The info that the URCM mods didn't want you to see (for Simon Brooke)

[Matt B]

In a recent URCM thread Simon Brooke poured scorn on my suggestion that
with some of the new small cars coming out, that double-occupancy car
travel will almost certainly be more space-efficient than conventional
cycling.

My two different attempts to reply with further information were blocked
by the moderators[1] with no explanation, and my first request directly
to the moderators for an explanation was ignored, and my second, more
than 24 hours later, was dismissed with the single curt sentence: "No,
we do not wish to expand on the reasons for rejection."

So, for you Simon, and for anyone else who may be interested, here's an
example of such a car available today...

Estrima Birò 2-seat car with 2 passengers is 1.74m x 1.03m = 0.9m^2 of
road per person.[2]

A traditional 1-seat bicycle with 1 rider is around 1.78m x 0.61m =
1.09m^2 per person.

BTW Simon, can you reply with your workings-out for the assertions that
you made about the number of bikes that could be used in the same amount
of space that a Smart car occupies.

[1]
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-12768109883704.txt>
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-127694910917715.txt>

[2] <http://www.estrima.com/en/scheda_tecnica.aspx>

--
Matt B

[Clive George]

On 19/06/2010 19:29, Matt B wrote:

> Estrima Birò 2-seat car with 2 passengers is 1.74m x 1.03m = 0.9m^2 of
> road per person.[2]
>
> A traditional 1-seat bicycle with 1 rider is around 1.78m x 0.61m =
> 1.09m^2 per person.

Does that take account of the fact that bikes can run in parallel where
cars are one per lane width, and the lane width has to be big enough for
a lorry or more? Does it take account of the closer packing of bikes due
to greater visibility of the edges and greater ability to get out of a
tight spot?

[Matt B]

On 19/06/2010 19:54, Clive George wrote:
> On 19/06/2010 19:29, Matt B wrote:
>
>> Estrima Birò 2-seat car with 2 passengers is 1.74m x 1.03m = 0.9m^2 of
>> road per person.[2]
>>
>> A traditional 1-seat bicycle with 1 rider is around 1.78m x 0.61m =
>> 1.09m^2 per person.
>
> Does that take account of the fact that bikes can run in parallel where
> cars are one per lane width, and the lane width has to be big enough for
> a lorry or more? Does it take account of the closer packing of bikes due
> to greater visibility of the edges and greater ability to get out of a
> tight spot?

Yes it does.

--
Matt B

[OG]

"Matt B" > wrote in message
...
> In a recent URCM thread Simon Brooke poured scorn on my suggestion that
> with some of the new small cars coming out, that double-occupancy car
> travel will almost certainly be more space-efficient than conventional
> cycling.
>
> My two different attempts to reply with further information were blocked
> by the moderators[1] with no explanation, and my first request directly to
> the moderators for an explanation was ignored, and my second, more than 24
> hours later, was dismissed with the single curt sentence: "No, we do not
> wish to expand on the reasons for rejection."
>
> So, for you Simon, and for anyone else who may be interested, here's an
> example of such a car available today...
>
> Estrima Birò 2-seat car with 2 passengers is 1.74m x 1.03m = 0.9m^2 of
> road per person.[2]
>
> A traditional 1-seat bicycle with 1 rider is around 1.78m x 0.61m =
> 1.09m^2 per person.
>

At what speed does your calculations apply?

[Tosspot[_3_]]

On 19/06/10 19:29, Matt B wrote:
> In a recent URCM thread Simon Brooke poured scorn on my suggestion that
> with some of the new small cars coming out, that double-occupancy car
> travel will almost certainly be more space-efficient than conventional
> cycling.
>
> My two different attempts to reply with further information were blocked
> by the moderators[1] with no explanation, and my first request directly
> to the moderators for an explanation was ignored, and my second, more
> than 24 hours later, was dismissed with the single curt sentence: "No,
> we do not wish to expand on the reasons for rejection."
>
> So, for you Simon, and for anyone else who may be interested, here's an
> example of such a car available today...
>
> Estrima Birò 2-seat car with 2 passengers is 1.74m x 1.03m = 0.9m^2 of
> road per person.[2]
>
> A traditional 1-seat bicycle with 1 rider is around 1.78m x 0.61m =
> 1.09m^2 per person.

Here is the beast in question

http://www.newteon.com/www2/en/Vehicules/Transport_de_personnes/Estrima_20090226437/

Basically an invalid cart, max speed 30ish MPH, range 30ish miles.

However, like for like as it were, a tandem would be about 2.5m long,
the same width as above gives

(2.5 x 0.61)/2 = 0.76m^2 per person. One of these, which carries 5.

http://www.quintbike.com/

Would probably be even better. A Routemaster bus comes in at

(8.38m x 2.44)/64 = 0.31m^2 per person, and it goes a bit better than
invalid cart.

[Guy Cuthbertson[_9_]]

In article >,
says...
>
> In a recent URCM thread Simon Brooke poured scorn on my suggestion that
> with some of the new small cars coming out, that double-occupancy car
> travel will almost certainly be more space-efficient than conventional
> cycling.
>
> My two different attempts to reply with further information were blocked
> by the moderators[1] with no explanation, and my first request directly
> to the moderators for an explanation was ignored, and my second, more
> than 24 hours later, was dismissed with the single curt sentence: "No,
> we do not wish to expand on the reasons for rejection."

One of the best yet, and one of the clearest indications so far that
URCM was set up to protect car-haters from being outdebated and having
their true motives exposed:

They don't really dislike cars because of the space they take up.

They don't really dislike cars because they're "dangerous".

They don't really dislike cars because of the "congestion" they cause
(remember, these people support measures which *cause* congestion, e.g.
unnecessary traffic lights, removal of roadspace, etc).

They dislike cars because they're not part of the socialist utopia that
they dream of. Everyone (except them) should be equal; no-one (except
them) needs a car to get around. Isn't it funny how those who support
socialism always 1) do their best to pretend that they don't really
support it (e.g. by specially setting up a newsgroup to stop people
showing otherwise) and 2) only ever support it for other people?

[Clive George]

On 19/06/2010 20:29, Matt B wrote:
> On 19/06/2010 19:54, Clive George wrote:
>> On 19/06/2010 19:29, Matt B wrote:
>>
>>> Estrima Birò 2-seat car with 2 passengers is 1.74m x 1.03m = 0.9m^2 of
>>> road per person.[2]
>>>
>>> A traditional 1-seat bicycle with 1 rider is around 1.78m x 0.61m =
>>> 1.09m^2 per person.
>>
>> Does that take account of the fact that bikes can run in parallel where
>> cars are one per lane width, and the lane width has to be big enough for
>> a lorry or more? Does it take account of the closer packing of bikes due
>> to greater visibility of the edges and greater ability to get out of a
>> tight spot?
>
> Yes it does.

That'll be why the width of the car is 2.4 metres or so? No. Oops.
That'll be why the length is purely that of the vehicle, rather than
allowing the required gaps at the end? No. Oops.

Have you ever seen the road space used by massed cyclists? It's really
rather efficient compared to even small cars.

[Derek C]

On Jun 19, 7:54*pm, Clive George > wrote:
> On 19/06/2010 19:29, Matt B wrote:
>
> > Estrima Bir 2-seat car with 2 passengers is 1.74m x 1.03m = 0.9m^2 of
> > road per person.[2]
>
> > A traditional 1-seat bicycle with 1 rider is around 1.78m x 0.61m =
> > 1.09m^2 per person.
>
> Does that take account of the fact that bikes can run in parallel where
> cars are one per lane width, and the lane width has to be big enough for
> a lorry or more? Does it take account of the closer packing of bikes due
> to greater visibility of the edges and greater ability to get out of a
> tight spot?

