A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old May 3rd 09, 11:13 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,985
Default Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test

Brimstone wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 1 May, 15:40, "Brimstone" wrote:
mileburner wrote:
Our former head said exactly the same. But now there is one and the
road has become difficult for traffic to navigate.
My personal feeling is that that the school *should* take
responsibility for the traffic it generates and deal with it
accordingly. However, we always seem to end up with an eternal
triangle of blame dodging: The school say it is a police matter, the
police say it is a council matter and the council say it is a school
matter. ******s - the lot of 'em.
And yet if it were a commercial company/s at the centre of such
congestion then the authorities would be down on them like a ton of
bricks.

As you say, ******s.

No the problem is that the car culture is so powerful and has
permeated every aspect of our society that nobody, apart from a few
like me, dare oppose it. Don't forget too that those ******s are
statistically more than likely to be motorists themselves.

Two schools near me have large free car parks for their teachers and
virtually no cycle parking.


Here is evidence that Doug will never allow anyone to agree with him...


....unless they are wishing him well after being injured - an occasion when he
let his guard slip for a short while.
Ads
  #102  
Old May 3rd 09, 11:21 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Brimstone[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,237
Default Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test

JNugent wrote:

"Virtually" must be one of the most poorly-understood and
most-frequently misused words in English.


It ranks alongside "unique" in the "misused words" chart.


  #103  
Old May 3rd 09, 02:06 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Nuxx Bar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,790
Default Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test

On Apr 29, 6:50*pm, thaksin wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:06:53 +0000, (Roger
Merriman) wrote:


get a client that auto kills all followups then? thats what mine does,
as nuxxy is not as nasty as judit i tend to just put him in a rolling 30
days when he gets too much.


For values of "not as nasty" that include phoning in the small hours
to shout "murderer". *In terms of malice I don't think there is a lot
to choose between the two. *Actually since both of them are fact-blind
agenda-driven nutcases it is not even that interesting to speculate on
what differences there might be, I suspect.


You really are determined to provoke, aren't you Guy? Lets hope you
still feel smug when your scattergun unpleasantness hits a _real_
"nasty" person and they pay you a visit, eh?


Couldn't agree more, but it's useless trying to tell him. "Scattergun
unpleasantness" is an excellent way of describing him though. Oh BTW,
you'll now be branded a "troll" for daring to disagree with the URC
"moderator".

(I of course made no such phone calls, and he has no proof otherwise.
I've commenced legal action against him for his continued slander to
the contrary.)
  #104  
Old May 3rd 09, 02:09 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Nuxx Bar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,790
Default Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test

On Apr 27, 6:46*pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:44:43 +0100, Peter Clinch

wrote:
Given the options of lots of people being in denial or the cameras that
caught them being wrong, he seems to think the former option is
considerably more likely.


You know, I really think he might be onto something there...


But you would say that, since you have a vested interest in cameras'
continued operation. You would sooner advocate killing people than
turn on your beloved cameras. Oh wait...you already do that.

  #105  
Old May 3rd 09, 02:10 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Nuxx Bar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,790
Default Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test

Do you think your father is a dangerous or reckless driver?

Do you believe that he was driving dangerously or recklessly at the
time of the "offence"?

Does he?
  #106  
Old May 3rd 09, 04:01 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
thaksin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 310
Default Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test

Nuxx Bar wrote:
On Apr 29, 6:50 pm, thaksin wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:06:53 +0000, (Roger
Merriman) wrote:
get a client that auto kills all followups then? thats what mine does,
as nuxxy is not as nasty as judit i tend to just put him in a rolling 30
days when he gets too much.
For values of "not as nasty" that include phoning in the small hours
to shout "murderer". In terms of malice I don't think there is a lot
to choose between the two. Actually since both of them are fact-blind
agenda-driven nutcases it is not even that interesting to speculate on
what differences there might be, I suspect.

You really are determined to provoke, aren't you Guy? Lets hope you
still feel smug when your scattergun unpleasantness hits a _real_
"nasty" person and they pay you a visit, eh?


