Bus Lanes: Proof Of What We All Knew

[calum]

On 4 Feb, 18:59, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Also, they will start to dominate the ASL areas, which are often
extensions of the bus and cycle lanes. In fact they'd have to use the
ASL area, otherwise they would block cyclists from entering it. So the
thousands of ASL areas nationwide would be rendered potentially
worthless.<

>>So only potentially, not reality<<

No 'potentially' about it in Glasgow. ASLs are routinely blocked by
motorvehicles, and not always legitimately (by which I mean drivers
finding themselves already in that area when the lights go back to red
and they cannot proceed).

On my way home last night I was stopped at a light controlled
junction. During the green man phase I watched a motorcyclist filter
up between the lanes of cars on the other street and plonk himself at
the front of the cyclists' ASL area. He was a police motorcyclist.
At least now I know why the police ignore abuse of ASLs.

Calum

 

[spindrift]

On 5 Feb, 15:50, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
> spindrift (spindrift <[email protected]>) gurgled happily, sounding
> much like they were saying:
>
> > This is a statistical fudge similar to helmet compunction in australia
> > saving lives cos fewer cyclists were hurt cos there were much fewer
> > cyclists!
>
> Hmmm. Either that was indeed seriously flawed, or you don't understand
> the concept of "per million (or whatever) vehicle kilometres"
>
> I know where my money lies.

Wanna Prove it?

£50 to a charity of your choice that vehicle km didn't come into it?


Cyclist numbers vs cyclist injuries in Western Australia

The introduction of mandatory helmet legislation in 1992 heralded a
major downturn in cyclist numbers (approximately <30%) on West
Australian roads by 1996.

Despite this, the number of cyclist hospital admissions per annum
increased after 1992 helmet law enforcement to consecutive record
levels, the increase in hospital admissions in line with the recovery
in cyclist numbers to pre-law levels by 1998/99.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

My charity of choice is the spindrift Kronenbourg Trust, providing
beer to the needy for twenty years.


Get ready for some hasty withdrawal of that oh-so-confident pledge of
money....

 

[spindrift]

On 5 Feb, 15:54, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > On 5 Feb, 14:00, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In the real world, where people , um, DO walk, the evidence shows that
> > increased numbers reduces accidents.
>
> Again. It does not reduce the number of accidents it reduces the rate of
> accident per cyclist per mile cycled.
>
> As you know the raw accident figures in London have gone up with more
> cyclists.
>
>
>
>
>
> > It's thought that the mindset of drivers changes since:
>
> > 1/
>
> > they are more used to encountering cyclists and
>
> > 2/
>
> > the drivers cycle themselves
>
> > The "them and us" attitude displayed by your probably subconscious
> > decision to cast motorists as lions and vulnerable road users as
> > antelopes is telling. In reality cyclists own cars at the rate of 85%-
> > higher than the general population- and so they are well acquainted
> > with responsible driving.
>
> I tried to chose an example that would allow you to step outside of your
> prejudice.
>
> FWIW. I am a cyclist. I commute 25 miles round trip into London each
> day. I support much tougher controls on cars, speed limits, presumption
> of liability in an accident etc.
>
> I'm quite happy to see cyclists riding on the pavements in a responsible
> manner or going through red lights when it is safe to do so.
>
> All in all I'm more towards the militant end of the cycling spectrum
> even if I'm too lazy to attend critical mass or such like.
>
> However I also work with statistics and I particularly dislike people
> like yourself who distort the meaning of statistics to try and prove
> their own particular theory.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Where did I display any prejudice please?

Maybe i should have said the data supports the tenet that you are less
likely to be in an accident the more cyclists there are, sorry about
that, not sure it constitutes the presence of prejudice though.

 

[Brimstone]

"calum" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:d47c41bd-0aaa-4958-80ac-87d716985823@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Feb, 18:59, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Also, they will start to dominate the ASL areas, which are often
> extensions of the bus and cycle lanes. In fact they'd have to use the
> ASL area, otherwise they would block cyclists from entering it. So the
> thousands of ASL areas nationwide would be rendered potentially
> worthless.<
>
>>>So only potentially, not reality<<
>
> No 'potentially' about it in Glasgow. ASLs are routinely blocked by
> motorvehicles, and not always legitimately (by which I mean drivers
> finding themselves already in that area when the lights go back to red
> and they cannot proceed).
>
> On my way home last night I was stopped at a light controlled
> junction. During the green man phase I watched a motorcyclist filter
> up between the lanes of cars on the other street and plonk himself at
> the front of the cyclists' ASL area. He was a police motorcyclist.
> At least now I know why the police ignore abuse of ASLs.
>
Did he stop anyone else using the ASL?

