Drivers "scared" by so many cyclists on a Sunday

"JNugent" and TMS320 argued:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more than
those of Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

......

You cannot even show that one of them is a Surrey resident. You are just
assuming it.

You're struggling.

Not that it matters all that much. They don't live along the roads they're
crowding and obstructing. That's fairly certain.

You have changed the qualification from Surrey residents to residents of
specific roads.

I know there are people that buy a house in the country, surround it with
high fences, complain about tractors and farmyard smells and noises and
don't go out of their front door unless encased in a Range Rover. But some
people have a house in the countryside to enjoy the countryside and the
immediate access it provides. It's fairly certain that you are wrong.

...

Is "many" numerically less than or greater than "lots"?

I said "There is no logical connection".

Was that too difficult for you to understand?

Yes, I am well aware that you have put some words together to form a
sentence. Below you have a "high proportion" that you can't define or
substantiate.

...

Tthat none/some/all of the offending Surrey nuisance cyclists live in
Surrey does not reduce the proportion of flakiness among cyclists.

And there is nothing to establish that flakiness amongst cyclists is any
higher than the general population. Some of the comments in the petition
certainly contain a flaky content.

The "racing" cyclists complained of sound as though they contain a high
proportion of "enthusiasts" among their number.

Of course people on bicycles out on a Sunday trundle will be enthusiasts.
Would they be out if they didn't enjoy it? This alleged "racing" is rather
different - perhaps there's a perception that anybody wearing shorts must be
racing.

Not exactly everyday guys who just use their bikes to get to work.

It is permitted to leave the house for leisure purposes. It's known that
some people even go out in cars - crowding and obstructing and causing
(actual, not merely perceived) danger on roads they don't live along.

...

And nothing justifies obstruction and recklessness even if 100% of the
cyclists were from Surrey.
Got it yet?

The same can be said by cyclists to motorists.

And?

When drivers start converging on a network of narrow county roads and
trying to race around like F1 drivers (all in their heads, just like these
cyclists), to the unnecessary and unwarranted disadvantage of local
people, you can depend on my objection to it.

Anybody that thinks there is any similarity between an "enthusiast" on a
bicycle (or a Range Rover sized group of cyclists) and an F1 wannabe in a
car is a fool.

Anyway, you have moved on again. Is the next step to accuse them of being
roaming gangs of child murderers?

Eh?

From "over-use" to "offences" to "less safe" to "recklessness". It's quite
remarkable how quickly you forget things you have written.

That sounds like a Freudian slip on your part.

No, just the logical next step up your ladder.

On 26/10/2015 14:08, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" and TMS320 argued:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more than
those of Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

......

You cannot even show that one of them is a Surrey resident. You are just
assuming it.

You're struggling.


Not in the slightest.

Not that it matters all that much. They don't live along the roads they're
crowding and obstructing. That's fairly certain.

You have changed the qualification from Surrey residents to residents of
specific roads.

Quite a few posts back in fact, when I reminded you that even Surrey
residents do not have some sort of carte blance to cause disadvantage to
other Surrey residents.

I know there are people that buy a house in the country, surround it with
high fences, complain about tractors and farmyard smells and noises and
don't go out of their front door unless encased in a Range Rover. But some
people have a house in the countryside to enjoy the countryside and the
immediate access it provides.

Fair enough. That's their business, of course. And certainly not yours.

It's fairly certain that you are wrong.

About what?

Are you claiming that it IS alright to cause inconvenience to others as
long as they are (or perhaps, as the case may be, are not) residents of
the same county?

...

Is "many" numerically less than or greater than "lots"?

I said "There is no logical connection".
Was that too difficult for you to understand?

Yes, I am well aware that you have put some words together to form a
sentence. Below you have a "high proportion" that you can't define or
substantiate.

I don't need to. Even you accepted that there is a proportion of
cyclists who are decidedly flaky (by which I mean focused on self,
sociopathic and very quick to lose self control). You won't accept that
the proportion is higher than in the general population because you
cannot accept it for obvious reasons. But others won't have that difficulty.

...

Tthat none/some/all of the offending Surrey nuisance cyclists live in
Surrey does not reduce the proportion of flakiness among cyclists.

And there is nothing to establish that flakiness amongst cyclists is any
higher than the general population. Some of the comments in the petition
certainly contain a flaky content.

The "racing" cyclists complained of sound as though they contain a high
proportion of "enthusiasts" among their number.