Couldn't agree more, but it's useless trying to tell him. "Scattergun
unpleasantness" is an excellent way of describing him though. Oh BTW,
you'll now be branded a "troll" for daring to disagree with the URC
"moderator".

(I of course made no such phone calls, and he has no proof otherwise.
I've commenced legal action against him for his continued slander to
the contrary.)


Far be it from me to suggest such a thing, but I would have been busy
telling all my mates that I am Nuxx and encouraging them to read this
group. If you don't get why that would be 'useful', just ask and I'll
tell you, but I'm sure you know the point I was making
  #107  
Old May 4th 09, 01:13 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
judith smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,883
Default Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test

On Sun, 3 May 2009 06:06:25 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
wrote:

On Apr 29, 6:50*pm, thaksin wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote: On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:06:53 +0000, (Roger
Merriman) wrote:


get a client that auto kills all followups then? thats what mine does,
as nuxxy is not as nasty as judit i tend to just put him in a rolling 30
days when he gets too much.


For values of "not as nasty" that include phoning in the small hours
to shout "murderer". *In terms of malice I don't think there is a lot
to choose between the two. *Actually since both of them are fact-blind
agenda-driven nutcases it is not even that interesting to speculate on
what differences there might be, I suspect.


You really are determined to provoke, aren't you Guy? Lets hope you
still feel smug when your scattergun unpleasantness hits a _real_
"nasty" person and they pay you a visit, eh?


Couldn't agree more, but it's useless trying to tell him. "Scattergun
unpleasantness" is an excellent way of describing him though. Oh BTW,
you'll now be branded a "troll" for daring to disagree with the URC
"moderator".

(I of course made no such phone calls, and he has no proof otherwise.
I've commenced legal action against him for his continued slander to
the contrary.)



I must admit - when he said that it was you who had phoned him during
the middle of the night - and knowing your real identity - I really
believed that it was indeed you - despite it being totally out of
character. I am pleased to hear that it was not you - I am sorry for
doubting your character.

I would be willing to support any action you take against him -
contact by e-mail please.

--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.
  #108  
Old May 5th 09, 10:12 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mark[_15_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 164
Default Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test

On Fri, 1 May 2009 15:31:17 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Mark" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:19:56 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:

The issues are complex because solving one problem can lead to another.
For
example, if you remove the parked cars, (legal or not), you end up with
increased traffic speeds.


Indeed and more traffic too I would suspect. That's one reason we are
in favour of road closure at school times. The main problem is that
there is too much traffic for the narrow roads to cope with. One road
is single lane at one point and this is always a problem area.


I cannot see that any LA (or whoever would be responsible) would have the
balls to allow a road to be closed to traffic for a limited period for the
safety of pedestians, even if they are schoolchildren. You would need
several fatal accidents before they took the issue *that* seriously.


They have admitted as much. However we are determined and I have
succeeded in other areas where all around have told me it was
impossible.

There was a huge delivery lorry parked there this morning completely
blocking the pavement and leaving pedestrians and cars to squeeze
through the same small gap (i.e. the road). This is not an unusual
problem.


I have also seen this type of thing occur and it can actually improve safety
by making the traffic standstill. In fact, the school previously was in a no
through road and regularly became so jammed up that the pedestrians would be
clear of the area before the drivers could unblock themselves.


I can assure you that this did *NOT* improve safety as the cars were
still able to drive along the road and the pedestrians had to fit
through the same gap.

The biggest problem (and the one which can most
easily be tackled) is the school eliminating the problem of parents
driving
their children right up to the school.


This is an argument I frequently hear as an excuse to do nothing IMHO.
Yes, some parents are part of the problem but we have no special
control over the them. Apart from closing the school I cannot see any
way we can stop parents who are determined to drive their kids right
to the school gate. We frequently send out letters reminding them of
the alternatives, warning about specific problems but it has not
helped.


The fact is that teaching staff are scared ****less to do anything which
*might* upset parents. They *could* speak to parents about this at
parent/teacher evenings. They *could* speak to prospective parents about
this when they visit the school prior to their children joining and they
*could* raise awareness amongst the children by raising the subject at
school assemblies. But they don't. Instead they bleat that it's not their
responsibility.


