Fellow cyclists, are you suffering from air pollution caused by cars?

[Doug[_3_]]

In London the only targets currently being exceeded for air pollution
levels is by NO2, not by the frequently scapegoated PM10s from diesel
vehicles.

http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?region=0&site=MY1&bulletin=hourly&la_id=&statyear=2010&postcode=

And, quote.

"Car Exhaust - Air Pollutants

In cities across the globe, the personal automobile is the single
greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road
add up to a planet-wide problem. Driving a private car is a typical
citizen's most air polluting activity. The negative effects of
automotive emissions are maximum when you sit in traffic surrounded by
cars, their engines idling. Everyone sitting in a traffic jam is
getting poisoned.

The Combustion Process Gasoline and diesel fuels are mixtures of
hydrocarbons (made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms.) Hydrocarbons
are burned by combining with oxygen. Nitrogen and sulphur atoms are
also present and combine with oxygen when burned to produce gases.
Automotive engines emit several types of pollutants..."

"... Nitrogen Oxides Under high pressure and temperature conditions
in an engine, nitrogen and oxygen atoms react to form nitrogen oxides.
Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier
nitrogen gases, forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2) - 300 times more potent
than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. NO2 makes up about 7.2
percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with
catalytic converters produced nearly half of that NO2..."

http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm

So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have a
catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...

Doug, here some news for you. You don't have any fellow cyclists. All the
sensible, decent people disown you.
>
> So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have a
> catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.
>
In what way is that a "usual excuse"? You're the only person to spout it.
Any sensible person knows that it's a nonsense.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Doug wrote:
> In London the only targets currently being exceeded for air pollution
> levels is by NO2, not by the frequently scapegoated PM10s from diesel
> vehicles.
>
> http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?region=0&site=MY1&bulletin=hourly&la_id=&statyear=2010&postcode=
>
> And, quote.
>
> "Car Exhaust - Air Pollutants
>
> In cities across the globe, the personal automobile is the single
> greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road
> add up to a planet-wide problem. Driving a private car is a typical
> citizen's most air polluting activity. The negative effects of
> automotive emissions are maximum when you sit in traffic surrounded by
> cars, their engines idling. Everyone sitting in a traffic jam is
> getting poisoned.
>
> The Combustion Process Gasoline and diesel fuels are mixtures of
> hydrocarbons (made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms.) Hydrocarbons
> are burned by combining with oxygen. Nitrogen and sulphur atoms are
> also present and combine with oxygen when burned to produce gases.
> Automotive engines emit several types of pollutants..."
>
> "... Nitrogen Oxides Under high pressure and temperature conditions
> in an engine, nitrogen and oxygen atoms react to form nitrogen oxides.
> Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier
> nitrogen gases, forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2) - 300 times more potent
> than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. NO2 makes up about 7.2
> percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with
> catalytic converters produced nearly half of that NO2..."
>
> http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm
>
> So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have a
> catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.

which is why toyota prius is a good car for use in congested areas: no
exhaust emission while stationary and up to nearly 30mph (for short
distance)

[bugbear]

Doug wrote:
>
> So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have a
> catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#straw

BugBear

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have a
> catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.

That's me Ok then .. I replaced the cat with a straight through
downpipe.

Emissions were, measurably and significantly, reduced on the next MOT
... ;)

Mind, I also removed the egr valve, the centre silencer and timed the
engine/injector pump properly too .. ;)

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Car driver]

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 23:27:42 -0700 (PDT), Doug >
wrote:

>In cities across the globe,

I do not use my car to go into the cesspit of the inner city, I use it
carry the stuff I need, in the dry, to out of the way places at speeds
above that which cycling can achieve. Get a car and start living.
--
A.Motorist

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

bugbear wrote:
> Doug wrote:
>>
>> So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have a
>> catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.
>
> http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#straw
>
> BugBear

what a useful list of Doug's argument methods, a fascinating read, thank
you.

[ash[_2_]]

On 9 June, 07:27, Doug > wrote:
> In London the only targets currently being exceeded for air pollution
> levels is by NO2, not by the frequently scapegoated PM10s from diesel
> vehicles.
>
> http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?region=0&site=....
>
> And, quote.
>
> "Car Exhaust - Air Pollutants
>
> In cities across the globe, the personal automobile is the single
> greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road
> add up to a planet-wide problem. Driving a private car is a typical
> citizen's most air polluting activity. The negative effects of
> automotive emissions are maximum when you sit in traffic surrounded by
> cars, their engines idling. Everyone sitting in a traffic jam is
> getting poisoned.
>
> The Combustion Process *Gasoline and diesel fuels are mixtures of
> hydrocarbons (made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms.) Hydrocarbons
> are burned by combining with oxygen. Nitrogen and sulphur atoms are
> also present and combine with oxygen when burned to produce gases.
> Automotive engines emit several types of pollutants..."
>
> "... Nitrogen Oxides *Under high pressure and temperature conditions
> in an engine, nitrogen and oxygen atoms react to form nitrogen oxides.
> Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier
> nitrogen gases, forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2) - 300 times more potent
> than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. NO2 makes up about 7.2
> percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with
> catalytic converters produced nearly half of that NO2..."
>
> http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm
>
> So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have a
> catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> "The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".



Dr James Le Fanu (Central London based doctor) :- I have some personal
experience of Mr Yeo’s concerns as the area of London where I work –
just a mile from the House of Commons – includes one of the capital’s
busiest intersections. Every hour, thousands of cars pour over
Vauxhall Bridge and hasten down The Embankment filling the air with
their exhaust fumes. And yet I doubt I see a single patient with
pollution-induced symptoms (let alone fatalities) from one year’s end
to the next.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthadvice/jameslefanu/7528470/Doctors-Diary-pollution-deafness-and-cold-water-veins.html


Flogging a dead horse springs to mind, and if all the cars became as
clean as the Pious, Doug would still be bitching about the factthey
are in his way on the roads (and not paying VED) whilst he trundles
about on his illegal E-bike

[B186]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 09:17:32 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:

> which is why toyota prius is a good car for use in congested areas: no
> exhaust emission while stationary and up to nearly 30mph (for short
> distance)

Indeed, pity the people who use them exclusively elsewhere do not
understand they are wasting their time.
--
B186

[Mr. Benn[_4_]]

No.

I'm not stupid enough to cycle in places which are either dangerous for
cyclists or heavily polluted.

