Yet another cyclist violently assaulted by motorist/s.

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

"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 Ac

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.sr...=newsearch.srf

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

And you ride a bike?

Muppet.

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

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

spindrift wrote:
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

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.

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.

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

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

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...