 

[Adrian]

spindrift (spindrift <[email protected]>) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

>> Hmmm. Either that was indeed seriously flawed, or you don't understand
>> the concept of "per million (or whatever) vehicle kilometres"
>>
>> I know where my money lies.

> Wanna Prove it?

No, not really.

> Cyclist numbers vs cyclist injuries in Western Australia
>
> The introduction of mandatory helmet legislation in 1992 heralded a
> major downturn in cyclist numbers (approximately <30%) on West
> Australian roads by 1996.
>
> Despite this, the number of cyclist hospital admissions per annum
> increased after 1992 helmet law enforcement to consecutive record
> levels, the increase in hospital admissions in line with the recovery in
> cyclist numbers to pre-law levels by 1998/99.
>
> http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

Some very flaky statistics, including the subtle detail that -
considering they're claiming a huge drop in cyclist figures since 1977,
made worse by the introduction of a helmet law in 1991, there are no
reliable stats from before 1990.

Also no consideration of other factors - that same period coincided with
all the major skin cancer and ozone layer health scares in Australia -
which will have played a major part in discouraging cycling.

Yes, it's a very flawed report. So much so that you really can't give it
any credence whatsoever.

(Oh, and fwiw, I'm not exactly pro-cycle helmet)

> Get ready for some hasty withdrawal of that oh-so-confident pledge of
> money....

You show me this "pledge"...

 

[calum]

On 5 Feb, 16:08, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
..
>
> Did he stop anyone else using the ASL?- Hide quoted text -


Yes.

The cop positioned himself at the front of lane two for travelling
straight ahead. A cyclist, also intent on travelling straight ahead,
had to position himself to the left of the cop and at the front of
lane one (left turning traffic). He had to wait for the cop to scoot
off before making his way across to lane two where he should have been
in the first place but for the policeman.

Calum

 

[JNugent]

spindrift wrote:

> "I think it's pathetic that the most vocally and notoriously anti-
> motorist/anti-motorcyclist poster on the whole Internet denies being
> anything of the sort. "

You'll have to take his word for the fact that he finds you pathetic.
I dare say he's not the only one. In fact, I know he's not.

 

[spindrift]

On 5 Feb, 16:43, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > "I think it's pathetic that the most vocally and notoriously anti-
> > motorist/anti-motorcyclist poster on the whole Internet denies being
> > anything of the sort. "
>
> You'll have to take his word for the fact that he finds you pathetic.
> I dare say he's not the only one. In fact, I know he's not.

I can take being called pathetic for no reason, not much I can do
about that, but if I'm accused of having an irrational hatred of
anyone it's reasonable to ask for some evidence. Anything, actually.

They're building a maximum security segregated cycle lane on Southwark
Bridge, one of the quietest bridges in London (bridges in London are
particularly dangerous for cyclist, one killed by a moped rider on
London Bridge a couple of years ago). This lane has probablt eaten up
an entire year's cycling budget, and it's pointless and counter-
productive, I think. The limit of 30 on the bridges has never been
enforced bar Tower. Stopping and punishing idiot drivers would make
more difference and that, by the way, is anti idiot motorist, NOT
anti-motorist.

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 5, 2:48 pm, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> "I think it's pathetic that the most vocally and notoriously anti-
> motorist/anti-motorcyclist poster on the whole Internet denies being
> anything of the sort. "
>
> I am asking for evidence for this.
>
> I've asked seven times now.

And I've already said that you have declared support for many, many
anti-motorist measures over the years (at least two of which have been
mentioned in this thread), but I've never seen you oppose any. That
is evidence enough, although there is plenty more, not least your
ridiculous hatred of Paul Smith. No-one who genuinely advocated safe
and pleasant cycling, and wasn't anti-motorist, would have such a
pathological obsession with the man.

> If my views were as "anti-motorist" as you claim it strikes me a
> strange that you can't actually find any examples....

