Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: MasonS on 20 Dec 2009 08:32 On 20 Dec, 13:13, Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > In article <15f903a2-dc8a-45ab-90d6- > acda025fc...(a)p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Mas...(a)BP.com says... > > > > > If you can't understand that, then there is no hope for you. > > Anyone who claims to work for BP and still lives in Hull obviously > hasn't the intelligence to work it out. > > Then again, you could just be the security bod and going by the areas > you've photographed, thats likely the case. I live between Anlaby and Swanland, if that is any relevance as to why cycle lanes aren't gritted. FWIW, the security bods are all contractors. -- Simon Mason
From: JNugent on 20 Dec 2009 08:47 MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: >>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Phil W Lee wrote: >>>> Or how about this from The Evening Standard :- >>>> "A City fund manager has been knocked down and killed in a collision with a >>>> cyclist on his way to work. >>>> Nick Bancroft was a year away from retirement when the accident happened >>>> just yards from his �2 million Holland Park home". >>> That was more than *two years* ago >> ...so that death, caused by an anti-social-turd-on-a-bike, obviously doesn't >> matter. It's just collateral damage, possibly regrettable (not certainly so - >> the victim may have been a "motorist", of course) but totally acceptable (to >> SM(a)BP and PWL) because riding on footways makes cyclists feel better. >>> How many thousands of people have been killed by cars since then? >> What's the relevance of that question? > The mote in your own eye, etc. Old as the hills. So it's not relevant at all, then? > "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you > will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Er... yes... I'm familar with the passage. I think we can all be fairly certain that it was not delivered as part of a policy speech on cyclist-safety.
From: JNugent on 20 Dec 2009 08:52 MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> What does it say about the Transport Select Committee, then? > It's as "biased" as Transport 2000, obviously, or whatever mocking > term you have invented for it in an attempt to make fun of its > findings that the cost to society caused by motorists including NHS > costs, pollution, congestion, costs of emergency services, noise > pollution, reduction of quality of life, reduction in house prices, > damage to the environment etc etc aren't even met by half of what they > pay in tax. Transport 1895 has nothing to say on transport that couldn't easily be predicted as the outpourings of bus operators and their friends. Vested interests are easy to see through. Not that that has anything at all to do with the question at hand, which was: (a) the Daily Express (apparently) quotes the HoC Transport Select Committee; (b) you attack it, but (c) don't say whether it reports the Select Committee accurately. > The Daily Express of course only cites sources that look at the money > put into road building and simply subtracts that from the tax take. > The last ruse was trying to prove a link between oil tankers in the > Channel "waiting for oil prices to rise" and the price that Colonel > Blimp pays at the pump. Cue outraged letters to the rag. > I'm surprised you get taken in by it all. You're the one who reads it, not I. All of this is new to me. But still... back to the question... What does [ie, what the Daily Express says] say about the Transport Select Committee, then?
From: MasonS on 20 Dec 2009 08:59 On 20 Dec, 13:47, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: > > JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > >> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: > >>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >>>> Phil W Lee wrote: > >>>> Or how about this from The Evening Standard :- > >>>> "A City fund manager has been knocked down and killed in a collision with a > >>>> cyclist on his way to work. > >>>> Nick Bancroft was a year away from retirement when the accident happened > >>>> just yards from his £2 million Holland Park home". > >>> That was more than *two years* ago > >> ...so that death, caused by an anti-social-turd-on-a-bike, obviously doesn't > >> matter. It's just collateral damage, possibly regrettable (not certainly so - > >> the victim may have been a "motorist", of course) but totally acceptable (to > >> SM(a)BP and PWL) because riding on footways makes cyclists feel better. > >>> How many thousands of people have been killed by cars since then? > >> What's the relevance of that question? > > The mote in your own eye, etc. Old as the hills. > > So it's not relevant at all, then? > > > "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you > > will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." > > Er... yes... I'm familar with the passage. I think we can all be fairly > certain that it was not delivered as part of a policy speech on cyclist-safety.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - No, but the concept of concentrating on a tiny aspect of one group (one death a YEAR), in a futile attempt to deflect the criticism of the mass carnage (10 deaths a DAY) caused by another group is as old as the written word. Plus ça change (plus c'est la même chose) -- Simon Mason
From: JNugent on 20 Dec 2009 09:01
MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 20 Dec, 13:47, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: >>> JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >>>> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: >>>>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> Phil W Lee wrote: >>>>>> Or how about this from The Evening Standard :- >>>>>> "A City fund manager has been knocked down and killed in a collision with a >>>>>> cyclist on his way to work. >>>>>> Nick Bancroft was a year away from retirement when the accident happened >>>>>> just yards from his �2 million Holland Park home". >>>>> That was more than *two years* ago >>>> ...so that death, caused by an anti-social-turd-on-a-bike, obviously doesn't >>>> matter. It's just collateral damage, possibly regrettable (not certainly so - >>>> the victim may have been a "motorist", of course) but totally acceptable (to >>>> SM(a)BP and PWL) because riding on footways makes cyclists feel better. >>>>> How many thousands of people have been killed by cars since then? >>>> What's the relevance of that question? >>> The mote in your own eye, etc. Old as the hills. >> So it's not relevant at all, then? >> >>> "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you >>> will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." >> Er... yes... I'm familar with the passage. I think we can all be fairly >> certain that it was not delivered as part of a policy speech on cyclist-safety.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > No, but the concept of concentrating on a tiny aspect of one group > (one death a YEAR), in a futile attempt to deflect the criticism of > the mass carnage (10 deaths a DAY) caused by another group is as old > as the written word. > > Plus �a change (plus c'est la m�me chose) What a wonderful futile attempt to deflect. |