Of course people on bicycles out on a Sunday trundle will be enthusiasts.

The word isn't always to be construed positively.

Would they be out if they didn't enjoy it? This alleged "racing" is rather
different - perhaps there's a perception that anybody wearing shorts must be
racing.

Not exactly everyday guys who just use their bikes to get to work.

It is permitted to leave the house for leisure purposes. It's known that
some people even go out in cars - crowding and obstructing and causing
(actual, not merely perceived) danger on roads they don't live along.

...

And nothing justifies obstruction and recklessness even if 100% of the
cyclists were from Surrey.
Got it yet?

The same can be said by cyclists to motorists.

And?
When drivers start converging on a network of narrow county roads and
trying to race around like F1 drivers (all in their heads, just like these
cyclists), to the unnecessary and unwarranted disadvantage of local
people, you can depend on my objection to it.

Anybody that thinks there is any similarity between an "enthusiast" on a
bicycle (or a Range Rover sized group of cyclists) and an F1 wannabe in a
car is a fool.

There is an obvious similarity and only a fool would pretend not to
notice it.

Anyway, you have moved on again. Is the next step to accuse them of being
roaming gangs of child murderers?

Eh?

From "over-use" to "offences" to "less safe" to "recklessness". It's quite
remarkable how quickly you forget things you have written.

That sounds like a Freudian slip on your part.

No, just the logical next step up your ladder.

Your imagination, eh? What's it like, as they (some of 'em) say.

"JNugent" wrote
On 26/10/2015 14:08, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" and TMS320 argued:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more
than those of Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

......

Not that it matters all that much. They don't live along the roads
they're crowding and obstructing. That's fairly certain.

You have changed the qualification from Surrey residents to residents of
specific roads.

Quite a few posts back in fact, when I reminded you that even Surrey
residents do not have some sort of carte blance to cause disadvantage to
other Surrey residents.

I know there are people that buy a house in the country, surround it with
high fences, complain about tractors and farmyard smells and noises and
don't go out of their front door unless encased in a Range Rover. But
some people have a house in the countryside to enjoy the countryside and
the immediate access it provides.

Fair enough. That's their business, of course. And certainly not yours.

It's fairly certain that you are wrong.

About what?

Here's a clue. When somebody replies to you, take a look at your own words
just above their reply.

Are you claiming that it IS alright to cause inconvenience to others as
long as they are (or perhaps, as the case may be, are not) residents of
the same county?

No. I gave a reason that your claim (the one indented by ) is wrong.

...

Is "many" numerically less than or greater than "lots"?

I said "There is no logical connection".
Was that too difficult for you to understand?

Yes, I am well aware that you have put some words together to form a
sentence. Below you have a "high proportion" that you can't define or
substantiate.

I don't need to.

Then you just have to accept that lots of those cyclists will be Surrey
residents and are equally entitled to give an opinion.

Even you accepted that there is a proportion of cyclists who are decidedly
flaky (by which I mean focused on self, sociopathic and very quick to lose
self control). You won't accept that the proportion is higher than in the
general population because you cannot accept it for obvious reasons.

Indeed.

But others won't have that difficulty.

What, you mean like the anti-cycling types that post on this ng? Yeah
right...

...

Anybody that thinks there is any similarity between an "enthusiast" on a
bicycle (or a Range Rover sized group of cyclists) and an F1 wannabe in a
car is a fool.

There is an obvious similarity and only a fool would pretend not to notice
it.

You might be trying to invoke some sort of moral principle but the laws of
physics are a much higher authority. Sorry, but it makes an enormous
difference that is completely non-negotiable.

On 27/10/2015 09:14, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 26/10/2015 14:08, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" and TMS320 argued:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more
than those of Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

......

Not that it matters all that much. They don't live along the roads
they're crowding and obstructing. That's fairly certain.

You have changed the qualification from Surrey residents to residents of
specific roads.

Quite a few posts back in fact, when I reminded you that even Surrey
residents do not have some sort of carte blance to cause disadvantage to
other Surrey residents.

I know there are people that buy a house in the country, surround it with
high fences, complain about tractors and farmyard smells and noises and
don't go out of their front door unless encased in a Range Rover. But
some people have a house in the countryside to enjoy the countryside and
the immediate access it provides.

Fair enough. That's their business, of course. And certainly not yours.

It's fairly certain that you are wrong.

About what?

Here's a clue. When somebody replies to you, take a look at your own words
just above their reply.