As above. The Internet is littered with your posts supporting anti-
motorist measures, and none (that I've seen) opposing them. Have you
got it yet?

> "Can you name any anti-motorist
> or anti-motorcyclist measures (which are not also intended to be
> anti-
> cyclist) which you oppose? "
>
> I'm asking you what these mythical "anti-motorist" measures are.

So that'll be a "no" then. Anyone who thinks that this government
isn't even slightly anti-car, and therefore hasn't implemented or
expanded any anti-car measures, is potty. I don't think even you're
that deluded. I've already given examples of anti-motorist measures,
and there are plenty more which are well known. You know perfectly
well what they all are, as you frequently scour and quote from sites
which discuss them, and you automatically support them exactly because
they're anti-motorist.

Presumably you're reluctant to admit that anti-motorist measures exist
because then you'd also be forced to admit that you happen to support
every single one of them. But you see you might as well, because
everyone knows it anyway. Go on, have some backbone.

> Perhaps you missed my question, what on earth made you think any of
> the Telegraph quotes are mine please?

I don't remember saying that, certainly not in this thread, but you
are renowned for posting your invective pretty much everywhere that
you possibly can, and that includes the comments sections of relevant
articles. You must have used literally hundreds of different aliases
over the years. Why did you use "yggems" to post on YouTube, by the
way?

 

[spindrift]

mate, you are bordering on psychotic. I'm not called yggems anywhere,
where on earth did that come from?

That's a long post nuxxx but I'm still at a loss as to what I've
actually supposed to have done. If you mean speed cameras then saying
supporting them is "anti motorist" is daft, many drivers support them
and capable drivers have nothing to worry about.

Head of Road Safety at the AA Andrew Howard
"80% of motorists support speed cameras"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1157453.stm

So 80% of drivers AND the AA are anti-motorist!


Blimey!!

"Anyone who thinks that this government
isn't even slightly anti-car, and therefore hasn't implemented or
expanded any anti-car measures, is potty. "


Well, that's better, at last something concrete.

This government has cravenly capitulated to the motoring lobby, of
which you and those fake coppers on Safespeeding form an unpleasant
sub strata.

From conceding that safety cameras must be painted yellow to scrapping
the fuel duty lobby and pressing ahead with pointless, useless new
road schemes the rot that Prescott started has firmly settled in.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article410431.ece


The Safer Streets Coalition, made up of 29 organisations, including
Age Concern, the Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB), the
Institution of Civil Engineers and the Royal Society for the
Prevention of Accidents, accused the Government of pandering to the
motoring lobby.

The Bill proposes to reduce the number of points from three to two for
exceeding the limit by only a few miles an hour.

End quote.

Is your stock rsponse to appeals from blind people or the elderly that
they must be "anti-motorist"?

Genuine question.

And yes, you did make some very strange comments, in your very first
post"

" A clue lies in the report's findings about the attitudes of other
road users to the idea of motorcycles in bus lanes, with almost half
the surveyed pedestrians and a large proportion of cyclists
expressing
negative views (although only 40 of 800 cyclists [11 of which were
Spindrift, who isn't really a cyclist at all] "



Barmy.