[Mike P[_12_]]

On Jun 9, 10:13*am, "Mr. Benn" > wrote:
> No.
>
> I'm not stupid enough to cycle in places which are either dangerous for
> cyclists or heavily polluted.

Well, quite...

I've cycled more miles than I've used the car the last two weeks. I've
done about 260 miles on the bike, around 200 in the car.

I don't cycle to work though, that would be insane.

Mike P

[bugbear]

Mrcheerful wrote:
> bugbear wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have a
>>> catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.
>> http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#straw
>>
>> BugBear
>
> what a useful list of Doug's argument methods, a fascinating read, thank
> you.

I've seen people other than Doug use them too :-)

BugBear

[Car driver]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:13:53 +0100, "Mr. Benn"
> wrote:

>I'm not stupid enough to cycle in places which are either dangerous for
>cyclists or heavily polluted.

Cycling can be nice in the country, in the big city where the militant
cyclists live, its better to use public transport. Who wants to mix it
with trucks and buses?
--
A.Motorist

[roger merriman]

Doug > wrote:

> In London the only targets currently being exceeded for air pollution
> levels is by NO2, not by the frequently scapegoated PM10s from diesel
> vehicles.
>
snips
>
nope my commute while urban and well within the M25 is though quiet
roads for most part and park lands.

<http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2562/3855717459_0d83784cb4.jpg>

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[GT[_2_]]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> In London the only targets currently being exceeded for air pollution
> levels is by NO2, not by the frequently scapegoated PM10s from diesel
> vehicles.
>
> http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?region=0&site=MY1&bulletin=hourly&la_id=&statyear=2010&postcode=
>
> And, quote.
>
> "Car Exhaust - Air Pollutants
>
> In cities across the globe, the personal automobile is the single
> greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road
> add up to a planet-wide problem. Driving a private car is a typical
> citizen's most air polluting activity. The negative effects of
> automotive emissions are maximum when you sit in traffic surrounded by
> cars, their engines idling. Everyone sitting in a traffic jam is
> getting poisoned.
>
> The Combustion Process Gasoline and diesel fuels are mixtures of
> hydrocarbons (made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms.) Hydrocarbons
> are burned by combining with oxygen. Nitrogen and sulphur atoms are
> also present and combine with oxygen when burned to produce gases.
> Automotive engines emit several types of pollutants..."
>
> "... Nitrogen Oxides Under high pressure and temperature conditions
> in an engine, nitrogen and oxygen atoms react to form nitrogen oxides.
> Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier
> nitrogen gases, forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2) - 300 times more potent
> than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. NO2 makes up about 7.2
> percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with
> catalytic converters produced nearly half of that NO2..."
>
> http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm
>
> So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have a
> catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> "The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
>

[GT[_2_]]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> In London the only targets currently being exceeded for air pollution
> levels is by NO2, not by the frequently scapegoated PM10s from diesel
> vehicles.

Most of which comes from public transport and lorries. Not cars, so you are
cross-posting your spam in the wrong place again Doug.

[Nkosi (ama-ecosse)]

On 9 June, 07:27, Doug > wrote:
> In London the only targets currently being exceeded for air pollution
> levels is by NO2, not by the frequently scapegoated PM10s from diesel
> vehicles.
>
> http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?region=0&site=....
>
> And, quote.
>
> "Car Exhaust - Air Pollutants
>
> In cities across the globe, the personal automobile is the single
> greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road
> add up to a planet-wide problem. Driving a private car is a typical
> citizen's most air polluting activity. The negative effects of
> automotive emissions are maximum when you sit in traffic surrounded by
> cars, their engines idling. Everyone sitting in a traffic jam is
> getting poisoned.
>
> The Combustion Process *Gasoline and diesel fuels are mixtures of
> hydrocarbons (made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms.) Hydrocarbons
> are burned by combining with oxygen. Nitrogen and sulphur atoms are
> also present and combine with oxygen when burned to produce gases.
> Automotive engines emit several types of pollutants..."
>
> "... Nitrogen Oxides *Under high pressure and temperature conditions
> in an engine, nitrogen and oxygen atoms react to form nitrogen oxides.
> Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier
> nitrogen gases, forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2) - 300 times more potent
> than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. NO2 makes up about 7.2
> percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with
> catalytic converters produced nearly half of that NO2..."
>
> http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm
>
> So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have a
> catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> "The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

Get off the road then ****wit

[Doug[_3_]]

On 9 June, 10:13, "Mr. Benn" > wrote:
> No.
>
> I'm not stupid enough to cycle in places which are either dangerous for
> cyclists or heavily polluted.
>
Very sensible but a pity that you should suffer such restrictions
because of the harm others are allowed to cause you.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> In London the only targets currently being exceeded for air pollution
> levels is by NO2, not by the frequently scapegoated PM10s from diesel
> vehicles.
>
> http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?region=0&site=MY1&bulletin=hourly&la_id=&statyear=2010&postcode=
>
> And, quote.
>
> "Car Exhaust - Air Pollutants
>
> In cities across the globe, the personal automobile is the single
> greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road
> add up to a planet-wide problem. Driving a private car is a typical
> citizen's most air polluting activity. The negative effects of
> automotive emissions are maximum when you sit in traffic surrounded by
> cars, their engines idling. Everyone sitting in a traffic jam is
> getting poisoned.
>
> The Combustion Process Gasoline and diesel fuels are mixtures of
> hydrocarbons (made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms.) Hydrocarbons
> are burned by combining with oxygen. Nitrogen and sulphur atoms are
> also present and combine with oxygen when burned to produce gases.
> Automotive engines emit several types of pollutants..."
>
> "... Nitrogen Oxides Under high pressure and temperature conditions
> in an engine, nitrogen and oxygen atoms react to form nitrogen oxides.
> Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier
> nitrogen gases, forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2) - 300 times more potent
> than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. NO2 makes up about 7.2
> percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with
> catalytic converters produced nearly half of that NO2..."
>
> http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm
>
> So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have a
> catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.
> http://www.zing.icom43.net
> "The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
>

It's so bad that a group of people gather on Friday night every month to
hold up traffic, and cause more pollution, then they cycle in the
pollution they cause.

