Reasonable? Necessary? You Decide

"Nuxx Bar" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Would you be prepared to
slow down to 10mph or pull over temporarily in such a situation, not
because you're "second-class traffic", but because it would be a
courteous and considerate thing to do?

Yes I would and in fact I do this quite regularly on the days I cycling to
and from work.

I don't like holding people up any more than the people like to be held up
so tend to look for places to move over whenever something comes up behind
me. If I can't find anywhere safe to stop then I will try to cycle as
briskly as is feasible to try and get to a stretch of road where it is safe
to overtake.

Quoted message said:

It depends on the DWL. Many are placed with the overtaking of 40mph
lorries in mind. It requires significantly less distance to overtake
a 15mph cyclist. Also some are placed in villages to "stop people
speeding". Again, this doesn't apply with 15mph cyclists.

Thank you for not trolling BTW. (It comes to something when it's
actually remarkable *not* to get a trolling reply. How sad that no-
one is allowed to come onto urc and even hint at sticking up for the
motorist, even when they stick up for cyclists at the same time. It
really does give the lie to claims that the trolls don't hate
motorists. They don't seem to realise that every time they troll they
just prove what I've been saying about them. Those silly, silly
trolls.)

Bobby Lightcycles

Mark McNeill said:

Response to Nuxx Bar

[30-odd lines snipped unread]

Wow - to borrow a gag from "Private Eye", you do like the sight of your
own voice, don't you? Wouldn't you like to write a bit more?

BTW, the vast majority of my previous reply was nothing to do with
you. Looks like you're self-centred as well as a complete twatty
clone troll.

On Feb 25, 9:07 pm, [email hidden] (Ekul

Namsob) said:

Nuxx Bar said:

Three little words. "I hate motorists." You can do it.

Most of us are motorists too.

I said it wouldn't take long.

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:48:44 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Why do you keep writing [censored] in the threads
that I start?

Just following your lead, is my guess.

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

On Feb 25, 9:07 pm, [email hidden] (Ekul

Namsob) said:

Nuxx Bar said:

As I said, anyone who sticks to properly and honestly debating road
safety, rather than deliberately snarling up the discussion with
personal attacks, is welcome.

So, are you willing to properly and honestly debate road safety here? If
so, would you mind doing as you were asked and as you promised to do
several days ago so that we can clear up the points of confusion?

The problem, you see, is that you keep referring to anti-motorist
measures, you keep accusing people of hypocrisy and of lying and yet you
refuse to tell us what these so-called anti-motorist measures are.

You know perfectly well what they are. They're the ones that you
advocate without question because they restrict and/or punish the
motorist. They're all around us. Road policy "innovations" in the
last 15 years have consisted of very little else. You and the others
are just trying to waste my time and get me to jump through hoops by
telling me to list them. Even if you claim not to believe that
they're anti-motorist measures, you know exactly which measures I'm
talking about. What typical troll tactics. Anything to delay the
discussion reaching its logical conclusion and the truth coming out.

Nevertheless, I'll do it (when *I* decide), because I'll only have to
do it once, and then the "I don't know what anti-motorist measures you
mean" avenue is closed off to the trolls forever. And no doubt that
when I do start the thread, you will be one of the first to reply,
with a wretchedly useless, unpleasant and vague post about how I
shouldn't have posted what I did (despite you telling me to do it in
the first place). The fact that you complain about every topic I
start, yet you haven't killfiled me (as I've already asked you to do),
indicates to me that you like trolling in my threads.

The list will be worth waiting for, I can assure you. It'll be really
funny watching the trolls claim that not a single instance of a single
one of the measures anywhere in the country has been implemented for
even slightly anti-motorist reasons (because they can say that with
100% certainty of course). And it'll be oh-so-telling when they'll
have to admit to mysteriously supporting each and every one of the
measures, whether or not they actually save lives, ease congestion or
do any good whatsoever. It'll be a coincidence like you've never seen
before. Except of course that it'll be one of those "coincidences"
that actually has a perfectly logical explanation.

