From: JMS jmsmith2010 on
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:08:41 +0100, Roland Perry <roland(a)>

>In message <bajbs5docb3urp1vk6rdk6edr0fv213bmr(a)>, at 15:14:27 on
>Wed, 14 Apr 2010, JMS <jmsmith2010(a)> remarked:
>>It is a simple question - not circumstance specific at all - "on
>>The fact that you refuse to answer is sufficient.
>It's a stupid question, you are asking to average completely different

J: Does the average motorist ever break the speed limit?

Roland Perry: Don't be stupid it depends if you mean on a motorway or
not. Totally different things.


For those who missed it - here is the really difficult question for

Do you think that the wearing of a cycle helmet - by the average
cyclist - will most likely reduce or increase the level of injury if
they are involved in an accident?

Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.

The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)

From: Nick Finnigan on
ke10(a) wrote:
> In article <hq58bc$te9$1(a)>,
> Nick Finnigan <nix(a)> wrote:
>> ke10(a) wrote:
>>> In article <hq4rmt$gf1$1(a)>,
>>> Nick Finnigan <nix(a)> wrote:
>>>> Road users will tend follow dozy looking road users more closely than
>>>> they will competent looking ones,
> I suppose the two go together. But I would say I have a notion of a "normal"
> distance to stay behind a cyclist at a given speed, assuming overtaking to be
> impractical for the moment, and if the cyclist is
> wobbly I consciously stay further behind.

'Wobbly' tends to go with 'slower speed' though.
From: Nick Finnigan on
Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <hq4rmt$gf1$1(a)>, at 17:49:25 on
> Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)> remarked:

>>>>> Or are you claiming that motorists won't give more
>>>>> vulnerable-looking cyclists more caution/respect?
>> I am implying appreciation / regard / esteem, the normal meaning of
>> 'giving respect to someone'.
> Whereas I mean "giving them more consideration, showing more care".

OK, that is clearer. Hmm, only if you count children as 'vulnerable
looking' rather than 'untrained and unpredictable looking'.

>> Road users will tend follow dozy looking road users more closely
> Another highly ambiguous word. Perhaps you mean "diligently" rather than
> "at a much sorter distance"?

Again, I am using the normal sense of 'at a shorter distance'.

>> than they will competent looking ones, but I don't know how that fits
>> into your interpretation of 'caution'.
> "Diligently" would indeed fit my idea of caution.

Following diligently would imply continuing to follow (at a close
distance) even when there were perfectly good opportunities to pass. Which
would not be considerate.
From: john wright on
On 15/04/2010 19:21, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <82masfFbdqU1(a)>, at 18:04:15 on Wed, 14 Apr
> 2010, john wright <john(a)> remarked:
>>>> why do you not point out a single credible paper which supports
>>>> your view?
>>> Why the obsession that everything in life has to be proved in a "paper"?
>> I think JMS is using the standard abbreviation for a "published piece
>> of peer reviewed research".
> Yes, I appreciate that. But people publish "papers" that contradict each
> other, so why the assumption that anything in a "paper" has to be true,
> and conversely that anything not in a paper is likely to be untrue (on
> the feeble grounds that anyone wanting to prove their opinion is true
> should be forced to go to the bother of encapsulating it in a paper)?

Science is about debate, or it should be. Also we know the peer review
process can fail - two examples, Andrew Wakefield and Pons/Fleischmann.
Of course to take part in any debate you need to know what you're
talking about.

John Wright

Use your imagination Marvin!

Life's bad enough as it is - why invent any more of it.
From: Steve Firth on
Roland Perry <roland(a)> wrote:

> >> Please answer the question.
> >
> >I have, clearly and in English.
> q: "are you claiming that motorists won't give more
> vulnerable-looking cyclists more caution/respect?"
> a: "I'm pointing out that motorists tend to treat cyclists with
> caution and respect."
> Which doesn't answer the question about a possible sliding scale, and
> the "more" in my question.

Which part of the answer do you not understand?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

> >>What I said was that (probably subconsciously) they
> >> will give them slightly less respect.
> >
> ><shrug> You make an incorrect statement, you have nothing to back it up.
> Only common sense. Sorry, I don't have a peer reviewed paper defining
> "common sense".

Ah yes, "common sense", that last resort of the scoundrel.