Shocking moment drunk driver ploughs into group of cyclists.

On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus"
wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to that
of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hits a group
of cars.

Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying to say,
Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefore OT, we again
have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk, being a
complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...?

The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much greater
than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graphic
example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also recall how
the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something no
bicycle could ever do.

Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:

The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
addiction,

No they don't, they point out that while you are busy "cherry picking
anecdotes" that anyone can do the same for bicycles, hence cherry
picking anecdotes is a failed tactic, which you still resort to every
single day of your life.

Doug wrote:
On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus"
wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to that
of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hits a group
of cars.
Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying to say,
Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefore OT, we again
have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk, being a
complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...?

The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much greater
than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graphic
example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also recall how
the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something no
bicycle could ever do.

Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Thank you for your input, you at last agree that cycles can be
dangerous, thank you for clearing up that point.

--
Tony the Dragon

In article 31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405
@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says...
On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus"
wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to that
of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hits a group
of cars.

Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying to say,
Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefore OT, we again
have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk, being a
complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...?

The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much greater
than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graphic
example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also recall how
the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something no
bicycle could ever do.

Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.

Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was when I
was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't moving, and the
traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in and half out of a side
road he felt the need to try and smash my rear window.
These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road.

On 4 Jun, 20:51, Me wrote:
In article 31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405
@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says...

On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus"
wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to that
of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hits a group
of cars.

Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying to say,
Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefore OT, we again
have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk, being a
complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...?

The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much greater
than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graphic
example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also recall how
the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something no
bicycle could ever do.

Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.

Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was when I
was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't moving, and the
traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in and half out of a side
road he felt the need to try and smash my rear window.
These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road.

More cyclist bashing by the motorists who dominate and infest this
transport newsgroup?

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On Jun 5, 5:48*am, Doug wrote:
On 4 Jun, 20:51, Me wrote:



In article 31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405
@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says...

On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus"
wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

....

This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to that
of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hits a group
of cars.

Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying to say,
Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefore OT, we again
have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk, being a
complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...?

The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much greater
than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graphic
example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also recall how
the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something no
bicycle could ever do.

Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.

Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was when I
was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't moving, and the
traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in and half out of a side
road he felt the need to try and smash my rear window.
These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road.

More cyclist bashing by the motorists who dominate and infest this
transport newsgroup?

...where "bashing" = "justified criticism". You'd do yourself a lot
of favours if you didn't automatically defend every cyclist, no matter
whether they were right or wrong. It is you and your troll friends
who revel in, and deliberately perpetuate, the "us and them" mentality
between cyclists and motorists. "Two wheels (non-powered) good, four
wheels bad." It's pathetic.

Why don't you mind your own business and concentrate on making things
better for cyclists, instead of devoting your efforts to persecuting
motorists? Why don't you stop using silly words like "addiction" to
describe people who justifiably find their cars useful? (Are people
with hoovers "hoover addicts"? Should they pick up the dirt on the
floor by hand just to placate you?) I don't know why it is that
motorist advocates simply want things to be better for motorists,
while so many so-called cycling advocates seem to be *more* concerned
with making things worse for drivers than they are with making things
better for themselves. I think the word is "spite".

If all cyclists would just concentrate on improving their lot, and lay
off (and make an effort to get on with) motorists, things would be so
much better for everyone, but for some reason (*not* "safety", which
is just an excuse), that scenario seems to be the worst nightmare of
the dog-in-the-manger trolls on urc. "Bloody motorists, enjoying
their cars while I'm stuck out here, knackered and sweaty, in the
rain...can't have that." Never mind the fact that cars and cycles
both have innate advantages and disadvantages relative to each other;
the millitant cyclists try to artificially increase the disadvantages
of driving by campaigning for huge numbers of anti-motorist measures.

And Doug, if you must be anti-car for socialist reasons, at least
admit that, rather than constantly exaggerating the dangers caused by
cars in order to get what you want. Interfering with road safety is
not on. Pretending that certain things are more dangerous than they
are *will* cost lives. Please don't be so callous.

On 5 Jun, 06:31, Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Jun 5, 5:48 am, Doug wrote:



On 4 Jun, 20:51, Me wrote:

In article 31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405
@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says...

On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus"
wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to that
of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle hits a group
of cars.

Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying to say,
Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so therefore OT, we again
have an example of someone who was, so it seemed, blind drunk, being a
complete moron. You point, therefore, is ...?

The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much greater
than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This graphic
example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also recall how
the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently. Something no
bicycle could ever do.

Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.

Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was when I
was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't moving, and the
traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in and half out of a side
road he felt the need to try and smash my rear window.
These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road.

More cyclist bashing by the motorists who dominate and infest this
transport newsgroup?

...where "bashing" = "justified criticism". You'd do yourself a lot
of favours if you didn't automatically defend every cyclist, no matter
whether they were right or wrong. It is you and your troll friends
who revel in, and deliberately perpetuate, the "us and them" mentality
between cyclists and motorists. "Two wheels (non-powered) good, four
wheels bad." It's pathetic.

Why don't you mind your own business and concentrate on making things
better for cyclists, instead of devoting your efforts to persecuting
motorists? Why don't you stop using silly words like "addiction" to
describe people who justifiably find their cars useful? (Are people
with hoovers "hoover addicts"? Should they pick up the dirt on the
floor by hand just to placate you?) I don't know why it is that
motorist advocates simply want things to be better for motorists,
while so many so-called cycling advocates seem to be *more* concerned
with making things worse for drivers than they are with making things
better for themselves. I think the word is "spite".

