Friends of the Earth Quote



N

Nuxx Bar

Guest
"Speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all
the glamour out of motoring"
Friends of the Earth, 1995

Is anyone going to have the guts to admit that they agree with the
above quote? Spindrift? His sycophants? Other militant cyclists?

The quote does of course prove that the continued lowering of speed
limits and the proliferation of speed cameras are indeed implemented
for anti-motorist reasons, at least some of the time. Anyone who
denies that that is ever the case is pretty likely to be anti-motorist
themselves. How Enemies of the People must regret letting that one
slip, as it makes a mockery of claims (lies) that such measures are
all about safety and nothing else.

Surely saving lives, rather than ideological anti-car nonsense, should
*always* be the top priority when deciding on road safety measures;
anything less and people will die unnecessarily. Surely no-one can
reasonably argue with that. Therefore "taking all the glamour out of
motoring" should never *ever* be so much as a slight consideration
when deciding what to implement. We owe it to all road users, even
obnoxious cyclists.

Those who interfere with road safety in order to make things
unpleasant for drivers have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who support
them have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who knowingly propagate the
associated lies have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. When are these bastards
going to stop pretending that they are doing anything but effectively
signing people's death warrants?

It's time for real road safety, where reducing casualties as much as
possible is the one and only aim. There's no room for anything else.

(Doubtless Spindrift will deny that he agrees with the quote, but then
argue with everything else that I've written, thereby showing that he
does in fact completely agree with it. He may also have a go at
claiming that Friends of the Earth "didn't really say that" or some
such, giving a list of irrelevant hyperlinks in his defence. Par for
the course then really.)
 
Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all
> the glamour out of motoring"
> Friends of the Earth, 1995
>
> Is anyone going to have the guts to admit that they agree with the
> above quote? Spindrift? His sycophants? Other militant cyclists?
>
> The quote does of course prove that the continued lowering of speed
> limits and the proliferation of speed cameras are indeed implemented
> for anti-motorist reasons, at least some of the time.


Please research the meaning of the verb 'to prove'.

Ta ra,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
In message <6074774d-6b65-42a5-aafa-5fbb4d4cc732@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:


> Surely saving lives, rather than ideological anti-car nonsense, should
> *always* be the top priority when deciding on road safety measures;
> anything less and people will die unnecessarily. Surely no-one can
> reasonably argue with that.


I am not anti motorist, I am anti idiot motorist, in the same way as I am
anti idiot cyclist.

Speed kills. The faster you drive, the more likely you are to crash.
The faster you drive, the more likely to kill or be killed if you do crash.

Speed cameras save lives.

> Those who interfere with road safety in order to make things
> unpleasant for drivers have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who support
> them have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who knowingly propagate the
> associated lies have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. When are these bastards
> going to stop pretending that they are doing anything but effectively
> signing people's death warrants?


Those that interfere with road safety just so that they can get a kick out of
driving fast have blood on their hands. Those that belong to, or run,
pressure groups campaigning against speed cameras have blood on your hands.

Your mate paul smith has blood on his hands, a lot of it.
 
Nuxx Bar typed:
> "Speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all
> the glamour out of motoring"
> Friends of the Earth, 1995
>
> The quote does of course prove that the continued lowering of speed
> limits and the proliferation of speed cameras are indeed implemented
> for anti-motorist reasons, at least some of the time.


Whilst I disagree with the idea of lowering speed limits ' to take the
glamour out' (What glamour?) a quote like that in no way 'proves' what
you're suggesting.

Fercrissakes it's from Friends of the Earth ....... I didn't know they were
the ones implementing policy decisions, they're just a bunch of looney
do-gooders who I suspect don't have a great deal of influence on road design
or traffic laws, no matter how hard they lobby.

--
Dogpoop

Stand by me.
http://www.glass-uk.org/
 
Nuxx Bar wrote:
> "Speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all
> the glamour out of motoring"
> Friends of the Earth, 1995
>
> Is anyone going to have the guts to admit that they agree with the
> above quote?


So, not one person has had the guts to admit it. How utterly,
utterly, utterly, utterly, utterly pathetic.

Whatever you might (erroneously) think about those who are against
cameras, at least they don't lie about their motives.
 
