MEP calls for cyclists to protect themselves

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Please note: he is asking for what any sane person would: that cyclists take
responsibility for their actions and minimise their risks when on the road.

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/49280/mep-calls-for-cyclists-to-protect-themselves

[Simon Mason[_4_]]

On Nov 15, 2:01*pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
> Please note: he is asking for what any sane person would: that cyclists take
> responsibility for their actions and minimise their risks when on the road.
>
> http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/49280/...

You are two days late, Mr C. We have already discussed this at length
and come to the conclusion that the guy doesn't know what he is
talking about, as all bicycles are sold with a bell at point of
purchase. Something he apparently isn't aware of.

--
Simon Mason

[SW[_3_]]

On 15/11/2010 14:05, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> We have already discussed this at length
> and come to the conclusion that the guy doesn't know what he is
> talking about
>

"It is obviously a good thing that more people are leaving their
vehicles at home and riding bikes for transport"

He's not totally clueless then - just a bit confused about how make
yourself safe on a bike.

SW

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Simon Mason wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2:01 pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>> Please note: he is asking for what any sane person would: that
>> cyclists take responsibility for their actions and minimise their
>> risks when on the road.
>>
>> http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/49280/...
>
> You are two days late, Mr C. We have already discussed this at length
> and come to the conclusion that the guy doesn't know what he is
> talking about, as all bicycles are sold with a bell at point of
> purchase. Something he apparently isn't aware of.

so no comment as to whether cyclists should take responsibility for their
actions, such as use lights at night?
You can nit pick as to full stops and so on when the important stuff is
fixed.
Why do cyclists always try to deflect the point? It really is very
childish.

[bugbear]

Mrcheerful wrote:
> Please note: he is asking for what any sane person would: that cyclists take
> responsibility for their actions and minimise their risks when on the road.
>
> http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/49280/mep-calls-for-cyclists-to-protect-themselves
>
>

See thread "MEP not clued up" for discussion.

BugBear

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

bugbear wrote:
> Mrcheerful wrote:
>> Please note: he is asking for what any sane person would: that
>> cyclists take responsibility for their actions and minimise their
>> risks when on the road.
>> http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/49280/mep-calls-for-cyclists-to-protect-themselves
>>
>>
>
> See thread "MEP not clued up" for discussion.
>
> BugBear

that only mentioned bells at point of purchase (nit picking)

[Simon Mason]

"Mrcheerful" > wrote in message
...
>
> so no comment as to whether cyclists should take responsibility for their
> actions, such as use lights at night?

I wish this guy would take responsibility for what he did.
What a piece of scum.

http://road.cc/content/news/27331-man-serving-10-years-killing-teen-cyclist-sues-parents-because-he-wasnt-wearing

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

[bugbear]

Mrcheerful wrote:
> bugbear wrote:
>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>> Please note: he is asking for what any sane person would: that
>>> cyclists take responsibility for their actions and minimise their
>>> risks when on the road.
>>> http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/49280/mep-calls-for-cyclists-to-protect-themselves
>>>
>>>
>>
>> See thread "MEP not clued up" for discussion.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> that only mentioned bells at point of purchase (nit picking)

So how many threads do you think we should have on this subject?

BugBear

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

bugbear wrote:
> Mrcheerful wrote:
>> bugbear wrote:
>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>> Please note: he is asking for what any sane person would: that
>>>> cyclists take responsibility for their actions and minimise their
>>>> risks when on the road.
>>>> http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/49280/mep-calls-for-cyclists-to-protect-themselves
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> See thread "MEP not clued up" for discussion.
>>>
>>> BugBear
>>
>> that only mentioned bells at point of purchase (nit picking)
>
> So how many threads do you think we should have on this subject?
>
> BugBear

my thread has a very different slant, so two.

[bugbear]

Mrcheerful wrote:
> bugbear wrote:
>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>> bugbear wrote:
>>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>> Please note: he is asking for what any sane person would: that
>>>>> cyclists take responsibility for their actions and minimise their
>>>>> risks when on the road.
>>>>> http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/49280/mep-calls-for-cyclists-to-protect-themselves
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See thread "MEP not clued up" for discussion.
>>>>
>>>> BugBear
>>>
>>> that only mentioned bells at point of purchase (nit picking)
>>
>> So how many threads do you think we should have on this subject?
>>
>> BugBear
>
> my thread has a very different slant, so two.

A thread per viewpoint won't make for much discussion,
but then I suppose that's par for the course here.

