culture of fear

[Zebee Johnstone]

I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
bicycle advocacy.

http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/

"Fear of cycling is most effectively produced through constructions of
cycling as a dangerous practice. By saying that cycling is constructed
as a dangerous practice, I am not denying that cyclists are really
injured and killed on the roads; rather I am noting how people’s fears
of these (im)probabilities of injury and death are culturally
constructed."

"The rest of this section explores three ways in which cycling is
constructed as dangerous, and thus a contemporary fear of cycling is
produced; road safety education, helmet promotion campaigns, and the
increasing separation of cycling from motorised traffic. The irony, of
course, is that these interventions are responses to a fear of
cycling, clearly aimed at increasing cycling’s safety. But I will
demonstrate how, contrary to intentions, each intervention actually
tends to exacerbate fear of cycling, and sometimes literally invokes
it in order to promote the ‘solution’."

I feel torn... I like using the off road paths to get to work, riding
by a river is pleasant. Not dealing with cars and intersections is
pleasant.

On the other hand, the onroad lanes are unpleasant!

But I'm a "confident cyclist" and always have been, plus I've never
had the problem that 2 wheels are 'strange'. (Haven't owned a car
since 1986...)

So I'm obviously not the kind of person being talked about and I
suspect few if any readers of this group are. But shouldn't this be
being talked about more widely?

Zebee

[Geoff Lock[_2_]]

On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
> bicycle advocacy.
>
> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/
>
> "Fear of cycling is most effectively produced through constructions of
> cycling as a dangerous practice. By saying that cycling is constructed
> as a dangerous practice, I am not denying that cyclists are really
> injured and killed on the roads; rather I am noting how people’s fears
> of these (im)probabilities of injury and death are culturally
> constructed."
>

Interesting article and highly recommended reading although a tad long
for some but then it was probably written by someone who tort long and
hard about the subject. :)

> "The rest of this section explores three ways in which cycling is
> constructed as dangerous, and thus a contemporary fear of cycling is
> produced; road safety education, helmet promotion campaigns, and the
> increasing separation of cycling from motorised traffic. The irony, of
> course, is that these interventions are responses to a fear of
> cycling, clearly aimed at increasing cycling’s safety. But I will
> demonstrate how, contrary to intentions, each intervention actually
> tends to exacerbate fear of cycling, and sometimes literally invokes
> it in order to promote the ‘solution’."

I don't think the construction of fear thru the various safety programs
was deliberate, intended or even desired. It is more probable that like
most good intentions, the unintended negative consequences tended to be
overlooked.

>
> I feel torn... I like using the off road paths to get to work, riding
> by a river is pleasant. Not dealing with cars and intersections is
> pleasant.

With all due respect, not wanting to deal with cars is probably where
part of the problem lies. It is all well and good trying to educate
cyclists of their responsibilities but the reality is that unless other
road users like trucks, cars and motorbikes get the same intensity of
indoctrination as well, we are NOT dealing with the WHOLE problem.

Cyclists are seldom mentioned in road safety campaigns. For example, it
would be nice to see road safety ads on alcohol which include lotsa
exposure for cyclists but alas, such ads tend to only focus on cars.

> On the other hand, the onroad lanes are unpleasant!

Compared to some Asian countries, onroad lanes in Sydney are a cyclist's
heaven :) Road courtesy towards other road users in many Asian countries
is virtually non-existent - the bigger vehicle WILL bully the smaller
vehicle into giving way.

> But I'm a "confident cyclist" and always have been, plus I've never
> had the problem that 2 wheels are 'strange'. (Haven't owned a car
> since 1986...)

You may be weird, Zeebee, but never strange :) I have yet to decide if
you might possibly fall into the category of "a different social order"
:) Hm, maybe, if I took cycling out of the equation .....

> So I'm obviously not the kind of person being talked about and I
> suspect few if any readers of this group are. But shouldn't this be
> being talked about more widely?

Actually, if the truth be known, I am not immune to having fear being
put into me, directly or indirectly, so maybe the article has some
relevance to me and being "forewarned is forearmed" :)

Looking at the points raised by that article, it would appear that the
"construction of fear" element does appear to feature greatly in many of
the literature, official and unofficial, disseminated.

There is no doubt that eliminating the fear of cycling is a great start
but, IMHO, is NOT sufficient. I have previously mentioned above that
there are other road users who need to be taken into consideration.

Getting politicians like Clover Moore and many within the Greens, Labour
and Liberal on-side with cyclists have been a great help but the NSW
Minister for Transport and the NSW Minister for Police are also key
persons as the incumbents have the ability to influence the thinking of
other road users towards cyclists thru the various agencies like the
RTA, the Police, Road Safety bodies, etc.