On Feb 9, 11:51 pm, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <6074774d-6b65-42a5-aafa-5fbb4d4cc...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
> Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Surely saving lives, rather than ideological anti-car nonsense, should
> > *always* be the top priority when deciding on road safety measures;
> > anything less and people will die unnecessarily. Surely no-one can
> > reasonably argue with that.

>
> I am not anti motorist


Liar.

> Speed kills. The faster you drive, the more likely you are to crash.
> The faster you drive, the more likely to kill or be killed if you do crash.


Simplistic lies. They've been debunked a million times and you still
repeat them. You pretend they're true because cameras provide an
excellent way of persecuting motorists. Stop with the lies already.

> Speed cameras save lives.


Liar. Fraud.

> > Those who interfere with road safety in order to make things
> > unpleasant for drivers have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who support
> > them have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who knowingly propagate the
> > associated lies have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. When are these bastards
> > going to stop pretending that they are doing anything but effectively
> > signing people's death warrants?

>
> Those that interfere with road safety just so that they can get a kick out of
> driving fast have blood on their hands. Those that belong to, or run,
> pressure groups campaigning against speed cameras have blood on your hands.


So you don't agree that those who interfere with road safety in order
to make things unpleasant for drivers have blood on their hands? It's
quite clear that it only works one way for you. You're happy with
people interfering with road safety to make things unpleasant for
drivers. But you're not happy for people to interfere with road
safety to "get a kick out of driving fast" (even though those who
campaign against cameras do no such thing).

And yet you claim not to be anti-motorist. Incredible. Who do you
think you're fooling?

And why do you claim that "speed kills" when it doesn't? Why do you
claim that cameras work when they don't? I think it's because you're
anti-motorist. It's so screamingly obvious. Why not admit it? Why
lie? Are you a coward?

> Your mate paul smith has blood on his hands, a lot of it.


No, because he told the truth, and campaigned for actual road safety.
You campaign *against* road safety by knowingly advocating false,
discredited safety measures. You interfere with road safety in order
to persecute motorists. You have blood all over your body, except
around your genital area, because your pants are on fire.

Pathetic and spineless. One of the worst cycling trolls that has ever
been. BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS.
 
On Feb 9, 8:03 pm, Jim Harvest <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>
> <snip a lot of trolling nonsense>


Nonsense eh? So you disagree with this:

> Surely saving lives, rather than ideological anti-car nonsense, should
> *always* be the top priority when deciding on road safety measures;
> anything less and people will die unnecessarily.


Which just proves my point. Murderer.
 
On Feb 9, 8:36 pm, [email protected] (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:
> Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all
> > the glamour out of motoring"
> > Friends of the Earth, 1995

>
> > Is anyone going to have the guts to admit that they agree with the
> > above quote? Spindrift? His sycophants? Other militant cyclists?

>
> > The quote does of course prove that the continued lowering of speed
> > limits and the proliferation of speed cameras are indeed implemented
> > for anti-motorist reasons, at least some of the time.

>
> Please research the meaning of the verb 'to prove'.


Why do you keep replying to my posts if you think I'm trolling? And
when are you going to admit that all drivers speed? Denying it is
what anti-motorist types tend to do, because admitting it would show
just how absurd and random speed camera enforcement was.

Now, the proof. Friends of the Earth clearly think what's in the
quote, since they said it.

Friends of the Earth are "environmentalists" (in the recent sense of
the word, meaning car-hating, freedom-hating, controlling communist
extremists and similar; such people are not true environmentalists at
all of course, but let's leave that for now). Therefore at least some
"environmentalists" agree with the quote. In fact most of them do; I
don't see many "environmentalists" saying that they don't support
Friends of the Earth.

"Environmentalists" heavily influence current government policy, as
seen by (for example) the government's acting as if AGW is an absolute
certainty. Therefore "environmentalists" also heavily influence road
"safety" policy. This is obvious to anyone in that current road
"safety" policy is *always* about making life more difficult for
motorists.

So, if at least some "environmentalists" agree with the quote, and
"environmentalists" are heavily influencing road "safety" policy, then
the continued lowering of speed limits and the proliferation of speed
cameras (large parts of current road "safety" policy) are indeed
implemented for anti-motorist reasons, at least some of the time.

Anyone who genuinely and honestly thinks that the continued lowering
of speed limits and the proliferation of speed cameras aren't ever for
anti-motorist reasons, even remotely, is absolutely insane. Think
about it: what are the chances of that being completely true, up and
down the country, all the time, without exception? How can anyone
know that for a fact? It's a ludicrous supposition.