--
Tony Dragon

[BrianW[_2_]]

On Jun 9, 7:27*am, Doug > wrote:
> In London the only targets currently being exceeded for air pollution
> levels is by NO2, not by the frequently scapegoated PM10s from diesel
> vehicles.
>
> http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?region=0&site=....
>
> And, quote.
>
> "Car Exhaust - Air Pollutants
>
> In cities across the globe, the personal automobile is the single
> greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road
> add up to a planet-wide problem. Driving a private car is a typical
> citizen's most air polluting activity. The negative effects of
> automotive emissions are maximum when you sit in traffic surrounded by
> cars, their engines idling. Everyone sitting in a traffic jam is
> getting poisoned.
>
> The Combustion Process *Gasoline and diesel fuels are mixtures of
> hydrocarbons (made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms.) Hydrocarbons
> are burned by combining with oxygen. Nitrogen and sulphur atoms are
> also present and combine with oxygen when burned to produce gases.
> Automotive engines emit several types of pollutants..."
>
> "... Nitrogen Oxides *Under high pressure and temperature conditions
> in an engine, nitrogen and oxygen atoms react to form nitrogen oxides.
> Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier
> nitrogen gases, forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2) - 300 times more potent
> than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. NO2 makes up about 7.2
> percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with
> catalytic converters produced nearly half of that NO2..."
>
> http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm
>
> So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have a
> catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.

What about ozone, Doug? Do cars still emit "bad" ozone?

[Doug[_3_]]

On 9 June, 18:37, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > In London the only targets currently being exceeded for air pollution
> > levels is by NO2, not by the frequently scapegoated PM10s from diesel
> > vehicles.
>
> >http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?region=0&site=...
>
> > And, quote.
>
> > "Car Exhaust - Air Pollutants
>
> > In cities across the globe, the personal automobile is the single
> > greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road
> > add up to a planet-wide problem. Driving a private car is a typical
> > citizen's most air polluting activity. The negative effects of
> > automotive emissions are maximum when you sit in traffic surrounded by
> > cars, their engines idling. Everyone sitting in a traffic jam is
> > getting poisoned.
>
> > The Combustion Process *Gasoline and diesel fuels are mixtures of
> > hydrocarbons (made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms.) Hydrocarbons
> > are burned by combining with oxygen. Nitrogen and sulphur atoms are
> > also present and combine with oxygen when burned to produce gases.
> > Automotive engines emit several types of pollutants..."
>
> > "... Nitrogen Oxides *Under high pressure and temperature conditions
> > in an engine, nitrogen and oxygen atoms react to form nitrogen oxides.
> > Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier
> > nitrogen gases, forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2) - 300 times more potent
> > than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. NO2 makes up about 7.2
> > percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with
> > catalytic converters produced nearly half of that NO2..."
>
> >http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm
>
> > So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have a
> > catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.
>
>
> It's so bad that a group of people gather on Friday night every month to
> hold up traffic, and cause more pollution, then they cycle in the
> pollution they cause.
>
I'd just like to point out that the cyclists only do it for a couple
of hours once a month while the polluters themselves drive in vast
congesting hordes every day for most of the day while putting cyclists
at risk from their foul tail-pipe emissions.

> > --
> > UK Radical Campaigns.
> >http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > "The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

[Doug[_3_]]

On 9 June, 09:59, ash > wrote:
> On 9 June, 07:27, Doug > wrote:
>
>
>
> > In London the only targets currently being exceeded for air pollution
> > levels is by NO2, not by the frequently scapegoated PM10s from diesel
> > vehicles.
>
> >http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?region=0&site=...
>
> > And, quote.
>
> > "Car Exhaust - Air Pollutants
>
> > In cities across the globe, the personal automobile is the single
> > greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road
> > add up to a planet-wide problem. Driving a private car is a typical
> > citizen's most air polluting activity. The negative effects of
> > automotive emissions are maximum when you sit in traffic surrounded by
> > cars, their engines idling. Everyone sitting in a traffic jam is
> > getting poisoned.
>
> > The Combustion Process *Gasoline and diesel fuels are mixtures of
> > hydrocarbons (made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms.) Hydrocarbons
> > are burned by combining with oxygen. Nitrogen and sulphur atoms are
> > also present and combine with oxygen when burned to produce gases.
> > Automotive engines emit several types of pollutants..."
>
> > "... Nitrogen Oxides *Under high pressure and temperature conditions
> > in an engine, nitrogen and oxygen atoms react to form nitrogen oxides.
> > Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier
> > nitrogen gases, forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2) - 300 times more potent
> > than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. NO2 makes up about 7.2
> > percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with
> > catalytic converters produced nearly half of that NO2..."
>
> >http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm
>
> > So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have a
> > catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.
>
> > --
> > UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > "The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
>
> Dr James Le Fanu (Central London based doctor) :- I have some personal
> experience of Mr Yeo’s concerns as the area of London where I work –
> just a mile from the House of Commons – includes one of the capital’s
> busiest intersections. Every hour, thousands of cars pour over
> Vauxhall Bridge and hasten down The Embankment filling the air with
> their exhaust fumes. And yet I doubt I see a single patient with
> pollution-induced symptoms (let alone fatalities) from one year’s end
> to the next.
>
Anecdotal from a single individual. It has also been used as a lame
excuse on these NGs previously for continuing to pollute willy nilly.
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthadvice/jameslefanu/7528470/Do...
>
> Flogging a dead horse springs to mind, and if all the cars became as
> clean as the Pious, Doug would still be bitching about the factthey
> are in his way on the roads (and not paying VED) whilst he trundles
> about on his illegal E-bike
>
The Prious still has emissions and shouldn't be allowed to be used by
VED freeloaders. Its only because most motorists have the urge to
travel as far as possible and as often as possible that cleaner all
electric vehicles, with their shorter range, are not more widely used.

However, even an electric car is still capable of crashing onto a
pavement and killing people while demolishing walls.

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> I'd just like to point out that the cyclists only do it for a couple
> of hours once a month

So it's OK for cyclists to cause the pollution you're moaning about?

Ever heard the phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right'?

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Mr. Benn[_4_]]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 9 June, 18:37, Tony Dragon > wrote:

>> It's so bad that a group of people gather on Friday night every month to
>> hold up traffic, and cause more pollution, then they cycle in the
>> pollution they cause.
>>
> I'd just like to point out that the cyclists only do it for a couple
> of hours once a month while the polluters themselves drive in vast
> congesting hordes every day for most of the day while putting cyclists
> at risk from their foul tail-pipe emissions.

