B*st*rds?

I was meant to be running last night but do to a power-cut at the university sports centre I ended
up cycling home instead. On my normal route home I cross the A167 at a point where it is a dual
carriageway. The lights are set such that the A167 gets to go, both ways, one of the crossing roads
gets to go, the A167 gets another go and finally the other crossing road gets to go. The phases for
the two crossing roads are relatively short.

Anyway, I pull up towards the lights with three cars sat there, see that the opposite road is on
its turn and so sidle up the inside to the stop line, there's plenty of space. Lights change,
the relatively quiet (at this time of night) 167 traffic crosses. I see the 167 lights go to red
and make sure I'm clipped in. Last car goes across in front of me on red (standard practice
here) and then my amber lights. I start to move but immediately here a siren. I edge forwards
and see an ambulance tearing up the empty 167 from my right. I put my foot back on the floor to
wait for it to pass.

The three drivers behind me decide they can't be arsed waiting and all three of them put their feet
down. I think, "they must have heard the siren, they must be able to see the lights," but no, all
three proceed across the ambulance slows and comes to a halt as it almost hits the third car. I
shrugged my shoulders at the paramedic looking in disbelief in the passenger seat of the ambulance.
I guess they must see it all the time though.

So, why do three drivers out of three decide it is better to risk an accident, a consequence of
which could have been that a person somewhere else entirely dies? Well, this phase on these lights
is short, then it's a couple of minutes to wait for a full cycle again and had any one of them
stopped they would have had to have waited a couple of minutes.

My conclusion. Urban car drivers are irresponsible, selfish bastards. Got that Michael. I would
hope that every one of them is ashamed of what they did, but you know what, I doubt they even
give a ****.

Colin

Colin Blackburn wrote:
> So, why do three drivers out of three decide it is better to risk an accident, a consequence of
> which could have been that a person somewhere else entirely dies? Well, this phase on these lights
> is short, then it's a couple of minutes to wait for a full cycle again and had any one of them
> stopped they would have had to have waited a couple of minutes.
>
> My conclusion. Urban car drivers are irresponsible, selfish bastards. Got that Michael. I would
> hope that every one of them is ashamed of what they did, but you know what, I doubt they even
> give a ****.
>
> Colin

Even I would have called these three drivers 'bastards'. I know there are lots of selfish urban
drivers out there but not all urban drivers fall into this category. I don't for one. When I'm in my
car I try to be as cooperative as possible. When I'm on my bike I experience lots of drivers who
proceed in a thoroughly unselfish manner. I don't like you calling me a 'bastard' just because I
drive my car in an urban area and I don't think it applies to most of the people I encounter either.
I detest this sort of generalisation that can equally well be experienced when racists, sexists and
other discriminators get on their platforms. It breeds hatred and I don't think that hatred is good.
I do understand the humour of the original article although I think that it is poor taste of a
national newspaper to print such a thing. I think that the writer of the article was being funny
when writing 'all urban drivers are motorists' and I don't think that this really is his/her
opinion. But you've made it quite clear that it's yours. You're entitled to it but I don't respect
you for it.
--
Michael MacClancy

Colin Blackburn wrote: <snipped story of impatient prats pushing in front of ambulance> I work right
next to four hospitals, so there's a fair amount of ambulance traffic with lights & siren. The roads
are also heavily bottlenecked. Almost without fail when I see an ambulance barrelling up, one driver
will tuck themselves in to the kerb in good time and the driver behind them will use the opportunity
to overtake right in front of the ambulance, generally finding nowhere to actually go now the
ambulance is right on their tail.

And one absolute classic of incompetancy in the depths of Oxfordshire; in my car, driving on one
section of ex-Roman B-road, straight but narrow. 1/2 a mile ahead, at a bend, a car comes barrelling
round with a police car behind it, lights & siren. I wasn't sure if it was a chase or what, so I
tucked myself up into the hedge to leave as much room as possible, maybe a car and a half width. Car
continues to approach at ~60 mph...and evidently doesn't register that there's something behind it
wailing and flashing and now evidently trying to overtake rather than chase (but can't, since the
road is sufficiently narrow that overtaking/passing has to be done at snail's pace). Until it gets
within a hundred yards of me. Then the driver realises he maybe, like, should stop. So indicates
left and slows gently in the approved manner.

Coming to a stop right beside me.

Looks of blank amazement from the cops, now frantically tooting and waving.

Driver starts to reverse.

R.