I think that the vast majority of those who claim that such measures
are not for anti-motorist reasons are lying, and know perfectly well
that they are for anti-motorist reasons, at least some of the time.
Lying about something as important as road safety is a pretty low
thing to do. Prioritising anti-car nonsense above saving lives is
about as low as it gets. It's time to stop lying and repent. Because
those who lie about road safety have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.
 
On 10 Feb, 11:16, Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
> > "Speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all
> > the glamour out of motoring"
> > Friends of the Earth, 1995

>
> > Is anyone going to have the guts to admit that they agree with the
> > above quote?

>
> So, not one person has had the guts to admit it.  How utterly,
> utterly, utterly, utterly, utterly pathetic.
>
> Whatever you might (erroneously) think about those who are against
> cameras, at least they don't lie about their motives.


If I had a mentally imbalanced internet stalky ment I would love him
and hug him and squeeze him all day long!
 
"Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6074774d-6b65-42a5-aafa-5fbb4d4cc732@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> "Speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all
> the glamour out of motoring"
> Friends of the Earth, 1995
>
> Is anyone going to have the guts to admit that they agree with the
> above quote? Spindrift? His sycophants? Other militant cyclists?
>
> The quote does of course prove that the continued lowering of speed
> limits and the proliferation of speed cameras are indeed implemented
> for anti-motorist reasons, at least some of the time. Anyone who
> denies that that is ever the case is pretty likely to be anti-motorist
> themselves. How Enemies of the People must regret letting that one
> slip, as it makes a mockery of claims (lies) that such measures are
> all about safety and nothing else.
>
> Surely saving lives, rather than ideological anti-car nonsense, should
> *always* be the top priority when deciding on road safety measures;
> anything less and people will die unnecessarily. Surely no-one can
> reasonably argue with that. Therefore "taking all the glamour out of
> motoring" should never *ever* be so much as a slight consideration
> when deciding what to implement. We owe it to all road users, even
> obnoxious cyclists.
>
> Those who interfere with road safety in order to make things
> unpleasant for drivers have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who support
> them have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who knowingly propagate the
> associated lies have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. When are these bastards
> going to stop pretending that they are doing anything but effectively
> signing people's death warrants?
>
> It's time for real road safety, where reducing casualties as much as
> possible is the one and only aim. There's no room for anything else.
>
> (Doubtless Spindrift will deny that he agrees with the quote, but then
> argue with everything else that I've written, thereby showing that he
> does in fact completely agree with it. He may also have a go at
> claiming that Friends of the Earth "didn't really say that" or some
> such, giving a list of irrelevant hyperlinks in his defence. Par for
> the course then really.)


I really can't see the point of taking a 12-year-old quote that has
_nothing_ to say about cycling, then cross posting it to one newsgroup,
u.r.d, that probably took issue with it 12 years ago, and another, u.r.c, in
order to pick a fight with them by challenging them to agree with it.

Unless of course the point is that you are a sad and particularly
unimaginative troll.

However I would be intersted to know what (legal) aspect of modern motoring
you think is or should be 'glamorous'.
 
x-no-archive:Budstaff wrote:
> "Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:6074774d-6b65-42a5-aafa-5fbb4d4cc732@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> "Speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all
>> the glamour out of motoring"
>> Friends of the Earth, 1995
>>
>> Is anyone going to have the guts to admit that they agree with the
>> above quote? Spindrift? His sycophants? Other militant cyclists?
>>
>> The quote does of course prove that the continued lowering of speed
>> limits and the proliferation of speed cameras are indeed implemented
>> for anti-motorist reasons, at least some of the time. Anyone who
>> denies that that is ever the case is pretty likely to be anti-motorist
>> themselves. How Enemies of the People must regret letting that one
>> slip, as it makes a mockery of claims (lies) that such measures are
>> all about safety and nothing else.
>>
>> Surely saving lives, rather than ideological anti-car nonsense, should
>> *always* be the top priority when deciding on road safety measures;
>> anything less and people will die unnecessarily. Surely no-one can
>> reasonably argue with that. Therefore "taking all the glamour out of
>> motoring" should never *ever* be so much as a slight consideration
>> when deciding what to implement. We owe it to all road users, even
>> obnoxious cyclists.
>>
>> Those who interfere with road safety in order to make things
>> unpleasant for drivers have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who support
>> them have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who knowingly propagate the
>> associated lies have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. When are these bastards
>> going to stop pretending that they are doing anything but effectively
>> signing people's death warrants?
>>
>> It's time for real road safety, where reducing casualties as much as
>> possible is the one and only aim. There's no room for anything else.
>>
>> (Doubtless Spindrift will deny that he agrees with the quote, but then
>> argue with everything else that I've written, thereby showing that he
>> does in fact completely agree with it. He may also have a go at
>> claiming that Friends of the Earth "didn't really say that" or some
>> such, giving a list of irrelevant hyperlinks in his defence. Par for
>> the course then really.)