Many pairs of cyclists insist on riding alongside each other and take
up as much road space as a slow moving small car. A peloton of
cyclists take up as much room as an artic, and they will never go into
single file so that you can easily overtake them in a car.

Derek C

[Tosspot[_3_]]

On 20/06/10 05:29, Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 19, 7:54 pm, Clive George > wrote:
>> On 19/06/2010 19:29, Matt B wrote:
>>
>>> Estrima Bir 2-seat car with 2 passengers is 1.74m x 1.03m = 0.9m^2 of
>>> road per person.[2]
>>
>>> A traditional 1-seat bicycle with 1 rider is around 1.78m x 0.61m =
>>> 1.09m^2 per person.
>>
>> Does that take account of the fact that bikes can run in parallel where
>> cars are one per lane width, and the lane width has to be big enough for
>> a lorry or more? Does it take account of the closer packing of bikes due
>> to greater visibility of the edges and greater ability to get out of a
>> tight spot?
>
> Many pairs of cyclists insist on riding alongside each other and take
> up as much road space as a slow moving small car. A peloton of
> cyclists take up as much room as an artic, and they will never go into
> single file so that you can easily overtake them in a car.

The reason is quite simple, the pelaton would be twice as long in single
file, and the width makes little difference for a safe overtake, in
short, would you rather overtake one or two artics?

[mileburner]

"Tosspot" > wrote in message
...
> On 20/06/10 05:29, Derek C wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 7:54 pm, Clive George > wrote:
>>> On 19/06/2010 19:29, Matt B wrote:
>>>
>>>> Estrima Bir 2-seat car with 2 passengers is 1.74m x 1.03m = 0.9m^2 of
>>>> road per person.[2]
>>>
>>>> A traditional 1-seat bicycle with 1 rider is around 1.78m x 0.61m =
>>>> 1.09m^2 per person.
>>>
>>> Does that take account of the fact that bikes can run in parallel where
>>> cars are one per lane width, and the lane width has to be big enough for
>>> a lorry or more? Does it take account of the closer packing of bikes due
>>> to greater visibility of the edges and greater ability to get out of a
>>> tight spot?
>>
>> Many pairs of cyclists insist on riding alongside each other and take
>> up as much road space as a slow moving small car. A peloton of
>> cyclists take up as much room as an artic, and they will never go into
>> single file so that you can easily overtake them in a car.
>
> The reason is quite simple, the pelaton would be twice as long in single
> file, and the width makes little difference for a safe overtake, in
> short, would you rather overtake one or two artics?

The driver would typically rather have "the artics" parked up at the side of
the road preferably stationary and on the verge.

One thing that seems to get overlooked in the two-abreast argument is that
it takes up no more road space having one cyclists position themselves
safely in the lane, than it does having one cyclists position themselves
safely in the lane and another ride alongside on the inside of them. The
fact remains that when there is a risk of being overtaken when there is not
enough space to do so safely, cyclists need to ride in such a position where
drivers will not be tempted to make a poor overtaking manoeuvre.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:29:35 +0100, Matt B
> wrote:

[snippety]

Nobody cares. Really, nobody.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Derek C]

On Jun 20, 12:07*pm, "mileburner" > wrote:
> "Tosspot" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20/06/10 05:29, Derek C wrote:
> >> On Jun 19, 7:54 pm, Clive George > wrote:
> >>> On 19/06/2010 19:29, Matt B wrote:
>
> >>>> Estrima Bir 2-seat car with 2 passengers is 1.74m x 1.03m = 0.9m^2 of
> >>>> road per person.[2]
>
> >>>> A traditional 1-seat bicycle with 1 rider is around 1.78m x 0.61m =
> >>>> 1.09m^2 per person.
>
> >>> Does that take account of the fact that bikes can run in parallel where
> >>> cars are one per lane width, and the lane width has to be big enough for
> >>> a lorry or more? Does it take account of the closer packing of bikes due
> >>> to greater visibility of the edges and greater ability to get out of a
> >>> tight spot?
>
> >> Many pairs of cyclists insist on riding alongside each other and take
> >> up as much road space as a slow moving small car. A peloton of
> >> cyclists take up as much room as an artic, and they will never go into
> >> single file so that you can easily overtake them in a car.
>
> > The reason is quite simple, the pelaton would be twice as long in single
> > file, and the width makes little difference for a safe overtake, in
> > short, would you rather overtake one or two artics?
>
> The driver would typically rather have "the artics" parked up at the side of
> the road preferably stationary and on the verge.
>
> One thing that seems to get overlooked in the two-abreast argument is that
> it takes up no more road space having one cyclists position themselves
> safely in the lane, than it does having one cyclists position themselves
> safely in the lane and another ride alongside on the inside of them. The
> fact remains that when there is a risk of being overtaken when there is not
> enough space to do so safely, cyclists need to ride in such a position where
> drivers will not be tempted to make a poor overtaking manoeuvre.- Hide quoted text -
>
I quite frequently motor along a narrow lane in Hampshire that is much
used by cyclists. If they ride two-abreast, it can be quite difficult
to overtake without slightly cutting them up. If they temporarily go
into single file, then it becomes easy to pass them without getting
too close.

Derek C

[mileburner]

Derek C wrote:
>>
> I quite frequently motor along a narrow lane in Hampshire that is much
> used by cyclists. If they ride two-abreast, it can be quite difficult
> to overtake without slightly cutting them up.

Top tip!

Then Don't.

If they temporarily go
> into single file, then it becomes easy to pass them without getting
> too close.
>
And that is why when it is safe to pass, the cyclists should go into single
file, over to the left, and wave the traffic past. Once the traffic has
past, they can take up a proper road position again.

Simples!

[Guy Cuthbertson[_9_]]

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:29:35 +0100, Matt B
> > wrote:
>
> [snippety]
>
> Nobody cares. Really, nobody.

Don't you like people showing that pages on your web****e are based on
nothing but your blatant anti-motorist prejudices?

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk:8080/web/public.nsf/Documents/Highway_Ro
bbery?OpenDocument

Every time you defend a URCM "moderation" decision, it's cast iron
evidence that the accusations levelled against the "moderators" are
completely true.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:54:12 +0100, Clive George
> wrote:

>Does that take account of the fact that bikes can run in parallel where
>cars are one per lane width, and the lane width has to be big enough for
>a lorry or more? Does it take account of the closer packing of bikes due
>to greater visibility of the edges and greater ability to get out of a
>tight spot?

No, neither does it take account of required headway distance (which
dwarfs the size of the vehicle itself, except in stationary traffic)
or the fact that the vehicle must be parked during the majority of the
day. Oh, and it doesn't take account of the fact that this is
effectively a two-man electric scooter rather than a car and does not
appear to be available in this country.

The sound you hear as you peruse this thread is MattB thumping his
usual tub.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:29:54 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
> wrote:

>Many pairs of cyclists insist on riding alongside each other and take
>up as much road space as a slow moving small car. A peloton of
>cyclists take up as much room as an artic, and they will never go into
>single file so that you can easily overtake them in a car.

The road space issue applies only in densely populated urban areas
where there is heavy traffic.

What you describe are leisure cyclists. Leisure cyclists are a part of
life, just like caravans and horse boxes. Mr. Toad might prefer it if
they were not there, but the road is not provided for the sole
enjoyment of Mr. Toad.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Matt B wrote:

> In a recent URCM thread

So what?