The liars really should take a step back and realise how absurd this
"I'm not at all anti-motorist" thing has become. This is the trouble
with lying: once you tell one lie, you have to say ever more
preposterous things to cover it up. And some of the things that the
trolls say to cover up the "I'm not anti-motorist" lie are way beyond
preposterous. Why are they lying at all? It must be that they're
ashamed of their position; it's the only thing that makes any sense
whatsoever. They are clearly incredibly worried about the prospect of
having to justify and defend their anti-motorist stance. They would
have to be to bother telling such farcical lies. It really is
ridiculous. Absolutely barking. It would be like all Safe Speed and
ABD members turning round and saying "We're not on the motorist's
side". Well, they are on the motorist's side, so it makes sense that
those of you who oppose them would be anti-motorist. For heaven's
sake tell the truth trolls, before you lose every last shred of
credibility. You've had your fun, and now it's time to debate
properly and truthfully.

Don Whybrow said:

Nuxx Bar said:

It's lucky God doesn't exist, otherwise He'd be very, very cross with
the likes of you.

Blasphemer!

Heh. I didn't notice that, although maybe it was subconscious, as I
would *never* normally use the word "cross" in such a way.

[quote="Quoted message"][i] By jingo, the sig generator must have had some divine inspiration.[/quote]

Indeed, and it's a good 'un. Dawkins said something very similar in
"The Root of All Evil?" I shall have to research this Roberts
character.

Don Whybrow said:

Nuxx Bar said:

Three little words. "I hate motorists." You can do it.

I hate reckless, inconsiderate idiots.

In public transport, these are the people that insist on smoking on the
top deck of the bus, playing their music loudly and shouting insults at
each other.

On the pavements, they are the people who walk around with umbrella's up
when it is scarcely drizzling and never mind the pointy bits getting in
other peoples faces, or they walk 3 abreast in rush hour at barely a crawl.

On bikes, they are the pavement cycling, red light jumping, unlit urban
terrorists that think that the highway code is purely for cars.

In HGV's, they are they people that pull up at junctions alongside
vulnerable road users and then turn left crushing them against railings.

In PSV's and taxis, they are the drivers who think that the bus, cycle &
taxi lane is not for cyclists and they can be brushed aside into the gutter.

In other motorised vehicles, they are the ones that are so keen to save
the odd minute from their journey that they put other road users in danger.

In ...

Fortunately, despite these things being apparently all too common, most
people are not reckless, inconsiderate idiots. It is just a shame that
the few with the opportunity to cause death or serious injury to other
people are all in charge of motorised vehicles.

Thank you for that honest reply. I don't know why others here
apparently find it so difficult to admit that they even have the
slightest reservations about the car as a mode of transport.

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:55:13 -0000, "Adam Lea" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nuxx Bar wrote:
6. Location: a stretch of rural NSL road with double white lines.

A Cyclist is cycling down the road at 15mph. A Motorist comes up
behind the Cyclist having been safely proceeding at the 60mph speed
limit, and slows down to 15mph. The Motorist could overtake the
Cyclist without crossing the double white lines, but to do so would
mean going closer to the Cyclist than would be ideal (since the
Cyclist is wobbling somewhat). After checking that there is no
oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance, the Motorist briskly
overtakes the Cyclist, briefly going around 0.5m over the double white
lines to ensure that there is ample space. The Motorist is fined by a
policeman who was observing from an unmarked car behind.

Lucky to get away with his licence, should have had it taken off him
permanently. Deliberately endangered the life of both the cyclist and
oncoming traffic. Personally, I'd shoot the [censored].

Motorists do this all the time when I am cycling to work. The A29 is good
for 50-60mph along most of its length and I guess that some motorists can't
be bothered to slow down and wait until I have reached the stretch of road
with the broken white line.

I am puzzled about the "checking for oncoming traffic for a sufficient
distance" bit by Nuxx Bar. In my experience double white lines are placed in
areas where the sightlines are poor so I'm not sure how the motorist can
check for oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance.

This used to be the case, but there are many locations now where
double white lines have appeared where it can be safe to overtake,
especially if riding a motorcycle or overtaking a slow moving vehicle.
However, as a law abiding person, I no longer overtake in these places
if I would have to cross the double white line.

M.

He's not the messia, he's a naughty boy.

Good grief, maybe the safespeeding forum served the same purpose as
The Isle Of Sheppey- an official policy of containment so all the mono-
browed knuckle draggers are kept together and kept an eye on so they
don't contaminate normal society.

Far better that safespeeding attracts these bods, the ones who
literally [censored] themselves in fury at traffic wardens or speed cameras
or whatever and whine ceaselessly about how traffic law fines are
exactly like living in Nazi Germany.

