Re: Shocking moment drunk driver ploughs into group of cyclists.

Doug

On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoni...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
> "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> news:a7304254-f5d9-466a-bb56-d2c1dfe14c33@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to that
> > of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hits a group
> > of cars.
>
> Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying to say,
> Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefore OT, we again
> have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk, being a
> complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...?
>
The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much greater
than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graphic
example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also recall how
the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something no
bicycle could ever do.

Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Steve Firth

Doug <jagmad@riseup.net> wrote:

> The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
> make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
> addiction,

No they don't, they point out that while you are busy "cherry picking
anecdotes" that anyone can do the same for bicycles, hence cherry
picking anecdotes is a failed tactic, which you still resort to every
single day of your life.

Tony Dragon

Doug wrote:
> On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoni...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a7304254-f5d9-466a-bb56-d2c1dfe14c33@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to that
>>> of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hits a group
>>> of cars.
>> Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying to say,
>> Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefore OT, we again
>> have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk, being a
>> complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...?
>>
> The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
> make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
> addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much greater
> than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graphic
> example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also recall how
> the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something no
> bicycle could ever do.
>
> Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.
>
> --
> World Carfree Network
> http://www.worldcarfree.net/
> Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Thank you for your input, you at last agree that cycles can be
dangerous, thank you for clearing up that point.

--
Tony the Dragon

Me

In article <31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405
@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jagmad@riseup.net says...
> On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoni...@hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:a7304254-f5d9-466a-bb56-d2c1dfe14c33@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > > This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to that
> > > of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hits a group
> > > of cars.
> >
> > Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying to say,
> > Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefore OT, we again
> > have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk, being a
> > complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...?
> >
> The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
> make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
> addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much greater
> than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graphic
> example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also recall how
> the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something no
> bicycle could ever do.
>
> Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.
>
Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was when I
was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't moving, and the
traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in and half out of a side
road he felt the need to try and smash my rear window.
These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road.

Doug

On 4 Jun, 20:51, Me <nore...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405
> @e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jag...@riseup.net says...
>
> > On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoni...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:a7304254-f5d9-466a-bb56-d2c1dfe14c33@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to that
> > > > of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hits a group
> > > > of cars.
>
> > > Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying to say,
> > > Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefore OT, we again
> > > have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk, being a
> > > complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...?
>
> > The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
> > make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
> > addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much greater
> > than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graphic
> > example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also recall how
> > the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something no
> > bicycle could ever do.
>
> > Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.
>
> Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was when I
> was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't moving, and the
> traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in and half out of a side
> road he felt the need to try and smash my rear window.
> These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road.

More cyclist bashing by the motorists who dominate and infest this
transport newsgroup?

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Nuxx Bar

On Jun 5, 5:48*am, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
> On 4 Jun, 20:51, Me <nore...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405
> > @e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jag...@riseup.net says...
>
> > > On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoni...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:a7304254-f5d9-466a-bb56-d2c1dfe14c33@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > > > This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to that
> > > > > of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hits a group
> > > > > of cars.
>
> > > > Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying to say,
> > > > Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefore OT, we again
> > > > have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk, beinga
> > > > complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...?
>
> > > The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
> > > make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
> > > addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much greater
> > > than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graphic
> > > example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also recall how
> > > the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something no
> > > bicycle could ever do.
>
> > > Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.
>
> > Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was when I
> > was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't moving, and the
> > traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in and half out of a side
> > road he felt the need to try and smash my rear window.
> > These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road.
>
> More cyclist bashing by the motorists who dominate and infest this
> transport newsgroup?

...where "bashing" = "justified criticism". You'd do yourself a lot
of favours if you didn't automatically defend every cyclist, no matter
whether they were right or wrong. It is you and your troll friends
who revel in, and deliberately perpetuate, the "us and them" mentality
between cyclists and motorists. "Two wheels (non-powered) good, four
wheels bad." It's pathetic.

Why don't you mind your own business and concentrate on making things
better for cyclists, instead of devoting your efforts to persecuting
motorists? Why don't you stop using silly words like "addiction" to
describe people who justifiably find their cars useful? (Are people
with hoovers "hoover addicts"? Should they pick up the dirt on the
floor by hand just to placate you?) I don't know why it is that
motorist advocates simply want things to be better for motorists,
while so many so-called cycling advocates seem to be *more* concerned
with making things worse for drivers than they are with making things
better for themselves. I think the word is "spite".

