP. *That site calls us evil-doing two-wheeled
> terrorists. *Ok, it's actually some prat called James Caddick, but the
> "thisis..." sites are supposed to be for people to find out about the
> place. *What does that article say about the sensibility of giving that
> city money for cycling when the local site prints such crap. *I wonder
> what the reaction would be if the word "women" or "Moslem" or
> "Christian" was substituted for "cyclist" with regard to money being
> spent on those groups. *Why is it deemed acceptable to print a story
> where cyclists are libelled in such a way? *I can be 100% sure that if
> virtually any other group was referred to as "terrorists" and
> "criminals" there would be uproar - and I don't just mean in newsgroups.
>
> --
> Paul Boydhttp://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/


Cycling isn't a gender nor is it a (recognised) religion, therefore
its as open to comment and opinion, as is any other activity. There
have been many comments on this newsgroup and forums such as Cycling
Plus about, for example, Safespeed/Paul Smith/4x4 drivers/
motorcyclists which could equally be described as crap. Why should
cycling be any different?
Thats the price you pay for freedom of speech

Tom Anderson

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Ian Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Ian Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Tom Anderson <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think you're wrong. In fact, i think you have exactly the same
>>>> blind spot as the cagers: "we're white as the driven snow, and it's
>>>> the other guys who are making the trouble!". I think RLJing is as
>>>> common amongst cyclists as speeding is among motorists.
>>>
>>> You are wrong.
>>
>> I'm pleased to hear it!
>>
>>> At least, the available statistics suggest you are wrong. The RAC did a
>>> study intended to show how evil cyclist are and how they all jump red
>>> lights, but they only got a majority going through the red at one
>>> location of the many where they did the count.
>>
>> Interesting, that comes as quite a surprise.
>>
>> As others have mentioned, there may be a contextual variation, urban vs
>> suburban vs rural locations, etc. I'd be interested to see some data on
>> that too.
>
> The RAC count was all urban locations. One London location was the
> only where more than 50% of cyclists jumped teh lights. I seem to
> recall a central Glasgow location was next worst, but might be wrong.

Interestinger and interestinger. It seems me and my metropolitan brethren
are, as provincials have always suspected, a villainous bunch of
criminalists!

tom

--
shouting drunkenly about 6502 assembler at parties

Paul Boyd

On 25/06/2008 15:50, NewRiderPS said,

> You've never gotten a driving ticket, parking ticket, never exceeded
> the speed limit?

I can claim two of the above. Does that count for anything? ;-)

I haven't driven the road for a while so I don't know if this still
applies, but a section of the A370 coming out of Bristol has some
ridiculous changes in speed limits. ISTR something like 70 to 60 to 30
(with insufficient warning of the last change that occurred round a bend
and (oddly enough!) had (has?) one of the most vandalised speed cameras
in the country on the 30 limit. Whilst the 30 limit is fine, for anyone
who didn't know the road it would have been all to easy to inadvertently
break that limit. Other parts of the country that have a similar rapid
reductions in speed limit always have plenty of warnings - maybe the
A370 has now.

....then it goes to 40, then 50, then 30, then 40, then 30, then 60, and
then for the next half mile the sequence is....

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Daniel Barlow

Paul Boyd <abcd@invalid.net> writes:

> Ok, it's actually some prat called James
> Caddick, but the "thisis..." sites are supposed to be for people to
> find out about the place.

They are? I thought they were just syndication sites for all the
stuff not quite important enough to make it into the Daily Mail
proper. thisislondon.com is the Evening Standard and always has been.

> I can be 100% sure that if virtually any other group was referred to
> as "terrorists" and "criminals" there would be uproar - and I don't
> just mean in newsgroups.

Bet you I can think of some counterexamples. Off the top of my head:
caravan owners, pipe smokers, emergency plumbers, and goths. All it
needs is a strong dividing line between "them" and "us".

Which is not to excuse it or in any way imply that it's OK - it's
about the laziest form of journalism going.


-dan

Paul Boyd

On 25/06/2008 15:41, NewRiderPS said,

> If you've never exceeded the speed limit (except momentarily to pass),
> never run a red light and never double parked, I applaud you and your
> Model-T.

Smiley noted, but surely you're not suggesting it's unusual for someone
never to have jumped a red light or parked illegally? I would agree
that it would be unusual to find someone who has never exceeded the
speed limit, but these people do exist, so I'm told.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd

On 25/06/2008 15:38, NewRiderPS said,

> Not another car in sight, we were following an unmarked car
> going down mainstreet doing 15 in a 25mph zone.

Go on then - who's going to point out the obvious? ;-)

Incidentally, assuming you mean double white lines and you are in the
UK, you did break the law.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Ace

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:04:40 +0100, Paul Boyd <abcd@invalid.net>
wrote:

>On 25/06/2008 15:38, NewRiderPS said,
>
>> Not another car in sight, we were following an unmarked car
>> going down mainstreet doing 15 in a 25mph zone.
>
>Go on then - who's going to point out the obvious? ;-)
>
>Incidentally, assuming you mean double white lines and you are in the
>UK, you did break the law.

Double yellow center-lines[sic] are common in the US, as are 25mph
zones, and roads known as 'mainstreet'. So I guess he isn't, although
I think he still did.

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

Ace

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:58:34 +0100, Paul Boyd <abcd@invalid.net>
wrote:

>On 25/06/2008 15:41, NewRiderPS said,
>
>> If you've never exceeded the speed limit (except momentarily to pass),
>> never run a red light and never double parked, I applaud you and your
>> Model-T.
>
>Smiley noted, but surely you're not suggesting it's unusual for someone
>never to have jumped a red light or parked illegally? I would agree
>that it would be unusual to find someone who has never exceeded the
>speed limit, but these people do exist, so I'm told.