Paul Smith lookalike:

http://www.brianmicklethwait.com/images/uploads/BeforeWorzel.jpg

"spindrift" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

He's not the messia, he's a naughty boy.

Good grief, maybe the safespeeding forum served the same purpose as
The Isle Of Sheppey- an official policy of containment so all the mono-
browed knuckle draggers are kept together and kept an eye on so they
don't contaminate normal society.

Far better that safespeeding attracts these bods, the ones who
literally [censored] themselves in fury at traffic wardens or speed cameras
or whatever and whine ceaselessly about how traffic law fines are
exactly like living in Nazi Germany.

Paul Smith lookalike:

http://www.brianmicklethwait.com/images/uploads/BeforeWorzel.jpg

ROTFL

I'm thinking the naughty boy is you. Are you trying to provoke a full-blown
jihad or just a fatwa?

Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Nuxx Bar said:

when a cyclist is punished for breaking a law. They are happy to apply
common sense and latitude to cyclists' infringements but not to
motorists'. I would like one of them to tell me why.

Who are these people?

I think many people might feel that a group who kill thousands and maim
tens of thousands a year and pollute massively while doing it - purely
for their own convenience - indeed deserve more stringent treatment
from the law than a group who do not. I certainly do, and I think I've
expressed why...
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Oil is for sissies
Today is Stilday, February - a weekend.

On Feb 26, 10:34 am, "budstaff"

budstaffdotusegroupatbtinternetdotcom said:

And BTW, we _know_ that many cameras are placed for revenue-generating
purposes rather than purely for safety, but we're prepared to go along with
that as they only penalise the stupid.

Who's "we"? I don't think many of the trolls will agree with you.
They think all cameras, and other anti-motorist measures, are great.
(And yes, visible cameras only penalise the stupid, but not hidden
mobile ones, unless you think that all drivers are stupid, because all
drivers speed.)

I'm not going to respond to most of the other comments, because the
trolling against me has reached fever pitch. The hypocrisy of those
who claim that *I* don't want to debate properly is breathtaking. If
you recall, I started this thread with a perfectly reasonable and
neutral post, which most of the trolls leapt upon with their
characteristic ad hominem and general twattery. That's what they
always do whenever they think they're in danger of being proved wrong
(i.e. most of the time). It reminds me of a cowardly school bully who
just hits anyone who gets the better of them in an argument.

It's now become obvious to me why other Safe Speed supporters have
long since given up trying to debate with you. It's not because
you're right (let me just repeat that: IT'S NOT BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT),
it's because you deliberately make yourselves as intolerable as
possible. And you would only be so utterly obnoxious if you knew they
had a point. Otherwise you would be happy to humour them with good
grace. Do you think that people who are right about something
generally give dissenting voices the kind of mauling that you do? No,
they patiently explain their position with logic, because they know
that truth will out, and no poison is required.

I'm sure it must be very difficult to admit that cameras don't work
after having claimed that they do for so long, but that's no excuse to
take it out on me or other Safe Speed supporters. We're just the
messengers, explaining the facts. Cut your losses, trolls, and accept
reality. Cameras don't work. And you should also accept that however
much you might *want* it to be true, the best way of making the roads
safer is not to restrict, frustrate, punish and irritate motorists.
It just isn't, and no amount of wishing otherwise will make the
slightest difference to that. Nor will throwing your toys out of the
pram whenever anyone explains it. I'm sorry that the facts aren't how
you want them to be, but that's hardly my fault.

Accept reality. Stop living a lie. You'll feel so much better for it
in the end.

On Feb 26, 11:53 am, Martin Dann <[email hidden]> wrote:

I haven't even read your post. You're worse than any of the other
trolls.

On Feb 26, 12:43 pm, David Damerell <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoting Ekul Namsob <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Nuxx Bar said:

when a cyclist is punished for breaking a law. They are happy to apply
common sense and latitude to cyclists' infringements but not to
motorists'. I would like one of them to tell me why.

Who are these people?

I think many people might feel that a group who kill thousands and maim
tens of thousands a year and pollute massively while doing it - purely
for their own convenience - indeed deserve more stringent treatment
from the law than a group who do not. I certainly do, and I think I've
expressed why...

Great! *At last*, someone has got close to admitting that they have a
fundamental problem with motorists.