>
> I really can't see the point of taking a 12-year-old quote that has
> _nothing_ to say about cycling, then cross posting it to one newsgroup,
> u.r.d, that probably took issue with it 12 years ago, and another, u.r.c, in
> order to pick a fight with them by challenging them to agree with it.
>
> Unless of course the point is that you are a sad and particularly
> unimaginative troll.
>
> However I would be intersted to know what (legal) aspect of modern motoring
> you think is or should be 'glamorous'.
>
>

Budstaff, don't feed the troll.
 

>> Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:

And
> when are you going to admit that all drivers speed?

Happy to oblige on this occasion and agree with you.

Read my metaphorical lips:

'All Drivers Speed'

Of course where I'd differ with you is that I'm going to follow that up
with:

And All Drivers Should Stop Speeding, rather than pathetically say that it's
all right to speed because everyone does it, in a vain attempt to try and
preserve the 'glamour' of a mundane and expensive everyday activity.
 
In article <090cc00b-10f1-41b2-942b-4a17a4d2c256
@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
> > "Speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all
> > the glamour out of motoring"
> > Friends of the Earth, 1995
> >
> > Is anyone going to have the guts to admit that they agree with the
> > above quote?

>
> So, not one person has had the guts to admit it. How utterly,
> utterly, utterly, utterly, utterly pathetic.
>

Why would I admit to agreeing with a policy that I don't agree with.
--
Carl Robson
Audio stream: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com:8000/samtest
Homepage: http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
 
On Feb 10, 6:46 pm, "Budstaff" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:6074774d-6b65-42a5-aafa-5fbb4d4cc732@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > "Speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all
> > the glamour out of motoring"
> > Friends of the Earth, 1995

>
> > Is anyone going to have the guts to admit that they agree with the
> > above quote? Spindrift? His sycophants? Other militant cyclists?

>
> > The quote does of course prove that the continued lowering of speed
> > limits and the proliferation of speed cameras are indeed implemented
> > for anti-motorist reasons, at least some of the time. Anyone who
> > denies that that is ever the case is pretty likely to be anti-motorist
> > themselves. How Enemies of the People must regret letting that one
> > slip, as it makes a mockery of claims (lies) that such measures are
> > all about safety and nothing else.

>
> > Surely saving lives, rather than ideological anti-car nonsense, should
> > *always* be the top priority when deciding on road safety measures;
> > anything less and people will die unnecessarily. Surely no-one can
> > reasonably argue with that. Therefore "taking all the glamour out of
> > motoring" should never *ever* be so much as a slight consideration
> > when deciding what to implement. We owe it to all road users, even
> > obnoxious cyclists.

>
> > Those who interfere with road safety in order to make things
> > unpleasant for drivers have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who support
> > them have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who knowingly propagate the
> > associated lies have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. When are these bastards
> > going to stop pretending that they are doing anything but effectively
> > signing people's death warrants?

>
> > It's time for real road safety, where reducing casualties as much as
> > possible is the one and only aim. There's no room for anything else.

>
> > (Doubtless Spindrift will deny that he agrees with the quote, but then
> > argue with everything else that I've written, thereby showing that he
> > does in fact completely agree with it. He may also have a go at
> > claiming that Friends of the Earth "didn't really say that" or some
> > such, giving a list of irrelevant hyperlinks in his defence. Par for
> > the course then really.)

>
> I really can't see the point of taking a 12-year-old quote that has
> _nothing_ to say about cycling, then cross posting it to one newsgroup,
> u.r.d, that probably took issue with it 12 years ago, and another, u.r.c, in
> order to pick a fight with them by challenging them to agree with it.