The use of more positive methods in promoting cycling, in conjunction
with educating other road users, would seem to provide a more cohesive
and logical approach.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 29 May 2011 14:58:49 +1000
Geoff Lock <glock@home> wrote:
> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>> I feel torn... I like using the off road paths to get to work, riding
>> by a river is pleasant. Not dealing with cars and intersections is
>> pleasant.
>
> With all due respect, not wanting to deal with cars is probably where
> part of the problem lies. It is all well and good trying to educate
> cyclists of their responsibilities but the reality is that unless other
> road users like trucks, cars and motorbikes get the same intensity of
> indoctrination as well, we are NOT dealing with the WHOLE problem.
>

Putting all the blame on cyclists for being "vulnerable" is certainly
part of the problem.

When I worked in North Sydney I used Pyrmont Bridge and the path to
Sussex St and the Harbour Bridge path, but the rest was on roads,
over half mixing with a lot of cars.

I never had a problem on the commuter run into the city. I have had
more problems on weekends. Same on the motorcycle I note... Commuters
are on a road they know, they aren't usually chopping lanes cos they
know there's no point, they are travelling fairly slowly, and they
know when to change lanes to turn. I find peak hour traffic safer to
cycle in than weekend traffic!

The cars on my commute now are much less safe. The roads are more
empty so the cars are going faster and object to the slower bicycle
more. They pass unsafely (especially on THe Crescent leading up to
Bridge Rd Homebush and Melville St Meadowbank) and turn across in
front of me. Not all that often, but often enough that I'm wary of
it.

(And don't get me started on the Rhodes bike path! Blind and deaf
pedestrians, doors being flung open, and cars faffing about
everywhere...)

I used to think the problem was the illusion of speed, that passing
something *now* gives the feeling of both speed and control, even if
both are lost at the next lights. I now think it's also a lot about
not seeing *other cars* as a problem. Other cars are there, like rain
or traffic lights, they are accepted. Something that isn't a car is
rare and odd and so a target for anger. Even though the real cause of
hte holdup isn't the bicycle it's the other cars preventing the
overtake...

(Had that happen the other day. Driver being aggro about not being
able to pass. He couldn't pass because of the traffic the other way.
If they hadn't been there, no problem. It was clear this had never
occurred to him.)

The car is unquestionable. Everything else has to give way. Until
that changes, we won't get a better deal on the roads.

(I can think of another entitled species, and the parallels are
fascinating to me... but it is a bit OT!)


Zebee

[Geoff Lock[_2_]]

On 29/05/2011 5:20 PM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Sun, 29 May 2011 14:58:49 +1000
> Geoff Lock<glock@home> wrote:
>> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>
>>> I feel torn... I like using the off road paths to get to work, riding
>>> by a river is pleasant. Not dealing with cars and intersections is
>>> pleasant.
>>
>> With all due respect, not wanting to deal with cars is probably where
>> part of the problem lies. It is all well and good trying to educate
>> cyclists of their responsibilities but the reality is that unless other
>> road users like trucks, cars and motorbikes get the same intensity of
>> indoctrination as well, we are NOT dealing with the WHOLE problem.
>>
>
> Putting all the blame on cyclists for being "vulnerable" is certainly
> part of the problem.

Seen from David Horton's viewpoint in his article, there is compelling
evidence that the onus of responsibility is, more or less, forced upon
the cyclist.

Like you, I see it as a one-sided attempt to address road safety. I
still maintain that unless ALL road users are make aware of their
responsibilities towards ALL other road users, such one-sided affairs
will amount to little.

As an aside, I watched an NRMA ad last night extolling the virtues of
their insurance products claiming that one needs never to be without a
car! There were pushbikes seen in the ad but they were relegated to
background props. The car-centric focus of the ad was quite
understandable but still nonetheless confronting.

> I never had a problem on the commuter run into the city. I have had
> more problems on weekends. Same on the motorcycle I note... Commuters
> are on a road they know, they aren't usually chopping lanes cos they
> know there's no point, they are travelling fairly slowly, and they
> know when to change lanes to turn. I find peak hour traffic safer to
> cycle in than weekend traffic!

Bloody weekend drivers are the same in any suburb in Sydney, eh? :)

> The cars on my commute now are much less safe. The roads are more
> empty so the cars are going faster and object to the slower bicycle
> more. They pass unsafely (especially on THe Crescent leading up to
> Bridge Rd Homebush and Melville St Meadowbank) and turn across in
> front of me. Not all that often, but often enough that I'm wary of
> it.