If you don't like it don't go there, simple.

What is it about some people? 'They' don't want you, so why do you
want to go there so much? Seems to me that all you want to do is argue
the infinite toss and minutiae and that you disagree with the politics
that enshrines the group.

So you think they'e a bunch of ****s who made themselves moderators.
So what? You don't need to call their bluffs, if they are bluffs, or
argue the toss, if they are *******, with them at every opportunity.
Just let them quietly have their little victory. it amounts to about
1/5th of **** all ....

Almost everyone on usenet (doubtful actually but YKWIM) knows about
urcm, if you don't like it no-one else cares, just stay away, maybe
form your own little group.

Some of us, and I do include myself in that, disagreed with the need
for a moderated group, but to be honest now it's running it does have
more cycling information than urc which has taken a turn for the worse
... mostly since Doug started his campaigning again, it has to be said!
and I now enjoy it more than I thought I would .. but some people still
keep arguing the toss about everything so I ignore them!

Keep out of the politics, post about cycling (It _is_ a cycling group
after all) and I'm sure you can post merrily away.

;)

--
Paul - xxx

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

[Tosspot[_3_]]

On 20/06/10 18:20, Guy Cuthbertson wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:29:35 +0100, Matt B
>> > wrote:
>>
>> [snippety]
>>
>> Nobody cares. Really, nobody.
>
> Don't you like people showing that pages on your web****e are based on
> nothing but your blatant anti-motorist prejudices?

Oooh, you poor dear, did mummy not let you post to those nasty cycling
peoples news group?

[Geoff Berrow]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:21:31 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>Nobody cares. Really, nobody.

Who elected you as spokesperson?
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker

[Matt B]

[Followup set to: uk.rec.cycling]
On 19/06/2010 20:54, OG wrote:
>
> "Matt B" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In a recent URCM thread Simon Brooke poured scorn on my suggestion
>> that with some of the new small cars coming out, that double-occupancy
>> car travel will almost certainly be more space-efficient than
>> conventional cycling.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> So, for you Simon, and for anyone else who may be interested, here's
>> an example of such a car available today...
>>
>> Estrima Birò 2-seat car with 2 passengers is 1.74m x 1.03m = 0.9m^2 of
>> road per person.[2]
>>
>> A traditional 1-seat bicycle with 1 rider is around 1.78m x 0.61m =
>> 1.09m^2 per person.
>
> At what speed does your calculations apply?

At all speeds.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

[Followup set to: uk.rec.cycling]
On 19/06/2010 21:15, Tosspot wrote:
> On 19/06/10 19:29, Matt B wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Estrima Birò 2-seat car with 2 passengers is 1.74m x 1.03m = 0.9m^2 of
>> road per person.[2]
>>
>> A traditional 1-seat bicycle with 1 rider is around 1.78m x 0.61m =
>> 1.09m^2 per person.
>
> Here is the beast in question
>
> http://www.newteon.com/www2/en/Vehicules/Transport_de_personnes/Estrima_20090226437/

What was wrong with the link to the manufacturer in the original post?

> Basically an invalid cart, max speed 30ish MPH, range 30ish miles.

A small 2-seat electric car, yes, as I said.

> However, like for like as it were, a tandem would be about 2.5m long,
> the same width as above gives (2.5 x 0.61)/2 = 0.76m^2 per person.

As maybe, but irrelevant to the point of the discussion to which I was
replying.

> A Routemaster bus comes in at [...]

Also irrelevant.

The point I was replying to was about the likelihood that a 2-seat car
could compete with a normal bike in terms of space efficiency, and the
answer is plainly a resounding YES - which, I guess, is why it wasn't
accepted for posting to urcm.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

On 20/06/2010 13:21, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:29:35 +0100, Matt B
> > wrote:
>
> [snippety]
>
> Nobody cares. Really, nobody.

Presumably no-one will reply to it then...

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

On 20/06/2010 01:25, Clive George wrote:
> On 19/06/2010 20:29, Matt B wrote:
>> On 19/06/2010 19:54, Clive George wrote:
>>> On 19/06/2010 19:29, Matt B wrote:
>>>
>>>> Estrima Birò 2-seat car with 2 passengers is 1.74m x 1.03m = 0.9m^2 of
>>>> road per person.[2]
>>>>
>>>> A traditional 1-seat bicycle with 1 rider is around 1.78m x 0.61m =
>>>> 1.09m^2 per person.
>>>
>>> Does that take account of the fact that bikes can run in parallel where
>>> cars are one per lane width, and the lane width has to be big enough for
>>> a lorry or more? Does it take account of the closer packing of bikes due
>>> to greater visibility of the edges and greater ability to get out of a
>>> tight spot?
>>
>> Yes it does.
>
> That'll be why the width of the car is 2.4 metres or so? No. Oops.

The width is 1.03 m. Two can easily travel side-by-side in a standard
road lane.

> That'll be why the length is purely that of the vehicle, rather than
> allowing the required gaps at the end? No. Oops.

The Birò or a bike need the same gap for the same speed, so that cancels
out.

--
Matt B

[Matt B]

On 20/06/2010 18:58, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:54:12 +0100, Clive George
> > wrote:
>
>> Does that take account of the fact that bikes can run in parallel where
>> cars are one per lane width, and the lane width has to be big enough for
>> a lorry or more? Does it take account of the closer packing of bikes due
>> to greater visibility of the edges and greater ability to get out of a
>> tight spot?
>
> No, neither does it take account of required headway distance (which
> dwarfs the size of the vehicle itself, except in stationary traffic)

I thought you said "Nobody cares. Really, nobody."!

Anyway, why would the "headway" be different for the car and a bike?

> or the fact that the vehicle must be parked during the majority of the
> day.

Oh, just like the bike then.

> Oh, and it doesn't take account of the fact that this is
> effectively a two-man electric scooter rather than a car and does not
> appear to be available in this country.

How does that affect the point that it is more space efficient that a
conventional bicycle? Ah, it doesn't, so is therefore irrelevant. Good.

--
Matt B

[Clive George]

On 20/06/2010 20:14, Matt B wrote:
> On 20/06/2010 01:25, Clive George wrote:
>> On 19/06/2010 20:29, Matt B wrote:
>>> On 19/06/2010 19:54, Clive George wrote:
>>>> On 19/06/2010 19:29, Matt B wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Estrima Birò 2-seat car with 2 passengers is 1.74m x 1.03m = 0.9m^2 of
>>>>> road per person.[2]
>>>>>
>>>>> A traditional 1-seat bicycle with 1 rider is around 1.78m x 0.61m =
>>>>> 1.09m^2 per person.
>>>>
>>>> Does that take account of the fact that bikes can run in parallel where
>>>> cars are one per lane width, and the lane width has to be big enough
>>>> for
>>>> a lorry or more? Does it take account of the closer packing of bikes
>>>> due
>>>> to greater visibility of the edges and greater ability to get out of a
>>>> tight spot?
>>>
>>> Yes it does.
>>
>> That'll be why the width of the car is 2.4 metres or so? No. Oops.
>
> The width is 1.03 m. Two can easily travel side-by-side in a standard
> road lane.

I think that's pretty unlikely to actually happen. (Even less likely
than the chances of finding one on the roads in the first place).

>> That'll be why the length is purely that of the vehicle, rather than
>> allowing the required gaps at the end? No. Oops.
>
> The Birò or a bike need the same gap for the same speed, so that cancels
> out.