You are making wild assumptions here. The school staff that I know
are not afraid to inform parents. They regularly send out letters to
parents about road safety issues. Children are educated about road
safety and they do nag their parents. Children have designed posters
which are displayed around the area. Classes get awards for the most
children walking or cycling to school. There is a strong culture of
walking and cycling here. We are planning more walking and cycling
initiatives in the near future.

What this *will* do is have a major
impact in the volume of traffic itself. Another thing that has worked well
outside my childrens school is they have painted a cycle lane. This has
stopped parents stopping and parking in it and the pedestrians now use it
as
additional footway - oh yes, the cyclists just ride out wider into the
ever
narrowing road. As a result of the ever narrowing road, the amount of
traffic which now try to use it as a rat-run has decreased sharply.


There would not be room for a cycle lane in the roads nearest the
schools, they are too narrow.


Our former head said exactly the same. But now there is one and the road has
become difficult for traffic to navigate.

My personal feeling is that that the school *should* take responsibility for
the traffic it generates and deal with it accordingly. However, we always
seem to end up with an eternal triangle of blame dodging: The school say it
is a police matter, the police say it is a council matter and the council
say it is a school matter. ******s - the lot of 'em.


Your experience is obviously not the same as mine.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

  #109  
Old May 5th 09, 11:00 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
mileburner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,365
Default Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test


"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 May 2009 15:31:17 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:

I cannot see that any LA (or whoever would be responsible) would have the
balls to allow a road to be closed to traffic for a limited period for the
safety of pedestians, even if they are schoolchildren. You would need
several fatal accidents before they took the issue *that* seriously.


They have admitted as much. However we are determined and I have
succeeded in other areas where all around have told me it was
impossible.


Good luck and keep pressing on. One of the obsticles the LA frequently use
is that "local residents will object". It might take a bit of footwork but
if you can get a pettition signed by all the people who live on the road
where it is intended to be closed, it blows that argument out of the water.
You will also be surprised that the majority of local residents will
actually support traffic reduction and road safety measures. They get just
as ****ed off with the school traffic as the parents do.

I can assure you that this did *NOT* improve safety as the cars were
still able to drive along the road and the pedestrians had to fit
through the same gap.


If you have that situation occur, it is better to stand in the road to
direct and block *all* the traffic so that people do not get hit by it. It
might be radical, it might not even be legal, but it could avoid a serious
accident. I do this when there are a lot of children trying to cross the
road and the traffic is stop start. I just walk into the middle of the road,
stop the traffic, let the kids cross safely.

You are making wild assumptions here. The school staff that I know
are not afraid to inform parents. They regularly send out letters to
parents about road safety issues.


There is a big difference between informing parents and writing generic
"hand-out" style letters to parents. Personally I find that if you approach
somone who is illegally parked and say something like "Excuse me, sorry to
trouble you, but don't parking restictions apply to you? There is a school
here, and these marking which say "keep clear" in big yellow letters
actually mean that you are not supposed to park here because it is
dangerous". That usually does the trick!

But I would not expect teaching staff to be quite so bold, hence my
suggestion that they *could* approach them at parent teacher meetings and
prior to their children starting that school - but they don't, do they?
rhetorical

Children are educated about road
safety and they do nag their parents. Children have designed posters
which are displayed around the area. Classes get awards for the most
children walking or cycling to school. There is a strong culture of
walking and cycling here. We are planning more walking and cycling
initiatives in the near future.


Goody good good good. But you also need to go for the jugular as well, and
that means tackling Mr or Mrs F*c*wit-Scumbag and point this out to them
too. You can have all the police support, traffic calming, children nagging,
safety campaigns and posters you like but you also have to deal with the
root of the problem too and that means you need to speak to the people who
are the problem.

Your experience is obviously not the same as mine.


A lot of it is down to the Head. If the head has some balls (metaphorically)
things will happen. If they don't it won't. But we seem to have gone from an
era where school Heads were in charge and to be obeyed to one where teaching
staff bleat out reasons why they can't have that authority.