If all cyclists would just concentrate on improving their lot, and lay
off (and make an effort to get on with) motorists, things would be so
much better for everyone, but for some reason (*not* "safety", which
is just an excuse), that scenario seems to be the worst nightmare of
the dog-in-the-manger trolls on urc. "Bloody motorists, enjoying
their cars while I'm stuck out here, knackered and sweaty, in the
rain...can't have that." Never mind the fact that cars and cycles
both have innate advantages and disadvantages relative to each other;
the millitant cyclists try to artificially increase the disadvantages
of driving by campaigning for huge numbers of anti-motorist measures.

And Doug, if you must be anti-car for socialist reasons, at least
admit that, rather than constantly exaggerating the dangers caused by
cars in order to get what you want. Interfering with road safety is
not on. Pretending that certain things are more dangerous than they
are *will* cost lives. Please don't be so callous.

Tsk. Yet another closet motorist masquerading as something else.

--
Carfree Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Promoting practical alternatives to car dependence - walking, cycling
and public transport.

In article bf6a8355-e7fe-4ecd-a271-e2564f853551
@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com, says...

Tsk. Yet another closet motorist masquerading as something else.


Tsk, yet another closet masquerading as something else.

Doug wrote:
On 4 Jun, 20:51, Me wrote:
In article 31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405
@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says...

On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus"
wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to
that of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle
hits a group of cars.

Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying
to say, Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so
therefore OT, we again have an example of someone who was, so it
seemed, blind drunk, being a complete moron. You point, therefore,
is ...?

The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try to
make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much
greater than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This
graphic example is more telling than a simple set of numbers. Also
recall how the side of a house was destroyed by a car recently.
Something no bicycle could ever do.

Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.

Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was when
I was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't moving,
and the traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in and half
out of a side road he felt the need to try and smash my rear window.
These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road.

More cyclist bashing by the motorists who dominate and infest this
transport newsgroup?

It sounds more like that it was the cyclist bashing the car.

Doug wrote:
On 5 Jun, 06:31, Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Jun 5, 5:48 am, Doug wrote:



On 4 Jun, 20:51, Me wrote:

In article 31673d73-de36-41ef-9e37-6c9a1c3c1405
@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, says...

On 4 Jun, 07:24, "Graculus"
wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

This clearly demonstrates the deadly force of a car compared to
that of a bicycle. Imagine instead the result where a bicycle
hits a group of cars.

Car heavier than bicycle shock! I'm not sure what you are trying
to say, Doug. Apart from the fact this is not UK-realetd, so
therefore OT, we again have an example of someone who was, so it
seemed, blind drunk, being a complete moron. You point,
therefore, is ...?

The motorists who dominate and infest this transport NG often try
to make out how dangerous bicycles are, in defence of their car
addiction, but clearly the impact force of a car is very much
greater than that of a bicycle, as I have often pointed out. This
graphic example is more telling than a simple set of numbers.
Also recall how the side of a house was destroyed by a car
recently. Something no bicycle could ever do.

Ergo, cars are much more dangerous than bicycles.

Strange. The only "confrontation" I ever had with a cyclist was
when I was trying to 'slip' into a stream of traffic. I wasn't
moving, and the traffic wasn't moving, but because I was half in
and half out of a side road he felt the need to try and smash my
rear window.
These bloody maniacs on bicycles...... Get them off the road.

More cyclist bashing by the motorists who dominate and infest this
transport newsgroup?

...where "bashing" = "justified criticism". You'd do yourself a lot
of favours if you didn't automatically defend every cyclist, no
matter whether they were right or wrong. It is you and your troll
friends who revel in, and deliberately perpetuate, the "us and them"
mentality between cyclists and motorists. "Two wheels (non-powered)
good, four wheels bad." It's pathetic.

Why don't you mind your own business and concentrate on making things
better for cyclists, instead of devoting your efforts to persecuting
motorists? Why don't you stop using silly words like "addiction" to
describe people who justifiably find their cars useful? (Are people
with hoovers "hoover addicts"? Should they pick up the dirt on the
floor by hand just to placate you?) I don't know why it is that
motorist advocates simply want things to be better for motorists,
while so many so-called cycling advocates seem to be *more* concerned
with making things worse for drivers than they are with making things
better for themselves. I think the word is "spite".

If all cyclists would just concentrate on improving their lot, and
lay off (and make an effort to get on with) motorists, things would
be so much better for everyone, but for some reason (*not* "safety",
which is just an excuse), that scenario seems to be the worst
nightmare of the dog-in-the-manger trolls on urc. "Bloody
motorists, enjoying their cars while I'm stuck out here, knackered
and sweaty, in the rain...can't have that." Never mind the fact
that cars and cycles both have innate advantages and disadvantages
relative to each other; the millitant cyclists try to artificially
increase the disadvantages of driving by campaigning for huge
numbers of anti-motorist measures.

And Doug, if you must be anti-car for socialist reasons, at least
admit that, rather than constantly exaggerating the dangers caused by
cars in order to get what you want. Interfering with road safety is
not on. Pretending that certain things are more dangerous than they
are *will* cost lives. Please don't be so callous.

Tsk. Yet another closet motorist masquerading as something else.

A classic Dougresponse to a reasoned argument.