And during those two hours, pollution is increased by delaying hundreds of
motor vehicles with their engines idling.

It wouldn't be so bad if these was a good reason for the hold-up but there
never is. I'm still not sure what the purpose of CM is apart from sticking
two fingers up to other road users.

[ash[_2_]]

On 10 June, 07:34, Doug > wrote:
> On 9 June, 09:59, ash > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9 June, 07:27, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > In London the only targets currently being exceeded for air pollution
> > > levels is by NO2, not by the frequently scapegoated PM10s from diesel
> > > vehicles.
>
> > >http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?region=0&site=...
>
> > > And, quote.
>
> > > "Car Exhaust - Air Pollutants
>
> > > In cities across the globe, the personal automobile is the single
> > > greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road
> > > add up to a planet-wide problem. Driving a private car is a typical
> > > citizen's most air polluting activity. The negative effects of
> > > automotive emissions are maximum when you sit in traffic surrounded by
> > > cars, their engines idling. Everyone sitting in a traffic jam is
> > > getting poisoned.
>
> > > The Combustion Process *Gasoline and diesel fuels are mixtures of
> > > hydrocarbons (made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms.) Hydrocarbons
> > > are burned by combining with oxygen. Nitrogen and sulphur atoms are
> > > also present and combine with oxygen when burned to produce gases.
> > > Automotive engines emit several types of pollutants..."
>
> > > "... Nitrogen Oxides *Under high pressure and temperature conditions
> > > in an engine, nitrogen and oxygen atoms react to form nitrogen oxides..
> > > Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier
> > > nitrogen gases, forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2) - 300 times more potent
> > > than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. NO2 makes up about 7.2
> > > percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with
> > > catalytic converters produced nearly half of that NO2..."
>
> > >http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm
>
> > > So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have a
> > > catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.
>
> > > --
> > > UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > "The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
>
> > Dr James Le Fanu (Central London based doctor) :- I have some personal
> > experience of Mr Yeo’s concerns as the area of London where I work –
> > just a mile from the House of Commons – includes one of the capital’s
> > busiest intersections. Every hour, thousands of cars pour over
> > Vauxhall Bridge and hasten down The Embankment filling the air with
> > their exhaust fumes. And yet I doubt I see a single patient with
> > pollution-induced symptoms (let alone fatalities) from one year’s end
> > to the next.
>
> Anecdotal from a single individual. *It has also been used as a lame
> excuse on these NGs previously for continuing to pollute willy nilly.

Anecdotal evidence is still valid evidence and given it is from a
doctor working in exactly the same area in question (Central London),
its validity is even more pertinent - even if you choose to pretend it
isn't!

>
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthadvice/jameslefanu/7528470/Do...
>
> > Flogging a dead horse springs to mind, and if all the cars became as
> > clean as the Pious, Doug would still be bitching about the factthey
> > are in his way on the roads (and not paying VED) whilst he trundles
> > about on his illegal E-bike
>
> The Prious still has emissions and shouldn't be allowed to be used by
> VED freeloaders.

You mean like all of the freeloading E-cyclists who are happy to use
the roads which others are paying disproportionate sums for by
comparison in their cars and on motorcycles ?

> Its only because most motorists have the urge to
> travel as far as possible and as often as possible that cleaner all
> electric vehicles, with their shorter range, are not more widely used.
>
> However, even an electric car is still capable of crashing onto a
> pavement and killing people while demolishing walls.
>
You are actually right in this part. The notion of a 'Green vehicle'
is a bit of a joke.

The motor vehicle is the symptom of the problem, and not the root
cause. One day the penny might drop !

> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[webreader]

On Jun 10, 7:34*am, Doug > wrote:
> On 9 June, 09:59, ash > wrote:
>
> > On 9 June, 07:27, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > In London the only targets currently being exceeded for air pollution
> > > levels is by NO2, not by the frequently scapegoated PM10s from diesel
> > > vehicles.
>
> > >http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?region=0&site=...
>
> > > And, quote.
>
> > > "Car Exhaust - Air Pollutants
>
> > > In cities across the globe, the personal automobile is the single
> > > greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road
> > > add up to a planet-wide problem. Driving a private car is a typical
> > > citizen's most air polluting activity. The negative effects of
> > > automotive emissions are maximum when you sit in traffic surrounded by
> > > cars, their engines idling. Everyone sitting in a traffic jam is
> > > getting poisoned.
>
> > > The Combustion Process *Gasoline and diesel fuels are mixtures of
> > > hydrocarbons (made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms.) Hydrocarbons
> > > are burned by combining with oxygen. Nitrogen and sulphur atoms are
> > > also present and combine with oxygen when burned to produce gases.
> > > Automotive engines emit several types of pollutants..."
>
> > > "... Nitrogen Oxides *Under high pressure and temperature conditions
> > > in an engine, nitrogen and oxygen atoms react to form nitrogen oxides..
> > > Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier
> > > nitrogen gases, forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2) - 300 times more potent
> > > than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. NO2 makes up about 7.2
> > > percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with
> > > catalytic converters produced nearly half of that NO2..."
>
> > >http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm
>
> > > So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have a
> > > catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.
>
> > > --
> > > UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > "The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
>
> > Dr James Le Fanu (Central London based doctor) :- I have some personal
> > experience of Mr Yeo’s concerns as the area of London where I work –
> > just a mile from the House of Commons – includes one of the capital’s
> > busiest intersections. Every hour, thousands of cars pour over
> > Vauxhall Bridge and hasten down The Embankment filling the air with
> > their exhaust fumes. And yet I doubt I see a single patient with
> > pollution-induced symptoms (let alone fatalities) from one year’s end
> > to the next.
>
> Anecdotal from a single individual. *It has also been used as a lame
> excuse on these NGs previously for continuing to pollute willy nilly.
>

I take it then that we will not hear from you about being rammed,
after all it is merely anecdotal.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 10 June, 08:02, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > I'd just like to point out that the cyclists only do it for a couple
> > of hours once a month
>
> So it's OK for cyclists to cause the pollution you're moaning about?
>
> Ever heard the phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right'?
>
CMers don't cause it. They cause others to cause a little more than
usual and it is a minuscule level compared to that which is caused
everyday by millions of drivers.

Also, if CM can deter some motorists from driving into Central London
on a Friday evening then an alleged wrong can make a right. More
likely though, the right of lots of cyclists to use a public road all
at once might cause a right by deterring polluting motorists from
doing the same.