I don't have a problem with cars turning right in front of me as long as
they have their indicators on and make the turn with room to spare for
me to slow down/continue riding/brake, etc etc. Maybe I have been
fortunate over the years not to have any nasty surprises - I dunno.

> (And don't get me started on the Rhodes bike path! Blind and deaf
> pedestrians, doors being flung open, and cars faffing about
> everywhere...)

Oh, I see, I better not get you started then. I was just curious as to
what the hell cars were doing on the bike path :) Never mind, just
stirring you, Zeebee - I knew what you meant :)

> I used to think the problem was the illusion of speed, that passing
> something *now* gives the feeling of both speed and control, even if
> both are lost at the next lights. I now think it's also a lot about
> not seeing *other cars* as a problem. Other cars are there, like rain
> or traffic lights, they are accepted. Something that isn't a car is
> rare and odd and so a target for anger. Even though the real cause of
> hte holdup isn't the bicycle it's the other cars preventing the
> overtake...

Hm, there are people around who really have no sense of civic
consciousness and think the cosmos revolves around them. Such delusional
people will probably lash out at anything around them - usually at
something/someone they perceive to be weaker than themselves and thus
can be bullied with impunity.

All cyclists should be allowed to carry Glock 18s with drum mags :)

> (Had that happen the other day. Driver being aggro about not being
> able to pass. He couldn't pass because of the traffic the other way.
> If they hadn't been there, no problem. It was clear this had never
> occurred to him.)

Hahahahahah!! One should ALWAYS feel sorry for a person trapped in a car
at a traffic jam :)))

The entrance into the M4 tunnel at Marsh Street, Rockdale(?) is pretty
busy most times as traffic lights and umpteen lanes get crushed together
into 2 or 3 lanes and cars/trucks get backed up over the lanes of
oncoming traffic. As I am part of the oncoming traffic, I just simply
give the CORRECT hand signals to move into whatever lane I deem
appropriate and safe and simply ride around the banked up traffic -
continuing my merry way towards the International Terminal :) All the
other traffic simply get held up behind me for a bit but they usually
catch me before I hit the bridge. It is fun doing the downhill run
towards the International Terminal - over 500m/750m(?) of a straightline
gentle downhill :)

> The car is unquestionable. Everything else has to give way. Until
> that changes, we won't get a better deal on the roads.

Change will come. It takes time to put together the many pieces of the
puzzle and managing the interactions between the various pieces of the
puzzle but then, we all know that :)


> (I can think of another entitled species, and the parallels are
> fascinating to me... but it is a bit OT!)
>

Hey!! Who's gonna spin this off to another thread? :)

[Rob]

On 29/05/2011 2:58 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
>> bicycle advocacy.
>>
>> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/
>>
>> "Fear of cycling is most effectively produced through constructions of
>> cycling as a dangerous practice. By saying that cycling is constructed
>> as a dangerous practice, I am not denying that cyclists are really
>> injured and killed on the roads; rather I am noting how people’s fears
>> of these (im)probabilities of injury and death are culturally
>> constructed."
>>
>
> Interesting article and highly recommended reading although a tad long
> for some but then it was probably written by someone who tort long and
> hard about the subject. :)
>

hope that was the Eye dialect spelling of thought.




