Yet another cyclist violently assaulted by motorist/s.

[spindrift]

Matt B wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > Matt B wrote:
> >
> > "We see the exact opposite at Seven Dials in London, where there are no
> > lines, signs, or signals. Cars, lorries, taxis stop half-way round the
> > roundabout to wait for cyclists or pedestrians taking the shortest
> > route
> > across the junction, or taking photos, or talking."
> >
> > You've clearly never negotiated this roundabout by bike.
> > This junction
> > is a nightmare, cars and vans edge out
>
> Ah, "edge out".
>
> > and block the roundabout so that
> > you have to slam your brakes on in the middle of the roundabout.
>
> Not if you use it with the same respect as the motorists and "edge out"
> yourself.
>
> > There
> > is anarchy at this roundabout,
>
> That is the idea.
>
> > no driver takes a blind bit of notice of
> > cyclists
>
> Respect is mutual. If a yob pushes past you as a pedestrian would you
> not treat him with contempt. I have seen taxis and lorries waiting
> whilst a tourist photographed his partner posing in the middle of the
> road in front of the monument on the roundabout. No aggression was
> displayed. I've observed cyclists crossing that junction - most do it
> cautiously, some go around the roundabout the 'wrong' way, I've never
> seen a problem. I've seen a disrespectful cyclist zooming across with
> no regard for other users - zig-zagging between stationary taxis and
> chatting pedestrians - but he was tolerated as a typical high-spirited
> asbo candidate.
>
> > here and accidents are common,
>
> Can you cite sources? Are they more common and more (or less) serious
> than at a similar junction with conventional traffic management?
>
> > including the florist's van
> > that sideswiped me.
>
> Did you report it? Was it your or their 'fault'? Have you ever been
> involved in a similar, or worse, incident elsewhere?
>
> --
> Matt B


Nice equation of cyclists with yobs there.

You plainly don't cycle and you have no idea what cycling is like at
this roundabout.

You are told that a van pulls out in front of a cyclist who has right
of way and you ask if the cyclist is at fault.

You are a gibbering idiot, a trenchant buffoon and an irredeemable
dickcheese.

 

[[email protected]]

spindrift wrote:

>
> You've never cycled this roundabout, have you?
> I obey the rules of the road, the vehicles ignore them and place me in danger.
> Meet up one day this week on a bike and I'll show you.
> Maybe when you see it for yourself you'll understand how dangerous it
> is.

You won't convince him spin. It is interesting, however, to how
similar the 'thought process' and obsessive behaviour of those with a
'libertarian' outlook tend to be, be they Paul you know who, our friend
Matt B or, to take a classic example, libertarian nut 'par excellence'
Sean Gabb. It's all rather scary really, a bit like doing a web search
and discovering all those right-wing BNP supporters who live a few
streets away and the dawning realisation that looking at the world
though sane eyes does not reveal the insanity which lurks beyond.

To be honest MattB's 'shared space' obsession rather sounds as though
it is just another in the long line of attempts made by motorists to
absolve drivers of responsibility for their actions. (The propagation
of the myth of 'dangerous roads' for example, actually meaning roads on
which it is more than averagely dangerous to drive dangerously). In
tune with this Matt's assertion that 'We cannot 'blame' those who obey
the laws of nature'. What was it that quote from 'The African Queen',
Oh yes:

Bogart: A man takes a drop too much once in a while, it's only human
nature.

Katharine Hepburn: Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world
to rise above.

Despite Matt's view that most drivers are at heart 'decent considerate
sort of chaps' in reality far too many people couldn't give a flying
what-not about the well-being of those who 'get in their way' when they
are driving. As Richard Freeman of the AA, said in The Guardian of 27
June 2003 regarding the lack of interest in pedestrian safety features
on the part of motorists when buying a car

"Occupant safety is something they can sell to the consumer. But the
attitude too often is that 'if somebody's stupid enough to walk in
front of my car, I don't give a monkey's what happens to them'."