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"Its just a bike ride!"

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 10 June, 08:02, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> I'd just like to point out that the cyclists only do it for a couple
>>> of hours once a month
>> So it's OK for cyclists to cause the pollution you're moaning about?
>>
>> Ever heard the phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right'?
>>
> CMers don't cause it. They cause others to cause a little more than
> usual and it is a minuscule level compared to that which is caused
> everyday by millions of drivers.
>
> Also, if CM can deter some motorists from driving into Central London
> on a Friday evening then an alleged wrong can make a right. More
> likely though, the right of lots of cyclists to use a public road all
> at once might cause a right by deterring polluting motorists from
> doing the same.
>
> --
> Critical Mass London
> http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> "Its just a bike ride!"
>

Thank you for admitting that CM causes extra pollution.

--
Tony Dragon

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> The Prious still has emissions and shouldn't be allowed to be used by
> VED freeloaders. Its only because most motorists have the urge to
> travel as far as possible and as often as possible that cleaner all
> electric vehicles, with their shorter range, are not more widely used.

I wonder how the electricity is produced?

I wonder how far electric bicycles are transported before sale?

I wonder what resources are used to make the batteries, and what
provisions have been made for their disposal when they're of no use?

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Doug[_3_]]

On 10 June, 23:19, ash > wrote:
> On 10 June, 07:34, Doug > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9 June, 09:59, ash > wrote:
>
> > > On 9 June, 07:27, Doug > wrote:
>
> > > > In London the only targets currently being exceeded for air pollution
> > > > levels is by NO2, not by the frequently scapegoated PM10s from diesel
> > > > vehicles.
>
> > > >http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?region=0&site=...
>
> > > > And, quote.
>
> > > > "Car Exhaust - Air Pollutants
>
> > > > In cities across the globe, the personal automobile is the single
> > > > greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road
> > > > add up to a planet-wide problem. Driving a private car is a typical
> > > > citizen's most air polluting activity. The negative effects of
> > > > automotive emissions are maximum when you sit in traffic surrounded by
> > > > cars, their engines idling. Everyone sitting in a traffic jam is
> > > > getting poisoned.
>
> > > > The Combustion Process *Gasoline and diesel fuels are mixtures of
> > > > hydrocarbons (made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms.) Hydrocarbons
> > > > are burned by combining with oxygen. Nitrogen and sulphur atoms are
> > > > also present and combine with oxygen when burned to produce gases.
> > > > Automotive engines emit several types of pollutants..."
>
> > > > "... Nitrogen Oxides *Under high pressure and temperature conditions
> > > > in an engine, nitrogen and oxygen atoms react to form nitrogen oxides.
> > > > Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier
> > > > nitrogen gases, forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2) - 300 times more potent
> > > > than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. NO2 makes up about 7.2
> > > > percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with
> > > > catalytic converters produced nearly half of that NO2..."
>
> > > >http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm
>
> > > > So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have a
> > > > catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.
>
> > > > --
> > > > UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > > > "The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
>
> > > Dr James Le Fanu (Central London based doctor) :- I have some personal
> > > experience of Mr Yeo’s concerns as the area of London where I work –
> > > just a mile from the House of Commons – includes one of the capital’s
> > > busiest intersections. Every hour, thousands of cars pour over
> > > Vauxhall Bridge and hasten down The Embankment filling the air with
> > > their exhaust fumes. And yet I doubt I see a single patient with
> > > pollution-induced symptoms (let alone fatalities) from one year’s end
> > > to the next.
>
> > Anecdotal from a single individual. *It has also been used as a lame
> > excuse on these NGs previously for continuing to pollute willy nilly.
>
> Anecdotal evidence is still valid evidence and given it is from a
> doctor working in exactly the same area in question (Central London),
> its validity is even more pertinent - even if you choose to pretend it
> isn't!
>
Unsupported anecdotal evidence is merely the opinion of a single
person and not evidence.

If I say "the moon doesn't exist" in what way would that ever be
accepted?
>
>
> > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthadvice/jameslefanu/7528470/Do....
>
> > > Flogging a dead horse springs to mind, and if all the cars became as
> > > clean as the Pious, Doug would still be bitching about the factthey
> > > are in his way on the roads (and not paying VED) whilst he trundles
> > > about on his illegal E-bike
>
> > The Prious still has emissions and shouldn't be allowed to be used by
> > VED freeloaders.
>
> You mean like all of the freeloading E-cyclists who are happy to use
> the roads which others are paying disproportionate sums for by
> comparison in their cars and on motorcycles ?
>
Drivers are not paying for the roads, they are paying for all the harm
they cause generally. The roads are paid for by everyone who pays
taxes, including cyclists. Motorists do not own the roads,
fortunately, though from all appearances they would seem to, like free
street garaging and parking on pavements for example
>
> > Its only because most motorists have the urge to
> > travel as far as possible and as often as possible that cleaner all
> > electric vehicles, with their shorter range, are not more widely used.
>
> > However, even an electric car is still capable of crashing onto a
> > pavement and killing people while demolishing walls.
>
> You are actually right in this part. The notion of a 'Green vehicle'
> is a bit of a joke.
>
Thanks. As we all know there is no such thing as a 'green vehicle' but
some may be a bit less polluting than others, hence the greenwash.
>
> The motor vehicle is the symptom of the problem, and not the root
> cause. One day the penny might drop !
>
What problem is it a symptom of? The irrational urge to travel
unnecessarily?

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

> On 10 June, 08:02, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > I'd just like to point out that the cyclists only do it for a
> > > couple of hours once a month
> >
> > So it's OK for cyclists to cause the pollution you're moaning about?
> >
> > Ever heard the phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right'?
> >
> CMers don't cause it. They cause others to cause a little more than
> usual and it is a minuscule level compared to that which is caused
> everyday by millions of drivers.

Good grief .. cmers don't cause it, but they do cause others to make it
.... How convoluted can your thinking be? If cm didn't happen there'd
be less congestion, therefore less pollution. Cm causes congestion and
thus causes pollution when cm occurs.

> Also, if CM can deter some motorists from driving into Central London
> on a Friday evening then an alleged wrong can make a right. More
> likely though, the right of lots of cyclists to use a public road all
> at once might cause a right by deterring polluting motorists from
> doing the same.