>> "The rest of this section explores three ways in which cycling is
>> constructed as dangerous, and thus a contemporary fear of cycling is
>> produced; road safety education, helmet promotion campaigns, and the
>> increasing separation of cycling from motorised traffic. The irony, of
>> course, is that these interventions are responses to a fear of
>> cycling, clearly aimed at increasing cycling’s safety. But I will
>> demonstrate how, contrary to intentions, each intervention actually
>> tends to exacerbate fear of cycling, and sometimes literally invokes
>> it in order to promote the ‘solution’."
>
> I don't think the construction of fear thru the various safety programs
> was deliberate, intended or even desired. It is more probable that like
> most good intentions, the unintended negative consequences tended to be
> overlooked.
>
>>
>> I feel torn... I like using the off road paths to get to work, riding
>> by a river is pleasant. Not dealing with cars and intersections is
>> pleasant.
>
> With all due respect, not wanting to deal with cars is probably where
> part of the problem lies. It is all well and good trying to educate
> cyclists of their responsibilities but the reality is that unless other
> road users like trucks, cars and motorbikes get the same intensity of
> indoctrination as well, we are NOT dealing with the WHOLE problem.
>
> Cyclists are seldom mentioned in road safety campaigns. For example, it
> would be nice to see road safety ads on alcohol which include lotsa
> exposure for cyclists but alas, such ads tend to only focus on cars.
>
>> On the other hand, the onroad lanes are unpleasant!
>
> Compared to some Asian countries, onroad lanes in Sydney are a cyclist's
> heaven :) Road courtesy towards other road users in many Asian countries
> is virtually non-existent - the bigger vehicle WILL bully the smaller
> vehicle into giving way.
>
>> But I'm a "confident cyclist" and always have been, plus I've never
>> had the problem that 2 wheels are 'strange'. (Haven't owned a car
>> since 1986...)
>
> You may be weird, Zeebee, but never strange :) I have yet to decide if
> you might possibly fall into the category of "a different social order"
> :) Hm, maybe, if I took cycling out of the equation .....
>
>> So I'm obviously not the kind of person being talked about and I
>> suspect few if any readers of this group are. But shouldn't this be
>> being talked about more widely?
>
> Actually, if the truth be known, I am not immune to having fear being
> put into me, directly or indirectly, so maybe the article has some
> relevance to me and being "forewarned is forearmed" :)
>
> Looking at the points raised by that article, it would appear that the
> "construction of fear" element does appear to feature greatly in many of
> the literature, official and unofficial, disseminated.
>
> There is no doubt that eliminating the fear of cycling is a great start
> but, IMHO, is NOT sufficient. I have previously mentioned above that
> there are other road users who need to be taken into consideration.
>
> Getting politicians like Clover Moore and many within the Greens, Labour
> and Liberal on-side with cyclists have been a great help but the NSW
> Minister for Transport and the NSW Minister for Police are also key
> persons as the incumbents have the ability to influence the thinking of
> other road users towards cyclists thru the various agencies like the
> RTA, the Police, Road Safety bodies, etc.
>
> The use of more positive methods in promoting cycling, in conjunction
> with educating other road users, would seem to provide a more cohesive
> and logical approach.

[Geoff Lock[_2_]]

On 30/05/2011 8:59 PM, Rob wrote:
> On 29/05/2011 2:58 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>> I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
>>> bicycle advocacy.
>>>
>>> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/

>>
>> Interesting article and highly recommended reading although a tad long
>> for some but then it was probably written by someone who tort long and
>> hard about the subject. :)
>>
>
> hope that was the Eye dialect spelling of thought.>

"tort", "thought", who cares - i don't :) it's usenet and grammar or
spelling are the least of my problems :)

once upon a time i used to post the way i spoke and then i realised it
was quite difficult to read as i had difficulties following my own
babblings :) i still do have problems following my own posts but i guess
practice is the only way i'm gonna get good at anyfing, eh? :)

[Shirley Nott[_2_]]

Geoff Lock wrote:
> On 30/05/2011 8:59 PM, Rob wrote:
>> On 29/05/2011 2:58 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>> I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
>>>> bicycle advocacy.
>>>>
>>>> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/
>
>>>
>>> Interesting article and highly recommended reading although a tad long
>>> for some but then it was probably written by someone who tort long and
>>> hard about the subject. :)
>>>
>>
>> hope that was the Eye dialect spelling of thought.>
>
> "tort", "thought", who cares - i don't :) it's usenet and grammar or
> spelling are the least of my problems :)
>
> once upon a time i used to post the way i spoke and then i realised it
> was quite difficult to read as i had difficulties following my own
> babblings :) i still do have problems following my own posts but i guess
> practice is the only way i'm gonna get good at anyfing, eh? :)

Think a little about what you just wrote...

Shirley.

[Geoff Lock[_2_]]

On 31/05/2011 1:11 PM, Shirley Nott wrote:
> Geoff Lock wrote:
>> On 30/05/2011 8:59 PM, Rob wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2011 2:58 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>>> I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
>>>>> bicycle advocacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/
>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting article and highly recommended reading although a tad long
>>>> for some but then it was probably written by someone who tort long and
>>>> hard about the subject. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> hope that was the Eye dialect spelling of thought.>
>>
>> "tort", "thought", who cares - i don't :) it's usenet and grammar or
>> spelling are the least of my problems :)
>>
>> once upon a time i used to post the way i spoke and then i realised it
>> was quite difficult to read as i had difficulties following my own
>> babblings :) i still do have problems following my own posts but i guess
>> practice is the only way i'm gonna get good at anyfing, eh? :)
>
> Think a little about what you just wrote...