If all cyclists would just concentrate on improving their lot, and lay
off (and make an effort to get on with) motorists, things would be so
much better for everyone, but for some reason (*not* "safety", which
is just an excuse), that scenario seems to be the worst nightmare of
the dog-in-the-manger trolls on urc. "Bloody motorists, enjoying
their cars while I'm stuck out here, knackered and sweaty, in the
rain...can't have that." Never mind the fact that cars and cycles
both have innate advantages and disadvantages relative to each other;
the millitant cyclists try to artificially increase the disadvantages
of driving by campaigning for huge numbers of anti-motorist measures.

And Doug, if you must be anti-car for socialist reasons, at least
admit that, rather than constantly exaggerating the dangers caused by
cars in order to get what you want. Interfering with road safety is
not on. Pretending that certain things are more dangerous than they
are *will* cost lives. Please don't be so callous.

Doug

On 5 Jun, 06:31, Nuxx Bar <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 5:48 am, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4 Jun, 20:51, Me <nore...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > In article <31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405
> > > @e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jag...@riseup.net says...
>
> > > > On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoni...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:a7304254-f5d9-466a-bb56-d2c1dfe14c33@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to that
> > > > > > of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hits a group
> > > > > > of cars.
>
> > > > > Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying to say,
> > > > > Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefore OT, we again
> > > > > have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk, being a
> > > > > complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...?
>
> > > > The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
> > > > make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
> > > > addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much greater
> > > > than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graphic
> > > > example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also recall how
> > > > the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something no
> > > > bicycle could ever do.
>
> > > > Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.
>
> > > Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was when I
> > > was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't moving, and the
> > > traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in and half out of a side
> > > road he felt the need to try and smash my rear window.
> > > These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road.
>
> > More cyclist bashing by the motorists who dominate and infest this
> > transport newsgroup?
>
> ...where "bashing" = "justified criticism". You'd do yourself a lot
> of favours if you didn't automatically defend every cyclist, no matter
> whether they were right or wrong. It is you and your troll friends
> who revel in, and deliberately perpetuate, the "us and them" mentality
> between cyclists and motorists. "Two wheels (non-powered) good, four
> wheels bad." It's pathetic.
>
> Why don't you mind your own business and concentrate on making things
> better for cyclists, instead of devoting your efforts to persecuting
> motorists? Why don't you stop using silly words like "addiction" to
> describe people who justifiably find their cars useful? (Are people
> with hoovers "hoover addicts"? Should they pick up the dirt on the
> floor by hand just to placate you?) I don't know why it is that
> motorist advocates simply want things to be better for motorists,
> while so many so-called cycling advocates seem to be *more* concerned
> with making things worse for drivers than they are with making things
> better for themselves. I think the word is "spite".
>
> If all cyclists would just concentrate on improving their lot, and lay
> off (and make an effort to get on with) motorists, things would be so
> much better for everyone, but for some reason (*not* "safety", which
> is just an excuse), that scenario seems to be the worst nightmare of
> the dog-in-the-manger trolls on urc. "Bloody motorists, enjoying
> their cars while I'm stuck out here, knackered and sweaty, in the
> rain...can't have that." Never mind the fact that cars and cycles
> both have innate advantages and disadvantages relative to each other;
> the millitant cyclists try to artificially increase the disadvantages
> of driving by campaigning for huge numbers of anti-motorist measures.
>
> And Doug, if you must be anti-car for socialist reasons, at least
> admit that, rather than constantly exaggerating the dangers caused by
> cars in order to get what you want. Interfering with road safety is
> not on. Pretending that certain things are more dangerous than they
> are *will* cost lives. Please don't be so callous.

Tsk. Yet another closet motorist masquerading as something else.

--
Carfree Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Promoting practical alternatives to car dependence - walking, cycling
and public transport.

Me

In article <bf6a8355-e7fe-4ecd-a271-e2564f853551
@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, jagmad@riseup.net says...
>
> Tsk. Yet another closet motorist masquerading as something else.
>

Tsk, yet another closet masquerading as something else.