I find it difficult to imagine the existence of people that don't do
all of the above on a regular basis. I've certainly exceeded speed
limits all the way from 30 to 130kph, jumped a red light (on my bike)
and parked illegally in the last, err, two days, actually. So not
quite the everyday occurence that I was going to suggest, but not far
off.

So does that make me a bad person, or a dangerous driver?

--
Ace in Alsace - brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom

Danny Colyer

On 25/06/2008 08:26, David Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:29:47 +0100 someone who may be Danny Colyer
>>From my own observations I'd
>> suggest that about 30% of adult cyclists and 90% of motorists are happy
>> to go through a red light, although for the motorists it makes a
>> difference whether the light changed on approach or whether it's been
>> red for a while.
>
> I suggest that the relative difficulty of overtaking a vehicle
> stopped at the lights in a car compared to a bike explains some of
> this difference.

Only a small amount, I would suggest, as IME it's uncommon for a
motorist to go through the light if there's no queue and the light has
already been red for a few seconds by the time they arrive. Unless the
light is at a pedestrian crossing, where going through the light doesn't
put the motorist at risk of being hit from the side by another car.

--
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

NewRiderPS

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:04:40 +0100, Paul Boyd <abcd@invalid.net>
wrote:

>On 25/06/2008 15:38, NewRiderPS said,
>
>> Not another car in sight, we were following an unmarked car
>> going down mainstreet doing 15 in a 25mph zone.
>
>Go on then - who's going to point out the obvious? ;-)
>
>Incidentally, assuming you mean double white lines and you are in the
>UK, you did break the law.

Well our assumption was that there was something wrong with the car.
Yes it was criminal and breaking the law to travel 10mph below the
speed limit and if it had been a cop car behind the unmarked car it
would have been hilarious to see him pull the guy over.

How long would you drive under 15mph in a 25 zone? At some point who
is not going to pass when the way is clear (which is was).

Guess it wasn't deemed too illegal since we got a warning (though we
got no explanation).

Dave Larrington

In news:nls364h3ektk6jpo0ns9v4atqh15q9c912@4ax.com,
David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:

> I suggest that the relative difficulty of overtaking a vehicle
> stopped at the lights in a car compared to a bike explains some of
> this difference.

I've been overtaken while stopped at red in my car twice in recent weeks, at
temporary lights. In both cases the guilty dick was driving a black Audi
and in both case he nearly took out a motorcyclist legally coming the other
way.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Odd, is it not, how all roads lead inexorably to David Icke?

Mark

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:46:18 +0100, Paul Boyd <abcd@invalid.net>
wrote:

>On 25/06/2008 15:00, Mark said,
>
>> Better education of all road users is a must IMHO.
>
>And that's where money should be spent, if anywhere, not in painting
>white lanes here and there. I really do wish it was practical for all
>motorists to be forced to ride a bike for a while every so often, under
>qualified supervision, for a decent amount of time.

Absolutely. I think all able bodied drivers should ride a bike a few
weeks of the year.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Mark

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:37:22 +0100,
notmyaddress.1.ekulnamsob@wronghead.com (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>Geoff Lane <geoff@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Mark <i@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net> wrote in
>> news:m37464hgfitcnbhus0unsv0b014p7674v4@4ax.com:
>>
>> > One problem is that very few road users have any idea what primary and
>> > "secondary" position is. They appear to genuinely believe that
>> > cyclists should always be in the gutter.
>>
>> They don't need to know the terms "primary" and "secondary" positions. All
>> they need to know is that cyclists are as entitled as any other vehicle
>> operator to position their vehicle wherever they choose in the lane they
>> occupy so as to remain safe, achieve optimum visibility, etc. They also
>> need to understand that cyclists who choose to move towards the left to
>> expedite the passage of other road users do so out of courtesy and not
>> because because of any obligation.
>>
>> > At lot of cyclists I see appear to have the same opinion, it seems.
>
>>
>> That is something that needs to be addressed. Perhaps we need some public
>> information adverts telling cyclists how to ride defensively. Perhaps then
>> motorists might get a clue and we might get a little more respect!
>
>Absolutely. Would it make sense for us to badger the CTC, cycling
>magazines and MPs for this?

Good idea.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Mark

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:34:46 +0100, Tom Anderson
<twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Jun 2008, Mark wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:23:53 +0100, Tom Anderson
>> <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, NewRiderPS wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:03:41 +0100, Martin <martin.dann@virgin.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Letter in the local paper calls all cyclists terrorists and criminals.
>>>>
>>>> You might be able to make the case that -some- cyclists are criminals.
>>>> There is the doping scandal, the red-light jumpers, the pavement riders.
>>>
>>> I'm breaking the law, but i'm not doing or risking doing anyone any
>>> harm, and that's what matters.
>>
>> I disagree. You are harming the image of cyclists in general, helping
>> to perpetuate the myth that all cyclists are law breakers. In many
>> motorists minds this seems to give them the right to persecute cyclists.
>
>I'm pretty skeptical about the idea that cyclists' actions have an effect
>on motorists' perceptions of them. Those who wish to hate and abuse
>cyclists will find reasons to do it regardless of our collective or
>individual behaviour.

I am thinking about the perception of the "average" sane driver.
Anyone who is like you describe has no place behind the wheel of a
motor vehicle at all.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org