Yet another speeding, uninsured, unlicenced, lying, killer motorist.

[spindrift]

On 22 Feb, 14:30, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 22 Feb, 14:03, "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 22 Feb, 13:59, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 22 Feb, 13:49, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
> > > > [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > > Quite clearly you are right, how silly of the rest of us not to have
> > > > > caught up with your enlightened attitude.
>
> > > > Not really mine - but that of those who have successfully implemented
> > > > such measures.
>
> > > > The sad thing is that so many are prepared to ignore the science and
> > > > persist with the old discredited ideas - because they know best!
>
> > > > --
> > > > Matt B
>
> > > Prove it then. Show where there is a general road usage policy that
> > > does not have communal laws that proscribe driving in a way that
> > > endangers others and does not prescribe legal concequences to those
> > > who disregard those proscriptions.
>
> > > Sniper8052
>
> > You could cite those European countries who have the assumed liability
> > in vulnerable road user collisions where cycling is up to ten times
> > safer than in the UK.
>
> > Moves to introduce the same legislation in the UK were violently
> > opposed by the ABD and motoring lobby.
>
> That would not prove the above. He needs to show that there is a
> general road usege policy that relies purley on altruism and not on
> penalties.
>
> Sniper8052- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'd like to see that too.

Danes are not genetically different so why is Denmark ten times safer
for cyclists?

Why is it mostly the UK where cyclists are treated as scum?

The OP suggested elsewhere that cycling was connected with socialism
and suffrage so the hoary old "You don't pay road tax" insults are
trotted out, plus the drip-drip effect of a media intent on
demonising, dehumanising and belittling cyclists:

Jeremy Clarkson. The Sun. London (UK): Jul 16, 2005. pg. 33

Copyright (c) News Group Newspapers Limited 2005

IN the wake of the London bombs we're told that many commuters are now
switching to bicycles.

This is great of course. On a bicycle, you don't have to sit next to a
lunatic, you won't be glued to your seat by a piece of chewing gum,
and
you will not be stopped by leaves on the line or industrial action.

However, can I offer five handy hints to those setting out on a bike
for
the first time.

Do not cruise through red lights. Because if I'm coming the other way,
I
will run you down, for fun.

Do not pull up at junctions in front of a line of traffic. Because if
I'm
behind you, I will set off at normal speed and you will be crushed
under
my wheels.

Do not wear lycra shorts unless you are Kate Moss. I do not wish to
cruise
down the road looking at your meat and two veg.

Do not, ever, swear at or curse people in cars or trucks. You are a
guest
on roads that are paid for by motorists so if we cut you up, shut up.

Do not wear a helmet. It makes you look ridiculous.

Clarkson believes people who cycle are sub-humans, it doesn't matter
if they are killed or injured. And the end result of car-dependence...
rocketing obesity levels, congestion, air pollution, thousands of
people killed every year by cars (e.g. 41 pedestrians were killed on
pavements by motoristss in 2003)

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
('"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com') wrote:

> Perhaps it is
> because you haven't been given a secure, demarked path through,
> dedicated to the safe and speedy passage of mirror carriers - with de
> facto priority - and woe betide anyone who crosses your path.  You would
> probably die of embarrassment and apologise profusely if you bumped into
> anyone, or caused anyone to swerve or take evasive action to avoid you.

It may have escaped you notice, but car drivers aren't provided with such a
path, either.

> Imagine if driving a car through a town centre was similar to walking
> through a pedestrianised zone carrying a large mirror.

It is.

> Now explain to
> me why it has to be treated so differently - and why the same social
> norms wouldn't apply if all the "road safety paraphernalia" was removed.

Because of murdering bastards like you.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; This email may contain confidential or otherwise privileged
;; information, though, quite frankly, if you're not the intended
;; recipient and you've got nothing better to do than read other
;; folks' emails then I'm glad to have brightened up your sad little
;; life a tiny bit.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
[email protected] ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Which is one reason why I suggested in a consultation with DfT
> officials that drivers who cause death or injury to another are
> automatically charged with, or are automatically guilty of, dangerous
> driving if, 1: They do not hold a full drivers licence, UK or EU, and
> 2: Are driving otherwise than in accordance with the provisional
> licence requirements.
>
> After all if they are not under supervision and have not passed their
> test then they must be a danger to others.  Otherwise we would not
> need a test!

This whole thing about 'Causing Death by Dangerous Driving' is a total
nonsense anyway. You cannot cause death by safe driving. If death was
caused, the driving was dangerous. In my opinion the whole lot should be
struck off the statute book, and the charge should (always, automatically)
be culpable homicide[1] (as, indeed, it used to be).