Are you claiming that it IS alright to cause inconvenience to others as
long as they are (or perhaps, as the case may be, are not) residents of
the same county?

No. I gave a reason that your claim (the one indented by ) is wrong.

The passage indented by three carat marks above is of your coinage.

Unless you are criticising your own work (not impossible), perhaps you'd
better quote what you (think you) are talking about.

...

Is "many" numerically less than or greater than "lots"?

I said "There is no logical connection".
Was that too difficult for you to understand?

Yes, I am well aware that you have put some words together to form a
sentence. Below you have a "high proportion" that you can't define or
substantiate.

I don't need to.

Then you just have to accept that lots of those cyclists will be Surrey
residents

There is no evidence for that. It is an assertion plucked out of the
air. You don't even have an anecdotal basis for it.

and are equally entitled to give an opinion.

Everyone's entitled to do that.

But being entitled to self-expression, as you know, does not entitle one
to commit acts which cause inconvenience to others.

Even you accepted that there is a proportion of cyclists who are decidedly
flaky (by which I mean focused on self, sociopathic and very quick to lose
self control). You won't accept that the proportion is higher than in the
general population because you cannot accept it for obvious reasons.

Indeed.

But others won't have that difficulty.

What, you mean like the anti-cycling types that post on this ng? Yeah
right...

Yes... *like* those. But certainly not limited to them.

As you well know, it isn't the currency in which *I* usually deal, but
when certain others remind us all that "no-one likes cyclists", well...
there's a bit of hyperbole in that, but it certainly isn't completely
wide of the mark.

There's a lot of truth in it, as perusal of the "comments" section in
any news-site report of a cycling "incident" soon makes clear.

...

Anybody that thinks there is any similarity between an "enthusiast" on a
bicycle (or a Range Rover sized group of cyclists) and an F1 wannabe in a
car is a fool.

There is an obvious similarity and only a fool would pretend not to notice
it.

You might be trying to invoke some sort of moral principle but the laws of
physics are a much higher authority. Sorry, but it makes an enormous
difference that is completely non-negotiable.

Oh... *not* the "cyclists can do as they like because there's a fair
chance that their victims won't die" claim again?

Is that the best you can do?

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 27/10/2015 09:14, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 26/10/2015 14:08, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" and TMS320 argued:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more
than those of Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

......

Not that it matters all that much. They don't live along the roads
they're crowding and obstructing. That's fairly certain.

You have changed the qualification from Surrey residents to residents
of
specific roads.

Quite a few posts back in fact, when I reminded you that even Surrey
residents do not have some sort of carte blance to cause disadvantage to
other Surrey residents.

I know there are people that buy a house in the country, surround it
with
high fences, complain about tractors and farmyard smells and noises and
don't go out of their front door unless encased in a Range Rover. But
some people have a house in the countryside to enjoy the countryside
and
the immediate access it provides.

Fair enough. That's their business, of course. And certainly not yours.

It's fairly certain that you are wrong.

About what?

Here's a clue. When somebody replies to you, take a look at your own
words
just above their reply.

Are you claiming that it IS alright to cause inconvenience to others as
long as they are (or perhaps, as the case may be, are not) residents of
the same county?

No. I gave a reason that your claim (the one indented by ) is wrong.

The passage indented by three carat marks above is of your coinage.

Are you seriously incapable of either remembering anything you wrote or
unable
to count back? Look at my original not what it became after you hit reply.
It was 3 then. It is now 5. It will be 6 when you reply again.


Yes, I am well aware that you have put some words together to form a
sentence. Below you have a "high proportion" that you can't define or
substantiate.

I don't need to.

Then you just have to accept that lots of those cyclists will be Surrey
residents

There is no evidence for that. It is an assertion plucked out of the air.
You don't even have an anecdotal basis for it.

It is not necessary.

and are equally entitled to give an opinion.

Everyone's entitled to do that.

Good. So my opinion is that the complainers are whingers.

But being entitled to self-expression, as you know, does not entitle one
to commit acts which cause inconvenience to others.

Even you accepted that there is a proportion of cyclists who are
decidedly
flaky (by which I mean focused on self, sociopathic and very quick to
lose
self control). You won't accept that the proportion is higher than in
the
general population because you cannot accept it for obvious reasons.

Indeed.

But others won't have that difficulty.

What, you mean like the anti-cycling types that post on this ng? Yeah
right...

Yes... *like* those. But certainly not limited to them.

