Conservative Way Forward

From their document, "Stop the War Against Drivers" (http://
http://www.conwayfor.org/policypaper...cy_paper.pdf):

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally
applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state
control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people
rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or
exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in
order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on
mobility."

Well I never. So the war on drivers and those sad little motorist-
haters really do exist, and they're not just a figment of my
imagination. Yet apparently *not one* of those sad little motorist-
haters has found their way onto urc, the hotbed of pro-motorist
restricting, anti-Safe Speed and pro-speed camera sentiment (in other
words, the hotbed of extremists who "make false or exaggerated claims
about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls
for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility")! Fancy that!

Well, all I can say is that Chapman, Spindrift and all their boring
generic followers really should hook up with the sad little motorist-
haters, as it's extraordinary just how much you appear to have in
common. In fact, it's a bit too extraordinary. It's much more likely
that (perish the thought) Chapman, Spindrift and the other trolls are
lying about not being sad little motorist-haters. After all, "Such
people rarely admit their prejudices openly".

Who's going to be the first to break ranks and admit that they hate
cars? Or are you all too scared of Chapman and Spindrift? What is it
that you think they're going to do, exactly? Or is it just that you
know you won't be able to defend your motorist-hating? In which case,
why not just STOP HATING CARS?

One or the other please. Either admit that you hate motorists, or
stop hating them. It's time for some honesty please.

(Cue lots of bull**** about how Conservative Way Forward must be
lying. Yawn.)

On 18 Mar, 11:59, Nuxx Bar wrote:

Either admit that you hate motorists, or
stop hating them. It's time for some honesty please.


Either admit that you beat your wife, or
stop beating her. It's time for some honesty please.

Nuxx Bar wrote:
From their document, "Stop the War Against Drivers" (http://
http://www.conwayfor.org/policypaper...cy_paper.pdf):

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally
applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state
control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people
rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or
exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in
order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on
mobility."

This is a political bit of electioneering, just to get votes from people
like yourself, who fell persecuted.


One or the other please. Either admit that you hate motorists, or
stop hating them. It's time for some honesty please.

I don't hate cars, and have never hatted cars. If read through this
group instead of posting poor trolling posts you would realise that.
There are currently two threads specifically about buying cars, and most
posters own cars.

(Cue lots of bull**** about how Conservative Way Forward must be
lying. Yawn.)

Bring this subject back on topic for the group, if you scroll down to
pages 9 and 10 you will find what many cyclist have been saying for many
years (apart from the last paragraph):

Cycle lanes and facilities
There is no doubt that cycling is a valuable mode of transport, especially in urban areas where
it can help reduce congestion. Unfortunately, many schemes introduced by local authorities, in
response to pressure to ‘assist’ cyclists, are so badly conceived and implemented that they
create danger, delay traffic, and cause animosity between cyclists and other road users.

Cycle lanes marked on the road are supposed to give cyclists a feeling of safety but often have
the opposite effect. By segregating cyclists from motor vehicles in this way, cyclists feel
pressured into riding within the cycle lanes and drivers do not always give them enough room
when overtaking. Thus cyclists tend to be ‘squeezed’ more by passing vehicles than if they were
riding as part of the general traffic, but drivers may resent a cyclist riding in a more assertive,
prominent and safer position on the road if a cycle lane exists.

Cycleways marked on footways alongside urban roads are often interrupted at frequent
intervals by crossings of side roads and entrances, where cyclists need to give way.
Consequently, cyclists may make less progress than if they cycled on the road, but may again
be resented by other road users if they do so. Shared footways may be helpful to younger or
less confident riders, but for experienced cyclists are worse than no facility at all.

In urban areas, where speed differentials between cyclists and motor vehicles are relatively low,
little in the way of physical infrastructure is needed to help cyclists use the roads safely. Most
on-road cycle lanes should be removed and attention given instead to encouraging cyclists to
take training, such as that provided by the Cyclists Touring Club29, on how to use the roads
confidently as part of general traffic. Cycling can be encouraged more by secure cycle parking
facilities at locations such as shopping centres and public transport interchanges than by white
paint and coloured road surfaces.