That's not actually true. a) Bikes can turn rather sharper than cars
like that, due to having front wheels which can turn to 90 degrees or
more. b) On a bike, you can position the front rather more accurately
than even in a vehicle such as yours, due to your head being in a better
place to see it.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Jun 20, 8:19*pm, Matt B > wrote:
> I thought you said "Nobody cares. Really, nobody."!

About your tub-thumping being dropped from URCM, no they don't. Well,
nobody who is not looking to exploit you as a "useful idiot" anyway.

> Anyway, why would the "headway" be different for the car and a bike?

Speed.

> > or the fact that the vehicle must be parked during the majority of the
> > day.

> Oh, just like the bike then.

How many bikes do you think you could park in the space taken up by
even that, unusually tiny car? Don't forget to allow for access and
egress. Of course I could cheat and use my Brompton as a comparison as
that takes up zero space when parked (it goes in dead space under my
desk where my PC used to live).

> > Oh, and it doesn't take account of the fact that this is
> > effectively a two-man electric scooter rather than a car and does not
> > appear to be available in this country.

> How does that affect the point that it is more space efficient that a
> conventional bicycle? *Ah, it doesn't, so is therefore irrelevant. *Good.

Your message is clear: "bikes are not superior in space efficiency
because there is one car that might under some circumstances be more
space-efficient". However, this is only true if you ignore all
externalities including the fact that it's not actually a /car/ at
all, in the normally understood meaning of the term, and is not, it
seems, that readily available. So even your hypothetical limiting case
which does not actually hold up, fails.
--
Guy

[Matt B]

On 20/06/2010 20:29, Clive George wrote:
>
> I think that's pretty unlikely to actually happen. (Even less likely
> than the chances of finding one on the roads in the first place).
> [...]

Clive, you are (deliberately?) missing/evading the point by a country mile.

I speculated that 2-seat small cars may well appear which will rival
normal bikes in terms of efficiency of road space use. I then found a
current car which demonstrates a step in that direction, and thought
(rightly) that reader here would be interested in it. I didn't want a
squabble about the chances of meeting another Birò on the roads or the
ins and outs of manoeuvrability of 2-wheel versus 4-wheel.

--
Matt B

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:44:59 +0100, Geoff Berrow
> wrote:

>>Nobody cares. Really, nobody.

>Who elected you as spokesperson?

Same person that elected you as netcop.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Matt B]

On 20/06/2010 21:19, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Jun 20, 8:19 pm, Matt > wrote:
>> I thought you said "Nobody cares. Really, nobody."!
>
> About your tub-thumping being dropped from URCM, no they don't. Well,
> nobody who is not looking to exploit you as a "useful idiot" anyway.
>
>> Anyway, why would the "headway" be different for the car and a bike?
>
> Speed.

When they're both travelling at the same speed what are the headway
differences then?

>>> or the fact that the vehicle must be parked during the majority of the
>>> day.
>
>> Oh, just like the bike then.
>
> How many bikes do you think you could park in the space taken up by
> even that, unusually tiny car?

Dunno, but it isn't relevant to the discussion either.

>>> Oh, and it doesn't take account of the fact that this is
>>> effectively a two-man electric scooter rather than a car and does not
>>> appear to be available in this country.
>
>> How does that affect the point that it is more space efficient that a
>> conventional bicycle? Ah, it doesn't, so is therefore irrelevant. Good.
>
> Your message is clear: "bikes are not superior in space efficiency
> because there is one car that might under some circumstances be more
> space-efficient".

No, you've misread/misrepresented the thread. My clear message is that
small 2-seat cars my well emerge that are more space efficient than a
conventional bicycle. I even found an example from Italy that shows
that we aren't very far away from that livelihood even now.

--
Matt B

[Clive George]

On 20/06/2010 21:34, Matt B wrote:
> On 20/06/2010 20:29, Clive George wrote:
>>
>> I think that's pretty unlikely to actually happen. (Even less likely
>> than the chances of finding one on the roads in the first place).
>> [...]
>
> Clive, you are (deliberately?) missing/evading the point by a country mile.
>
> I speculated that 2-seat small cars may well appear which will rival
> normal bikes in terms of efficiency of road space use. I then found a
> current car which demonstrates a step in that direction, and thought
> (rightly) that reader here would be interested in it. I didn't want a
> squabble about the chances of meeting another Birò on the roads or the
> ins and outs of manoeuvrability of 2-wheel versus 4-wheel.

The point is bikes are here now, and used by many of us. That car isn't.

The manoeuvrability bit is pertinent because it means your numbers are
wrong.

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:43:02 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:44:59 +0100, Geoff Berrow
> wrote:
>
>>>Nobody cares. Really, nobody.
>
>>Who elected you as spokesperson?
>
>Same person that elected you as netcop.

I think that a key difference here is that Geoff has been elected to
act in what he considers to be the best interests of the uk.*
hierarchy.

[Tom Crispin]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:29:35 +0100, Matt B
> wrote:

><http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-12768109883704.txt>
><http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-127694910917715.txt>

Given that Moderator Brooke has challenged you to find a motor vehicle
that takes up less space per person that a bicycle, and you have
provided evidence that such a vehicle exists, I can only assume that
Moderator Brooke was the person who prevented your posts because he
did not want to be shown up.

But as has been previously shown, urcm moderators do their job based
on the personality of the poster, not on the content.

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 21:43:02 +0100
"Just zis Guy, you know?" > wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:44:59 +0100, Geoff Berrow
> > wrote:
>
> >>Nobody cares. Really, nobody.
>
> >Who elected you as spokesperson?
>
> Same person that elected you as netcop.
>
He was speaking for himself, you were trying to make out your opinion
carries more weight than it actually does. You like to be part of the
'in' crowd, don't you? Does it make you brave enough to bully people?

[Tosspot[_3_]]

On 20/06/10 20:04, Matt B wrote:
> [Followup set to: uk.rec.cycling]
> On 19/06/2010 21:15, Tosspot wrote:

<snip>

>> However, like for like as it were, a tandem would be about 2.5m long,
>> the same width as above gives (2.5 x 0.61)/2 = 0.76m^2 per person.
>
> As maybe, but irrelevant to the point of the discussion to which I was
> replying.
>
>> A Routemaster bus comes in at [...]
>
> Also irrelevant.
>
> The point I was replying to was about the likelihood that a 2-seat car
> could compete with a normal bike in terms of space efficiency, and the
> answer is plainly a resounding YES - which, I guess, is why it wasn't
> accepted for posting to urcm.

The point I was making is a Routemaster bus is even better than either!
Routemasters should be sriven by everyone.

[Steve Firth]

Tom Crispin > wrote:

> But as has been previously shown, urcm moderators do their job based
> on the personality of the poster, not on the content.

A small correction, the mods block people based on their pre-conceived
view of the poster, not on the content. Personality has nothing to do
with it, people like you and Matt who are perfectly reasonable (for the
most part) but who the mods decided they hated in the past don't get to
post. Given the personalities and giant egos of the mods they generally
tend to dislike those with a spine.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:15:53 +0100, Rob Morley >
wrote:

>He was speaking for himself, you were trying to make out your opinion
>carries more weight than it actually does. You like to be part of the
>'in' crowd, don't you? Does it make you brave enough to bully people?