Do you seriously think, as you claim, that when motorists are
constantly in congestion that a few ****wits blocking the road for a
short while on a friday evening will stop them from travelling?

They'll either wait or find another route is all, it won't stop anyone
travelling. Indeed if cm happened anywhere near me I'd make damn sure
tham cmers knew they were getting in my way in no uncertain terms, and
doing no good whatsoever other than giving themselves a rosy glow at
the perception that they're anarchistsic protesters.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 10 June, 23:19, ash > wrote:
>> On 10 June, 07:34, Doug > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 9 June, 09:59, ash > wrote:
>>
>> > > On 9 June, 07:27, Doug > wrote:
>>
>> > > > In London the only targets currently being exceeded for air
>> > > > pollution
>> > > > levels is by NO2, not by the frequently scapegoated PM10s from
>> > > > diesel
>> > > > vehicles.
>>
>> > > >http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/publicstats.asp?region=0&site=...
>>
>> > > > And, quote.
>>
>> > > > "Car Exhaust - Air Pollutants
>>
>> > > > In cities across the globe, the personal automobile is the single
>> > > > greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road
>> > > > add up to a planet-wide problem. Driving a private car is a typical
>> > > > citizen's most air polluting activity. The negative effects of
>> > > > automotive emissions are maximum when you sit in traffic surrounded
>> > > > by
>> > > > cars, their engines idling. Everyone sitting in a traffic jam is
>> > > > getting poisoned.
>>
>> > > > The Combustion Process Gasoline and diesel fuels are mixtures of
>> > > > hydrocarbons (made of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon atoms.)
>> > > > Hydrocarbons
>> > > > are burned by combining with oxygen. Nitrogen and sulphur atoms are
>> > > > also present and combine with oxygen when burned to produce gases.
>> > > > Automotive engines emit several types of pollutants..."
>>
>> > > > "... Nitrogen Oxides Under high pressure and temperature
>> > > > conditions
>> > > > in an engine, nitrogen and oxygen atoms react to form nitrogen
>> > > > oxides.
>> > > > Catalytic converters in car exhaust systems break down heavier
>> > > > nitrogen gases, forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2) - 300 times more
>> > > > potent
>> > > > than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. NO2 makes up about 7.2
>> > > > percent of the gases that cause global warming. Vehicles with
>> > > > catalytic converters produced nearly half of that NO2..."
>>
>> > > >http://www.nutramed.com/environment/carsepa.htm
>>
>> > > > So the usual excuse from motorists, "I don't pollute because I have
>> > > > a
>> > > > catalytic converter ", is a load of old hogwash.
>>
>> > > > --
>> > > > UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
>> > > > "The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".
>>
>> > > Dr James Le Fanu (Central London based doctor) :- I have some
>> > > personal
>> > > experience of Mr Yeo’s concerns as the area of London where I work –
>> > > just a mile from the House of Commons – includes one of the capital’s
>> > > busiest intersections. Every hour, thousands of cars pour over
>> > > Vauxhall Bridge and hasten down The Embankment filling the air with
>> > > their exhaust fumes. And yet I doubt I see a single patient with
>> > > pollution-induced symptoms (let alone fatalities) from one year’s end
>> > > to the next.
>>
>> > Anecdotal from a single individual. It has also been used as a lame
>> > excuse on these NGs previously for continuing to pollute willy nilly.
>>
>> Anecdotal evidence is still valid evidence and given it is from a
>> doctor working in exactly the same area in question (Central London),
>> its validity is even more pertinent - even if you choose to pretend it
>> isn't!
>>
> Unsupported anecdotal evidence is merely the opinion of a single
> person and not evidence.

Wrong. Such evidence is accepted in court.

> If I say "the moon doesn't exist" in what way would that ever be
> accepted?

Because anyone capable of looking at the night sky at the appropriate times
would soon discover that you are lying. But that is your standard MO and so
you would be disbelieved automatically.

>> > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthadvice/jameslefanu/7528470/Do...
>>
>> > > Flogging a dead horse springs to mind, and if all the cars became as
>> > > clean as the Pious, Doug would still be bitching about the factthey
>> > > are in his way on the roads (and not paying VED) whilst he trundles
>> > > about on his illegal E-bike
>>
>> > The Prious still has emissions and shouldn't be allowed to be used by
>> > VED freeloaders.
>>
>> You mean like all of the freeloading E-cyclists who are happy to use
>> the roads which others are paying disproportionate sums for by
>> comparison in their cars and on motorcycles ?
>>
> Drivers are not paying for the roads, they are paying for all the harm
> they cause generally.

Evidence?

As with all other taxes, those levied on motoring, and cycling (whether
electric or proper bicycles) go into a central pot. There isn't a special
pot labelled "harm repair".

> The roads are paid for by everyone who pays
> taxes, including cyclists. Motorists do not own the roads,
> fortunately, though from all appearances they would seem to, like free
> street garaging and parking on pavements for example
>>
>> > Its only because most motorists have the urge to
>> > travel as far as possible and as often as possible that cleaner all
>> > electric vehicles, with their shorter range, are not more widely used.
>>
>> > However, even an electric car is still capable of crashing onto a
>> > pavement and killing people while demolishing walls.
>>
>> You are actually right in this part. The notion of a 'Green vehicle'
>> is a bit of a joke.
>>
> Thanks. As we all know there is no such thing as a 'green vehicle' but
> some may be a bit less polluting than others, hence the greenwash.

So why are you contributing to the pollution by using an electric bicycle?

>> The motor vehicle is the symptom of the problem, and not the root
>> cause. One day the penny might drop !
>>
> What problem is it a symptom of? The irrational urge to travel
> unnecessarily?
>
The only unnecessary use of a motor vehicle is that done as sport, like
driving a Land-Rover off road across farmer's land. Don't you agree Doug?