I did, which is why I wrote it the way I did write it :)

[Shirley Nott[_2_]]

Geoff Lock wrote:
> On 31/05/2011 1:11 PM, Shirley Nott wrote:
>> Geoff Lock wrote:
>>> On 30/05/2011 8:59 PM, Rob wrote:
>>>> On 29/05/2011 2:58 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>>> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>>>> I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
>>>>>> bicycle advocacy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting article and highly recommended reading although a tad long
>>>>> for some but then it was probably written by someone who tort long and
>>>>> hard about the subject. :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> hope that was the Eye dialect spelling of thought.>
>>>
>>> "tort", "thought", who cares - i don't :) it's usenet and grammar or
>>> spelling are the least of my problems :)
>>>
>>> once upon a time i used to post the way i spoke and then i realised it
>>> was quite difficult to read as i had difficulties following my own
>>> babblings :) i still do have problems following my own posts but i guess
>>> practice is the only way i'm gonna get good at anyfing, eh? :)
>>
>> Think a little about what you just wrote...
>
> I did, which is why I wrote it the way I did write it :)

So you understand that practicing being an idiot will ultimately make you a perfect idiot.

S Nott.

[Geoff Lock[_2_]]

On 31/05/2011 2:26 PM, Shirley Nott wrote:
> Geoff Lock wrote:
>> On 31/05/2011 1:11 PM, Shirley Nott wrote:
>>> Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>> On 30/05/2011 8:59 PM, Rob wrote:
>>>>> On 29/05/2011 2:58 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>>>>> I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
>>>>>>> bicycle advocacy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting article and highly recommended reading although a tad
>>>>>> long
>>>>>> for some but then it was probably written by someone who tort long
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> hard about the subject. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> hope that was the Eye dialect spelling of thought.>
>>>>
>>>> "tort", "thought", who cares - i don't :) it's usenet and grammar or
>>>> spelling are the least of my problems :)
>>>>
>>>> once upon a time i used to post the way i spoke and then i realised it
>>>> was quite difficult to read as i had difficulties following my own
>>>> babblings :) i still do have problems following my own posts but i
>>>> guess
>>>> practice is the only way i'm gonna get good at anyfing, eh? :)
>>>
>>> Think a little about what you just wrote...
>>
>> I did, which is why I wrote it the way I did write it :)
>
> So you understand that practicing being an idiot will ultimately make
> you a perfect idiot.

Practice makes perfect and it looks like we are both getting lots of it
in these last coupla posts. Or have you already perfected it? :)

BTW, are you trolling? :)

[Shirley Nott[_2_]]

Geoff Lock wrote:
> On 31/05/2011 2:26 PM, Shirley Nott wrote:
>> Geoff Lock wrote:
>>> On 31/05/2011 1:11 PM, Shirley Nott wrote:
>>>> Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>>> On 30/05/2011 8:59 PM, Rob wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/05/2011 2:58 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>>>>>> I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
>>>>>>>> bicycle advocacy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting article and highly recommended reading although a tad
>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>> for some but then it was probably written by someone who tort long
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> hard about the subject. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hope that was the Eye dialect spelling of thought.>
>>>>>
>>>>> "tort", "thought", who cares - i don't :) it's usenet and grammar or
>>>>> spelling are the least of my problems :)
>>>>>
>>>>> once upon a time i used to post the way i spoke and then i realised it
>>>>> was quite difficult to read as i had difficulties following my own
>>>>> babblings :) i still do have problems following my own posts but i
>>>>> guess
>>>>> practice is the only way i'm gonna get good at anyfing, eh? :)
>>>>
>>>> Think a little about what you just wrote...
>>>
>>> I did, which is why I wrote it the way I did write it :)
>>
>> So you understand that practicing being an idiot will ultimately make
>> you a perfect idiot.
>
> Practice makes perfect and it looks like we are both getting lots of it
> in these last coupla posts. Or have you already perfected it? :)
>
> BTW, are you trolling? :)

Of course not.

Shirley Nott.

[Geoff Lock[_2_]]

On 31/05/2011 2:50 PM, Shirley Nott wrote:
> Geoff Lock wrote:
>> On 31/05/2011 2:26 PM, Shirley Nott wrote:
>>> Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>> On 31/05/2011 1:11 PM, Shirley Nott wrote:
>>>>> Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/05/2011 8:59 PM, Rob wrote:
>>>>>>> On 29/05/2011 2:58 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
>>>>>>>>> bicycle advocacy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Interesting article and highly recommended reading although a tad
>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>> for some but then it was probably written by someone who tort long
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> hard about the subject. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> hope that was the Eye dialect spelling of thought.>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "tort", "thought", who cares - i don't :) it's usenet and grammar or
>>>>>> spelling are the least of my problems :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> once upon a time i used to post the way i spoke and then i
>>>>>> realised it
>>>>>> was quite difficult to read as i had difficulties following my own
>>>>>> babblings :) i still do have problems following my own posts but i
>>>>>> guess
>>>>>> practice is the only way i'm gonna get good at anyfing, eh? :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Think a little about what you just wrote...
>>>>
>>>> I did, which is why I wrote it the way I did write it :)
>>>
>>> So you understand that practicing being an idiot will ultimately make
>>> you a perfect idiot.
>>
>> Practice makes perfect and it looks like we are both getting lots of it
>> in these last coupla posts. Or have you already perfected it? :)
>>
>> BTW, are you trolling? :)
>
> Of course not.