Except that they *do* agree with it, and their post history makes it
obvious. But it seems that rule number one of being a cycling
motorist-hater is to pathetically lie about it. Rule number two, of
course, is to continually advocate speed cameras, even when they have
been long since discredited, since they're such excellent motorist
persecution tools.

As for "picking fights", what exactly would you call the ridiculous
anti-SafeSpeed tirade which has been a constant feature of certain
cycling newsgroups and forums? Not to mention the trolls that you
keep sending to SS to take advantage of the current situation. You
lot started it. And only a motorist-hater would have such a problem
with SafeSpeed when all that group is doing is honestly and truthfully
campaigning for safer roads. Only a motorist-hater would be so
unwilling to even *consider* that cameras weren't helping. Anyone
else who disagreed with SS would just say "I don't agree with them but
I can see that they really want safer roads". They wouldn't have the
disagraceful emotive hateful attitude that so many of you lot have.

This thread has shown just how completely spineless the motorist-
hating cycling trolls really are, and it will be a permanent record of
same. Why would anyone lie about being anti-motorist, unless they
knew that they couldn't defend their point of view? Friends of the
Earth and Campaign for "Better" Transport may be anti-progress people-
hating freaks, but at least they're not liars (not about hating
motorists anyway).

> Unless of course the point is that you are a sad and particularly
> unimaginative troll.


And you're nothing of the kind of course. If I'm unimaginative,
you'll be able to find plenty of examples of people having said the
same as me. Which you can't. Whereas you are just a Spindrift/
Tourist Tony clone, which is about as unimaginative as it gets. Break
away, do something daring and admit that you're anti-motorist. Except
that your trollmaster won't let you, will he?

> However I would be intersted to know what (legal) aspect of modern motoring
> you think is or should be 'glamorous'.


Modern motoring isn't particularly glamorous, precisely because of
speed cameras, willful obstructions and a host of other anti-motorist
measures. But you know that already I'm sure, and delight in it.
 
On Feb 10, 7:06 pm, Elder <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <090cc00b-10f1-41b2-942b-4a17a4d2c256
> @v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...> Nuxx Bar wrote:
> > > "Speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all
> > > the glamour out of motoring"
> > > Friends of the Earth, 1995

>
> > > Is anyone going to have the guts to admit that they agree with the
> > > above quote?

>
> > So, not one person has had the guts to admit it. How utterly,
> > utterly, utterly, utterly, utterly pathetic.

>
> Why would I admit to agreeing with a policy that I don't agree with.


Did I mention you in particular? No. But there are undoubtedly
plenty of people here who do agree with that quote, and not one of
them has come forward. Pretty poor show, but if I'm being honest, I'm
not surprised. They're ashamed of being anti-motorist and they know
they can't defend such a stance. Now if they'd just follow through
logically then they'd realise that they should stop being anti-
motorist, stop supporting anti-motorist measures (e.g. speed cameras)
automatically, and concentrate on making things better for cyclists in
a positive way.
 
On Feb 10, 12:37 pm, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10 Feb, 11:16, Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Nuxx Bar wrote:
> > > "Speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all
> > > the glamour out of motoring"
> > > Friends of the Earth, 1995

>
> > > Is anyone going to have the guts to admit that they agree with the
> > > above quote?

>
> > So, not one person has had the guts to admit it. How utterly,
> > utterly, utterly, utterly, utterly pathetic.

>
> > Whatever you might (erroneously) think about those who are against
> > cameras, at least they don't lie about their motives.

>
> If I had a mentally imbalanced internet stalky ment I would love him
> and hug him and squeeze him all day long!


Spindrift, calling someone mentally unbalanced when you have actually
seen the inside of an institute is really quite funny.

Let's poll some motoring forums shall we, and see whether people think
you're sane or not. Since you don't have a problem with motorists (HA
HA HA), you won't have a problem with doing this, and you'll accept
the results, I'm sure.

By the way, why do you think you have such a bad reputation on the
Internet, and with motorists in particular? Is it all their fault
rather than yours?

Difficult questions I know, and they won't be answered satisfactorily.
 
nuxx, you are losing your grip matey.