I have never been part of the "in" crowd, anywhere.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Derek C]

On Jun 20, 7:01*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:29:54 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>
> > wrote:
> >Many pairs of cyclists insist on riding alongside each other and take
> >up as much road space as a slow moving small car. A peloton of
> >cyclists take up as much room as an artic, and they will never go into
> >single file so that you can easily overtake them in a car.
>
> The road space issue applies only in densely populated urban areas
> where there is heavy traffic.
>
> What you describe are leisure cyclists. Leisure cyclists are a part of
> life, just like caravans and horse boxes. Mr. Toad might prefer it if
> they were not there, but the road is not provided for the sole
> enjoyment of Mr. Toad.
>
The difference between a pair of cyclist riding two-abreast and a
small car carrying two people is that the latter will probably be
going fast enough that there is no need to overtake it!

Derek C

[mileburner]

Derek C wrote:
> On Jun 20, 7:01 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:29:54 -0700 (PDT), Derek C
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> Many pairs of cyclists insist on riding alongside each other and
>>> take up as much road space as a slow moving small car. A peloton of
>>> cyclists take up as much room as an artic, and they will never go
>>> into single file so that you can easily overtake them in a car.
>>
>> The road space issue applies only in densely populated urban areas
>> where there is heavy traffic.
>>
>> What you describe are leisure cyclists. Leisure cyclists are a part
>> of life, just like caravans and horse boxes. Mr. Toad might prefer
>> it if they were not there, but the road is not provided for the sole
>> enjoyment of Mr. Toad.
>>
> The difference between a pair of cyclist riding two-abreast and a
> small car carrying two people is that the latter will probably be
> going fast enough that there is no need to overtake it!

Cycles have a lower top speed than motor vehicle. Like the caravans and the
horseboxes, Mr Toad might not like it bit it is part of life.

Also, try to understand the difference between need and desire. From an
overtaking point of view, no matter how fast you go, there will always be
somone who thinks that you are going too slow and that they need to
overtake.

HTH

[Geoff Berrow]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:28:15 +0100, Tom Crispin
> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:29:35 +0100, Matt B
> wrote:
>
>><http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-12768109883704.txt>
>><http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~webstump/g.urcm/messages/nr-127694910917715.txt>
>
>Given that Moderator Brooke has challenged you to find a motor vehicle
>that takes up less space per person that a bicycle, and you have
>provided evidence that such a vehicle exists, I can only assume that
>Moderator Brooke was the person who prevented your posts because he
>did not want to be shown up.

Have I got this right? Some one has made the claim that "Six bicycles
can fit into the same road space as a Smart car when stationary; when
moving at city speeds, about eight bicycles can safely use the road
envelope of a Smart." and when someone asks how they worked that out
the post was blocked?

****ing ridiculous. Both the comment and the blocking.


--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker

[Matt B]

On 20/06/2010 22:47, Clive George wrote:
> On 20/06/2010 21:34, Matt B wrote:
>> On 20/06/2010 20:29, Clive George wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that's pretty unlikely to actually happen. (Even less likely
>>> than the chances of finding one on the roads in the first place).
>>> [...]
>>
>> Clive, you are (deliberately?) missing/evading the point by a country
>> mile.
>>
>> I speculated that 2-seat small cars may well appear which will rival
>> normal bikes in terms of efficiency of road space use. I then found a
>> current car which demonstrates a step in that direction, and thought
>> (rightly) that reader here would be interested in it. I didn't want a
>> squabble about the chances of meeting another Birò on the roads or the
>> ins and outs of manoeuvrability of 2-wheel versus 4-wheel.
>
> The point is bikes are here now, and used by many of us. That car isn't.

No, the point is that future small 2-seat cars may well be more
passenger space efficient than today's conventional bicycles.

> The manoeuvrability bit is pertinent because it means your numbers are
> wrong.

I saw a 4-wheel ride-on lawn mowing vehicle on Friday which can rotate
about its own vertical centre axis. That doesn't make it any smaller
though, its road area requirement is still its length times its width.

--
Matt B

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Jun 21, 10:43*am, Matt B > wrote:
> No, the point is that future small 2-seat cars may well be more
> passenger space efficient than today's conventional bicycles.

Which is a point you failed to make, since the 2-seat "car" you linked
is of a kind that is highly unlikely to become even as common as the
(much larger) Smart currently is.

> I saw a 4-wheel ride-on lawn mowing vehicle on Friday which can rotate
> about its own vertical centre axis. *That doesn't make it any smaller
> though, its road area requirement is still its length times its width.

Do let us know what the salt-of-the-earth drivers say when you star
commuting on that.
--
Guy

[Matt B]

On 21/06/2010 12:42, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Jun 21, 10:43 am, Matt > wrote:
>> No, the point is that future small 2-seat cars may well be more
>> passenger space efficient than today's conventional bicycles.
>
> Which is a point you failed to make, since the 2-seat "car" you linked
> is of a kind that is highly unlikely to become even as common as the
> (much larger) Smart currently is.

The point stands. Whether such cars become common would depend on many
factors, a major one being their ability to induce feelings of
self-righteousness in users.

>> I saw a 4-wheel ride-on lawn mowing vehicle on Friday which can rotate
>> about its own vertical centre axis. That doesn't make it any smaller
>> though, its road area requirement is still its length times its width.
>
> Do let us know what the salt-of-the-earth drivers say when you star
> commuting on that.

LOL. I saw a lad driving a council contractor's lawn-mowing collection
of contraptions along a bendy double-white-lined A-road during the
morning rush a couple of weeks ago, wearing headphones and shades he
appeared to be oblivious to the lengthening snake of cars crawling along
behind him. As the next council maintained "lawn" was some 3 or 4 miles
away, I was wondering how the procession would develop. However, he
turned-out not to be from the arrogant
my-road-as-much-as-yours-so-you-can-wait faction of road users, as at
his first available opportunity he pulled well into a farm gateway and
gestured the surprised and hand-wavingly grateful multitude to pass him!

--
Matt B

[Guy Cuthbertson[_9_]]

In article >,
says...
>
> On 20/06/10 18:20, Guy Cuthbertson wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:29:35 +0100, Matt B
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> [snippety]
> >>
> >> Nobody cares. Really, nobody.
> >
> > Don't you like people showing that pages on your web****e are based on
> > nothing but your blatant anti-motorist prejudices?
>
> Oooh, you poor dear, did mummy not let you post to those nasty cycling
> peoples news group?

Very good. It's boring enough when Nob does it, and you copying him
just makes it even more banal, but don't let me stop you.

(BTW I wasn't entirely serious when I said I was very hurt by your
insults...it takes a thicker skin that that to "survive" in URC/UNNM.
But if you want to believe otherwise then I suppose that's another
person writing predictable, generic, disposable, useless replies to my
posts, along with Motherf**ker Hubbard and the like...I suspect that
once again it's a psycholist attempt to distract from the many truths
that they find inconvenient. What do you think of the rejection of
MattB's latest inconvenient truth? Are you happy for URCM to be
"moderated" in that way? Would you still be if you disagreed with the
opinions that the "moderators" are so keen to "promote"?)

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Jun 21, 1:28*pm, Matt B > wrote:
> >> No, the point is that future small 2-seat cars may well be more
> >> passenger space efficient than today's conventional bicycles.

> > Which is a point you failed to make, since the 2-seat "car" you linked
> > is of a kind that is highly unlikely to become even as common as the
> > (much larger) Smart currently is.

> The point stands. *Whether such cars become common would depend on many
> factors, a major one being their ability to induce feelings of
> self-righteousness in users.