 

[spindrift]

[email protected] wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
>
> >
> > You've never cycled this roundabout, have you?
> > I obey the rules of the road, the vehicles ignore them and place me in danger.
> > Meet up one day this week on a bike and I'll show you.
> > Maybe when you see it for yourself you'll understand how dangerous it
> > is.
>
> You won't convince him spin. It is interesting, however, to how
> similar the 'thought process' and obsessive behaviour of those with a
> 'libertarian' outlook tend to be, be they Paul you know who, our friend
> Matt B or, to take a classic example, libertarian nut 'par excellence'
> Sean Gabb. It's all rather scary really, a bit like doing a web search
> and discovering all those right-wing BNP supporters who live a few
> streets away and the dawning realisation that looking at the world
> though sane eyes does not reveal the insanity which lurks beyond.
>
> To be honest MattB's 'shared space' obsession rather sounds as though
> it is just another in the long line of attempts made by motorists to
> absolve drivers of responsibility for their actions. (The propagation
> of the myth of 'dangerous roads' for example, actually meaning roads on
> which it is more than averagely dangerous to drive dangerously). In
> tune with this Matt's assertion that 'We cannot 'blame' those who obey
> the laws of nature'. What was it that quote from 'The African Queen',
> Oh yes:
>
> Bogart: A man takes a drop too much once in a while, it's only human
> nature.
>
> Katharine Hepburn: Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world
> to rise above.
>
> Despite Matt's view that most drivers are at heart 'decent considerate
> sort of chaps' in reality far too many people couldn't give a flying
> what-not about the well-being of those who 'get in their way' when they
> are driving. As Richard Freeman of the AA, said in The Guardian of 27
> June 2003 regarding the lack of interest in pedestrian safety features
> on the part of motorists when buying a car
>
> "Occupant safety is something they can sell to the consumer. But the
> attitude too often is that 'if somebody's stupid enough to walk in
> front of my car, I don't give a monkey's what happens to them'."

Hi Howard

Hope things are good in France.

We've met MattB in various forms before, I fully expect his latest
humiliation to deter him not one jot from his defence of killer drivers
and speedophiles.

This is the man, remember, who DEFENDED Smith's perversion of justice
posts that gained exposure on Cycling Plus recently.

Why a speedophile clogs up cycling forums when he plainly doesn't use a
bike is beyond me, although i would heartily recommend he puts the
famous London drivers' tolerance to the test on the Seven Dials
Roundabout he keeps wanking over. Give us all a break if nothing else.

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:

Sorry to raise this, I know it's not good form to criticise style, but
is there any chance you could follow the 'normal' usenet quoting
conventions? It would make it easier to follow a thread, and follow the
gist, and who said what. The 'normal' convention is to nest and indent
with a ">" or ":" (or whatever) who said what, and to place your new
text in the appropriate place in-stream with the original post - and
only to keep parts of the original post that you are responding directly to.

> Nice equation of cyclists with yobs there.

Now now.

> You plainly don't cycle and you have no idea what cycling is like at
> this roundabout.
>
> You are told that a van pulls out in front of a cyclist who has right
> of way and you ask if the cyclist is at fault.

There is no right-of-way there - can you describe the scenario.

> You are a gibbering idiot, a trenchant buffoon and an irredeemable
> dickcheese.

Ahem, have you finished? Are you still interested in discussing this issue?

--
Matt B

 

[spindrift]

"There is no right-of-way there - can you describe the scenario. "

So a cyclist on the roundabout has no priority over cars waiting to
join the roundabout?

Cycling North from Garrick to go right down Long Acre:

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.s...=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf

You recommend drivers to shoot over the roundabout like the one who
swiped me?

And you ride a bike?

Muppet.

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
> "There is no right-of-way there - can you describe the scenario. "
>
> So a cyclist on the roundabout has no priority over cars waiting to
> join the roundabout?

Is it a roundabout? Are there any keep-left signs, chevrons, give-way
lines or signs? Isn't it just a 'free for all'? I'm not sure anyone
has the right-of-way. That's how these things work in the Netherlands.
Whenever I've been there there has been no apparent order.
Right-of-way is by consent, and the more polite and forgiving you are
the better it seems to work. Everything stops for everything else -
like when you are walking on a bust pavement.