Brimstone

Doug wrote:
> On 4 Jun, 20:51, Me <nore...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405
>> @e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jag...@riseup.net says...
>>
>>> On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoni...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:a7304254-f5d9-466a-bb56-d2c1dfe14c33@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>> This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to
>>>>> that of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle
>>>>> hits a group of cars.
>>
>>>> Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying
>>>> to say, Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so
>>>> therefore OT, we again have an example of someone who was, so it
>>>> seemed, blind drunk, being a complete moron. You point, therefore,
>>>> is ...?
>>
>>> The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
>>> make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
>>> addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much
>>> greater than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This
>>> graphic example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also
>>> recall how the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently.
>>> Something no bicycle could ever do.
>>
>>> Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.
>>
>> Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was when
>> I was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't moving,
>> and the traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in and half
>> out of a side road he felt the need to try and smash my rear window.
>> These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road.
>
> More cyclist bashing by the motorists who dominate and infest this
> transport newsgroup?

It sounds more like that it was the cyclist bashing the car.

Brimstone

Doug wrote:
> On 5 Jun, 06:31, Nuxx Bar <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 5, 5:48 am, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4 Jun, 20:51, Me <nore...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> In article <31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405
>>>> @e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jag...@riseup.net says...
>>
>>>>> On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoni...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>>>> news:a7304254-f5d9-466a-bb56-d2c1dfe14c33@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>>>> This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to
>>>>>>> that of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle
>>>>>>> hits a group of cars.
>>
>>>>>> Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying
>>>>>> to say, Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so
>>>>>> therefore OT, we again have an example of someone who was, so it
>>>>>> seemed, blind drunk, being a complete moron. You point,
>>>>>> therefore, is ...?
>>
>>>>> The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try
>>>>> to make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
>>>>> addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much
>>>>> greater than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This
>>>>> graphic example is more telling than a simple set of numbers.
>>>>> Also recall how the side of a house was destroyed by a car
>>>>> recently. Something no bicycle could ever do.
>>
>>>>> Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.
>>
>>>> Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was
>>>> when I was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't
>>>> moving, and the traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in
>>>> and half out of a side road he felt the need to try and smash my
>>>> rear window.
>>>> These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road.
>>
>>> More cyclist bashing by the motorists who dominate and infest this
>>> transport newsgroup?
>>
>> ...where "bashing" = "justified criticism". You'd do yourself a lot
>> of favours if you didn't automatically defend every cyclist, no
>> matter whether they were right or wrong. It is you and your troll
>> friends who revel in, and deliberately perpetuate, the "us and them"
>> mentality between cyclists and motorists. "Two wheels (non-powered)
>> good, four wheels bad." It's pathetic.
>>
>> Why don't you mind your own business and concentrate on making things
>> better for cyclists, instead of devoting your efforts to persecuting
>> motorists? Why don't you stop using silly words like "addiction" to
>> describe people who justifiably find their cars useful? (Are people
>> with hoovers "hoover addicts"? Should they pick up the dirt on the
>> floor by hand just to placate you?) I don't know why it is that
>> motorist advocates simply want things to be better for motorists,
>> while so many so-called cycling advocates seem to be *more* concerned
>> with making things worse for drivers than they are with making things
>> better for themselves. I think the word is "spite".
>>
>> If all cyclists would just concentrate on improving their lot, and
>> lay off (and make an effort to get on with) motorists, things would
>> be so much better for everyone, but for some reason (*not* "safety",
>> which is just an excuse), that scenario seems to be the worst
>> nightmare of the dog-in-the-manger trolls on urc. "Bloody
>> motorists, enjoying their cars while I'm stuck out here, knackered
>> and sweaty, in the rain...can't have that." Never mind the fact
>> that cars and cycles both have innate advantages and disadvantages
>> relative to each other; the millitant cyclists try to artificially
>> increase the disadvantages of driving by campaigning for huge
>> numbers of anti-motorist measures.
>>
>> And Doug, if you must be anti-car for socialist reasons, at least
>> admit that, rather than constantly exaggerating the dangers caused by
>> cars in order to get what you want. Interfering with road safety is
>> not on. Pretending that certain things are more dangerous than they
>> are *will* cost lives. Please don't be so callous.
>
> Tsk. Yet another closet motorist masquerading as something else.

A classic Dougresponse to a reasoned argument.

