Impartial and reasonable poll in the Standard.

spindrift said:

Evening Standard poll - 'Are Cyclists a menace?'

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/poll/poll-18731-details/ques-18664-id/Cyclists+a+menace%3F%3A+Vote+now/poll.do?answer=33692

'course they are, they're a meance to the car and oil industries, and
to the self-satisfied, car driving slobs who justify driving two miles
to buy [censored], drop off kids, etc., by saying "how else could I get
there".

If on the other hand, they meant are cyclists a menace to other road
and pavement users, they don't need to run a poll, they just need to
look at stats, and the answer is simple: No.

sothach said:

spindrift said:

Evening Standard poll - 'Are Cyclists a menace?'

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/poll/poll-18731-details/ques-18664-id/Cyclists+a+menace%3F%3A+Vote+now/poll.do?answer=33692

'course they are, they're a meance to the car and oil industries, and
to the self-satisfied, car driving slobs who justify driving two miles
to buy [censored], drop off kids, etc., by saying "how else could I get
there".

If on the other hand, they meant are cyclists a menace to other road
and pavement users, they don't need to run a poll, they just need to
look at stats, and the answer is simple: No.

The Evening Standard website, in the same week the Met warned of
further terrorist attacks in London, carried an advert for Safespray -
an aerosol which is supposed to obscure your number plate from CCTV
cameras.

Beyond satire.

spindrift said:

The Evening Standard website, in the same week the Met warned of
further terrorist attacks in London, carried an advert for Safespray -
an aerosol which is supposed to obscure your number plate from CCTV
cameras.

spindrift, do you:

a) display your name and address prominently when you are out and about
on your bicycle, or even when walking,

or,

b) are you a hypocrite?

A simple 'a' or 'b' answer will suffice.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

spindrift said:

The Evening Standard website, in the same week the Met warned of
further terrorist attacks in London, carried an advert for Safespray -
an aerosol which is supposed to obscure your number plate from CCTV
cameras.

spindrift, do you:

a) display your name and address prominently when you are out and about
on your bicycle, or even when walking,

or,

b) are you a hypocrite?

A simple 'a' or 'b' answer will suffice.

Neither, obviously, since number plates are a legal requirement on
vehicles but not on bikes.

I think it's very possible that people view you as a troll because you
ask dumbass questions like the above.

Quoted message said:

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

Matt B said:

spindrift said:

The Evening Standard website, in the same week the Met warned of
further terrorist attacks in London, carried an advert for Safespray -
an aerosol which is supposed to obscure your number plate from CCTV
cameras.

spindrift, do you:

a) display your name and address prominently when you are out and about
on your bicycle, or even when walking,

or,

b) are you a hypocrite?

A simple 'a' or 'b' answer will suffice.

Neither, obviously, since number plates are a legal requirement on
vehicles but not on bikes.

Good answer. From that we can deduce that it is not the spirit of the
law that you support but the letter. Do you support the letter of /all/
laws to the same extent, regardless of any other issues?

Quoted message said:

I think it's very possible that people view you as a troll because you
ask dumbass questions like the above.

Do you /now/ see the point of the question (remember reason #2).

--
Matt B

Quoted message said:

Good answer. From that we can deduce that it is not the spirit of the
law that you support but the letter. Do you support the letter of /all/
laws to the same extent, regardless of any other issues?

So what do you think? Is it legitimate for a car owner to protect the
identity of his car from CCTV and speed cameras?

Your opinion please.

It's weird, they've done polls like this before and they are invariably
slanted this way.

Even local papers do better than the Evading Standard:

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=132407&command=displayContent&sourceNode=132390&contentPK=15196081&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearc

And when the DFT figures came out the Standard's sister paper The Daily
Kill An Asylum Seeker put their own unique slant on it:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/downloadable/dft_transstats_611923.pdf

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=393218&in_page_id=1770

The more people cycle, the more are hurt, BUT, the number hurt
increases by a smaller proportion than the number taking it up. So for
example if (and these figures are not the real ones, just an example)
the number of people cycling doubles (increases by 100%), the number of
people hurt may increase by only 50%. Relatively, fewer cyclists are
hurt, although the absolute numbers hurt go up.