As you well know, it isn't the currency in which *I* usually deal, but
when certain others remind us all that "no-one likes cyclists", well...
there's a bit of hyperbole in that, but it certainly isn't completely wide
of the mark.

There's a lot of truth in it, as perusal of the "comments" section in any
news-site report of a cycling "incident" soon makes clear.

Such things always attract nutters.

...

Anybody that thinks there is any similarity between an "enthusiast" on
a
bicycle (or a Range Rover sized group of cyclists) and an F1 wannabe in
a
car is a fool.

There is an obvious similarity and only a fool would pretend not to
notice
it.

You might be trying to invoke some sort of moral principle but the laws
of
physics are a much higher authority. Sorry, but it makes an enormous
difference that is completely non-negotiable.

Oh... *not* the "cyclists can do as they like because there's a fair
chance that their victims won't die" claim again?

I said there is a difference between an enthusiast on a bicycle and a
wannabe F1 driver. It's genuinely difficult to believe you are incapable of
understanding this.

Is that the best you can do?

It's a damn sight better than your effort.

On 27/10/2015 20:58, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 27/10/2015 09:14, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 26/10/2015 14:08, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" and TMS320 argued:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more
than those of Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

......

Not that it matters all that much. They don't live along the roads
they're crowding and obstructing. That's fairly certain.

You have changed the qualification from Surrey residents to residents
of specific roads.

Quite a few posts back in fact, when I reminded you that even Surrey
residents do not have some sort of carte blance to cause disadvantage to
other Surrey residents.

I know there are people that buy a house in the country, surround it
with high fences, complain about tractors and farmyard smells and noises
and don't go out of their front door unless encased in a Range Rover. But
some people have a house in the countryside to enjoy the countryside
and the immediate access it provides.

Fair enough. That's their business, of course. And certainly not yours.

It's fairly certain that you are wrong.

About what?

Here's a clue. When somebody replies to you, take a look at your own
words just above their reply.

Are you claiming that it IS alright to cause inconvenience to others as
long as they are (or perhaps, as the case may be, are not) residents of
the same county?

No. I gave a reason that your claim (the one indented by ) is wrong.

The passage indented by three carat marks above is of your coinage.

Are you seriously incapable of either remembering anything you wrote or
unable to count back? Look at my original not what it became after you
hit reply. It was 3 then. It is now 5. It will be 6 when you reply again.

Don't be so coy.

I'm sure you haven't forgotten how to copy and paste.

Quote the material you "think" is wrong.

Yes, I am well aware that you have put some words together to form a
sentence. Below you have a "high proportion" that you can't define or
substantiate.

I don't need to.

Then you just have to accept that lots of those cyclists will be Surrey
residents

There is no evidence for that. It is an assertion plucked out of the air.
You don't even have an anecdotal basis for it.

It is not necessary.

On that specific point, you are right. It isn't necessary. Neither is it
necessary to take any notice of it.

and are equally entitled to give an opinion.

Everyone's entitled to do that.

Good. So my opinion is that the complainers are whingers.

And you know how how highly they are likely to value that unsupported
assertion of an opinion.

But being entitled to self-expression, as you know, does not entitle one
to commit acts which cause inconvenience to others.

Even you accepted that there is a proportion of cyclists who are
decidedly flaky (by which I mean focused on self, sociopathic and
very quick to lose self control). You won't accept that the
proportion is higher than in the general population because you cannot
accept it for obvious reasons.

Indeed.

But others won't have that difficulty.

What, you mean like the anti-cycling types that post on this ng? Yeah
right...

Yes... *like* those. But certainly not limited to them.
As you well know, it isn't the currency in which *I* usually deal, but
when certain others remind us all that "no-one likes cyclists", well...
there's a bit of hyperbole in that, but it certainly isn't completely wide
of the mark.
There's a lot of truth in it, as perusal of the "comments" section in any
news-site report of a cycling "incident" soon makes clear.

Such things always attract nutters.

Indeed. And citizens comment on the egregious behaviour of those nutters.

...

Anybody that thinks there is any similarity between an "enthusiast" on
a bicycle (or a Range Rover sized group of cyclists) and an F1 wannabe in
a car is a fool.

There is an obvious similarity and only a fool would pretend not to
notice it.

You might be trying to invoke some sort of moral principle but the laws
of physics are a much higher authority. Sorry, but it makes an enormous
difference that is completely non-negotiable.

Oh... *not* the "cyclists can do as they like because there's a fair
chance that their victims won't die" claim again?