Hmm...

[F Murtz[_2_]]

Geoff Lock wrote:
> On 31/05/2011 2:50 PM, Shirley Nott wrote:
>> Geoff Lock wrote:
>>> On 31/05/2011 2:26 PM, Shirley Nott wrote:
>>>> Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>>> On 31/05/2011 1:11 PM, Shirley Nott wrote:
>>>>>> Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30/05/2011 8:59 PM, Rob wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 29/05/2011 2:58 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
>>>>>>>>>> bicycle advocacy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interesting article and highly recommended reading although a tad
>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>> for some but then it was probably written by someone who tort long
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> hard about the subject. :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> hope that was the Eye dialect spelling of thought.>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "tort", "thought", who cares - i don't :) it's usenet and grammar or
>>>>>>> spelling are the least of my problems :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> once upon a time i used to post the way i spoke and then i
>>>>>>> realised it
>>>>>>> was quite difficult to read as i had difficulties following my own
>>>>>>> babblings :) i still do have problems following my own posts but i
>>>>>>> guess
>>>>>>> practice is the only way i'm gonna get good at anyfing, eh? :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Think a little about what you just wrote...
>>>>>
>>>>> I did, which is why I wrote it the way I did write it :)
>>>>
>>>> So you understand that practicing being an idiot will ultimately make
>>>> you a perfect idiot.
>>>
>>> Practice makes perfect and it looks like we are both getting lots of it
>>> in these last coupla posts. Or have you already perfected it? :)
>>>
>>> BTW, are you trolling? :)
>>
>> Of course not.
>
> Hmm...


show them this when they pick on you.
I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg.
Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at
Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a
wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be
in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed
it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey
ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and I
awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt! See if yuor fdreins can raed tihs
too.

[Rob]

On 31/05/2011 4:12 AM, Geoff Lock wrote:
> On 30/05/2011 8:59 PM, Rob wrote:
>> On 29/05/2011 2:58 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>> I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
>>>> bicycle advocacy.
>>>>
>>>> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/
>
>>>
>>> Interesting article and highly recommended reading although a tad long
>>> for some but then it was probably written by someone who tort long and
>>> hard about the subject. :)
>>>
>>
>> hope that was the Eye dialect spelling of thought.>
>
> "tort", "thought", who cares - i don't :) it's usenet and grammar or
> spelling are the least of my problems :)
>
> once upon a time i used to post the way i spoke and then i realised it
> was quite difficult to read as i had difficulties following my own
> babblings :) i still do have problems following my own posts but i guess
> practice is the only way i'm gonna get good at anyfing, eh? :)


Actually the word "tort" means ---

"–noun Law .
a wrongful act, not including a breach of contract or trust, that
results in injury to another's person, property, reputation, or the
like, and for which the injured party is entitled to compensation."

and this is a long way from the meaning you inferred.

[F Murtz[_2_]]

Rob wrote:
> On 31/05/2011 4:12 AM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>> On 30/05/2011 8:59 PM, Rob wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2011 2:58 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>>> I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
>>>>> bicycle advocacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/
>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting article and highly recommended reading although a tad long
>>>> for some but then it was probably written by someone who tort long and
>>>> hard about the subject. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> hope that was the Eye dialect spelling of thought.>
>>
>> "tort", "thought", who cares - i don't :) it's usenet and grammar or
>> spelling are the least of my problems :)
>>
>> once upon a time i used to post the way i spoke and then i realised it
>> was quite difficult to read as i had difficulties following my own
>> babblings :) i still do have problems following my own posts but i guess
>> practice is the only way i'm gonna get good at anyfing, eh? :)
>
>
> Actually the word "tort" means ---
>
> "–noun Law .
> a wrongful act, not including a breach of contract or trust, that
> results in injury to another's person, property, reputation, or the
> like, and for which the injured party is entitled to compensation."
>
> and this is a long way from the meaning you inferred.
>

So what about "I tort I saw a puddy cat"

[Geoff Lock[_2_]]