I knew you could do it. Well done.

Nuxx Bar said:

On Feb 26, 10:34 am, "budstaff"

budstaffdotusegroupatbtinternetdotcom said:

And BTW, we _know_ that many cameras are placed for revenue-generating
purposes rather than purely for safety, but we're prepared to go along with
that as they only penalise the stupid.

Who's "we"?  I don't think many of the trolls will agree with you.
They think all cameras, and other anti-motorist measures, are great.
(And yes, visible cameras only penalise the stupid, but not hidden
mobile ones, unless you think that all drivers are stupid, because all
drivers speed.)

I'm not going to respond to most of the other comments, because the
trolling against me has reached fever pitch.  The hypocrisy of those
who claim that *I* don't want to debate properly is breathtaking.  If
you recall, I started this thread with a perfectly reasonable and
neutral post, which most of the trolls leapt upon with their
characteristic ad hominem and general twattery.  That's what they
always do whenever they think they're in danger of being proved wrong
(i.e. most of the time).  It reminds me of a cowardly school bully who
just hits anyone who gets the better of them in an argument.

It's now become obvious to me why other Safe Speed supporters have
long since given up trying to debate with you.  It's not because
you're right (let me just repeat that: IT'S NOT BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT),
it's because you deliberately make yourselves as intolerable as
possible.  And you would only be so utterly obnoxious if you knew they
had a point.  Otherwise you would be happy to humour them with good
grace.  Do you think that people who are right about something
generally give dissenting voices the kind of mauling that you do?  No,
they patiently explain their position with logic, because they know
that truth will out, and no poison is required.

I'm sure it must be very difficult to admit that cameras don't work
after having claimed that they do for so long, but that's no excuse to
take it out on me or other Safe Speed supporters.  We're just the
messengers, explaining the facts.  Cut your losses, trolls, and accept
reality.  Cameras don't work.  And you should also accept that however
much you might *want* it to be true, the best way of making the roads
safer is not to restrict, frustrate, punish and irritate motorists.
It just isn't, and no amount of wishing otherwise will make the
slightest difference to that.  Nor will throwing your toys out of the
pram whenever anyone explains it.  I'm sorry that the facts aren't how
you want them to be, but that's hardly my fault.

Accept reality.  Stop living a lie.  You'll feel so much better for it
in the end.

nuxxy, I've asked you politely ELEVEN TIMES ro respond to my points.

You choose not to do so, and then flounce out of the thread shocked
and appalled that nobody takes you seriously!

spindrift said:

safespeeding

Once again, will you either please explain why you keep saying
"safespeeding", or call the site by its proper name.

Are you implying that the very notion that speeding can be safe is
ludicrous? If not, what are you implying?

Nuxx Bar said:

On Feb 26, 11:53 am, Martin Dann <[email hidden]> wrote:

I haven't even read your post. You're worse than any of the other
trolls.

Because I have actually looked at the data myself, and seen the opposite
effect that Mr Smith produced?

Nuxx Bar said:

spindrift said:

safespeeding

Once again, will you either please explain why you keep saying
"safespeeding", or call the site by its proper name.

Are you implying that the very notion that speeding can be safe is
ludicrous?  If not, what are you implying?

Because smith encouraged speeding. he boasted of a road near his house
where he drove at 150mph.

He offered advice on dodging speeding tickets.

He claimed by misreading official statistics, fudging the data, and
ignoring contrary evidence that speeding was safe.

He claimed that residents who appealed for lower speeds were
"brainwashed"- he offered no evidence for this contention.

Speeding makes crashes more likley and increases the severity of the
injuries inflicted on the speeder, or, more commonly, on the poor sod
who encountered the speeder.

Now, I've answered your questions politely and without saying that you
must be mentally ill nuxxy.

Care to return the honour?

spindrift said:

Speeding makes crashes more likley

So you believe that increasing the speed limit enough to ensure that
*no* speeding can occur will minimize the likelihood of crashes occurring?

Perhaps you are confusing "speeding" with higher speeds, again. That
may explain your failure to accept that the "speeding" argument is a red
herring.

--
Matt B

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:44:43 -0800 (PST), Nuxx Bar
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Great! *At last*, someone has got close to admitting that they have a
fundamental problem with motorists.

Um, no, with motorists who kill - a smallish (though still much too
big) subset.

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