  #110  
Old May 6th 09, 01:29 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mark[_15_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 164
Default Do *You* Hate Motorists? Take The Test

On Tue, 5 May 2009 11:00:44 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 1 May 2009 15:31:17 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:

I cannot see that any LA (or whoever would be responsible) would have the
balls to allow a road to be closed to traffic for a limited period for the
safety of pedestians, even if they are schoolchildren. You would need
several fatal accidents before they took the issue *that* seriously.


They have admitted as much. However we are determined and I have
succeeded in other areas where all around have told me it was
impossible.


Good luck and keep pressing on. One of the obsticles the LA frequently use
is that "local residents will object". It might take a bit of footwork but
if you can get a pettition signed by all the people who live on the road
where it is intended to be closed, it blows that argument out of the water.
You will also be surprised that the majority of local residents will
actually support traffic reduction and road safety measures. They get just
as ****ed off with the school traffic as the parents do.


The last time no reason was given for the opposition to road closure
IIRC. We were told that if we proceeded to ask for this the local
council would oppose *all* our other proposals too. However this was
a long time ago and all those councillors are long gone.

I can assure you that this did *NOT* improve safety as the cars were
still able to drive along the road and the pedestrians had to fit
through the same gap.


If you have that situation occur, it is better to stand in the road to
direct and block *all* the traffic so that people do not get hit by it. It
might be radical, it might not even be legal, but it could avoid a serious
accident. I do this when there are a lot of children trying to cross the
road and the traffic is stop start. I just walk into the middle of the road,
stop the traffic, let the kids cross safely.


I have done this in the past. This time I was not early for work so I
telephoned the police. The lorry had gone by the time they attended
though.

You are making wild assumptions here. The school staff that I know
are not afraid to inform parents. They regularly send out letters to
parents about road safety issues.


There is a big difference between informing parents and writing generic
"hand-out" style letters to parents. Personally I find that if you approach
somone who is illegally parked and say something like "Excuse me, sorry to
trouble you, but don't parking restictions apply to you? There is a school
here, and these marking which say "keep clear" in big yellow letters
actually mean that you are not supposed to park here because it is
dangerous". That usually does the trick!


We just need to find people who are willing and able to do this. I
think I am about the only person who would be prepared to do this! And
I am not there all the time.

But I would not expect teaching staff to be quite so bold, hence my
suggestion that they *could* approach them at parent teacher meetings and
prior to their children starting that school - but they don't, do they?
rhetorical

Children are educated about road
safety and they do nag their parents. Children have designed posters
which are displayed around the area. Classes get awards for the most
children walking or cycling to school. There is a strong culture of
walking and cycling here. We are planning more walking and cycling
initiatives in the near future.


Goody good good good. But you also need to go for the jugular as well, and
that means tackling Mr or Mrs F*c*wit-Scumbag and point this out to them
too. You can have all the police support, traffic calming, children nagging,
safety campaigns and posters you like but you also have to deal with the
root of the problem too and that means you need to speak to the people who
are the problem.


The PCSOs tell me that some pavement parkers actually drive at them
when they are trying to advise them not to park there!

Your experience is obviously not the same as mine.


A lot of it is down to the Head. If the head has some balls (metaphorically)
things will happen. If they don't it won't. But we seem to have gone from an
era where school Heads were in charge and to be obeyed to one where teaching
staff bleat out reasons why they can't have that authority.


It takes time to change attitudes. The tide is changing. The heads
all now want to be seen to be encouraging walking/cycling.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chapman's OWN Web Page: "I Hate Motorists" Chapman Is A Liar UK 15 October 22nd 08 04:29 AM
I Still Hate Motorists, Even Though I've Just Changed My Site To Attempt To Cover It Up Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_] UK 7 October 19th 08 11:32 PM
I Hate Motorists _[_4_] UK 4 October 10th 08 06:57 PM
Testosterone test: isotope test gabriel faure Racing 66 August 3rd 06 09:15 PM
Motorists will even hate us more now Peter Wilson Australia 8 August 5th 05 03:17 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.