On 31/05/2011 7:07 PM, F Murtz wrote:
> Geoff Lock wrote:
>> On 31/05/2011 2:50 PM, Shirley Nott wrote:
>>> Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>> On 31/05/2011 2:26 PM, Shirley Nott wrote:
>>>>> Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>>>> On 31/05/2011 1:11 PM, Shirley Nott wrote:
>>>>>>> Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 30/05/2011 8:59 PM, Rob wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 29/05/2011 2:58 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
>>>>>>>>>>> bicycle advocacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Interesting article and highly recommended reading although a tad
>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>> for some but then it was probably written by someone who tort
>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> hard about the subject. :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> hope that was the Eye dialect spelling of thought.>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "tort", "thought", who cares - i don't :) it's usenet and
>>>>>>>> grammar or
>>>>>>>> spelling are the least of my problems :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> once upon a time i used to post the way i spoke and then i
>>>>>>>> realised it
>>>>>>>> was quite difficult to read as i had difficulties following my own
>>>>>>>> babblings :) i still do have problems following my own posts but i
>>>>>>>> guess
>>>>>>>> practice is the only way i'm gonna get good at anyfing, eh? :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Think a little about what you just wrote...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I did, which is why I wrote it the way I did write it :)
>>>>>
>>>>> So you understand that practicing being an idiot will ultimately make
>>>>> you a perfect idiot.
>>>>
>>>> Practice makes perfect and it looks like we are both getting lots of it
>>>> in these last coupla posts. Or have you already perfected it? :)
>>>>
>>>> BTW, are you trolling? :)
>>>
>>> Of course not.
>>
>> Hmm...
>
>
> show them this when they pick on you.
> I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg.
> Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at
> Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a
> wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be
> in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed
> it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey
> ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and I
> awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt! See if yuor fdreins can raed tihs
> too.

Hahahah!!

[Geoff Lock[_2_]]

On 31/05/2011 7:08 PM, Erik Vastmasd wrote:
> I caught a glimpse of Geoff Lock<glock@home> on Tue, 31 May 2011
> 04:12:55 +1000, writing in aus.bicycle:
>
>> On 30/05/2011 8:59 PM, Rob wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2011 2:58 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>>> I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
>>>>> bicycle advocacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/
>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting article and highly recommended reading although a tad long
>>>> for some but then it was probably written by someone who tort long and
>>>> hard about the subject. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> hope that was the Eye dialect spelling of thought.>
>>
>> "tort", "thought", who cares - i don't :) it's usenet and grammar or
>> spelling are the least of my problems :)

> I'm very tolerant of how other people post messages.
> Some newsgroups I frequent people who post are using English as a second
> language. US posters are using an American version of English.

Hey it's Erik!!! How yer be, matey? :) I was kinda wondering where the
hell yer been :) Hope all things are good your way - well, as good as
they can be anywayz :) You still terrorising your neighbourhood on the
trike? :) Bet you are :)

Tolerance and patience are things one learns - I think. Dunno anybody
born tolerant and/or patient :) Some people acquire these qualities due
to experiences in life, some don't.

> I've already read some of the other followups to your post. Surely if
> they don't like your posts they could filter you out instead of starting
> an argument. ;-)

I have no doubt that my posts are filtered by untold millions on Usenet
whenever and wherever I post. :)

As far as arguments go, I prefer not to argue here in this newsgroup cos
if the topic is related to cycling, I am probably wrong as I suspect
there are many here who are miles ahead of me re matters cycling, and if
it is NOT related to cycling, it is OT and it's a waste of bandwidth.

> Good on you Geoff, just to let you know you haven't been filtered out
> here. :-)

Heheheheh, thanks mate :) You made my day :)

[Geoff Lock[_2_]]

On 31/05/2011 10:41 PM, Rob wrote:
> On 31/05/2011 4:12 AM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>> On 30/05/2011 8:59 PM, Rob wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2011 2:58 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>>> I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
>>>>> bicycle advocacy.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/
>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting article and highly recommended reading although a tad long
>>>> for some but then it was probably written by someone who tort long and
>>>> hard about the subject. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>> hope that was the Eye dialect spelling of thought.>
>>
>> "tort", "thought", who cares - i don't :) it's usenet and grammar or
>> spelling are the least of my problems :)
>>
>> once upon a time i used to post the way i spoke and then i realised it
>> was quite difficult to read as i had difficulties following my own
>> babblings :) i still do have problems following my own posts but i guess
>> practice is the only way i'm gonna get good at anyfing, eh? :)
>
>
> Actually the word "tort" means ---
>
> "–noun Law .
> a wrongful act, not including a breach of contract or trust, that
> results in injury to another's person, property, reputation, or the
> like, and for which the injured party is entitled to compensation."
>
> and this is a long way from the meaning you inferred.
>

Context, old chap, context PLUS sheer laziness on my part :) I am so
lazy that I am even prepared to let you win your point so that I don't
need to debate it :)

[Geoff Lock[_2_]]