And of course it's a truism that the more people who cycle the safer it
becomes for all road users.

Research shows that in general the more people who cycle, the lower
the actual casualty rates, so an increase in casualties does not
necessarily indicate an increase in danger. For example see:

http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/3/205?ijkey=c779f17bfae86d21ad0531a9f0f327006de32212&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

I suppose the useful statistic would be to know the causes of these
deaths - how many were down to poor or dangerous driving and how many
(if any) could be due to poor cycling. On the forum the cases flagged
up are usually down to driver impatience or agression, and notable due
to sentencing issues. But how many are due to rider mistakes (for
example, going down the left of a lorry turning left) or sheer
stupidity (do any of those chavs with no brakes who suddenly swing
across the road without looking ever get killed?)

Despite the ranting of the Daily Mail extensive research, even that
done by car-centric organisations such as the AA have shown that
cyclists are the least blameworthy road user group, with the drivers of
motor vehicles being wholly or party to blame in 2/3 of crashes where a
motor vehicle is involved in a crash involving a cyclist.

There are things which could be done to reduce casualties, introducing
a universal 20 Mph limit in built-up areas is one.

Others measures should include a 30 Mph limit on 'country lanes' ,
especially given that cyclists are several times more likely to be
killed on such roads than in a built-up area. The high level of
discourteous and wilfully risky driving in the vicinity of cyclists
also needs to be addressed, with the police prosecuting those who
overtake cyclists with inches to spare, or who overtake a cyclist and
then immediately pull across their path being prosecuted for
inconsiderate driving. Reading reports of cyclist deaths it is clear
that many other driving crimes claim a disproportionate number of cycle
casualties such as speeding, driving whilst under the influence of
drink and/or drugs, mobile phone use and so on.

Sad, sloppy stuff from the Standard.

Simon L said:

Quoted message said:

Good answer. From that we can deduce that it is not the spirit of the
law that you support but the letter. Do you support the letter of /all/
laws to the same extent, regardless of any other issues?

So what do you think? Is it legitimate for a car owner to protect the
identity of his car from CCTV and speed cameras?

Your opinion please.

I don't support or condone any form of law breaking. It is though I
think a bizarre stance to condemn others for wishing to preserve their
anonymity in public whilst making no attempt to divulge one's own.

You will be able to find from a quick search of the archives that I have
made my position clear many times in the past. We should either work
towards the goal of removing the obligation for motor vehicles to carry
plates, or require all road users to be similarly identifiable at all
times. We are all made of the same stuff whether we drive, ride, or
walk, and should be all treated equally in shared spaces.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Simon L said:

Quoted message said:

Good answer. From that we can deduce that it is not the spirit of the
law that you support but the letter. Do you support the letter of /all/
laws to the same extent, regardless of any other issues?

So what do you think? Is it legitimate for a car owner to protect the
identity of his car from CCTV and speed cameras?

Your opinion please.

I don't support or condone any form of law breaking. It is though I
think a bizarre stance to condemn others for wishing to preserve their
anonymity in public whilst making no attempt to divulge one's own.

You will be able to find from a quick search of the archives that I have
made my position clear many times in the past. We should either work
towards the goal of removing the obligation for motor vehicles to carry
plates, or require all road users to be similarly identifiable at all
times. We are all made of the same stuff whether we drive, ride, or
walk, and should be all treated equally in shared spaces.

But we are all treated the same. I'm not sure why you think we are not?

Maybe its because all those who choose to drive have to display number
plates? No more discriminatory that saying that those who chose to
break the law should be incarcerated. That surely doesn't treat
everyone the same.. The rules are the same for everyone, barring
certain age limits.

Not hypocritical at all..