Tony Dragon

Doug wrote:
> On 5 Jun, 06:31, Nuxx Bar <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 5, 5:48 am, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4 Jun, 20:51, Me <nore...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article <31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405
>>>> @e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jag...@riseup.net says...
>>>>> On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoni...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:a7304254-f5d9-466a-bb56-d2c1dfe14c33@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to that
>>>>>>> of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hits a group
>>>>>>> of cars.
>>>>>> Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying to say,
>>>>>> Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefore OT, we again
>>>>>> have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk, being a
>>>>>> complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...?
>>>>> The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
>>>>> make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
>>>>> addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much greater
>>>>> than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graphic
>>>>> example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also recall how
>>>>> the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something no
>>>>> bicycle could ever do.
>>>>> Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.
>>>> Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was when I
>>>> was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't moving, and the
>>>> traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in and half out of a side
>>>> road he felt the need to try and smash my rear window.
>>>> These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road.
>>> More cyclist bashing by the motorists who dominate and infest this
>>> transport newsgroup?
>> ...where "bashing" = "justified criticism". You'd do yourself a lot
>> of favours if you didn't automatically defend every cyclist, no matter
>> whether they were right or wrong. It is you and your troll friends
>> who revel in, and deliberately perpetuate, the "us and them" mentality
>> between cyclists and motorists. "Two wheels (non-powered) good, four
>> wheels bad." It's pathetic.
>>
>> Why don't you mind your own business and concentrate on making things
>> better for cyclists, instead of devoting your efforts to persecuting
>> motorists? Why don't you stop using silly words like "addiction" to
>> describe people who justifiably find their cars useful? (Are people
>> with hoovers "hoover addicts"? Should they pick up the dirt on the
>> floor by hand just to placate you?) I don't know why it is that
>> motorist advocates simply want things to be better for motorists,
>> while so many so-called cycling advocates seem to be *more* concerned
>> with making things worse for drivers than they are with making things
>> better for themselves. I think the word is "spite".
>>
>> If all cyclists would just concentrate on improving their lot, and lay
>> off (and make an effort to get on with) motorists, things would be so
>> much better for everyone, but for some reason (*not* "safety", which
>> is just an excuse), that scenario seems to be the worst nightmare of
>> the dog-in-the-manger trolls on urc. "Bloody motorists, enjoying
>> their cars while I'm stuck out here, knackered and sweaty, in the
>> rain...can't have that." Never mind the fact that cars and cycles
>> both have innate advantages and disadvantages relative to each other;
>> the millitant cyclists try to artificially increase the disadvantages
>> of driving by campaigning for huge numbers of anti-motorist measures.
>>
>> And Doug, if you must be anti-car for socialist reasons, at least
>> admit that, rather than constantly exaggerating the dangers caused by
>> cars in order to get what you want. Interfering with road safety is
>> not on. Pretending that certain things are more dangerous than they
>> are *will* cost lives. Please don't be so callous.
>
> Tsk. Yet another closet motorist masquerading as something else.
>
> --
> Carfree Cities
> http://www.carfree.com/
> Promoting practical alternatives to car dependence - walking, cycling
> and public transport.

Bit to near the truth was it?

--
Tony the Dragon

BrianW

On 5 Jun, 07:10, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
> On 5 Jun, 06:31, Nuxx Bar <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 5:48 am, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 4 Jun, 20:51, Me <nore...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405
> > > > @e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jag...@riseup.net says...
>
> > > > > On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoni...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >news:a7304254-f5d9-466a-bb56-d2c1dfe14c33@27g2000hsf.googlegroups..com...
>
> > > > > > > This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to that
> > > > > > > of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hits a group
> > > > > > > of cars.
>
> > > > > > Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are tryingto say,
> > > > > > Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefore OT, we again
> > > > > > have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk, being a
> > > > > > complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...?
>
> > > > > The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
> > > > > make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
> > > > > addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much greater
> > > > > than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graphic
> > > > > example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also recall how
> > > > > the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something no
> > > > > bicycle could ever do.
>
> > > > > Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.
>
> > > > Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was whenI
> > > > was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't moving, and the
> > > > traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in and half out of a side
> > > > road he felt the need to try and smash my rear window.
> > > > These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road.
>
> > > More cyclist bashing by the motorists who dominate and infest this
> > > transport newsgroup?
>
> > ...where "bashing" = "justified criticism". *You'd do yourself a lot
> > of favours if you didn't automatically defend every cyclist, no matter
> > whether they were right or wrong. *It is you and your troll friends
> > who revel in, and deliberately perpetuate, the "us and them" mentality
> > between cyclists and motorists. *"Two wheels (non-powered) good, four
> > wheels bad." *It's pathetic.
>
> > Why don't you mind your own business and concentrate on making things
> > better for cyclists, instead of devoting your efforts to persecuting
> > motorists? *Why don't you stop using silly words like "addiction" to
> > describe people who justifiably find their cars useful? *(Are people
> > with hoovers "hoover addicts"? *Should they pick up the dirt on the
> > floor by hand just to placate you?) *I don't know why it is that
> > motorist advocates simply want things to be better for motorists,
> > while so many so-called cycling advocates seem to be *more* concerned
> > with making things worse for drivers than they are with making things
> > better for themselves. *I think the word is "spite".
>
> > If all cyclists would just concentrate on improving their lot, and lay
> > off (and make an effort to get on with) motorists, things would be so
> > much better for everyone, but for some reason (*not* "safety", which
> > is just an excuse), that scenario seems to be the worst nightmare of
> > the dog-in-the-manger trolls on urc. *"Bloody motorists, enjoying
> > their cars while I'm stuck out here, knackered and sweaty, in the
> > rain...can't have that." *Never mind the fact that cars and cycles
> > both have innate advantages and disadvantages relative to each other;
> > the millitant cyclists try to artificially increase the disadvantages
> > of driving by campaigning for huge numbers of anti-motorist measures.
>
> > And Doug, if you must be anti-car for socialist reasons, at least
> > admit that, rather than constantly exaggerating the dangers caused by
> > cars in order to get what you want. *Interfering with road safety is
> > not on. *Pretending that certain things are more dangerous than they
> > are *will* cost lives. *Please don't be so callous.
>
> Tsk. Yet another closet motorist masquerading as something else.