On 31/05/2011 11:07 PM, F Murtz wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>> On 31/05/2011 4:12 AM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>> On 30/05/2011 8:59 PM, Rob wrote:
>>>> On 29/05/2011 2:58 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>>> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>>>> I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
>>>>>> bicycle advocacy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting article and highly recommended reading although a tad long
>>>>> for some but then it was probably written by someone who tort long and
>>>>> hard about the subject. :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> hope that was the Eye dialect spelling of thought.>
>>>
>>> "tort", "thought", who cares - i don't :) it's usenet and grammar or
>>> spelling are the least of my problems :)
>>>
>>> once upon a time i used to post the way i spoke and then i realised it
>>> was quite difficult to read as i had difficulties following my own
>>> babblings :) i still do have problems following my own posts but i guess
>>> practice is the only way i'm gonna get good at anyfing, eh? :)
>>
>>
>> Actually the word "tort" means ---
>>
>> "–noun Law .
>> a wrongful act, not including a breach of contract or trust, that
>> results in injury to another's person, property, reputation, or the
>> like, and for which the injured party is entitled to compensation."
>>
>> and this is a long way from the meaning you inferred.
>>
>
> So what about "I tort I saw a puddy cat"

Hahahahah!! I am glad I don't have to try to answer that cos my brain
just exploded :)

[Rob]

On 1/06/2011 5:16 AM, Geoff Lock wrote:
> On 31/05/2011 10:41 PM, Rob wrote:
>> On 31/05/2011 4:12 AM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>> On 30/05/2011 8:59 PM, Rob wrote:
>>>> On 29/05/2011 2:58 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>>> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>>>> I came across this, and feel it's very important, especially to
>>>>>> bicycle advocacy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://thinkingaboutcycling.wordpress.com/article-fear-of-cycling/
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting article and highly recommended reading although a tad long
>>>>> for some but then it was probably written by someone who tort long and
>>>>> hard about the subject. :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> hope that was the Eye dialect spelling of thought.>
>>>
>>> "tort", "thought", who cares - i don't :) it's usenet and grammar or
>>> spelling are the least of my problems :)
>>>
>>> once upon a time i used to post the way i spoke and then i realised it
>>> was quite difficult to read as i had difficulties following my own
>>> babblings :) i still do have problems following my own posts but i guess
>>> practice is the only way i'm gonna get good at anyfing, eh? :)
>>
>>
>> Actually the word "tort" means ---
>>
>> "–noun Law .
>> a wrongful act, not including a breach of contract or trust, that
>> results in injury to another's person, property, reputation, or the
>> like, and for which the injured party is entitled to compensation."
>>
>> and this is a long way from the meaning you inferred.
>>
>
> Context, old chap, context PLUS sheer laziness on my part :) I am so
> lazy that I am even prepared to let you win your point so that I don't
> need to debate it :)

You had a way out when I wrote "hope that was the Eye dialect spelling
of thought. :)

[Geoff Lock[_2_]]

On 1/06/2011 1:32 PM, Rob wrote:
> On 1/06/2011 5:16 AM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>> On 31/05/2011 10:41 PM, Rob wrote:
>>> On 31/05/2011 4:12 AM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>> On 30/05/2011 8:59 PM, Rob wrote:
>>>>> On 29/05/2011 2:58 PM, Geoff Lock wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/05/2011 7:33 AM, Zebee Johnstone wrote:

>>
>> Context, old chap, context PLUS sheer laziness on my part :) I am so
>> lazy that I am even prepared to let you win your point so that I don't
>> need to debate it :)
>
> You had a way out when I wrote "hope that was the Eye dialect spelling
> of thought. :)

"Never take the easy way out" is one of my mottos :) Hmmm, can one have
more than one motto? Google and Wikipedia, here I come :)

[Theo Bekkers[_2_]]

"Rob" wrote

> Actually the word "tort" means ---

> "-noun Law .
> a wrongful act, not including a breach of contract or trust, that
> results in injury to another's person, property, reputation, or the
> like, and for which the injured party is entitled to compensation."

> and this is a long way from the meaning you inferred.

He implied, you inferred. :-)

Theo
You really shouldn't get into this kind of discussion on the internet.
Everyone inevitably make an error and then they look stupid. Could you
really not work out that he implied "thought"? Or were you not
thinking?

[Dave Hughes]

On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:58:32 +0800, Theo Bekkers wrote:

> Everyone inevitably make an error
^^^^^^
What he said. I promise I didn't poke the sigmonster.
--
Dave Hughes -
"He who asks is a fool for five minutes, but he who does
not ask remains a fool forever." -- Old Chinese saying