[Doug[_3_]]

On 11 June, 07:41, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 10 June, 08:02, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> > > Doug wrote:
> > > > I'd just like to point out that the cyclists only do it for a
> > > > couple of hours once a month
>
> > > So it's OK for cyclists to cause the pollution you're moaning about?
>
> > > Ever heard the phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right'?
>
> > CMers don't cause it. They cause others to cause a little more than
> > usual and it is a minuscule level compared to that which is caused
> > everyday by millions of drivers.
>
> Good grief .. cmers don't cause it, but they do cause others to make it
> ... How convoluted can your thinking be? *If cm didn't happen there'd
> be less congestion, therefore less pollution. *Cm causes congestion and
> thus causes pollution when cm occurs.
>
Again, it is trivial compared to the congestion motorists cause to
each other every day.
>
> > Also, if CM can deter some motorists from driving into Central London
> > on a Friday evening then an alleged wrong can make a right. More
> > likely though, the right of lots of cyclists to use a public road all
> > at once might cause a right by deterring polluting motorists from
> > doing the same.
>
> Do you seriously think, as you claim, that when motorists are
> constantly in congestion that a few ****wits blocking the road for a
> short while on a friday evening will stop them from travelling?
>
No but it will act as a discouragement to them trying the same thing
on the next last Friday of the month.
>
> They'll either wait or find another route is all, it won't stop anyone
> travelling. *Indeed if cm happened anywhere near me I'd make damn sure
> tham cmers knew they were getting in my way in no uncertain terms, and
> doing no good whatsoever other than giving themselves a rosy glow at
> the perception that they're anarchistsic protesters.
>
Exactly how would you make damn sure that cmers knew they were getting
in your way?

--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist".

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 11 June, 07:41, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 10 June, 08:02, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> I'd just like to point out that the cyclists only do it for a
>>>>> couple of hours once a month
>>>> So it's OK for cyclists to cause the pollution you're moaning about?
>>>> Ever heard the phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right'?
>>> CMers don't cause it. They cause others to cause a little more than
>>> usual and it is a minuscule level compared to that which is caused
>>> everyday by millions of drivers.
>> Good grief .. cmers don't cause it, but they do cause others to make it
>> ... How convoluted can your thinking be? If cm didn't happen there'd
>> be less congestion, therefore less pollution. Cm causes congestion and
>> thus causes pollution when cm occurs.
>>
> Again, it is trivial compared to the congestion motorists cause to
> each other every day.

So you admit they cause congestion.

>>> Also, if CM can deter some motorists from driving into Central London
>>> on a Friday evening then an alleged wrong can make a right. More
>>> likely though, the right of lots of cyclists to use a public road all
>>> at once might cause a right by deterring polluting motorists from
>>> doing the same.
>> Do you seriously think, as you claim, that when motorists are
>> constantly in congestion that a few ****wits blocking the road for a
>> short while on a friday evening will stop them from travelling?
>>
> No but it will act as a discouragement to them trying the same thing
> on the next last Friday of the month.

How will it do that, according to you the route is likely to be
different each time.

>> They'll either wait or find another route is all, it won't stop anyone
>> travelling. Indeed if cm happened anywhere near me I'd make damn sure
>> tham cmers knew they were getting in my way in no uncertain terms, and
>> doing no good whatsoever other than giving themselves a rosy glow at
>> the perception that they're anarchistsic protesters.
>>
> Exactly how would you make damn sure that cmers knew they were getting
> in your way?
>

Perhaps by 'corking' them, walking into cm's who do not give way to
pedestrians, perhaps driving a large van in the opposite direction to
see if the cm's still want to ride the wrong side of keep left signs.
> --
> Critical Mass London
> http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist".


--
Tony Dragon

[Doug[_3_]]

On 11 June, 18:01, Tony Dragon > wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > On 11 June, 07:41, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> >> Doug wrote:
> >>> On 10 June, 08:02, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
> >>>> Doug wrote:
> >>>>> I'd just like to point out that the cyclists only do it for a
> >>>>> couple of hours once a month
> >>>> So it's OK for cyclists to cause the pollution you're moaning about?
> >>>> Ever heard the phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right'?
> >>> CMers don't cause it. They cause others to cause a little more than
> >>> usual and it is a minuscule level compared to that which is caused
> >>> everyday by millions of drivers.
> >> Good grief .. cmers don't cause it, but they do cause others to make it
> >> ... How convoluted can your thinking be? *If cm didn't happen there'd
> >> be less congestion, therefore less pollution. *Cm causes congestion and
> >> thus causes pollution when cm occurs.
>
> > Again, it is trivial compared to the congestion motorists cause to
> > each other every day.
>
> So you admit they cause congestion.
>
>
Of course, just like motorists, though for a much shorter time. It
can even be argued that if there are enough cyclists together they
should have the same right to cause congestion that motorists have,
>
> >>> Also, if CM can deter some motorists from driving into Central London
> >>> on a Friday evening then an alleged wrong can make a right. More
> >>> likely though, the right of lots of cyclists to use a public road all
> >>> at once might cause a right by deterring polluting motorists from
> >>> doing the same.
> >> Do you seriously think, as you claim, that when motorists are
> >> constantly in congestion that a few ****wits blocking the road for a
> >> short while on a friday evening will stop them from travelling?
>
> > No but it will act as a discouragement to them trying the same thing
> > on the next last Friday of the month.
>
> How will it do that, according to you the route is likely to be
> different each time.
>
But mainly in Central London, which drivers are discouraged from
entering during the day anyway because of the problems they create.
>
> >> They'll either wait or find another route is all, it won't stop anyone
> >> travelling. *Indeed if cm happened anywhere near me I'd make damn sure
> >> tham cmers knew they were getting in my way in no uncertain terms, and
> >> doing no good whatsoever other than giving themselves a rosy glow at
> >> the perception that they're anarchistsic protesters.
>
> > Exactly how would you make damn sure that cmers knew they were getting
> > in your way?
>
> Perhaps by 'corking' them,
>
Self defeating.
>
> walking into cm's who do not give way to
> pedestrians,
>
Already happens.
>
> perhaps driving a large van in the opposite direction to
> see if the cm's still want to ride the wrong side of keep left signs.
>
So you do advocate the use of force and violence to deter CM? Are you
also in favour of deliberate ramming of corkers?

Why is it that people with big machines want to physically harm people
with little machines? Is it just because they can without fear of
similar retaliation? The words 'coward' and 'bully' springs to mind.
>
> > --
> > Critical Mass London
> > http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
> > "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist".

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...

> Why is it that people with big machines want to physically harm people
> with little machines? Is it just because they can without fear of
> similar retaliation? The words 'coward' and 'bully' springs to mind.
>>
Perhaps if the selfish minority of people on little machines didn't
deliberately cause so much upset and annoyance to people in big machines
then the selfish minority of people in big machines wouldn't get annoyed and
try to harm the selfish minority people on little machines.

