What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?

On 31/05/2020 12:23, Kelly wrote:

JNugent wrote:

Cyclists (or the majority of them today) behave badly. That's the only
way to describe it.

Quote:

...the idea that the UK is menaced by an advancing tide of reckless
cyclists ignores the fact that cycling levels across the country have
stayed largely static for years, and remain pitifully low, at about 1%
or so for all trips.

That's democracy (using the word in one of its most basic senses) in action.

And just imagine the carnage on our footways if that figure were 10%
instead of 1%.

...the pandemic of avoidable ill-health caused by sedentary lifestyles
will, if unchecked, pretty soon bankrupt the NHS and social care
systems. ...the best way to get people active is exercise which forms
part of their everyday life, such as active travel, and that cycling
is ideal for this.

About 85,000 people in England and Wales die each year from illness
connected to inactive living. Obsessing about the supposed dangers
caused by cycling, rather than the many, provable benefits it brings,
strikes me as extremely odd.

Unquote.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...kless-cyclists

The Guardian is *full* of weird ideas that do not accord with reality,
written by people with fixed agandas, hidden or not.

"Ill-health caused by sedentary lifestyles" has precisely *nothing* to
do with the issue. There are plenty of ways to take exercise that don't
involve breaking the law and/or putting pedestrians in unnecessary
danger by cycling along footways (etc). Suggesting - even obliquely - to
the contrary is a lunatic idea.

On Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 12:23:03 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:

...the idea that the UK is menaced by an advancing tide of reckless
cyclists ignores the fact that :

“[Cyclists] don’t emit any pollution; they don’t create much congestion if any and they’re not a safety risk. Occasionally cyclists alarm people by riding on the pavement or something but the number of people killed by cyclists in London averages out to about 1 or 0.5 a year. The number of people killed by cars in London is about 200 a year I believe. It’s a silly argument.�

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlton.../#5ba0aa855a3d

On 31/05/2020 02:55, JNugent wrote:
On 29/05/2020 23:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 29/05/2020 14:37, JNugent wrote:
On 29/05/2020 11:08, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
JNugent Â* wrote:

[]

Don't you think it would be less easy to "demonise" cyclists if they
(the majority of cyclists) simply behaved better and committed fewer
traffic offences?

But they do (behave well); it's your selective view that's being
reinforced
by the transgressors - you discount the ordinary well-behaved.Â* We all
believe what we want, and the brain rewards re-inforcement; we fool
ourselves.

It is obvious that you are fooling *yourself*, but, please, don't be
obtuse.
Cycling along footways is not good behaviour. Passing through red
traffic lights is not good behaviour. Ignoring one-way working
(whether on rhe footway or the carriageway) is not good behaviour.
It is objectively correct to see all those as bad behaviour (and each
of them is also a traffic offence).

You sound as though road law is a set of school rules: "You're a
naughty boy: don't run in the corridors, do your tie up properly and
get a haircut."

You seem to "think" that compliance with the law is merely an option to
be considered. Other people need and deserve to be protected from you.

Also, "bad behaviour" and "not good behaviour" are not the same thing.

shrug

No point shrugging. You set yourself out as the language expert.

Cyclists (or the majority of them today) behave badly. That's the only
way to describe it.

A bit like breaking school rules then.

Let us see whether you can reasonably disagree with that without
resorting to the standard "Cyclists must be allowed to do as they
like" attitude.

Yawn.

I was already well aware that you do not accept that cyclists are under
a duty to comply with the law or to consider others.

Yawn.

Additionally, in current conditions, passing pedestrians with less
than six feet of clearance - particularly on a footway - is
*terrible* behaviour.

This is the only law pedestrians can break. Noticeably more are
breaking it than they were a few weeks ago.

Does that make it alright for you to do it?

Sigh. I am reporting as I find. It means a person on a bike is no
different to a person not on on a bike.

On 31/05/2020 16:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/05/2020 02:55, JNugent wrote:
On 29/05/2020 23:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 29/05/2020 14:37, JNugent wrote:
On 29/05/2020 11:08, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
JNugent Â* wrote:

[]

Don't you think it would be less easy to "demonise" cyclists if they
(the majority of cyclists) simply behaved better and committed fewer
traffic offences?

But they do (behave well); it's your selective view that's being
reinforced
by the transgressors - you discount the ordinary well-behaved.Â* We all
believe what we want, and the brain rewards re-inforcement; we fool
ourselves.

It is obvious that you are fooling *yourself*, but, please, don't be
obtuse.
Cycling along footways is not good behaviour. Passing through red
traffic lights is not good behaviour. Ignoring one-way working
(whether on rhe footway or the carriageway) is not good behaviour.
It is objectively correct to see all those as bad behaviour (and
each of them is also a traffic offence).