BugBear

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

bugbear wrote:
> Mrcheerful wrote:
>> bugbear wrote:
>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>> bugbear wrote:
>>>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>> Please note: he is asking for what any sane person would: that
>>>>>> cyclists take responsibility for their actions and minimise their
>>>>>> risks when on the road.
>>>>>> http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/49280/mep-calls-for-cyclists-to-protect-themselves
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> See thread "MEP not clued up" for discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> BugBear
>>>>
>>>> that only mentioned bells at point of purchase (nit picking)
>>>
>>> So how many threads do you think we should have on this subject?
>>>
>>> BugBear
>>
>> my thread has a very different slant, so two.
>
> A thread per viewpoint won't make for much discussion,
> but then I suppose that's par for the course here.
>
> BugBear

if I did not start threads then it would be awfully quiet.

[bugbear]

Mrcheerful wrote:
> bugbear wrote:
>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>> bugbear wrote:
>>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>> bugbear wrote:
>>>>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>>>>> Please note: he is asking for what any sane person would: that
>>>>>>> cyclists take responsibility for their actions and minimise their
>>>>>>> risks when on the road.
>>>>>>> http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/49280/mep-calls-for-cyclists-to-protect-themselves
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See thread "MEP not clued up" for discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BugBear
>>>>>
>>>>> that only mentioned bells at point of purchase (nit picking)
>>>>
>>>> So how many threads do you think we should have on this subject?
>>>>
>>>> BugBear
>>>
>>> my thread has a very different slant, so two.
>>
>> A thread per viewpoint won't make for much discussion,
>> but then I suppose that's par for the course here.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> if I did not start threads then it would be awfully quiet.

You might want to ponder that point for a bit.

BugBear

[PhilO]

On Nov 15, 3:43*pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>
> if I did not start threads then it would be awfully quiet.- Hide quoted text -
>

Prove it!
Please.

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 15/11/2010 14:05, Simon Mason wrote:

> On Nov 15, 2:01 pm, > wrote:

>> Please note: he is asking for what any sane person would: that cyclists take
>> responsibility for their actions and minimise their risks when on the road.

>> http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/49280/...

> You are two days late, Mr C. We have already discussed this at length
> and come to the conclusion that the guy doesn't know what he is
> talking about, as all bicycles are sold with a bell at point of
> purchase. Something he apparently isn't aware of.

So because of his apparently not being as au fait as your good self with the
state of the law concerning bike bells at point of sale, he isn't to be
trusted when he argues that cyclists should do more to stay safe?

[Simon Mason]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 15/11/2010 14:05, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>> On Nov 15, 2:01 pm, > wrote:
>
>>> Please note: he is asking for what any sane person would: that cyclists
>>> take
>>> responsibility for their actions and minimise their risks when on the
>>> road.
>
>>> http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/49280/...
>
>> You are two days late, Mr C. We have already discussed this at length
>> and come to the conclusion that the guy doesn't know what he is
>> talking about, as all bicycles are sold with a bell at point of
>> purchase. Something he apparently isn't aware of.
>
> So because of his apparently not being as au fait as your good self with
> the state of the law concerning bike bells at point of sale, he isn't to
> be trusted when he argues that cyclists should do more to stay safe?

No, but it somewhat diminishes his credibility when he gets something so
basic incorrect.
His advice may have carried more weight had he been clued up on a subject he
was going to spout forth on.

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

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

PhilO wrote:
> On Nov 15, 3:43 pm, "Mrcheerful" > wrote:
>>
>> if I did not start threads then it would be awfully quiet.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>
> Prove it!
> Please.

in denial ? Typical cyclist!

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 15/11/2010 17:16, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> "JNugent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 15/11/2010 14:05, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 15, 2:01 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>>> Please note: he is asking for what any sane person would: that cyclists take
>>>> responsibility for their actions and minimise their risks when on the road.
>>
>>>> http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/49280/...
>>
>>> You are two days late, Mr C. We have already discussed this at length
>>> and come to the conclusion that the guy doesn't know what he is
>>> talking about, as all bicycles are sold with a bell at point of
>>> purchase. Something he apparently isn't aware of.
>>
>> So because of his apparently not being as au fait as your good self with
>> the state of the law concerning bike bells at point of sale, he isn't to be
>> trusted when he argues that cyclists should do more to stay safe?
>
> No

That's what we needed to hear.

> but it somewhat diminishes his credibility when he gets something so
> basic incorrect.

Whatever you think of his "credibility", is he right or wrong when he argues
that cyclists shoud do more to stay safe?

I would suggest that if you know the answer to that question, his
"credibility" will have no relevance for you.

So why raise it?

> His advice may have carried more weight had he been clued up on a subject he
> was going to spout forth on.

Advice carries more weight because of your reaction to him who gives it
rather than because it is good advice as opposed to bad advice?