Unlike Duhg the not-so-closet Stalinist masquerading as an anarchist.

Graculus

"Doug" <jagmad@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:bf6a8355-e7fe-4ecd-a271-e2564f853551@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 5 Jun, 06:31, Nuxx Bar <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 5, 5:48 am, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 4 Jun, 20:51, Me <nore...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > In article <31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405
>> > > @e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jag...@riseup.net says...
>>
>> > > > On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoni...@hotmail.co.uk>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > > > >news:a7304254-f5d9-466a-bb56-d2c1dfe14c33@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > > > > This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hits a
>> > > > > > group
>> > > > > > of cars.
>>
>> > > > > Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying
>> > > > > to say,
>> > > > > Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefore
>> > > > > OT, we again
>> > > > > have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk,
>> > > > > being a
>> > > > > complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...?
>>
>> > > > The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try
>> > > > to
>> > > > make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
>> > > > addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much
>> > > > greater
>> > > > than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graphic
>> > > > example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also recall
>> > > > how
>> > > > the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something no
>> > > > bicycle could ever do.
>>
>> > > > Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.
>>
>> > > Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was when
>> > > I
>> > > was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't moving, and
>> > > the
>> > > traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in and half out of a
>> > > side
>> > > road he felt the need to try and smash my rear window.
>> > > These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road.
>>
>> > More cyclist bashing by the motorists who dominate and infest this
>> > transport newsgroup?
>>
>> ...where "bashing" = "justified criticism". You'd do yourself a lot
>> of favours if you didn't automatically defend every cyclist, no matter
>> whether they were right or wrong. It is you and your troll friends
>> who revel in, and deliberately perpetuate, the "us and them" mentality
>> between cyclists and motorists. "Two wheels (non-powered) good, four
>> wheels bad." It's pathetic.
>>
>> Why don't you mind your own business and concentrate on making things
>> better for cyclists, instead of devoting your efforts to persecuting
>> motorists? Why don't you stop using silly words like "addiction" to
>> describe people who justifiably find their cars useful? (Are people
>> with hoovers "hoover addicts"? Should they pick up the dirt on the
>> floor by hand just to placate you?) I don't know why it is that
>> motorist advocates simply want things to be better for motorists,
>> while so many so-called cycling advocates seem to be *more* concerned
>> with making things worse for drivers than they are with making things
>> better for themselves. I think the word is "spite".
>>
>> If all cyclists would just concentrate on improving their lot, and lay
>> off (and make an effort to get on with) motorists, things would be so
>> much better for everyone, but for some reason (*not* "safety", which
>> is just an excuse), that scenario seems to be the worst nightmare of
>> the dog-in-the-manger trolls on urc. "Bloody motorists, enjoying
>> their cars while I'm stuck out here, knackered and sweaty, in the
>> rain...can't have that." Never mind the fact that cars and cycles
>> both have innate advantages and disadvantages relative to each other;
>> the millitant cyclists try to artificially increase the disadvantages
>> of driving by campaigning for huge numbers of anti-motorist measures.
>>
>> And Doug, if you must be anti-car for socialist reasons, at least
>> admit that, rather than constantly exaggerating the dangers caused by
>> cars in order to get what you want. Interfering with road safety is
>> not on. Pretending that certain things are more dangerous than they
>> are *will* cost lives. Please don't be so callous.
>
> Tsk. Yet another closet motorist masquerading as something else.