You sound as though road law is a set of school rules: "You're a
naughty boy: don't run in the corridors, do your tie up properly and
get a haircut."

You seem to "think" that compliance with the law is merely an option
to be considered. Other people need and deserve to be protected from you.

Ah... you don't take issue with that.

Also, "bad behaviour" and "not good behaviour" are not the same thing.

shrug

No point shrugging. You set yourself out as the language expert.

And you set out two concepts as a comparison when the comparison is an
irrelevance.

Cyclists (or the majority of them today) behave badly. That's the only
way to describe it.

A bit like breaking school rules then.

Or like breaching the Theft Act. Or... the Road Traffic Acts...

Let us see whether you can reasonably disagree with that without
resorting to the standard "Cyclists must be allowed to do as they
like" attitude.

Yawn.

I was already well aware that you do not accept that cyclists are
under a duty to comply with the law or to consider others.

Yawn.

You have no credible answer to the charge.

Additionally, in current conditions, passing pedestrians with less
than six feet of clearance - particularly on a footway - is
*terrible* behaviour.

This is the only law pedestrians can break. Noticeably more are
breaking it than they were a few weeks ago.

Does that make it alright for you to do it?

Sigh. I am reporting as I find. It means a person on a bike is no
different to a person not on on a bike.

....except for not being allowed - by law - on a footway, you mean?

On 31/05/2020 17:19, JNugent wrote:
On 31/05/2020 16:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/05/2020 02:55, JNugent wrote:
On 29/05/2020 23:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 29/05/2020 14:37, JNugent wrote:
On 29/05/2020 11:08, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
JNugent Â* wrote:

[]

Don't you think it would be less easy to "demonise" cyclists if they
(the majority of cyclists) simply behaved better and committed fewer
traffic offences?

But they do (behave well); it's your selective view that's being
reinforced
by the transgressors - you discount the ordinary well-behaved.Â* We
all
believe what we want, and the brain rewards re-inforcement; we fool
ourselves.

It is obvious that you are fooling *yourself*, but, please, don't
be obtuse.
Cycling along footways is not good behaviour. Passing through red
traffic lights is not good behaviour. Ignoring one-way working
(whether on rhe footway or the carriageway) is not good behaviour.
It is objectively correct to see all those as bad behaviour (and
each of them is also a traffic offence).

You sound as though road law is a set of school rules: "You're a
naughty boy: don't run in the corridors, do your tie up properly and
get a haircut."

You seem to "think" that compliance with the law is merely an option
to be considered. Other people need and deserve to be protected from
you.

Ah... you don't take issue with that.

To the best of my ability, I go about my business safely and
responsibly, which achieves all necessary objectives.
Also, "bad behaviour" and "not good behaviour" are not the same thing.

shrug

No point shrugging. You set yourself out as the language expert.

And you set out two concepts as a comparison when the comparison is an
irrelevance.

That depends. Blind obedience is not the primary determinant of good or
bad road "behaviour".

Cyclists (or the majority of them today) behave badly. That's the
only way to describe it.

A bit like breaking school rules then.

Or like breaching the Theft Act.

Nothing like theft. The hypothetical QC you raised the other day... you
suggested there would be no reason why a record of speeding should
prevent him/her acting in a case of theft. So...

Or... the Road Traffic Acts...

....turn it round. If this QC was charged with theft, he/she would be
suspended. If then found guilty, he/she would be struck off.

Let us see whether you can reasonably disagree with that without
resorting to the standard "Cyclists must be allowed to do as they
like" attitude.

Yawn.

I was already well aware that you do not accept that cyclists are
under a duty to comply with the law or to consider others.

Yawn.

You have no credible answer to the charge.

I'm bored with your obsession.

Additionally, in current conditions, passing pedestrians with less
than six feet of clearance - particularly on a footway - is
*terrible* behaviour.

This is the only law pedestrians can break. Noticeably more are
breaking it than they were a few weeks ago.

Does that make it alright for you to do it?

Sigh. I am reporting as I find. It means a person on a bike is no
different to a person not on on a bike.

...except for not being allowed - by law - on a footway, you mean?

The matter was about pedestrians breaking the 2m rule.

On 31/05/2020 19:28, TMS320 wrote:

On 31/05/2020 17:19, JNugent wrote:
On 31/05/2020 16:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/05/2020 02:55, JNugent wrote:
On 29/05/2020 23:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 29/05/2020 14:37, JNugent wrote:
On 29/05/2020 11:08, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
JNugent Â* wrote:

[]

Don't you think it would be less easy to "demonise" cyclists if
they (the majority of cyclists) simply behaved better and
committed fewer traffic offences?