[1] Or, in England, manslaughter.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
/-\ You have discovered a security flaw in a Microsoft product. You
|-| can report this issue to our security team. Would you like to
| | * Be completely ignored (default)?
| | * Receive a form email full of platitudes about how much we care?
\_/ * Spend hours helping us fix this problem on your own phone bill?

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Will Cove wrote:
> "spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in news:1172150535.924569.109840
> @v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:
>
>> You sad, insensitive muppet, of all the threads to push your pro-
>> speeding agenda on, sheesh.
>
> Enough!
>
> I'm absolutely sick and tired of trolls like you that use personal tragedy
> to take yet more cheap shots at the target of their bigotry. It is obvious
> that you don't give two hoots for road safety because you'd at least
> consider the alternatives if you did.
>
> Spindrift: once again seeking to close the stable door after the horse has
> bolted and execute the stable maid rather than seek a real and pre-emptive
> solution.
>
> Now why don't you post a ride report instead of bothering these good people
> with your personal vendetta.
>
> Welcome to the exclusive club of my killfile.

Do you know how much my irony meter cost? I couldn't afford one with
isolated probes and overload protection, so now you've gone and broken it.

I think that spindrift doesn't post ride reports because his personal
cycling interest is in cycling safety and promotion. It can get a bit
tedious, but he has been careful in general not to overload the group,
not to jump into previously existing threads, and to respond to feedback
about the volume of posts he generates. The only thing that bothers me
about spindrift's posts is that the content is all true, and that it
does tend to obscure the fact that cycling is fun, practical, healthy
and normal.

I think that Matt B doesn't post ride reports because he has no interest
in cycling and his reason for posting here is to derail conversations
posted here about people enjoying or discussing a part of their lives
which can be hard to talk about with this level of intelligence among
general social circles. I believe that his motivation for doing so is
generally cognitive dissonance related to the advantages of cycle based
transport and the disadvantages and downright chore that motor vehicle
transport generally is and must be in a wealthy society.

A

 

[Matt B]

Clive George wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Quite clearly you are right, how silly of the rest of us not to have
>> caught up with your enlightened attitude.
>>
>> Now apply your brains to answering your own questions and you will
>> find the answers.
>
> Indeed. All he's done is rephrased the standard "put a spike on the
> steering wheel" thing. Make cars out of glass, and indeed people would
> take more care...

The thing is not to lull and coerce motorists into doing stuff that
999/1000 times may, because it relies on others blindly following the
rules too, be perfectly safe - yet expect them to be on the ball enough
for the 1/1000 event when they need to make a decision for themselves.

--
Matt B

 

[p.k.]

spindrift wrote:
>
> Danes are not genetically different so why is Denmark ten times safer
> for cyclists?
>
http://www.au.dk/en/is/living/cycling.htm

Physical activity figures centrally in the lives of Danes not only for
athletic reasons, but for practical reasons too. The reason for this is the
use of bicycles. Few people have cars, but three out of four Danes have a
bike. On a typical weekday afternoon during rush hour, it is often busier in
the bicycle lanes than on the actual streets!
.....
The roads in Denmark are very cyclist friendly, as you can imagine. Many
roads in the cities have bike lanes in both directions. Cyclists share all
the rules of the road with motorists, although they do have some unique
rights and obligations. As with cars, bikes always travel on the right side
of the road and consequently, cyclists must make large left hand turns, or
must walk their bikes through an intersection if they are on the wrong side
of the street. Hand signalling is required of cyclists. A left turn is
signalled by extending the left arm straight out and a right turn by
extending the right arm straight out to the right. To signal that a cyclist
is about to stop, he or she extends out his or her left arm and bends it
upwards from the elbow. A front (white) and back (red) light must always be
carried (on the handlebar and the mud guard, respectively) before sunrise
and after sunset. Remember that the rules of the road are taken very
seriously, and you can get hefty fines if you are caught breaking the rules.
But in this case, being a student is in your favour: you can get a student
discount on your fines!
......

Travelling long distances within the country can be done by bike fairly
effortlessly as *Denmark is essentially flat with a few rolling hills*

pk

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
>
> ABD:
> Driver should be able to choose a safe speed themselves!
>
> Sceptic:
> You mean like Denise Williams-Yelbert did when she killed Mr Ward?

Matt B:
No, like the good people of Drachten who haven't had an accident in
years. In fact they haven't had an accident since their roads were
deregulated, and pedestrians began to be treated with respect by motorists.

Or as the man responsible for the idea said "...we ask politicians to
allow people to be human again and to show more often social behaviour
again, also and precisely as drivers of cars."