Outside urban areas, where the difference in speeds between cyclists and motor vehicles is
greater, the presence of cyclists on the road can cause frustration for drivers and danger to
cyclists, if drivers do not give them sufficient room when overtaking. Here there is a good case
for providing cycle tracks physically separated from the road where possible.

Response to Martin Dann
Bring this subject back on topic for the group, if you scroll down to
pages 9 and 10 you will find what many cyclist have been saying for many
years (apart from the last paragraph):

[snip]
Outside urban areas, where the difference in speeds between cyclists and motor vehicles is
greater, the presence of cyclists on the road can cause frustration for drivers and danger to
cyclists, if drivers do not give them sufficient room when overtaking. Here there is a good case
for providing cycle tracks physically separated from the road where possible.


Nuxx Spart But that only PROVES what all the Fascist ANTI-CYCLING
TROLLS which infest this newsgroup just won't admit, that they hate
bikes and will stop at nothing until bikes are totally, erm, ERADICATED
from the roads by measures which the Fascist bike-haters hypocritically
TOTALLY DENY are in any way aimed at bikes, although it's obvious to any
sane and objective extremist that [continues for 94 pages]


--
Mark, UK
"Between believing a thing and thinking you know is only a small step
and quickly taken."

Nuxx Bar wrote:

One or the other please. Either admit that you hate motorists, or
stop hating them. It's time for some honesty please.

I hate cars for lots of reasons, although I have two of them myself;
motorists are mostly crap but then that's people for you.

I like bikes though, and motorcycles :-)

Still, it doesn't really matter because before too long there will be no
fuel to put in our precious tin boxes.

hth,

T

On Mar 18, 4:12 pm, Mark McNeill wrote:
Outside urban areas, where the difference in speeds between cyclists and motor vehicles is
greater, the presence of cyclists on the road can cause frustration for drivers and danger to
cyclists, if drivers do not give them sufficient room when overtaking. Here there is a good case
for providing cycle tracks physically separated from the road where possible.

But in my experience there are more problems with dangerous overtaking
in urban areas than on country lanes. Especially in urban areas where
there are cycle lanes, even those with occasional physical barriers
between the cycle lane and the rest of the carriageway (e.g. traffic
calming narrowings).

peter

"TonyB" wrote in message
...


Still, it doesn't really matter because before too long there will be no
fuel to put in our precious tin boxes.

hth,

T

Apart from the biobutanol plant we are building at our place.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

"Nuxx Bar" wrote in message
...
From their document, "Stop the War Against Drivers" (http://
http://www.conwayfor.org/policypaper...cy_paper.pdf):

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally
applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state
control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people
rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or
exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in
order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on
mobility."


Ah, the right wing columnist effect

Find a group you disagree with (people who see a downside to the
unrestricted growth in road traffic).
Invent an fallacious reason for their argument ("they resent the loss of
state control over individual choice")
As nobody actually makes the fallacious argument, it's necessary to claim
that the arguments they 'do' make are false or exaggerated, as 'clearly'
these people have a hidden agenda.

Classic stuff. I'm just surprised that they've not got something about
cyclists hating the family too!

Simon Mason wrote:

Apart from the biobutanol plant we are building at our place.


Hope it's a very big plant... we need lots and lots of the stuff. we
also need to use land for growing food the teemining billions can eat
rather than growing petrol. Finally, is this stuff actually worth doing
from an efficiency point of view? How much do we need to put in to get
useful work out???

The days of petrol are clearly numbered and there really doesn't seem to
be a viable, cheap and plentiful technological cavalry riding over the hill.

Everyone seems to be under the impression somebody will find a cure but
I'm not so sure about that. I can see only trouble and strife and big
changes for all as we freewheel down the dead side of Hubble's peak.

The only question is when, not if...

T

"TonyB" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

Apart from the biobutanol plant we are building at our place.


Hope it's a very big plant... we need lots and lots of the stuff.


420 million litres of fuel per annum. *If* it gets the go ahead on 1 April.



The days of petrol are clearly numbered and there really doesn't seem to
be a viable, cheap and plentiful technological cavalry riding over the
hill.

I bike to work, so the more it costs the more I save :-)


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/