...d

in message <[email hidden]>,
spindrift ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

[scythe]

Look, mate, if you don't stop following up to TrollB on this newsgroup,
you'll join him in the Bozo bin. Capisce?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; in faecibus sapiens rheum propagabit

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

You will be able to find from a quick search of the archives that I have
made my position clear many times in the past. We should either work
towards the goal of removing the obligation for motor vehicles to carry
plates, or require all road users to be similarly identifiable at all
times. We are all made of the same stuff whether we drive, ride, or
walk, and should be all treated equally in shared spaces.

But we are all treated the same. I'm not sure why you think we are not?

Maybe its because all those who choose to drive have to display number
plates? No more discriminatory that saying that those who chose to
break the law should be incarcerated. That surely doesn't treat
everyone the same.. The rules are the same for everyone, barring
certain age limits.

Not hypocritical at all..

All road users are /not/ treated the same. The way they are treated is
not based on their personality or any behavioural trait that they may
have, or on anything they have done in the past, it is based on their
mode of road use. A respectable middle-aged woman vicar driving a milk
float is required to display a number plate. An angry youth with a
string of convictions for various forms of anti-social behaviour could
gallop a coach and four down the high street on a Saturday morning
anonymously.

Shall we stop providing the necessary accesses for wheelchair users
because we would all be in exactly the same boat if we were to use a
wheelchair? Do you think that that argument would stand up in a
disability discrimination case?

--
Matt B

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,
spindrift ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

[scythe]

Look, mate, if you don't stop following up to TrollB on this newsgroup,
you'll join him in the Bozo bin. Capisce?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; in faecibus sapiens rheum propagabit

My post is concerned with the subject , it's got sod all to do with the
freak gimp, that's why I posted it.

Do you mean any thread he pollutes must be abandoned?

That's a shame.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,
spindrift ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

[scythe]

Look, mate, if you don't stop following up to TrollB on this newsgroup,
you'll join him in the Bozo bin. Capisce?

spindrift, reason #6, peer pressure (bullying).

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

Do you mean any thread he pollutes must be abandoned?

I don't think he does: not responding to someone who pollutes a thread
is not the same as abandoning a thread.

Quoted message said:

That's a shame.

Or not, if you think about it.

I have Troll B in the killfile, it's so much easier that way.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

spindrift said:

Do you mean any thread he pollutes must be abandoned?

I don't think he does: not responding to someone who pollutes a thread
is not the same as abandoning a thread.

I was not responding to it, I would have addressed him if I was
responding to it, it's idiocy is plain and its posts are just exercise
for my scroll wheel.

Weirdly i started a thread on This Is london, the Evading Standard
website , with the same content as the first post in this thread, and
it's suddenly vanished.

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,
spindrift ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

[scythe]

Look, mate, if you don't stop following up to TrollB on this
newsgroup, you'll join him in the Bozo bin. Capisce?

<AOL>

(Note to self: figure out a way of sneaking Gravity & associated [censored]
Filters onto this Babbage-Engine without the Thought Police finding out)

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Ha ha, you fool! You've fallen victim to one of the classic
blunders! The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war
in Asia"

Dave Larrington said:

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>,
spindrift ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

[scythe]

Look, mate, if you don't stop following up to TrollB on this
newsgroup, you'll join him in the Bozo bin. Capisce?

<AOL>

(Note to self: figure out a way of sneaking Gravity & associated [censored]
Filters onto this Babbage-Engine without the Thought Police finding out)

--
Dave Larrington

hey!

Princess Bride!

Quoted message said:

<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Ha ha, you fool! You've fallen victim to one of the classic
blunders! The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war
in Asia"

Matt B said:

Shall we stop providing the necessary accesses for wheelchair users
because we would all be in exactly the same boat if we were to use a
wheelchair? Do you think that that argument would stand up in a
disability discrimination case?

People generally don't use a wheelchair by choice, they use them because
they need to. If you can't see the distinction between this and a car, then
there really is no hope for you.
--
Chris

Matt B said:

We are all made of the same stuff whether we drive, ride, or
walk, and should be all treated equally in shared spaces.

We are all made of the same stuff, yes. But when we drive we are surrounded
by something a little harder. Don't you think that this should make a
difference?
--
Chris