[Tony Dragon]

Doug wrote:
> On 11 June, 18:01, Tony Dragon > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 11 June, 07:41, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 10 June, 08:02, "Paul - xxx" > wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> I'd just like to point out that the cyclists only do it for a
>>>>>>> couple of hours once a month
>>>>>> So it's OK for cyclists to cause the pollution you're moaning about?
>>>>>> Ever heard the phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right'?
>>>>> CMers don't cause it. They cause others to cause a little more than
>>>>> usual and it is a minuscule level compared to that which is caused
>>>>> everyday by millions of drivers.
>>>> Good grief .. cmers don't cause it, but they do cause others to make it
>>>> ... How convoluted can your thinking be? If cm didn't happen there'd
>>>> be less congestion, therefore less pollution. Cm causes congestion and
>>>> thus causes pollution when cm occurs.
>>> Again, it is trivial compared to the congestion motorists cause to
>>> each other every day.
>> So you admit they cause congestion.
>>
>>
> Of course, just like motorists, though for a much shorter time. It
> can even be argued that if there are enough cyclists together they
> should have the same right to cause congestion that motorists have,

They have that right.

>>>>> Also, if CM can deter some motorists from driving into Central London
>>>>> on a Friday evening then an alleged wrong can make a right. More
>>>>> likely though, the right of lots of cyclists to use a public road all
>>>>> at once might cause a right by deterring polluting motorists from
>>>>> doing the same.
>>>> Do you seriously think, as you claim, that when motorists are
>>>> constantly in congestion that a few ****wits blocking the road for a
>>>> short while on a friday evening will stop them from travelling?
>>> No but it will act as a discouragement to them trying the same thing
>>> on the next last Friday of the month.
>> How will it do that, according to you the route is likely to be
>> different each time.
>>
> But mainly in Central London, which drivers are discouraged from
> entering during the day anyway because of the problems they create.

Perhaps cm should plan for an later start, perhaps midnight.

>>>> They'll either wait or find another route is all, it won't stop anyone
>>>> travelling. Indeed if cm happened anywhere near me I'd make damn sure
>>>> tham cmers knew they were getting in my way in no uncertain terms, and
>>>> doing no good whatsoever other than giving themselves a rosy glow at
>>>> the perception that they're anarchistsic protesters.
>>> Exactly how would you make damn sure that cmers knew they were getting
>>> in your way?
>> Perhaps by 'corking' them,
>>
> Self defeating.

Use the rules of the road.

>> walking into cm's who do not give way to
>> pedestrians,
>>
> Already happens.

Thank you for admitting the cm's do not give way to pedestrians.

>> perhaps driving a large van in the opposite direction to
>> see if the cm's still want to ride the wrong side of keep left signs.
>>
> So you do advocate the use of force and violence to deter CM?

I have never said so.

> Are you
> also in favour of deliberate ramming of corkers?

As above, but they should be made to pay for their illegal actions.

>
> Why is it that people with big machines want to physically harm people
> with little machines? Is it just because they can without fear of
> similar retaliation? The words 'coward' and 'bully' springs to mind.

Yes I have seen videos of a group of cowardly cm's bullying a motorist.

>>> --
>>> Critical Mass London
>>> http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
>>> "Get out of my way you f*ing cyclist".
>
>
>


--
Tony Dragon

[Mr. Benn[_3_]]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 9 June, 10:13, "Mr. Benn" > wrote:
>> No.
>>
>> I'm not stupid enough to cycle in places which are either dangerous for
>> cyclists or heavily polluted.
>>
> Very sensible but a pity that you should suffer such restrictions
> because of the harm others are allowed to cause you.

I don't suffer at all with any restrictions. I use public transport when I
travel around London. You should too.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 12 June, 09:06, "Brimstone" > wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Why is it that people with big machines want to physically harm people
> > with little machines? Is it just because they can without fear of
> > similar retaliation? The words 'coward' and 'bully' springs to mind.
>
> Perhaps if the selfish minority of people on little machines didn't
> deliberately cause so much upset and annoyance to people in big machines
> then the selfish minority of people in big machines wouldn't get annoyed and
> try to harm the selfish minority people on little machines.
>
And by 'harm' I take it you mean by the deliberate use of violence
which could possibly prove lethal? Is that what you advocate? Is it
any wonder that motorists with such an attitude kill and injured so
many on our roads? The 'might is right' justification eh?

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 12 June, 09:44, "Mr. Benn" > wrote:
> "Doug" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 9 June, 10:13, "Mr. Benn" > wrote:
> >> No.
>
> >> I'm not stupid enough to cycle in places which are either dangerous for
> >> cyclists or heavily polluted.
>
> > Very sensible but a pity that you should suffer such restrictions
> > because of the harm others are allowed to cause you.
>
> I don't suffer at all with any restrictions. *I use public transport when I
> travel around London. *You should too.
>
I would if I could but I have difficulty walking and a combination of
public transport and cycling suits me better. You could say I use a
bicycle as a mobility aid, though it is never officially recognised as
such. So you see I do suffer from more than one restriction, as well
as cycling where others are allowed to cause me harm.

Oh yes, the point of this thread, how does travelling on public
transport alone avoid the excessive pollution caused by cars?

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Brimstone]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> On 12 June, 09:06, "Brimstone" > wrote:
>> "Doug" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > Why is it that people with big machines want to physically harm people
>> > with little machines? Is it just because they can without fear of
>> > similar retaliation? The words 'coward' and 'bully' springs to mind.
>>
>> Perhaps if the selfish minority of people on little machines didn't
>> deliberately cause so much upset and annoyance to people in big machines
>> then the selfish minority of people in big machines wouldn't get annoyed
>> and
>> try to harm the selfish minority people on little machines.
>>
> And by 'harm' I take it you mean by the deliberate use of violence
> which could possibly prove lethal?

"Harm" includes many things, such as setting out to very deliberately delay
people's journeys.

> Is that what you advocate?

You are the only one who advocates violence and causing harm to others Doug.
Everyone else I've seen contributing to rational discussion on usenet is
very happy to condemn the use of violence and intimidation. I invite you to
condemn all violence by all road users.

> Is it
> any wonder that motorists with such an attitude kill and injured so
> many on our roads? The 'might is right' justification eh?
>
Perhaps if the selfish minority of people on little machines didn't
deliberately cause so much upset and annoyance to people in big machines
then the selfish minority of people in big machines wouldn't get annoyed and
try to harm the selfish minority people on little machines.