> You recommend drivers to shoot over the roundabout like the one who
> swiped me?

No. I advise you not to assume priority, no-one else seems to. That is
how normal human interactions happen.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
>
>> You've never cycled this roundabout, have you?
>> I obey the rules of the road, the vehicles ignore them and place me in danger.
>> Meet up one day this week on a bike and I'll show you.
>> Maybe when you see it for yourself you'll understand how dangerous it
>> is.
>
> You won't convince him spin.

Convince me what? That black is white? What are the chances of me
convincing him that he is wrong?

> It is interesting, however, to how
> similar the 'thought process' and obsessive behaviour of those with a
> 'libertarian' outlook tend to be,

Don't those traits also apply to those of a more totalitarian bent?

> To be honest MattB's 'shared space' obsession rather sounds as though
> it is just another in the long line of attempts made by motorists
> absolve drivers of responsibility for their actions.

No. It's a way to ensure that motorists, rather than the state (via
signs, signals, lines) /are/ responsible for their own actions. that is
why it works. Those with experience of life know that those who are
overburdened with orders and instructions do not perform as well or as
efficiently, in tasks where original thought is required, as those who
are allowed to use initiative and are given a certain amount of 'free-rein'.

> Despite Matt's view that most drivers are at heart 'decent considerate
> sort of chaps' in reality far too many people couldn't give a flying
> what-not about the well-being of those who 'get in their way' when they
> are driving.

Do you have any basis for that?

> As Richard Freeman of the AA, said in The Guardian of 27
> June 2003 regarding the lack of interest in pedestrian safety features
> on the part of motorists when buying a car
>
> "Occupant safety is something they can sell to the consumer. But the
> attitude too often is that 'if somebody's stupid enough to walk in
> front of my car, I don't give a monkey's what happens to them'."

Is that a healthy attitude? Why preserve it then by denying motorists
the courtesy of being allowed to use their instincts rather than traffic
regulations to regulate their behaviour?

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>
> We've met MattB in various forms before, I fully expect his latest
> humiliation

What humiliation? Speak for yourself!

> to deter him not one jot from his defence of killer drivers
> and speedophiles.

I have NEVER defended killer drivers and I certainly don't defend
'speedophiles'.

I am a 'speedophobe', that is why I admire the 'shared space'
philosophy. It succeeds like no other policy has in reducing traffic
speeds. It does it without demonising motorists, and it does it in an
intelligent, and innovotive way. It alienates no-one (other than
anticar bigots) and brings communities together - rather than dividing
then - for the benefit of all.

What do you find so difficult with that concept?

--
Matt B

 

[spindrift]

Matt B wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > "There is no right-of-way there - can you describe the scenario. "
> >
> > So a cyclist on the roundabout has no priority over cars waiting to
> > join the roundabout?
>
> Is it a roundabout? Are there any keep-left signs, chevrons, give-way
> lines or signs? Isn't it just a 'free for all'? I'm not sure anyone
> has the right-of-way. That's how these things work in the Netherlands.
> Whenever I've been there there has been no apparent order.
> Right-of-way is by consent, and the more polite and forgiving you are
> the better it seems to work. Everything stops for everything else -
> like when you are walking on a bust pavement.
>
> > You recommend drivers to shoot over the roundabout like the one who
> > swiped me?
>
> No. I advise you not to assume priority, no-one else seems to. That is
> how normal human interactions happen.
>
> --
> Matt B


"I'm not sure anyone
has the right-of-way. "

I see. So you hold up as an example of a safe junction for cyclists a
junction you don't know anything about. And then you express bafflement
that people treat you as an idiot troll.

Mmmm.

 

[[email protected]]

spindrift wrote:

> Hi Howard
>
> Hope things are good in France.
>
> We've met MattB in various forms before, I fully expect his latest
> humiliation to deter him not one jot from his defence of killer drivers
> and speedophiles.
>

Hi spin. (The old 'Cycling Thread' spin reborn I assume).