Is that really the sum total of your response to Nuxx Bar's post? rather
pathetic. If all you can do is hurl an insult at someone who's made the
effort to lay out an argument clearly, then it's as much an admission of
defeat as anything else.

Brimstone

Graculus wrote:
> "Doug" <jagmad@riseup.net> wrote in message
> news:bf6a8355-e7fe-4ecd-a271-e2564f853551@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On 5 Jun, 06:31, Nuxx Bar <derderderder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 5, 5:48 am, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 4 Jun, 20:51, Me <nore...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In article <31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405
>>>>> @e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, jag...@riseup.net says...
>>>
>>>>>> On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus" <ReplaceWithMyMoni...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>>> news:a7304254-f5d9-466a-bb56-d2c1dfe14c33@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>>>>> This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hits a
>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>> of cars.
>>>
>>>>>>> Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying
>>>>>>> to say,
>>>>>>> Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefore
>>>>>>> OT, we again
>>>>>>> have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk,
>>>>>>> being a
>>>>>>> complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...?
>>>
>>>>>> The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
>>>>>> addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much
>>>>>> greater
>>>>>> than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graphic
>>>>>> example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also recall
>>>>>> how
>>>>>> the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something no
>>>>>> bicycle could ever do.
>>>
>>>>>> Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.
>>>
>>>>> Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was
>>>>> when I
>>>>> was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't moving,
>>>>> and the
>>>>> traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in and half out of a
>>>>> side
>>>>> road he felt the need to try and smash my rear window.
>>>>> These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road.
>>>
>>>> More cyclist bashing by the motorists who dominate and infest this
>>>> transport newsgroup?
>>>
>>> ...where "bashing" = "justified criticism". You'd do yourself a lot
>>> of favours if you didn't automatically defend every cyclist, no
>>> matter whether they were right or wrong. It is you and your troll
>>> friends who revel in, and deliberately perpetuate, the "us and
>>> them" mentality between cyclists and motorists. "Two wheels
>>> (non-powered) good, four wheels bad." It's pathetic.
>>>
>>> Why don't you mind your own business and concentrate on making
>>> things better for cyclists, instead of devoting your efforts to
>>> persecuting motorists? Why don't you stop using silly words like
>>> "addiction" to describe people who justifiably find their cars
>>> useful? (Are people with hoovers "hoover addicts"? Should they
>>> pick up the dirt on the floor by hand just to placate you?) I
>>> don't know why it is that motorist advocates simply want things to
>>> be better for motorists, while so many so-called cycling advocates
>>> seem to be *more* concerned with making things worse for drivers
>>> than they are with making things better for themselves. I think
>>> the word is "spite". If all cyclists would just concentrate on improving
>>> their lot, and
>>> lay off (and make an effort to get on with) motorists, things would
>>> be so much better for everyone, but for some reason (*not*
>>> "safety", which is just an excuse), that scenario seems to be the
>>> worst nightmare of the dog-in-the-manger trolls on urc. "Bloody
>>> motorists, enjoying their cars while I'm stuck out here, knackered
>>> and sweaty, in the rain...can't have that." Never mind the fact
>>> that cars and cycles both have innate advantages and disadvantages
>>> relative to each other; the millitant cyclists try to artificially
>>> increase the disadvantages of driving by campaigning for huge
>>> numbers of anti-motorist measures. And Doug, if you must be anti-car for
>>> socialist reasons, at least
>>> admit that, rather than constantly exaggerating the dangers caused
>>> by cars in order to get what you want. Interfering with road
>>> safety is not on. Pretending that certain things are more
>>> dangerous than they are *will* cost lives. Please don't be so
>>> callous.
>>
>> Tsk. Yet another closet motorist masquerading as something else.
>
> Is that really the sum total of your response to Nuxx Bar's post?
> rather pathetic. If all you can do is hurl an insult at someone who's
> made the effort to lay out an argument clearly, then it's as much an
> admission of defeat as anything else.

Or of guilt.