You claimed I'm anti-motorist. I denied it and asked for evidence to
justify this. You were unable to post any, and then claimed I never
criticised cyclists, I posted evidence to prove you were wrong about
that too.

You then claimed I invaded the telegraph website and posted all the
anti-motorist comments. That's nothing to do with me.

You then claimed I'm "smeggy" on Youtube, again, I have no idea what
you are droning on about.

Criticising the fake coppers and anti-social nutjobs on safespeeding
isn't "anti-motorist" at all. This is the site where those swiss
freaks lead a campaign of intimidation and harrassment of anyone who
dares criticise the dead Smith's risible "research". A site where
posters fantasise about killing cyclists and traffic wardens are
called "nazis".

I think your unrestrained paranoia and hysterical abuse would be
more suited to the safespeeding forum rather than here, matey.
 
Budstaff wrote:
> "Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:6074774d-6b65-42a5-aafa-5fbb4d4cc732@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> "Speed limits should be made very low and rigidly enforced to take all
>> the glamour out of motoring"
>> Friends of the Earth, 1995
>>
>> Is anyone going to have the guts to admit that they agree with the
>> above quote? Spindrift? His sycophants? Other militant cyclists?
>>
>> The quote does of course prove that the continued lowering of speed
>> limits and the proliferation of speed cameras are indeed implemented
>> for anti-motorist reasons, at least some of the time. Anyone who
>> denies that that is ever the case is pretty likely to be anti-motorist
>> themselves. How Enemies of the People must regret letting that one
>> slip, as it makes a mockery of claims (lies) that such measures are
>> all about safety and nothing else.
>>
>> Surely saving lives, rather than ideological anti-car nonsense, should
>> *always* be the top priority when deciding on road safety measures;
>> anything less and people will die unnecessarily. Surely no-one can
>> reasonably argue with that. Therefore "taking all the glamour out of
>> motoring" should never *ever* be so much as a slight consideration
>> when deciding what to implement. We owe it to all road users, even
>> obnoxious cyclists.
>>
>> Those who interfere with road safety in order to make things
>> unpleasant for drivers have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who support
>> them have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. Those who knowingly propagate the
>> associated lies have BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. When are these bastards
>> going to stop pretending that they are doing anything but effectively
>> signing people's death warrants?
>>
>> It's time for real road safety, where reducing casualties as much as
>> possible is the one and only aim. There's no room for anything else.
>>
>> (Doubtless Spindrift will deny that he agrees with the quote, but then
>> argue with everything else that I've written, thereby showing that he
>> does in fact completely agree with it. He may also have a go at
>> claiming that Friends of the Earth "didn't really say that" or some
>> such, giving a list of irrelevant hyperlinks in his defence. Par for
>> the course then really.)

>
> I really can't see the point of taking a 12-year-old quote that has
> _nothing_ to say about cycling, then cross posting it to one newsgroup,
> u.r.d, that probably took issue with it 12 years ago, and another, u.r.c, in
> order to pick a fight with them by challenging them to agree with it.
>
> Unless of course the point is that you are a sad and particularly
> unimaginative troll.
>
> However I would be intersted to know what (legal) aspect of modern motoring
> you think is or should be 'glamorous'.


I know 'glamorous' was the word used, but it sounded to me as if FoE
wanted to take most of the enjoyment out of motoring, by a combination
of making it very slow, and perhaps applying other restrictive measures.

To me that is an extremely depressing approach, and not one that is even
good for road safety, so IMHO it should be rejected and resisted by any
means at our disposal.

I'm saying this on behalf of myself and anybody else who enjoys some
spirited driving at times, and intends to go on doing so, whilst at the
same time taking care to maintain the safety and comfort of ourselves
and all other road users we may encounter. This *can* be done, and we
should be free to do it.

Best wishes all,
Dave.
 
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 01:02:09 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
<[email protected]> said in
<08c929b1-47f8-4e21-897e-e54f4c6794a6@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:

>You're right. Take a look on SafeSpeed, you'll know at least a couple
>of the current trolls, and they really are extremely poor. That's
>irrational lying motorist-haters for you.


Yeah, on uk.rec.cycling you get rational truthful Smith-haters, and
we know from long experience that he can't cope with that at all,
any more than he can cope with facts he doesn't like.

If you don't want your delusions challenged, feel free to remain on
the SafeSpeed forums where no intrusion of sense or
reality has ever been likely.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound