Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:43:17 +0000, Marc
said in
:

I have it on a random kill file, that way I can get to take the **** out
of it when I want to, and if it replies, it never knows if it has been
read and ignored, or just ignored.

The problem with that is that it then pretends that its continued
trolling is *your* fault. Whether it is a genuine sociopath or just
an idiot who is boxed into a situation with no graceful way out, I
would not like to call, but every single post it has made here for a
long time has been toxic. It certainly doesn't give a flying ****
about cycling, so we should simply ignore it and get back to the
real business of discussing Marmite.

I think a quick Google on previous posts makes it entirely clear who the
sociopath is round here Guy, and it isn't Judith...

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...

It certainly doesn't give a flying ****
about cycling, so we should simply ignore it and get back to the
real business of discussing Marmite.

I had some on crumpets this afternoon between fettling tandems. Mmmm.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:38:30 -0000, "Clive George"
said in
:

I had some on crumpets this afternoon between fettling tandems. Mmmm.

Marmite *and* crumpet? You have a tandem now?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:00:05 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

Guy says your daughter's injury is ignorable. As far as he's concerned,
she doesn't matter.
Let that be an end of it.

Oh look, an other lie. What I said was that injuries to pedestrians
caused by cyclists are, at a public policy level, ignorable. Which
is true, and is why no government has seen any need to do anything
about it. Want that changed? Write to your MP. I'd start by
lobbying to reduce road danger, so that cyclists did not feel
compelled to ride where they should not. Which would, incidentally,
also reduce the /real/ source of danger to pedestrians. The figures
for footway injuries due to motorists and cyclists have been
published many times now.

I agree, this should be the end of him.

Or it could be the end of this troll-started troll-infested thread.

Guy

I bow to your intimate knowledge of trolls, are you self taught or did
you pay for lessons?

--
Tony the Dragon

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:00:05 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

Guy says your daughter's injury is ignorable. As far as he's concerned,
she doesn't matter.
Let that be an end of it.

Oh look, an other lie. What I said was that injuries to pedestrians
caused by cyclists are, at a public policy level, ignorable.

Why should this be?

Which
is true, and is why no government has seen any need to do anything
about it. Want that changed? Write to your MP. I'd start by
lobbying to reduce road danger, so that cyclists did not feel
compelled to ride where they should not.

Ah the 'I put others in danger to make me feel safer' answer.

Which would, incidentally,
also reduce the /real/ source of danger to pedestrians. The figures
for footway injuries due to motorists and cyclists have been
published many times now.

I agree, this should be the end of him.

Or it could be the end of this troll-started troll-infested thread.

Guy

If you are correct, can you explain why none of my family have never had
a near miss with a car on the footway, but have had many with cyclists?

--
Tony the Dragon

Tony Dragon wrote:

can you explain why none of my family have never had
a near miss with a car on the footway, but have had many with cyclists?


Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured by
motorists than cyclists ?

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:59:37 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

If you are correct, can you explain why none of my family have never had
a near miss with a car on the footway, but have had many with cyclists?

Probably something to do with the danger of motor traffic
encouraging cyclists to believe (wrongly) that they are at less risk
on the footway, a misapprehension actively supported by many
councils through the use of Magic White Paint.

In fact, I have been shouted at by a driver for not being on the
footway even when there is *no* Magic White Paint.

There is, too, the fact that you are clearly looking for this
behaviour and therefore noticing it. Like all the drivers who
complain about cyclists wearing dark clothing at night because it
makes them impossible to see. If it did, how would they know? It's
just the usual psychological targeting of an "out group".

Reduce the danger on the roads and I would like to suggest that the
problem of which you complain would reduce in equal measure. Worth
a try, yes?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

Señor Chris wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:

can you explain why none of my family have never had a near miss with
a car on the footway, but have had many with cyclists?


Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured by
motorists than cyclists ?


Here is a word you missed *footway*

--
Tony the Dragon

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:59:37 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

If you are correct, can you explain why none of my family have never had
a near miss with a car on the footway, but have had many with cyclists?

Probably something to do with the danger of motor traffic
encouraging cyclists to believe (wrongly) that they are at less risk
on the footway, a misapprehension actively supported by many
councils through the use of Magic White Paint.

In fact, I have been shouted at by a driver for not being on the
footway even when there is *no* Magic White Paint.

There is, too, the fact that you are clearly looking for this
behaviour and therefore noticing it.

And I somehow missed the large lumps of iron (cars) that you infer are
on the footway?

Like all the drivers who
complain about cyclists wearing dark clothing at night because it
makes them impossible to see.

Do you think cyclists should wear clothing that can be seen at night?

If it did, how would they know? It's
just the usual psychological targeting of an "out group".

Reduce the danger on the roads and I would like to suggest that the
problem of which you complain would reduce in equal measure. Worth
a try, yes?

Guy

Of course any safety measure would be worth a try, like for instance,
not cycling on footways.
--
Tony the Dragon

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Tony Dragon :

Guy says your daughter's injury is ignorable. As far as he's concerned,
she doesn't matter.
Let that be an end of it.

Oh look, an other lie. What I said was that injuries to pedestrians
caused by cyclists are, at a public policy level, ignorable.

Since these discussions are precisely *about* public policy (and about views
as to what that public policy should be), the quote above (which,
incidentally, was of my coinage) is identical to what you say.

Critics of footway cyclists are asking for a public policy of robust
enforcement of the law against cycling along the public footway.

You are saying (in effect, and I'm sorry if you don't like the perceived
effect of whay you say) that it doesn't matter.

Which is true,

There you go.

Horse's mouth and all that.

and is why no government has seen any need to do anything
about it. Want that changed? Write to your MP. I'd start by
lobbying to reduce road danger, so that cyclists did not feel
compelled to ride where they should not.

Why bother?

Why not just "start" by arresting footway cyclists, fining them (heavily) and
crushing their bikes?

That'd do the trick, sharpish.