Cobblers. You say "may well" and then cite an extreme example which
is extremely unlikely to become common (look at the scorn heaped on
the G-Wiz). You have failed to make your case, and your case ignores
numerous other externalities such as parking, so you've failed on at
least two levels.
--
Guy

[Matt B]

On 21/06/2010 15:25, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Jun 21, 1:28 pm, Matt > wrote:
>>>> No, the point is that future small 2-seat cars may well be more
>>>> passenger space efficient than today's conventional bicycles.
>
>>> Which is a point you failed to make, since the 2-seat "car" you linked
>>> is of a kind that is highly unlikely to become even as common as the
>>> (much larger) Smart currently is.
>
>> The point stands. Whether such cars become common would depend on many
>> factors, a major one being their ability to induce feelings of
>> self-righteousness in users.
>
> Cobblers.

The discussion point I made was perfectly valid, like it or not.

> You say "may well"

I was speculating.

> and then cite an extreme example which
> is extremely unlikely to become common

In your opinion, but so what? The point is that they may well be more
space efficient than, not that they will necessarily become more common
than, bikes.

> (look at the scorn heaped on the G-Wiz).

Yes, and look who's laughing up their sleeves. In 2007, 750 of the
worldwide population of 2000 G-Wizes were registered to Londoners
including many celebrities and the rich and famous. Goodness knows how
many of them and their ilk are here now.

> You have failed to make your case,

I think of the two of us, it isn't me who has failed.

> and your case ignores
> numerous other externalities such as parking,

If we included all the negative externalities concerning public space
use of bikes and very small cars the balance would probably fall even
heavier in favour of the car. Just think about the amount of London
public real estate space dedicated free of charge to cycle lanes, cycle
paths, cycle parking, etc. and compare that to the massive incomes that
London councils derive from car parking, even from very small cars.

> so you've failed on at
> least two levels.

LOL, I think you need to rework your assertions with a more neutral
mindset ;-)

--
Matt B

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Jun 21, 4:34*pm, Matt B > wrote:

> The discussion point I made was perfectly valid, like it or not.

Apart fomr the fact that it used something that is unlikely to
actually see significant use, ignored all externalities, and was in
sundry other ways flawed, of course.

You are welcome to carry on in your own little dream world, but don't
be over surprised when others refuse to join you there.
--
Guy

[Matt B]

On 21/06/2010 16:36, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Jun 21, 4:34 pm, Matt > wrote:
>
>> The discussion point I made was perfectly valid, like it or not.
>
> Apart fomr the fact that it used something that is unlikely to
> actually see significant use,

Which was outside of the scope of the point anyway - so irrelevant.

> ignored all externalities,

Which, as explained, would only have made the point stronger - so
irrelevant.

> and was in
> sundry other ways flawed,of course.

That is ways other than those relevant to the point - so irrelevant.

> You are welcome to carry on in your own little dream world, but don't
> be over surprised when others refuse to join you there.

Irrelevant to the point.

Lets tot up the value of that post of yours. Out of the four assertions
you made how many were relevant to the point,... oh,... none! That's
zero out of four; you need to try much harder to concentrate on the
content of the posts to which you are replying.

--
Matt B

[Steve Firth]

Geoff Berrow > wrote:

> ****ing ridiculous. Both the comment and the blocking.

You are right, but that sort of loony-tunes comment has been the
mainstay of some posters to URC and the fact is that they see URCM as
the place where they can make similar posts without having to go to the
tedious extent of proving their comment. Religion is very important to a
number of URCM regulars and it seems that belief in any old malarky
counts for more than fact or evidence. Or even sanity TBH.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:53:34 +0100, Matt B
> wrote:

>>> The discussion point I made was perfectly valid, like it or not.
>> Apart fomr the fact that it used something that is unlikely to
>> actually see significant use,
>Which was outside of the scope of the point anyway - so irrelevant.

Ah, right, so your point being "valid" demands that we accept your
theoretical premise which bears no relation to reality.

No thanks.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Tosspot[_3_]]

On 21/06/10 10:43, Matt B wrote:
> On 20/06/2010 22:47, Clive George wrote:
>> On 20/06/2010 21:34, Matt B wrote:
>>> On 20/06/2010 20:29, Clive George wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think that's pretty unlikely to actually happen. (Even less likely
>>>> than the chances of finding one on the roads in the first place).
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Clive, you are (deliberately?) missing/evading the point by a country
>>> mile.
>>>
>>> I speculated that 2-seat small cars may well appear which will rival
>>> normal bikes in terms of efficiency of road space use. I then found a
>>> current car which demonstrates a step in that direction, and thought
>>> (rightly) that reader here would be interested in it. I didn't want a
>>> squabble about the chances of meeting another Birò on the roads or the
>>> ins and outs of manoeuvrability of 2-wheel versus 4-wheel.
>>
>> The point is bikes are here now, and used by many of us. That car isn't.
>
> No, the point is that future small 2-seat cars may well be more
> passenger space efficient than today's conventional bicycles.

A *future* small car? Well, my future sky car will take you all to the
cleaners, occupying 0m^2 of road space.

[Tosspot[_3_]]

On 21/06/10 14:01, Guy Cuthbertson wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> On 20/06/10 18:20, Guy Cuthbertson wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:29:35 +0100, Matt B
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snippety]
>>>>
>>>> Nobody cares. Really, nobody.
>>>
>>> Don't you like people showing that pages on your web****e are based on
>>> nothing but your blatant anti-motorist prejudices?
>>
>> Oooh, you poor dear, did mummy not let you post to those nasty cycling
>> peoples news group?
>
> Very good. It's boring enough when Nob does it, and you copying him
> just makes it even more banal, but don't let me stop you.

Heh, banal is my speciality.

> (BTW I wasn't entirely serious when I said I was very hurt by your
> insults...it takes a thicker skin that that to "survive" in URC/UNNM.
> But if you want to believe otherwise then I suppose that's another
> person writing predictable, generic, disposable, useless replies to my
> posts, along with Motherf**ker Hubbard and the like...I suspect that
> once again it's a psycholist attempt to distract from the many truths
> that they find inconvenient. What do you think of the rejection of
> MattB's latest inconvenient truth? Are you happy for URCM to be
> "moderated" in that way? Would you still be if you disagreed with the
> opinions that the "moderators" are so keen to "promote"?)

You poor soul, you still upset they won't let you post? Diddums, but
don't worry, you can still post here! Mummy gives you a hug *and* an
ice cream, how good is that?

Look you ****ing thick ****, urcm will, like all newsgroups, live or die
by it's content. It's democracy in action. In a years time maybe we'll
all be asking what happened to URCM, maybe we won't, but the posters and
the moderators will be the deciding factor.

[Jim A]

On 06/21/2010 07:33 PM, Tosspot wrote:
> urcm will, like all newsgroups, live or die
> by it's content. It's democracy in action. In a years time maybe we'll
> all be asking what happened to URCM, maybe we won't, but the posters and
> the moderators will be the deciding factor.

In a years time it wouldn't surprise me if my ISP doesn't bother hosting
a news service no more. If & when that happens I'm not going to bother
subscribing to another one.

--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride

[Matt B]

On 21/06/2010 19:26, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:53:34 +0100, Matt B
> > wrote:
>
>>>> The discussion point I made was perfectly valid, like it or not.
>>> Apart fomr the fact that it used something that is unlikely to
>>> actually see significant use,
>> Which was outside of the scope of the point anyway - so irrelevant.
>
> Ah, right, so your point being "valid" demands that we accept your
> theoretical premise which bears no relation to reality.