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 5, 3:40 pm, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5 Feb, 15:33, "Budstaff" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:a476e955-f791-4496-a1e7-c04664d9b6aa@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On 5 Feb, 15:14, "Budstaff" <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:158dbc84-0639-45a0-9612-66a14b8a0156@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> > On 5 Feb, 15:00, "Budstaff" <[email protected]>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> > >> >> > "Apparently there is evidence to
> > >> >> > suggest that the figure may be _reduced_ if bikes and PTW's both use
> > >> >> > bus
> > >> >> > lanes. If that is the case, what will your position on sharing be? "
>
> > >> >> > Based on 3 trials, one of which was stopped.
>
> > >> >> > There's no data in the article or quotes from the report, just vague
> > >> >> > statements like, "conditions for cyclists did not significantly
> > >> >> > deteriorate". None of that is particularly reassuring. Apparently
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > methodology of the study is also in question.
>
> > >> >> > I really don't want more mopeds and motorbikes trying to squeeze
> > >> >> > into
> > >> >> > cycle lanes - they do enough of that already. As for bus lanes, in
> > >> >> > London there are already countless cabbies (and private coaches)
> > >> >> > bullying cyclists in these.
>
> > >> >> > I also have a general problem with motorbikes - they tend to break
> > >> >> > the
> > >> >> > speed limits even more that cars, and enjoy seeing how quickly they
> > >> >> > can accelerate away from lights and put on bursts of speed between
> > >> >> > lights. I really don't want them doing that a few inches from me in
> > >> >> > a
> > >> >> > bus lane thanks.
>
> > >> >> > "I note with mild (if regretful) satisfaction that you no longer
> > >> >> > take
> > >> >> > issue
> > >> >> > with the assertion that you are anti-motorcyclist. "
>
> > >> >> > I'm not anti-motor cyclist or anti-motorist, I've asked you nine
> > >> >> > times
> > >> >> > now to show a quote from me that proves otherwise.
>
> > >> >> You've asked me twice, ref motorcycles. You've snipped the proof I
> > >> >> gave
> > >> >> from
> > >> >> this very post. No reasonable person could say what you say, or cite
> > >> >> what,
> > >> >> you site, and _not_ be either anti-motorcyclist or highly confused.
>
> > >> >> Take your pick.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >> > I repeat, if highlighting the high accident rates between PTWs abnd
> > >> > cyclists is "anti-motorist" then so are drink driving adverts.
>
> > >> > Look, we both admit the data is sketchy.
>
> > >> > Whether something is really safer or not is of secondary importance to
> > >> > policy makers tasked with promoting cycling. What matters to them is
> > >> > how safe cycling feels, and if sharing bus lanes with motorbikes feels
> > >> > more scary to cyclists, especially the less confident "growth tip" of
> > >> > the cycling population, which it does, it'll not fit with that policy.
>
> > >> I think you're confusing two things. I've not disputed your accident
> > >> rates
> > >> for PTW/cyclists, merely the relevance of that data to the issue of
> > >> bus-lane
> > >> sharing. And it's not your quoting of that data that makes you
> > >> anti-motorcycle. It's your view, re-stated above, that you would put the
> > >> feelings of cyclists above the safety of motorcyclists, which is 'of
> > >> secondary importance.... to promoting cycling'.
>
> > >> Really not much point in discussing the matter further.- Hide quoted
> > >> text -
>
> > >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Accidents are more frequent between PTWs and cyclists. In a discussion
> > > relating to allowing PTWs where cyclists cycle I would have thought
> > > mentioning this fact was pertinent. Crucial, even.
>
> > Not crucial, barely pertinent. This thread was started with a post quoting
> > an article in the Torygraph that suggested that a study of shared lanes in
> > london showed that they improved safety for all parties, and that this was
> > being suppressed by those whose prejudices were not confirmed. Your position
> > is similar to being anti seatbelt because those who _don't- wear them get
> > injured. Until the report comes out, and there is no suggestion of spin, I'd
> > say the jury was out, in the absence of any data to date that says that
> > cyclists are more at risk in bus lanes shared by PTW's. I live in a town
> > (Colchester) where most bus lanes are open to PTW's and have not yet heard
> > of a single incident - but I would not cite my personal experience as
> > evidence of the safety of the practice. I'd rather wait for a proper study,
> > and welcome the appearance of a conclusive answer when it comes. And if as I
> > result my motorbike is banned from the bus lanes, then I'll accept that. But
> > I somehow doubt that you'll accept it if it isn't.
>
> > > If you have evidence that bus lanes are safer for cyclists please post
> > > it, I rely on the evidence that it's more dangerous for cyclists and
> > > discourages cycling.
>
> > > What next? Many ASLs have feeder lanes from bus lanes, will PTWs start
> > > abusing ASLs more than they already do?
>
> > What next? will you call for bus lanes to be redesignated as cycle lanes
> > because of th undoubted danger that buses pose?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> They have excluded the results of the A13 study because that showed a
> major impact on cycle use - a fall of over 80% forcing cyclists out of
> it. This is a statistical fudge similar to helmet compunction in
> australia saving lives cos fewer cyclists were hurt cos there were
> much fewer cyclists!
>
> We can agree to disagree budstaff, and thanks for your courtesy, I'm
> far more interested in nuxx bar's unhealthy interest in me and
> dishonesty regarding my views but it looks like he's buggered orff
> now....