--
Matt B

 

[spindrift]

On 22 Feb, 15:31, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
>
> > ABD:
> > Driver should be able to choose a safe speed themselves!
>
> > Sceptic:
> > You mean like Denise Williams-Yelbert did when she killed Mr Ward?
>
> Matt B:
> No, like the good people of Drachten who haven't had an accident in
> years. In fact they haven't had an accident since their roads were
> deregulated, and pedestrians began to be treated with respect by motorists.
>
> Or as the man responsible for the idea said "...we ask politicians to
> allow people to be human again and to show more often social behaviour
> again, also and precisely as drivers of cars."
>
> --
> Matt B

The Drachten intersection has nothing to do with a speeding uninsured
driver on a straight road.

Your claims are not true in any case.

Accidents fell, they certainly were not eliminated.

Holland, of course, has the assumed liability law.

I take it you would oppose the ABD and support moves to introduce
protective legislation for vulnerable road users in the UK, support
the lowering of the drink drive limit and a substantial increase in
speeding fines, as in Holland?

http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=932#_ftn6

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1295120.ece

http://www.larsoa.org.uk/news_feb07/news02_12feb.htm

 

[p.k.]

Matt B" <"matt.bourke wrote:
>
> Matt B:
> No, like the good people of Drachten who haven't had an accident in
> years. In fact they haven't had an accident since their roads were
> deregulated, and pedestrians began to be treated with respect by
> motorists.


Googling Drachten road safety led me to;

http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=932

Long and excellet discussion/description including:

Monderman says: "Pedestrians and cyclists used to avoid this place, but now,
the cars look out for the cyclists, the cyclists look out for the
pedestrians, and everyone looks out for each other. You can't expect traffic
signs and street markings to encourage that sort of behaviour. You have to
build it into the design of the road."

pk

 

[Matt B]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 22 Feb, 13:49, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> Quite clearly you are right, how silly of the rest of us not to have
>>> caught up with your enlightened attitude.
>> Not really mine - but that of those who have successfully implemented
>> such measures.
>>
>> The sad thing is that so many are prepared to ignore the science and
>> persist with the old discredited ideas - because they know best!
>
> Prove it then. Show where there is a general road usage policy that
> does not have communal laws that proscribe driving in a way that
> endangers others and does not prescribe legal concequences to those
> who disregard those proscriptions.

Many "Shared Space"-type schemes have been set-up in the U.S., U.K.,
Australia and Europe which rely less on regulation and more on human
interactions to ensure (yes _ensure_) road safety.

The recognised "father" of such schemes is the Dutch "traffic engineer"
Hans Monderman. He has said of road regulations:
"By regulating more the traffic behaviour becomes even more dominant,
specialists are going to run society instead of the other way round,
there will be more and more separate spaces, people will operate ever
more anonymously and will increasingly insist on their rights and on
rules. In this way in the end the powers that become responsible for
behaviour instead of the people themselves. In Shared Space, however, we
ask politicians to allow people to be human again and to show more often
social behaviour again, also and precisely as drivers of cars. That is
what our society needs. I am sure of that."

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
> On 22 Feb, 13:59, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On 22 Feb, 13:49, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Quite clearly you are right, how silly of the rest of us not to have
>>>> caught up with your enlightened attitude.
>>> Not really mine - but that of those who have successfully implemented
>>> such measures.
>>> The sad thing is that so many are prepared to ignore the science and
>>> persist with the old discredited ideas - because they know best!
>>> --
>>> Matt B
>> Prove it then. Show where there is a general road usage policy that
>> does not have communal laws that proscribe driving in a way that
>> endangers others and does not prescribe legal concequences to those
>> who disregard those proscriptions.
>
> You could cite those European countries who have the assumed liability
> in vulnerable road user collisions where cycling is up to ten times
> safer than in the UK.

Yes - isn't it funny how, out of all the towns in those countries, it is
only the ones that have chosen also to remove traffic regulations that
have eliminated road casualties - and only since the regulations were
removed. Funny too that in countries like ours where they have "fault
liability" that road casualties are also eliminated when the regulations
are eliminated. In fact the correlation is between the regulations and
the casualties - regardless of the liability system.

> Moves to introduce the same legislation in the UK were violently
> opposed by the ABD and motoring lobby.

Perhaps they have twigged to something that you have yet to realise.

--
Matt B

 

[Matt B]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
> ('"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com') wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
> http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/...08399.0.mums_rage_over_death_crash_charge.php
>> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as it
>> could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
>> relation to the following:
>
> Well, seeing it's cars that are causing the problem, let's ban cars then.