No, there was no theoretical premise. I'll remind you of the point
being discussed again: "with some of the new small cars coming out,
double-occupancy car travel will almost certainly be more
space-efficient than cycling". No mention of how common those cars
might, or might not, be.

> No thanks.

So you see, you were wrong (again).

--
Matt B

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:37:54 +0100, Matt B
> wrote:

>No, there was no theoretical premise.

Other than a car which is not readily available, would not gain
significant market acceptance (as has been the case for all other
two-seat electric cars), and ignores all externalities.

Oh, so theoretical then.

Feel free to have the last word as experience indicates you will never
shut up once you start beating one of your dead horses.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.

[Matt B]

On 21/06/2010 22:41, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:37:54 +0100, Matt B
> > wrote:
>
>> No, there was no theoretical premise.
>
> Other than a car which is not readily available, would not gain
> significant market acceptance (as has been the case for all other
> two-seat electric cars), and ignores all externalities.

None of which was a premise of the point that I was making.

> Oh, so theoretical then.

Non sequitur, as none of that was a premise, theoretical or otherwise,
of my point.

Has the penny dropped yet? If not please feel free to respond again and
I'll try again to explain the point to you, otherwise I'll assume that
you've cottoned-on at last.

--
Matt B

[The Realist]

In article >,
says...
>
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:15:53 +0100, Rob Morley >
> wrote:
>
> >He was speaking for himself, you were trying to make out your opinion
> >carries more weight than it actually does. You like to be part of the
> >'in' crowd, don't you? Does it make you brave enough to bully people?

Of course Chapman trying to "moderate" unmoderated groups is nothing
new. It's what he does to keep himself sane in the knowledge that
people wouldn't want him to moderate URCM, which in reality he wants to
do as much as, err, "CG".

> I have never been part of the "in" crowd, anywhere.

Then there must be some other reason why you are allowed to post obvious
insults towards members of the "out" crowd to URCM. Remember when you
did that recently on the segregation thread? Everything had settled
down between you and your victim, and if you'd just resisted the
opportunity to wallow in **** yet again...but you actually can't, can
you?

Ian Smith is so right about you: repeatedly wallowing in **** and then
raising an almighty protest that you're covered in it; never answering
difficult questions or admitting to being wrong in any way; being
constantly evasive, disingenuous and dishonest about your true motives;
you are deeply vile and proud, and despite your persecution complex
you've brought everything upon yourself. People have told you this
often enough but you *never learn* do you?

It's most strange that on the one hand you complain about someone
"harassing" you, yet on the other you post completely unprovoked insults
towards them when they hadn't paid the slightest attention to you for
months. Clearly you can't really think it's "harassment" or you
wouldn't encourage it like that; it's just your lame way of trying to
get someone you dislike into trouble. That's not even considering
whether you're "N Ron Hubbard". The hard-done-by act isn't fooling
people: you seek out conflict to a far greater extent than anyone else
here. You can't help yourself. It's very sad.

[Guy Cuthbertson[_9_]]

In article >,
says...
>
> Look you ****ing thick ****

Oh dear, no cake for you. You don't care that URCM is being run as a
private club when it shouldn't be because the opinions being "enforced"
are the same as yours. If they weren't then you'd be the first to
complain. You're happy for perfectly reasonable, necessary rules to be
disregarded as long as you benefit personally..."I'm all right Jack, and
sod usenet". Self-centred or what?

It's the same with the other URCM apologists (moderators, wannabe
moderators and tosspots alike): they say "It's being run impartially"
but what they really mean is "It's not being run impartially, which
suits me fine since my opinions are the same as the 'permitted' ones,
but we all have to pretend it is being run impartially because otherwise
the group [quite rightly] wouldn't be allowed on usenet". Dreadful
dishonesty. Not *one* URCM supporter has had the guts to be upfront
about the situation for even a moment. That in itself tells you so much
about their mentality, and they use the same sort of deceitful approach
when discussing all sorts of "difficult" subjects. If in doubt,
engineer a charade and lie through your teeth: it's better than
"losing". Despicable.

BTW do you think it makes you look sophisticated to studiously ignore
the fact that "tosspot" has developed a new, much more common
definition? Do you insist on similarly using "gay", "bitch" and "cock"
as well? Stick-in-the-mud, implacably opposed to the grain and proud of
it? Do you think it's a sign of intelligence to insist on living in the
past, you stupid old man?

[Nick[_4_]]

On 21/06/2010 19:54, Jim A wrote:
> On 06/21/2010 07:33 PM, Tosspot wrote:
>> urcm will, like all newsgroups, live or die
>> by it's content. It's democracy in action. In a years time maybe we'll
>> all be asking what happened to URCM, maybe we won't, but the posters and
>> the moderators will be the deciding factor.
>
> In a years time it wouldn't surprise me if my ISP doesn't bother hosting
> a news service no more. If & when that happens I'm not going to bother
> subscribing to another one.
>

I can recomend http://www.astraweb.com/ provides 25 GB for $10.

One off payment via visa. I've been with them a year and a half. Just
using text I don't expect to ever exhaust the 25 GB limit.

Only potential downside is it doesn't get u.r.c.m at all and won't allow
you to post to u.l.m

[Ian Jackson]

In article >,
Nick > wrote:
>I can recomend http://www.astraweb.com/ provides 25 GB for $10.
....
>Only potential downside is it doesn't get u.r.c.m at all and won't allow
>you to post to u.l.m

Can't you file a support ticket and get that fixed ? Do they want a
message from the moderators or from Control ? (Nowadays creating new
uk.* newsgroups should be automatic; it suggests they're badly set up.)

As a pay service, news.individual.net is highly regarded, Eur10/yr.
The free service www.eternal-september.org is also well thought of.

--
Ian Jackson personal email: >
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

[Guy Cuthbertson[_9_]]

In article >,
says...
>
> (Nowadays creating new
> uk.* newsgroups should be automatic; it suggests they're badly set up.)

Or maybe they just don't want to feature newsgroups which are moderated
in a highly biased fashion in order to shield a clique of extremists
from reality. You know, because that's not what usenet is supposed to
be about.

Hats off to them if that's the case: they must be aware that when a
customer pays for a usenet service, they expect certain standards, and
since URCM falls so far below those standards, including it is probably
more likely to anger customers than omitting it. URCM is not a proper
newsgroup and not what one signs up for when they access usenet. Nor
will it be until the likes of you are deposed.

[Tony]

On 22/06/2010 14:07, Guy Cuthbertson wrote:
> In >,
> says...
>>
>> (Nowadays creating new
>> uk.* newsgroups should be automatic; it suggests they're badly set up.)
>
> Or maybe they just don't want to feature newsgroups which are moderated
> in a highly biased fashion in order to shield a clique of extremists
> from reality. You know, because that's not what usenet is supposed to
> be about.

No, they're just badly configured.

--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

[Tony]

On 22/06/2010 08:36, Nick wrote:
> On 21/06/2010 19:54, Jim A wrote:
>> On 06/21/2010 07:33 PM, Tosspot wrote:
>>> urcm will, like all newsgroups, live or die
>>> by it's content. It's democracy in action. In a years time maybe we'll
>>> all be asking what happened to URCM, maybe we won't, but the posters and
>>> the moderators will be the deciding factor.
>>
>> In a years time it wouldn't surprise me if my ISP doesn't bother hosting
>> a news service no more. If & when that happens I'm not going to bother
>> subscribing to another one.
>>
>
> I can recomend http://www.astraweb.com/ provides 25 GB for $10.
>
> One off payment via visa. I've been with them a year and a half. Just
> using text I don't expect to ever exhaust the 25 GB limit.
>
> Only potential downside is it doesn't get u.r.c.m at all and won't allow
> you to post to u.l.m

Not getting urcm suggests they don't automatically honour uk.* control
messages, which is an option, but they should add it on request.