In article <b32a4t$i3p$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, herzel@REMOVECAPITALSo2.co.uk says...

> I think that the writer of the article was being funny when writing 'all urban drivers are
> motorists' and I don't think that this really is his/her opinion.

I'm sure it is her opinion since it would seem to be a tautological fact.

Colin

Colin Blackburn wrote:
> I was meant to be running last night but do to a power-cut at the university sports centre I ended
> up cycling home instead. On my normal route home I cross the A167 at a point where it is a dual
> carriageway. The lights are set such that the A167 gets to go, both ways, one of the crossing
> roads gets to go, the A167 gets another go and finally the other crossing road gets to go. The
> phases for the two crossing roads are relatively short.
>
> Anyway, I pull up towards the lights with three cars sat there, see that the opposite road is on
> its turn and so sidle up the inside to the stop line, there's plenty of space. Lights change, the
> relatively quiet (at this time of night) 167 traffic crosses. I see the 167 lights go to red and
> make sure I'm clipped in. Last car goes across in front of me on red (standard practice here) and
> then my amber lights. I start to move but immediately here a siren. I edge forwards and see an
> ambulance tearing up the empty 167 from my right. I put my foot back on the floor to wait for it
> to pass.
>
> The three drivers behind me decide they can't be arsed waiting and all three of them put their
> feet down. I think, "they must have heard the siren, they must be able to see the lights," but no,
> all three proceed across the ambulance slows and comes to a halt as it almost hits the third car.
> I shrugged my shoulders at the paramedic looking in disbelief in the passenger seat of the
> ambulance. I guess they must see it all the time though.
>
> So, why do three drivers out of three decide it is better to risk an accident, a consequence of
> which could have been that a person somewhere else entirely dies? Well, this phase on these lights
> is short, then it's a couple of minutes to wait for a full cycle again and had any one of them
> stopped they would have had to have waited a couple of minutes.
>
> My conclusion. Urban car drivers are irresponsible, selfish bastards. Got that Michael. I would
> hope that every one of them is ashamed of what they did, but you know what, I doubt they even
> give a ****.
>
> Colin
Even I would have called these three drivers 'bastards'. I know there are lots of selfish urban
drivers out there but not all urban drivers fall into this category. I don't for one. When I'm in
my car I try to be as cooperative as possible. When I'm on my bike I experience lots of drivers who
proceed in a thoroughly unselfish manner. I don't like you calling me a 'bastard' just because I
drive my car in an urban area and I don't think it applies to most of the people I encounter
either. I detest this sort of generalisation that can equally well be experienced when racists,
sexists and other discriminators get on their platforms. It breeds hatred and I don't think that
hatred is good. I do understand the humour of the original article although I think that it is poor
taste of a national newspaper to print such a thing. I think that the writer of the article was
being funny when writing 'all urban drivers are bastards' and I don't think that this really is
his/her opinion. But you've made it quite clear that it's yours. You're entitled to it but I don't
respect you for it.
--
Michael MacClancy
--
Michael MacClancy

Colin Blackburn wrote:
> In article <b32a4t$i3p$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>, herzel@REMOVECAPITALSo2.co.uk says...
>
>> I think that the writer of the article was being funny when writing 'all urban drivers are
>> motorists' and I don't think that this really is his/her opinion.
>
> I'm sure it is her opinion since it would seem to be a tautological fact.
>
> Colin

Well, someone else has already implied today that I might be intellectually challenged and here's
further proof. :-)

I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong. What I should have typed was 'all urban drivers are bastards'
as you well know.

Hope you enjoyed your cheap laugh.
--
Michael MacClancy

Colin Blackburn wrote: The laugh was free but not vindictive.
>
> Colin

If you say so.
--
Michael MacClancy

In article <b32d6p$7pm$1$830fa79d@news.demon.co.uk>, herzel@REMOVECAPITALSo2.co.uk says...

> I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong. What I should have typed was 'all urban drivers are
> bastards' as you well know.
>
> Hope you enjoyed your cheap laugh.

Jeez, everyone makes typos, sometimes they turn out to be funny sometimes they don't. James' 'years'
for 'yards' was funny. Yours was funnyish. The laugh was free but not vindictive.

Colin

Colin Blackburn wrote: ...
> The three drivers behind me decide they can't be arsed waiting and all three of them put their
> feet down. I think, "they must have heard the siren, they must be able to see the lights," but no,
> all three proceed across the ambulance slows and comes to a halt as it almost hits the third car.
> I shrugged my shoulders at the paramedic looking in disbelief in the passenger seat of the
> ambulance. I guess they must see it all the time though.