Is it the cars, or is it the drivers? If it is the drivers we need to
understand what it is that has changed, and affects their behaviour so
adversely when they are driving. We don't see the same faults in the
same people when they are walking. Now what is the main difference?
Ah!!! Eureka!!! They are HEAVILY regulated when driving, and not left
to rely on their own devices - unlike when walking. Let's set up some
studies to see if over-regulation could be the root cause. Ah, hang on,
hasn't some foreigner already thought of that and found it to be
precisely the cause. Mmmm.

--
Matt B

 

[spindrift]

On 22 Feb, 15:49, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> spindrift wrote:
> > On 22 Feb, 13:59, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >> On 22 Feb, 13:49, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>
> >>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>> Quite clearly you are right, how silly of the rest of us not to have
> >>>> caught up with your enlightened attitude.
> >>> Not really mine - but that of those who have successfully implemented
> >>> such measures.
> >>> The sad thing is that so many are prepared to ignore the science and
> >>> persist with the old discredited ideas - because they know best!
> >>> --
> >>> Matt B
> >> Prove it then. Show where there is a general road usage policy that
> >> does not have communal laws that proscribe driving in a way that
> >> endangers others and does not prescribe legal concequences to those
> >> who disregard those proscriptions.
>
> > You could cite those European countries who have the assumed liability
> > in vulnerable road user collisions where cycling is up to ten times
> > safer than in the UK.
>
> Yes - isn't it funny how, out of all the towns in those countries, it is
> only the ones that have chosen also to remove traffic regulations that
> have eliminated road casualties - and only since the regulations were
> removed. Funny too that in countries like ours where they have "fault
> liability" that road casualties are also eliminated when the regulations
> are eliminated. In fact the correlation is between the regulations and
> the casualties - regardless of the liability system.
>
> > Moves to introduce the same legislation in the UK were violently
> > opposed by the ABD and motoring lobby.
>
> Perhaps they have twigged to something that you have yet to realise.
>
> --
> Matt B- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Not true, as you've been told, and irrelevant to the thread since the
accident did not happen at a junction.

Assumed liability reduces accidents and does not cause a rise in
premiums.

Why should you and the ABD oppose it?

 

[Matt B]

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> I very rarely let trolls wind me up.

Same here.

> But you

Are you suggesting that you think I'm a troll???

> are the moral equivalent
> of the man who designed this gate:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT8235.JPG

Isn't that one of the few taboos on usenet - the VERY last resort for a
desperate loser.

--
Matt B

 

[John Hearns]

Matt B wrote:
>
> Many "Shared Space"-type schemes have been set-up in the U.S., U.K.,
>
What in the blue blazes has shared space got to do with this thread?

Some poor bloke was going about his business at 8am in the morning, and
his life was taken away by someone who had no business driving a car,
and did not even have the guts to speak at the man's inquest.


Yet again you tiresomely jump on subjects on this group to repeatedly
bend them round to endless discussions about your hobby horses.
Get lost.

 

[spindrift]

On 22 Feb, 15:55, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > in message <[email protected]>, Matt B
> > ('"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com') wrote:
>
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.120839...
> >> Yet more proof that our system of road use isn't working as well as it
> >> could. Isn't it time to consider the alternatives, especially in
> >> relation to the following:
>
> > Well, seeing it's cars that are causing the problem, let's ban cars then.
>
> Is it the cars, or is it the drivers? If it is the drivers we need to
> understand what it is that has changed, and affects their behaviour so
> adversely when they are driving. We don't see the same faults in the
> same people when they are walking. Now what is the main difference?
> Ah!!! Eureka!!! They are HEAVILY regulated when driving, and not left
> to rely on their own devices - unlike when walking. Let's set up some
> studies to see if over-regulation could be the root cause. Ah, hang on,
> hasn't some foreigner already thought of that and found it to be
> precisely the cause. Mmmm.
>
> --
> Matt B

"Now what is the main difference? "

Err, drivers are surrounded by a ton of steel and, as in this example,
face derisory penalties for killing someone. In any driver/vulnerable
road user collision the driver has far more protection and may suffer
a scratched wing or bloodstained bonnet as opposed to a lose of life
or mobility.

Besides, you are misrepresenting the Drachten example, misrepresenting
the results (casualties HAVE NOT been eliminated) and misapplying the
example to a collision that DID NOT take place at a junction.

 

[Matt B]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it is
>> because you haven't been given a secure, demarked path through,
>> dedicated to the safe and speedy passage of mirror carriers - with de
>> facto priority - and woe betide anyone who crosses your path. You would
>> probably die of embarrassment and apologise profusely if you bumped into
>> anyone, or caused anyone to swerve or take evasive action to avoid you.
>
> It may have escaped you notice, but car drivers aren't provided with such a
> path, either.