'Not allowing you to post' to ulm suggests something else entirely is
broken - what kind of error do you get? Or does the post just not go
anywhere? Either way, I would raise the issue with them, it's broken
and it should be fixed.

--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

[JMS]

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 05:47:25 +0100, Nick >
wrote:

>On 19/06/2010 19:29, Matt B wrote:
>> In a recent URCM thread Simon Brooke poured scorn on my suggestion that
>> with some of the new small cars coming out, that double-occupancy car
>> travel will almost certainly be more space-efficient than conventional
>> cycling.
>>
>
>Can you please not cross post to u.r.c. Simon Brooke has graciously
>agreed not to post here.
>
>Simon if you do for some reason feel the need to reply to this idiot
>could you please remove u.r.c. Thanks.




Are you in charge?

--
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)

[JMS]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:36:23 +0100, Nick >
wrote:

>On 21/06/2010 19:54, Jim A wrote:
>> On 06/21/2010 07:33 PM, Tosspot wrote:
>>> urcm will, like all newsgroups, live or die
>>> by it's content. It's democracy in action. In a years time maybe we'll
>>> all be asking what happened to URCM, maybe we won't, but the posters and
>>> the moderators will be the deciding factor.
>>
>> In a years time it wouldn't surprise me if my ISP doesn't bother hosting
>> a news service no more. If & when that happens I'm not going to bother
>> subscribing to another one.
>>
>
>I can recomend http://www.astraweb.com/ provides 25 GB for $10.
>
>One off payment via visa. I've been with them a year and a half. Just
>using text I don't expect to ever exhaust the 25 GB limit.
>
>Only potential downside is it doesn't get u.r.c.m at all and won't allow
>you to post to u.l.m
>


Will you please not cross post to urc.


--
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)

[JMS]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 07:24:18 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 04:15:53 +0100, Rob Morley >
>wrote:
>
>>He was speaking for himself, you were trying to make out your opinion
>>carries more weight than it actually does. You like to be part of the
>>'in' crowd, don't you? Does it make you brave enough to bully people?
>
>I have never been part of the "in" crowd, anywhere.
>
>Guy


How's things in the "shed" - that's for people who want to belong to
something but they're not quite sure what.

--

I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)

[JMS]

On 20 Jun 2010 18:03:01 GMT, "Paul - xxx" >
wrote:

<snip>


>Keep out of the politics, post about cycling (It _is_ a cycling group
>after all) and I'm sure you can post merrily away.



If only.

[Tosspot[_3_]]

On 22/06/10 23:49, JMS wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:36:23 +0100, Nick >
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/06/2010 19:54, Jim A wrote:
>>> On 06/21/2010 07:33 PM, Tosspot wrote:
>>>> urcm will, like all newsgroups, live or die
>>>> by it's content. It's democracy in action. In a years time maybe we'll
>>>> all be asking what happened to URCM, maybe we won't, but the posters and
>>>> the moderators will be the deciding factor.
>>>
>>> In a years time it wouldn't surprise me if my ISP doesn't bother hosting
>>> a news service no more. If & when that happens I'm not going to bother
>>> subscribing to another one.
>>>
>>
>> I can recomend http://www.astraweb.com/ provides 25 GB for $10.
>>
>> One off payment via visa. I've been with them a year and a half. Just
>> using text I don't expect to ever exhaust the 25 GB limit.
>>
>> Only potential downside is it doesn't get u.r.c.m at all and won't allow
>> you to post to u.l.m
>>
>
>
> Will you please not cross post to urc.

She says, X-Posting to URC. You couldn't make this up.

[JMS]

On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:05:59 +0100, Tosspot >
wrote:

>On 22/06/10 23:49, JMS wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:36:23 +0100, Nick >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/06/2010 19:54, Jim A wrote:
>>>> On 06/21/2010 07:33 PM, Tosspot wrote:
>>>>> urcm will, like all newsgroups, live or die
>>>>> by it's content. It's democracy in action. In a years time maybe we'll
>>>>> all be asking what happened to URCM, maybe we won't, but the posters and
>>>>> the moderators will be the deciding factor.
>>>>
>>>> In a years time it wouldn't surprise me if my ISP doesn't bother hosting
>>>> a news service no more. If & when that happens I'm not going to bother
>>>> subscribing to another one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can recomend http://www.astraweb.com/ provides 25 GB for $10.
>>>
>>> One off payment via visa. I've been with them a year and a half. Just
>>> using text I don't expect to ever exhaust the 25 GB limit.
>>>
>>> Only potential downside is it doesn't get u.r.c.m at all and won't allow
>>> you to post to u.l.m
>>>
>>
>>
>> Will you please not cross post to urc.
>
>She says, X-Posting to URC. You couldn't make this up.


Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

I thought it would be too subtle by half for the ****wits.

(Clue: have a look back over recent days and see who keeps making that
very request)

[kat[_2_]]

Tosspot > said
>
>>
>> Will you please not cross post to urc.
>
> She says, X-Posting to URC. You couldn't make this up.

Whooooosh.


--
kat
>^..^<

[JMS]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 08:36:13 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Jun 21, 4:34*pm, Matt B > wrote:
>
>> The discussion point I made was perfectly valid, like it or not.
>
>Apart fomr the fact that it used something that is unlikely to
>actually see significant use, ignored all externalities, and was in
>sundry other ways flawed, of course.
>
>You are welcome to carry on in your own little dream world, but don't
>be over surprised when others refuse to join you there.


In your case - if only.

--

I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)

[Tosspot[_3_]]

On 23/06/10 08:29, JMS wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:05:59 +0100, Tosspot >
> wrote:
>
>> On 22/06/10 23:49, JMS wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:36:23 +0100, Nick >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/06/2010 19:54, Jim A wrote:
>>>>> On 06/21/2010 07:33 PM, Tosspot wrote:
>>>>>> urcm will, like all newsgroups, live or die
>>>>>> by it's content. It's democracy in action. In a years time maybe we'll
>>>>>> all be asking what happened to URCM, maybe we won't, but the posters and
>>>>>> the moderators will be the deciding factor.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a years time it wouldn't surprise me if my ISP doesn't bother hosting
>>>>> a news service no more. If & when that happens I'm not going to bother
>>>>> subscribing to another one.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can recomend http://www.astraweb.com/ provides 25 GB for $10.
>>>>
>>>> One off payment via visa. I've been with them a year and a half. Just
>>>> using text I don't expect to ever exhaust the 25 GB limit.
>>>>
>>>> Only potential downside is it doesn't get u.r.c.m at all and won't allow
>>>> you to post to u.l.m
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Will you please not cross post to urc.
>>
>> She says, X-Posting to URC. You couldn't make this up.
>
>
> Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
>
> I thought it would be too subtle by half for the ****wits.
>
> (Clue: have a look back over recent days and see who keeps making that
> very request)

Bwaahaaa! That's good! I like the cut of your jib.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2010-06-22, Nick > wrote:
> I can recomend http://www.astraweb.com/ provides 25 GB for $10.
>
> One off payment via visa. I've been with them a year and a half. Just
> using text I don't expect to ever exhaust the 25 GB limit.
>
> Only potential downside is it doesn't get u.r.c.m at all and won't allow
> you to post to u.l.m

So, apart from being completely incompetent, they're great? ;-)