[Tony Raven[_3_]]

Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>> A thread per viewpoint won't make for much discussion, but then I
>> suppose that's par for the course here.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> if I did not start threads then it would be awfully quiet.
>

You would do well to heed Mark Twain's advice:

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a
fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Silence, in your case, would be golden.

Tony

[Simon Mason]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
>
>> His advice may have carried more weight had he been clued up on a subject
>> he
>> was going to spout forth on.
>
> Advice carries more weight because of your reaction to him who gives it
> rather than because it is good advice as opposed to bad advice?

Do you agree that if someone is to use their position to offer advice to the
general public, then they should have at least a basic grasp of the subject?

That is what is important. Personally, I tend to switch off when someone
makes basic errors like he did and so the wider message is totally missed as
I have ignored the guy from the gaffe onwards.

His message then becomes irrelevant if no one is listening to it.

A case in point is when I sat down with great hopes to watch a BBC series on
space exploration which started with the line, "In 1973, Skylab became the
world's first ever space station." I switched off after that and never
watched any more of the series.

See the analogy?

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

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>> A thread per viewpoint won't make for much discussion, but then I
>>> suppose that's par for the course here.
>>>
>>> BugBear
>>
>> if I did not start threads then it would be awfully quiet.
>>
>
>
> "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a
> fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

if everyone on this group took that advice then it could be shut down, would
there be even one poster?

[Mike Causer[_4_]]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:23:49 -0000
"Mrcheerful" > wrote:

> if everyone on this group took that advice then it could be shut down,

No great loss.


> would there be even one poster?

There is only one now, all the apparent others are sock-puppets,

even me ;-)




Mike

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 15/11/2010 17:45, Simon Mason wrote:
>
> "JNugent" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>> His advice may have carried more weight had he been clued up on a subject he
>>> was going to spout forth on.
>>
>> Advice carries more weight because of your reaction to him who gives it
>> rather than because it is good advice as opposed to bad advice?
>
> Do you agree that if someone is to use their position to offer advice to the
> general public, then they should have at least a basic grasp of the subject?
>
> That is what is important. Personally, I tend to switch off when someone
> makes basic errors like he did and so the wider message is totally missed as
> I have ignored the guy from the gaffe onwards.
>
> His message then becomes irrelevant if no one is listening to it.
>
> A case in point is when I sat down with great hopes to watch a BBC series on
> space exploration which started with the line, "In 1973, Skylab became the
> world's first ever space station." I switched off after that and never
> watched any more of the series.
>
> See the analogy?

I see that you like perpatrating forgery and lies.

Want to try again, but this time quoting me correctly and adequately?

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 15/11/2010 17:45, Simon Mason wrote:

> Personally, I tend to switch off when someone
> makes basic errors like he did and so the wider message is totally missed as
> I have ignored the guy from the gaffe onwards.

> His message then becomes irrelevant if no one is listening to it.

There's your mistake.

You have this delusion that either you are everyone or (worse) that everyone
"thinks" like you do.

[Simon Mason]

"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
> On 15/11/2010 17:45, Simon Mason wrote:
>>
>> "JNugent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>> His advice may have carried more weight had he been clued up on a
>>>> subject he
>>>> was going to spout forth on.
>>>
>>> Advice carries more weight because of your reaction to him who gives it
>>> rather than because it is good advice as opposed to bad advice?
>>
>> Do you agree that if someone is to use their position to offer advice to
>> the
>> general public, then they should have at least a basic grasp of the
>> subject?
>>
>> That is what is important. Personally, I tend to switch off when someone
>> makes basic errors like he did and so the wider message is totally missed
>> as
>> I have ignored the guy from the gaffe onwards.
>>
>> His message then becomes irrelevant if no one is listening to it.
>>
>> A case in point is when I sat down with great hopes to watch a BBC series
>> on
>> space exploration which started with the line, "In 1973, Skylab became
>> the
>> world's first ever space station." I switched off after that and never
>> watched any more of the series.
>>
>> See the analogy?
>
> I see that you like perpatrating forgery and lies.
>
> Want to try again, but this time quoting me correctly and adequately?

No.
If you can't understand the point after 3 tries, you'll never get it.


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

[JNugent[_7_]]

On 15/11/2010 19:54, Simon Mason wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote:
>> On 15/11/2010 17:45, Simon Mason wrote:
>>> "JNugent" > wrote:

>>>>> His advice may have carried more weight had he been clued up on a
>>>>> subject he was going to spout forth on.

[NB: that was a forgery]

>>>> Advice carries more weight because of your reaction to him who gives it
>>>> rather than because it is good advice as opposed to bad advice?