Are you familiar with the kerbed, lined, signed and signalled artefacts
known as "roads"?

>> Imagine if driving a car through a town centre was similar to walking
>> through a pedestrianised zone carrying a large mirror.
>
> It is.

Ah, so we have /no/ road safety problems then - good.

>> Now explain to
>> me why it has to be treated so differently - and why the same social
>> norms wouldn't apply if all the "road safety paraphernalia" was removed.
>
> Because of murdering bastards like you.

Ooh, I don't like the tone, or the implications of that. Would you care
to explain, and substantiate, what you meant when you said: "like you".

--
Matt B

 

[Martin Dann]

Matt B wrote:
> Is it the cars, or is it the drivers? If it is the drivers we need to
> understand what it is that has changed, and affects their behaviour so
> adversely when they are driving. We don't see the same faults in the
> same people when they are walking. Now what is the main difference?
> Ah!!! Eureka!!! They are HEAVILY regulated when driving, and not left
> to rely on their own devices - unlike when walking. Let's set up some
> studies to see if over-regulation could be the root cause. Ah, hang on,
> hasn't some foreigner already thought of that and found it to be
> precisely the cause. Mmmm.

I have lost count of the amount of times I have been walked into my a
fellow pedestrian because they are not looking where they are going or
are using a mobile phone etc. This far exceeds the amount of times I
have hit a pedestrian on my bike(once only), or I have been hit by a car
(one major, several minor).

The difference is that pedestrians weigh approx 80kg, and move at about
3mph, so the collision between two people is usually on the squidgy level.

Cars can weigh 40 times as much, and one travelling at a mere 30mph has
4000 times as much kinetic energy. A collision between a car at 30mph
and a pedestrian is often on the crunchy level (bones braking).

Martin.

 

[BIG_ONE]

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The only thing that makes humans behave properly in relation to one
>another is fear of the concequences on what ever level that might be.
>Sniper8052

a fascinating insight into recreational cycling you provide

if it is true then people are not left free to choose how to behave,
and are thereby not personally responsible for any consequences, we
can blame/thank the instruments of repression for how 'properly'
people behave.

If I face a choice of two routes towards my destination, I am free to
choose either, and 99% of the time free from fear of the consequences
of that decision. I will usually choose the route that maximizes my
pleasure, but this does not reflect my proper relations with others
directly, only in so far as I become a more pleasant person. However,
in relation to other people, and being of a pleasant disposition I
will recommend the route to others that I consider most likely to
maximize their pleasure, thereby maximizing their pleasant behavior,
there is no fear of consequences only degrees of enjoyment, and this
is more socially proper than repression

 

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
> On 22 Feb, 15:31, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:
>> spindrift wrote:
>>
>>> ABD:
>>> Driver should be able to choose a safe speed themselves!
>>> Sceptic:
>>> You mean like Denise Williams-Yelbert did when she killed Mr Ward?
>> Matt B:
>> No, like the good people of Drachten who haven't had an accident in
>> years. In fact they haven't had an accident since their roads were
>> deregulated, and pedestrians began to be treated with respect by motorists.
>>
>> Or as the man responsible for the idea said "...we ask politicians to
>> allow people to be human again and to show more often social behaviour
>> again, also and precisely as drivers of cars."
>
> The Drachten intersection has nothing to do with a speeding uninsured
> driver on a straight road.

We can't stop the determined criminal, granted. But we can allow the
"normal" respectable human beings driving cars to be exposed to the
risls that they actually create - rather than regulating them into
corners which are humanly impossible to deal with safely.

> Your claims are not true in any case.

What claims?

> Accidents fell, they certainly were not eliminated.

No, sorry, it was only deaths, serious injuries and congestion that was
eliminated. Minor accidents have only been drastically reduced.

> Holland, of course, has the assumed liability law.

Can you explain though why that has no effect in the towns maintaining
the traditional "road safety" measures, and in countries such as ours we
can near-eliminate casualties with the de-regulation schemes?

> I take it you would oppose the ABD and support moves to introduce
> protective legislation for vulnerable road users in the UK, support
> the lowering of the drink drive limit and a substantial increase in
> speeding fines, as in Holland?

Is there any evidence that "protective legislation", or increasing
speeding fines works anywhere? And by "evidence" I don't mean ignorant
spoutings by someone obsessed with, not safety, but "speeding", claiming
that a correlation proves causation.

--
Matt B