I should think the first driver is still thinking "But I had plenty of time, dunno why the others
followed me", the second "I would have had plenty of time if the bastard in front had stepped on it,
as was clearly indicated", and the third "I was only following their lead, why did they go if there
wasn't time?".

--
Patrick Herring http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/cgi-bin/makeperson?P.Herring

In article <3E54C3F6.D9CD6308@ntlworld.com>, anweald@ntlworld.com says...

> I should think the first driver is still thinking "But I had plenty of time, dunno why the others
> followed me", the second "I would have had plenty of time if the bastard in front had stepped on
> it, as was clearly indicated", and the third "I was only following their lead, why did they go if
> there wasn't time?".

Three tailgating SEPs!

Colin

[snip]
>
> Driver starts to reverse.
>
> R.

ROFL

I can't stop laughing! This isn't really funny, considering the circumstances, but, I
mean, really...

--
Andy @ work
Note: This message may contain traces of sarcasm

"Colin Blackburn" <colin.blackburn@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.18beb42da1cdab209897ae@localhost...
> I was meant to be running last night but do to a power-cut at the university sports centre I ended
> up cycling home instead. On my normal route home I cross the A167 at a point where it is a dual
> carriageway. The lights are set such that the A167 gets to go, both ways, one of the crossing
> roads gets to go, the A167 gets another go and finally the other crossing road gets to go. The
> phases for the two crossing roads are relatively short.
>
> Anyway, I pull up towards the lights with three cars sat there, see that the opposite road is on
> its turn and so sidle up the inside to the stop line, there's plenty of space. Lights change, the
> relatively quiet (at this time of night) 167 traffic crosses. I see the 167 lights go to red and
> make sure I'm clipped in. Last car goes across in front of me on red (standard practice here) and
> then my amber lights. I start to move but immediately here a siren. I edge forwards and see an
> ambulance tearing up the empty 167 from my right. I put my foot back on the floor to wait for it
> to pass.
>
> The three drivers behind me decide they can't be arsed waiting and all three of them put their
> feet down. I think, "they must have heard the siren, they must be able to see the lights," but no,
> all three proceed across the ambulance slows and comes to a halt as it almost hits the third car.
> I shrugged my shoulders at the paramedic looking in disbelief in the passenger seat of the
> ambulance. I guess they must see it all the time though.
>
> So, why do three drivers out of three decide it is better to risk an accident, a consequence of
> which could have been that a person somewhere else entirely dies? Well, this phase on these lights
> is short, then it's a couple of minutes to wait for a full cycle again and had any one of them
> stopped they would have had to have waited a couple of minutes.
>
> My conclusion. Urban car drivers are irresponsible, selfish bastards. Got that Michael. I would
> hope that every one of them is ashamed of what they did, but you know what, I doubt they even
> give a ****.
>
> Colin

This is an illuminating tale of idiocy, but I think your last para lets *you* down. Try re-reading
your account, but replacing the references to "drivers" with (say) "paki", "darkie" "chinkie" or
"jew". Your conclusion "Urban paki/black/chinese/jewish car drivers are ..." doesn't read too well
any more. In fact, it suggests that you're something of a bigot.

Applying a characteristic of a small sample to a group of people with something in common can be a
very dangerous line of thinking.

G S Banner wrote:
> This is an illuminating tale of idiocy, but I think your last para lets *you* down. Try re-reading
> your account, but replacing the references to "drivers" with (say) "paki", "darkie" "chinkie" or
> "jew". Your conclusion "Urban paki/black/chinese/jewish car drivers are ..." doesn't read too well
> any more. In fact, it suggests that you're something of a bigot.
>
> Applying a characteristic of a small sample to a group of people with something in common can be a
> very dangerous line of thinking.

Thank you, G S Banner. I thought I was the only person on this NG who found Colin's comment
objectionable. Indeed, I was told I was the only one.
--
Michael MacClancy

Marc wrote:
> Michael MacClancy <herzel@REMOVECAPITALSo2.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Indeed, I was told I was the only one.
>
> That was to shut you up!

A voice crying in the wilderness.
--
Michael MacClancy

Michael MacClancy <herzel@REMOVECAPITALSo2.co.uk> wrote:

> Indeed, I was told I was the only one.

That was to shut you up!