Unlike you, I have a job, and therefore can't spend every waking hour
posting on newsgroups and forums. I have now replied to your latest
poison, but as usual it's like banging my head against a brick wall,
so I won't be replying many more times, until at any rate you admit
that you're anti-motorist and start arguing like a man.

I can assure you that I don't have any interest in you. I would be
ecstatically happy if you disappeared off the face of the Internet.
You're a cancer on transport, it's fair to say.

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 5, 3:54 pm, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm quite happy to see cyclists riding on the pavements in a responsible
> manner or going through red lights when it is safe to do so.

Well done for at least admitting it. Although I fear that you still
think that motorists can never exceed the speed limit safely or in a
responsible manner, which would be a logical continuation of what you
say. If I'm wrong about you thinking that then I apologise.

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 5, 4:29 pm, calum <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5 Feb, 16:08, "Brimstone" <[email protected]> wrote:
> .
>
>
>
> > Did he stop anyone else using the ASL?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Yes.
>
> The cop positioned himself at the front of lane two for travelling
> straight ahead. A cyclist, also intent on travelling straight ahead,
> had to position himself to the left of the cop and at the front of
> lane one (left turning traffic). He had to wait for the cop to scoot
> off before making his way across to lane two where he should have been
> in the first place but for the policeman.

So if he hadn't stopped anyone using the ASL, would you have objected
to him using it?

 

[spindrift]

"Almost all motorists are happy to
campaign to improve their lot without interfering with cyclists "

I think you are taking this a bit seriously, how am I interfering with
anyone? What are you talking about?

"And how many times have you slagged off
cyclists in general?"

Loads of times, I started this RLJ thread:

http://tinyurl.com/2vb64l


It talked about how flipping annoying RLJers are, I think I admitted
shoulder-charging an RLJer in that thread. I told him he was making
London more dangerous for cyclists which he agreed with immediately,
it deflated him that this WASN'T a car driver versus cyclist thing.
You are unable to see this I'm afraid so instead we're 180 posts in
and I still don't know why you reacting so strangely.

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 5, 5:03 pm, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5 Feb, 16:43, JNugent <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > spindrift wrote:
> > > "I think it's pathetic that the most vocally and notoriously anti-
> > > motorist/anti-motorcyclist poster on the whole Internet denies being
> > > anything of the sort. "
>
> > You'll have to take his word for the fact that he finds you pathetic.
> > I dare say he's not the only one. In fact, I know he's not.
>
> I can take being called pathetic for no reason, not much I can do
> about that, but if I'm accused of having an irrational hatred of
> anyone it's reasonable to ask for some evidence. Anything, actually.
>
> They're building a maximum security segregated cycle lane on Southwark
> Bridge, one of the quietest bridges in London (bridges in London are
> particularly dangerous for cyclist, one killed by a moped rider on
> London Bridge a couple of years ago). This lane has probablt eaten up
> an entire year's cycling budget, and it's pointless and counter-
> productive, I think. The limit of 30 on the bridges has never been
> enforced bar Tower. Stopping and punishing idiot drivers would make
> more difference and that, by the way, is anti idiot motorist, NOT
> anti-motorist.

It is anti-motorist, because it's anti-any motorist that speeds, and
in practice all motorists speed.

And talking of Tower Bridge, the 20mph limit is only there to protect
the bridge's structure. But I bet that wouldn't stop you complaining
about anyone driving at 21-30mph "endangering cyclists".

And as you said, you're not against the cycle lane per se, you're
against it because it's "eaten up budget". If it could have been
built for free then you would have been fine with it. Budget issues
aside, you're always without exception happy with anti-motorist
measures, including pro-cyclist measures that "reallocate" (steal)
roadspace from motorists that they have already paid for.

Talking of cycle lanes, are you happy with the plans to
"decriminalise" cycle lane enforcement, and issue PCNs to motorists
who temporarily use cycle lanes to get past other motorists who are
turning right, even when there are no cyclists anywhere near and it is
quite clearly a safe and logical thing to do? Something tells me the
answer is "yes", and we can of course check your previous posts. It's
support of clearly vicious, unfair and anti-car measures like that
which shows that someone is a motorist-hater. (And anyone who thinks
that Livingstone and TfL aren't anti-car needs their head examining.
Livingstone has made it perfectly clear.)

 

[spindrift]

Hang on, you've been claiming for 180 posts that I'm anti-motorist! I
asked for evidence, you provided none, you claimed I never **** off
cyclists and I show you I did! Just a bit of exposition there, think
you may have missed it...

