On Jun 6, 6:52 am, Doug <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5 Jun, 12:52, "Graculus" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:bf6a8355-e7fe-4ecd-a271-e2564f853551@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On 5 Jun, 06:31, Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> On Jun 5, 5:48 am, Doug <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> > On 4 Jun, 20:51, Me <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> > > In article <31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405
> > >> > > @e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [email protected] says...
>
> > >> > > > On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus" <[email protected]>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > > "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >> > > > >news:[email protected]...
>
> > >> > > > > > 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.
>
> No I get bored by these endless justifications for motorists who kill
> thousands every year on our roads, compared with whom cyclists hardly
> kill any at all. And yet who usually has to take the blame, yes
> cyclists, for rashly allowing motorists to kill them.
Ah, simplistic, sanctimonious hysteria: the "weapon" of choice of the
politically-motivated motorist-hater.
Road transport is absolutely essential for our economy. If everyone
were to stop using their cars, motorbikes and lorries today, or
anytime soon, a lot more people would die than the ~3500 dying on the
roads each year. There would be other problems also caused by taking
cars away from people: how would people drive themselves or their
loved ones to hospital if there was no time to wait for an ambulance,
for example? Bullying people out of their cars is simply not a viable
option for reducing overall deaths. The public transport network
isn't developed enough to take over, and it never will be.
It's far better to concentrate on reducing road deaths as far as
possible by improving road safety, and this is where you and your ilk
on urc show your true colours. Your dogged refusal to do anything but
support speed cameras, despite the science demonstrating amply that
they actually make matters worse for road safety, indicates that you
aren't really concerned about people dying on the roads, you're simply
concerned about bullying people out of their cars as an end in itself.
Fewer than 2% of accidents are caused by otherwise law-abiding
motorists exceeding the speed limit, yet you still support cameras as
the main road "safety" emphasis. Road deaths stopped falling as they
had been for decades when cameras were introduced (we could have
expected over 1000 a year fewer deaths than we currently get by now),
yet you still support them. Over 40 deadly side effects of cameras
have been listed, yet you still support them. But cameras are also a
great way of persecuting motorists, by getting them off the road in
their hundreds of thousands, and *that* is why you really support
them. You care more about persecuting motorists than you do about
reducing road deaths; you only pretend to care about road deaths
because you think you can use it to further your anti-car agenda.
It's disgraceful.
> When are people like you going to wake up to the fact that there is a
> widespread climate of complacence about road killings and the right to
> drive regardless? I atribute this to the fact that the car culture is
> allowed to permeate and dominate unchallenged virtually every aspect
> of our society, including government, police, judges and juries and,
> of course, news groups.
As I said above, cars are vital for society in its current form. The
reason for the permeation of "car culture" is not that people want to
"be lazy", "be selfish", or "annoy you"; the majority of the time,
road transport is by far the best tool for the job, and without it (or
even with less of it), there would be far more to worry about than
~3500 deaths a year (not that that's acceptable, which is why people
who really care about road safety are campaigning to get that figure
substantially reduced). It's far better to accept that road transport
is here to stay, and campaign for measures which will genuinely reduce
the death toll.