>>> Do you agree that if someone is to use their position to offer advice to the
>>> general public, then they should have at least a basic grasp of the subject?
>>> That is what is important. Personally, I tend to switch off when someone
>>> makes basic errors like he did and so the wider message is totally missed as
>>> I have ignored the guy from the gaffe onwards.
>>> His message then becomes irrelevant if no one is listening to it.
>>> A case in point is when I sat down with great hopes to watch a BBC series on
>>> space exploration which started with the line, "In 1973, Skylab became the
>>> world's first ever space station." I switched off after that and never
>>> watched any more of the series.
>>> See the analogy?

>> I see that you like perpatrating [er... perpetrating] forgery and lies.
>> Want to try again, but this time quoting me correctly and adequately?

> No.

At least you are honest about that, even if you frequently aren't with your
posting style.

> If you can't understand the point after 3 tries, you'll never get it.

You have to falsify and lie in order to try to make a "point".

What's to get?

And were where your two previous attempts?

[JMS]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:45:15 -0000, "Simon Mason"
> wrote:

>
>"JNugent" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>> His advice may have carried more weight had he been clued up on a subject
>>> he
>>> was going to spout forth on.
>>
>> Advice carries more weight because of your reaction to him who gives it
>> rather than because it is good advice as opposed to bad advice?
>
>Do you agree that if someone is to use their position to offer advice to the
>general public, then they should have at least a basic grasp of the subject?
>
>That is what is important. Personally, I tend to switch off when someone
>makes basic errors like he did and so the wider message is totally missed as
>I have ignored the guy from the gaffe onwards.
>
>His message then becomes irrelevant if no one is listening to it.
>
>A case in point is when I sat down with great hopes to watch a BBC series on
>space exploration which started with the line, "In 1973, Skylab became the
>world's first ever space station." I switched off after that and never
>watched any more of the series.
>
>See the analogy?


Yes you are both an intolerable and intolerant ****wit regarding both
of the issues you mention.
--
Stopping distances for bicycles do not appear in the HC ... and so
cannot be of any consequence.
(Simon Mason - who cycles at 25mph in 20 mph limits - and thinks it's clever)

[bugbear]

Mrcheerful wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>
>>>> A thread per viewpoint won't make for much discussion, but then I
>>>> suppose that's par for the course here.
>>>>
>>>> BugBear
>>>
>>> if I did not start threads then it would be awfully quiet.
>>>
>>
>>
>> "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a
>> fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
>
> if everyone on this group took that advice then it could be shut down, would
> there be even one poster?

This group is already dead.

BugBear

[Doug[_3_]]

On Nov 15, 2:16*pm, SW > wrote:
> On 15/11/2010 14:05, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>
>
> > We have already discussed this at length
> > and come to the conclusion that the guy doesn't know what he is
> > talking about
>
> "It is obviously a good thing that more people are leaving their
> vehicles at home and riding bikes for transport"
>
> He's not totally clueless then - just a bit confused about how make
> yourself safe on a bike.
>
There is no way to make yourself safe on a bike. All you can do is
minimise slightly the serious risk caused by drivers.

A much better way would be to make drivers fully accountable for the
harm they cause to vulnerable road users.

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

[JMS]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:04:45 +0000, Phil W Lee >
wrote:

>SW > considered Mon, 15 Nov 2010 14:16:28 +0000 the
>perfect time to write:
>
>>On 15/11/2010 14:05, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>
>>> We have already discussed this at length
>>> and come to the conclusion that the guy doesn't know what he is
>>> talking about
>>>
>>
>>"It is obviously a good thing that more people are leaving their
>>vehicles at home and riding bikes for transport"
>>
>>He's not totally clueless then - just a bit confused about how make
>>yourself safe on a bike.
>>
>I wouldn't be too fast to leap to that conclusion - he is apparently
>unaware that bicycles are vehicles.
>
>He also seems to think that at some time in the past all bicycles were
>sold complete with lights:
>"It used to be that when a bicycle was bought, particularly for young
>people, it came with lights, both front and rear, but no longer so and
>nor does it come with a bell."
>which has never been automatically the case in the UK

You talk absolute rubbish.

I can assure you that there was a period where a number of Raleigh
bikes came with lights included.

They were not optional.

(The clue is the fact that they were fitted with either a front wheel
or rear wheel Sturmey-Archer dynohub)


Still - when has accuracy been your forte?




--


Latest figures from DfT: KSI per billion passenger kilometres:

Van: 5 people
Bus/Coach: 9 people
Car : 18 people
Pedestrians: 358 people

Oh : and of course cyclists:
Cyclists: 541 people

Of those four modes of transport - which is the most dangerous?

(With thanks to Justin Lewis for asking me to find out the figures)