Thanks, and yes, life is good, even though there is hardly any snow
around so my plans to ski all winter have been scuppered. Then again, I
can still get out on the bike!

I wish I had elicited 'MattB's' confession that he considers himself to
be a 'libertarian' (and now I see a 'speedophile') a little earlier.
This would have relieved me of the incorrect assumption that I was
having a meaningful discussion with a human being of normal rationality
and so could have saved me the bother of entering into a 'discussion'
with him. Still, that's what happens when you drop into forums after a
time away and so are not fully aware as to who the current trolls and
cranks are!

All the best

Howard.

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> I wish I had elicited 'MattB's' confession that he considers himself to
> be a 'libertarian'

I take it that you tend towards the 'totalitarian' then. You'd prefer
laws, rules, regulations, monitoring, tracking and oppression rather
than a system that reduces casualties on our roads. Fair enough, your
choice.

> (and now I see a 'speedophile') a little earlier.

Are you suggesting I'm a 'speedophile'? Have you ever read any of my posts?

> This would have relieved me of the incorrect assumption that I was
> having a meaningful discussion with a human being of normal rationality
> and so could have saved me the bother of entering into a 'discussion'
> with him. Still, that's what happens when you drop into forums after a
> time away and so are not fully aware as to who the current trolls and
> cranks are!

Classic! You've run out of ideas to support your unsupportable position
you mean. TBH, we'd all noticed anyway.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
> "I'm not sure anyone
> has the right-of-way. "
>
> I see. So you hold up as an example of a safe junction for cyclists a
> junction you don't know anything about.

No, a junction that worked beautifully each time I've seen it close-up.
I've seen cyclists and pedestrians crossing all ways, cars, taxis and
trucks stopping for pedestrians part way round the central feature,
people sitting on the steps of the central feature with their feet
stretched out onto the road.

Now please tell me, as I have confessed puzzlement - is it a roundabout ?

Also as a matter of interest do you know what the legal traffic
priorities are on it?

--
Matt B

 

[[email protected]]

Matt B wrote:

>
> Are you suggesting I'm a 'speedophile'? Have you ever read any of my posts?
>

Sorry Matt, I misread 'speedophobe' as speedophile. I can only plead
that reading the rest of your what you have posted temporarily turned
my brain to mush...

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Are you suggesting I'm a 'speedophile'? Have you ever read any of my posts?
>>
>
> Sorry Matt, I misread 'speedophobe' as speedophile.

Easy mistake to make ;-) It could have been worse - you could have
misread it as speediatrician!

> I can only plead
> that reading the rest of your what you have posted temporarily turned
> my brain to mush...

So you are still not convinced that we can get /much/ safer urban roads
by concentrating on de-regulation and relying upon human nature, rather
than getting into the vicious circle of creating ever more regulations
and then needing to enforce them all and creating a divide in the road
using population?

--
Matt B

 

[Stevie D]

[email protected] wrote:

> To give an example, the benefit of bullying past a cyclist is often
> high (no delay experienced, reduced fear of upsetting a driver behind
> for going 'too slowly', a preservation of the drivers self-image as a
> high-status road user and so on), and currently the perceived 'costs'
> are low, with drivers knowing that even if the cyclist is seriously
> injured that can expect only a small fine or perhaps have to attend a
> short 'driver awareness course',

I don't think it's as calculating as that.

Most drivers just don't see anything wrong with bullying their way
past cyclists - and probably don't even see it as bullying. They
overtake the cyclist without hitting him, what's the problem - surely
it's only dangerous if you have an accident?

Unfortunately, this is a perception problem that is exacerbated by the
propensity of some cyclists to ride in the gutter, leaving an inviting
looking wide space past them, and the propensity of many councils to
install totally inappropriate cycling facilities, typically cycle
lanes that are too narrow, or other routes to get cyclists off the
road - and so drivers start to cyclists as a nuisance to be got past
as quickly as possible.

The vast majority of the time, it's thoughtless, but not malicious.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________