But they do (behave well); it's your selective view that's being
reinforced by the transgressors - you discount the ordinary well-
behaved. We all believe what we want, and the brain rewards
re-inforcement; we fool ourselves.

It is obvious that you are fooling *yourself*, but, please, don't
be obtuse.
Cycling along footways is not good behaviour. Passing through red
traffic lights is not good behaviour. Ignoring one-way working
(whether on rhe footway or the carriageway) is not good behaviour.
It is objectively correct to see all those as bad behaviour (and
each of them is also a traffic offence).

You sound as though road law is a set of school rules: "You're a
naughty boy: don't run in the corridors, do your tie up properly
and get a haircut."

You seem to "think" that compliance with the law is merely an option
to be considered. Other people need and deserve to be protected from
you.

Ah... you don't take issue with that.

To the best of my ability, I go about my business safely and
responsibly, which achieves all necessary objectives.

But not lawfully, which is why you cannot bring yourself to condemn
legal infractions by cyclists.

Also, "bad behaviour" and "not good behaviour" are not the same thing.

shrug

No point shrugging. You set yourself out as the language expert.

And you set out two concepts as a comparison when the comparison is an
irrelevance.

That depends. Blind obedience is not the primary determinant of good or
bad road "behaviour".

Lawful behaviour is an essential part - the most essential part - of
good behaviour.

Cyclists (or the majority of them today) behave badly. That's the
only way to describe it.

A bit like breaking school rules then.

Or like breaching the Theft Act.

Nothing like theft. The hypothetical QC you raised the other day... you
suggested there would be no reason why a record of speeding should
prevent him/her acting in a case of theft. So...

The analogy holds up in principle. Thieves have no compunction in
stealing and disregarding the Theft Act(s). Cyclists have no compunction
breaking traffic law (treating it as though it didn't exist).

Or... the Road Traffic Acts...

...turn it round. If this QC was charged with theft, he/she would be
suspended. If then found guilty, he/she would be struck off.

It was an *analogy*.

Your ability to deal with nuance is severely compromised.

Let us see whether you can reasonably disagree with that without
resorting to the standard "Cyclists must be allowed to do as they
like" attitude.

Yawn.

I was already well aware that you do not accept that cyclists are
under a duty to comply with the law or to consider others.

Yawn.

You have no credible answer to the charge.

I'm bored with your obsession.

And you can't honestly claim to be law-abiding. You have no intention of
complying with the law.

Additionally, in current conditions, passing pedestrians with less
than six feet of clearance - particularly on a footway - is
*terrible* behaviour.

This is the only law pedestrians can break. Noticeably more are
breaking it than they were a few weeks ago.

Does that make it alright for you to do it?

Sigh. I am reporting as I find. It means a person on a bike is no
different to a person not on on a bike.

...except for not being allowed - by law - on a footway, you mean?

The matter was about pedestrians breaking the 2m rule.

It was. But not only about that. Cyclists are still using footways
despite the 2m rule which cannot possibly be complied with there.

On 31/05/2020 21:39, JNugent wrote:
On 31/05/2020 19:28, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/05/2020 17:19, JNugent wrote:

If you don't my like snipping, don't be lazy and look it up

To the best of my ability, I go about my business safely and
responsibly, which achieves all necessary objectives.

But not lawfully, which is why you cannot bring yourself to condemn
legal infractions by cyclists.

Nothing requires me to.

...

That depends. Blind obedience is not the primary determinant of
good or bad road "behaviour".

Lawful behaviour is an essential part - the most essential part - of
good behaviour.

That is the school rules attitude.

...

Or like breaching the Theft Act.

Nothing like theft. The hypothetical QC you raised the other day...
you suggested there would be no reason why a record of speeding
should prevent him/her acting in a case of theft. So...

The analogy holds up in principle. Thieves have no compunction in
stealing and disregarding the Theft Act(s). Cyclists have no
compunction breaking traffic law (treating it as though it didn't
exist).

"Compunction" has to be proved in court. Be consistent.

...

Or... the Road Traffic Acts...

...turn it round. If this QC was charged with theft, he/she would
be suspended. If then found guilty, he/she would be struck off.

It was an *analogy*.

So was mine. To show that the law understands the difference between
theft and traffic violations.

Your ability to deal with nuance is severely compromised.

I am only interested in practical matters.

...

I'm bored with your obsession.

And you can't honestly claim to be law-abiding. You have no intention
of complying with the law.

You are never be honest about your claims to be law-abiding; you always
add a list of conditions.

You may be correct that I don't intend to comply with the rules. But
what happens if it turns out that when I follow my own objectives, I
unintentionally comply with the rules? Does a parallel universe explode?