The bridge cycle lane's daft cos it's segregation, yes of course I
support fines for driver who "stray" or "wander" or "drift" into a
place they shouldn't be because cemeteries are full of people hit by
straying, drifting and wandering cars. You get a cycle lane near my
house that feeds you exclusively slap bang into the door zone.
Seriously, it's quite common, like the cycle lane on Blackfriars
BETWEEN TWO LANES OF TRAFFIC where a young doctor was killed on her
bike. A few £60 fines are a small price to pay to avoid something like
that happening again.

 

[Nick]

Nuxx Bar wrote:
> On Feb 5, 3:54 pm, Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm quite happy to see cyclists riding on the pavements in a responsible
>> manner or going through red lights when it is safe to do so.
>
> Well done for at least admitting it. Although I fear that you still
> think that motorists can never exceed the speed limit safely or in a
> responsible manner, which would be a logical continuation of what you
> say. If I'm wrong about you thinking that then I apologise.

Its not a logical conclusion at all. The only conclusion is that I do
not believe laws are absolute or always right.

In actual fact I'm happy for motorists to go over the speed limit on the
motorway.

However when it comes to towns and areas where motorist mix with
pedestrians and cyclists I do not believe it is ok to exceed the speed
limit because this does put additional risk on the pedestrian and I
believe the risk posed to pedestrians should be decreased not increased.
It is worth remembering that cars do kill and maim a very considerable
number of pedestrians where as bikes don't.

 

[Nuxx Bar]

I never said that everyone who supported speed cameras was anti-
motorist. Those who support cameras either don't know enough of the
facts, are ignorant/stupid/simple ("speed kills", "slower must be
safer and that's that", "RTTM is just being clever with statistics"),
have a vested interest, or are anti-motorist. You know all of the
facts, you (AFAIK) don't have a vested interest, and whatever else you
are, you're not quite that stupid, so therefore you fall into the
latter category. You know that speeding in itself is usually safe,
but you still support cameras because they're an effective way of
persecuting, intimidating, stealing from, ruining the careers of and
causing misery in a selection from all motorists at random. They're
cost-effective spite on a stick for motorists, and you just love it.
Yet if bicycles got licence plates and they put up speed cameras and
red light cameras to catch them, you'd be up in arms. It's just one
of a huge number of pieces of evidence of your rabid, irrational and
ridiculous wish to purge the roads of powered private transport, and
screw the economy, progress, freedom and all the other little
trivialities like that.

How is your complaint about the "fake" policeman going, by the way?
It's been at least a year since you submitted it, so it must have been
resolved one way or the other. Do tell. Asuming it's come to
nothing, do you think it's a good idea to keep libelling someone who's
in a position of power? I hope you get what's coming to you. You go
on and on about other people not having evidence for their accusations
(even though they do), so what is your evidence for this "fake"
rubbish? I've seen proof that he's not fake, by the way, but I'm sure
that won't stop you. The truth figures very little for you overall.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if you had somehow connected from
another reality, either actual or in your head.

Yep, you're the barmy and psychotic one. Psychosis of course involves
delusional beliefs that can't be dispelled by reason, e.g. a belief
that speed cameras work, or a belief that driving is inherently evil,
or a belief that a real policeman is a fake one. (Although actually,
you know really that cameras don't work, but maybe you've managed to
persuade yourself that they do, since you *want* them to so much.)
And you're blatantly, horribly, disgustingly and constantly anti-
motorist. You're a liar, a cad and much more besides. I'm not going
to discuss anything more with you until you tell the truth and admit
that you hate cars and the perfectly normal and reasonable people who
drive them without feeling "guilty". Until then, you're just a
pathetic liar who is too much of a coward to admit what he really
thinks.

BL

 

[Mike Sales]

"Nick" wrote
> However I also work with statistics and I particularly dislike people like
> yourself who distort the meaning of statistics to try and prove their own
> particular theory.

Aren't you arguing about which statistic is the right one to use? It is
arguable that accidents per mile cycled is the important one for cyclists.
Or have I misunderstood?

Mike Sales

 

[James Farrar]

Can I just thank you for cross-posting this into utl and bringing a
long-running flamewar from some other group here. It's been most
fascinating.