I said there is a difference between an enthusiast on a bicycle and a
wannabe F1 driver. It's genuinely difficult to believe you are incapable of
understanding this.

Is that the best you can do?

It's a damn sight better than your effort.

You know how highly I value your opinion.

"JNugent" wrote
On 27/10/2015 20:58, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 27/10/2015 09:14, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 26/10/2015 14:08, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" and TMS320 argued:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters
more
than those of Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

......


// THIS IS THE PARAGRAPH YOU CAN'T REMEMBER WRITING
Not that it matters all that much. They don't live along the roads
they're crowding and obstructing. That's fairly certain.
END//

You have changed the qualification from Surrey residents to residents
of specific roads.

Quite a few posts back in fact, when I reminded you that even Surrey
residents do not have some sort of carte blance to cause disadvantage
to other Surrey residents.

I know there are people that buy a house in the country, surround it
with high fences, complain about tractors and farmyard smells and
noises and don't go out of their front door unless encased in a Range
Rover. But some people have a house in the countryside to enjoy the
countryside and the immediate access it provides.

Fair enough. That's their business, of course. And certainly not
yours.

It's fairly certain that you are wrong.

About what?

Here's a clue. When somebody replies to you, take a look at your own
words just above their reply.

Are you claiming that it IS alright to cause inconvenience to others
as long as they are (or perhaps, as the case may be, are not)
residents of the same county?

No. I gave a reason that your claim (the one indented by ) is wrong.

The passage indented by three carat marks above is of your coinage.

Are you seriously incapable of either remembering anything you wrote or
unable to count back? Look at my original not what it became after you
hit reply. It was 3 then. It is now 5. It will be 6 when you reply again.

Don't be so coy.

I'm sure you haven't forgotten how to copy and paste.

No. I also don't forget which words in a post were mine.

Quote the material you "think" is wrong.

Was my highlighting adequate? Let me know if you still have any uncertainty
about it.

...

Anybody that thinks there is any similarity between an "enthusiast"
on a bicycle (or a Range Rover sized group of cyclists) and an F1
wannabe in
a car is a fool.

There is an obvious similarity and only a fool would pretend not to
notice it.

You might be trying to invoke some sort of moral principle but the laws
of physics are a much higher authority. Sorry, but it makes an enormous
difference that is completely non-negotiable.

Oh... *not* the "cyclists can do as they like because there's a fair
chance that their victims won't die" claim again?

I said there is a difference between an enthusiast on a bicycle and a
wannabe F1 driver. It's genuinely difficult to believe you are incapable
of understanding this.

Is that the best you can do?

It's a damn sight better than your effort.

You know how highly I value your opinion.

Then I can hold my head high.

On 28/10/2015 14:00, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
On 27/10/2015 20:58, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 27/10/2015 09:14, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 26/10/2015 14:08, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" and TMS320 argued:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters
more
than those of Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

......


// THIS IS THE PARAGRAPH YOU CAN'T REMEMBER WRITING
Ah... you've obeyed my request for a copy'n'paste quote.
Not that it matters all that much. They don't live along the roads
they're crowding and obstructing. That's fairly certain.
END//

And what is wrong with that?

If they all lived along those roads, the effect of their crowding onto
the same roads would not be anything new and would not have increased
after the hopping, skipping, running, jumping and standing still festival.

Would it?

[ ... ]

Don't be so coy.
I'm sure you haven't forgotten how to copy and paste.

No. I also don't forget which words in a post were mine.

Quote the material you "think" is wrong.

Was my highlighting adequate? Let me know if you still have any uncertainty
about it.

...

You've quoted it now. Many thanks (why didn't you just do it in the
first place?).

Anybody that thinks there is any similarity between an "enthusiast"
on a bicycle (or a Range Rover sized group of cyclists) and an F1
wannabe in a car is a fool.

There is an obvious similarity and only a fool would pretend not to
notice it.

You might be trying to invoke some sort of moral principle but the laws
of physics are a much higher authority. Sorry, but it makes an enormous
difference that is completely non-negotiable.

Oh... *not* the "cyclists can do as they like because there's a fair
chance that their victims won't die" claim again?

I said there is a difference between an enthusiast on a bicycle and a
wannabe F1 driver. It's genuinely difficult to believe you are incapable
of understanding this.

Is that the best you can do?

It's a damn sight better than your effort.

You know how highly I value your opinion.

Then I can hold my head high.

It's always best to look where you're going, after all.

Many cyclists don't bother.