Take Care

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:59:34 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:06:43 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

She has already been told that her antics are likely to turn the
group to rat-**** (a prediction - not a threat) but she has chosen to
ignore.

That's a huge steaming great pile of hypocrisy which is beneath even you.

Oh I don't know, we've seen by now that there's not much which is
beneath judith.

Guy

Good old Guy - keep things on the boil:


I can now see that we are in need of a summary of "The sayings of the
****wit Chapman" - just to put things in to perspective.

Do you want to email me with any gems which you would like to be
included - or are you happy to leave it up to me?

Do you want final editorial say-so - or again, leave it to me?

The other thing I have noticed is that Google search engines seems to
pick up quite highly on what has been said here (in urc) - so it is
an opportunity to get the truth in to the public domain.

Obviously I can look it up - but do you have suggestions on how to get
hits higher in the Google returns.

eg Google search:
what does "primary position" mean cycling

and we are straight in - but only at number 4 - can we improve on
that?

A post by me - commenting on Anchor Smith - including the sig:

"There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the
cyclist to the risk of greater injury.

The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances and
it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence should
wear one.

Mr Justice Griffith Williams "


Another example :

Google : "Guy Chapman" ****wit

How many hits - 1,380.

I am not too sure how Google works - does this mean 1,380 people think
that you are a ****wit - or there are 1,380 article which say you are?

--
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.

Pete-the -Bike wrote in news:f46a8a35-b714-
:

snip

Although well aware of this sort of thing happening to others in other
parts of the country, it never crossed my mind that it might happen
here and to me. At my age and with my long cycling experience I
should have known better.

I'm sorry to hear of this - it's very similar to what happened to me some
years ago in a rural part of Nottinghamshire one Sunday during an Audax
ride.
The Nott's police were very helpful and 'had a word' with the miscreant.
They implied - but would not say as much - that they thought he might have
been drinking, but couldn't prove anything.

Most of my bad experiences have been on rural roads rather than the mean
city streets. Can't explain it - it's just they way it is.

There's nothing you can do other than put it down to experience, chill, and
learn. Hard, yes, very.

"Judith Smith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:17:08 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"James" wrote in message
...

Yesterday, a driver of a Volvo estate overtook me just before turning
left, causing me to "snatch-up". I, too, gave a non-offensive gesture
(wave of arm). First he slowed down in front of me and was looking over
his shoulder. After a few minutes, he's alongside me again (must have
turned around somewhere), deliberately squeezing me into the curb,
Frightened for my life, I took a turning left (lucky for me was just 20
yards away).

Take primary position past junctions even if you are turning left anyway.
It
stops this from happening as they cannot pass if you are in the centre of
lane. This manoeuvre is covered in Cyclecraft.



Yes that's right - block other traffic whilst you saunter past at 5
mph

"This manoeuvre is covered in Cyclecraft." - so what?

So it is recommended by a more valid source than your selective quoting of
random bits of studies that taken in isolation could be interpreted as
supporting whatever point you are maiking at the time, that's what!

It's a lovely day today - why don't you get on your bike (if you have one),
find a nice busy road and test out your theories on road positioning in the
real world, then report back here? That would be a useful exchange of
information, and we all like those here. ;-)

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:21:21 +0100, "Budstaff"
wrote:


"Judith Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 11:17:08 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"James" wrote in message
...

Yesterday, a driver of a Volvo estate overtook me just before turning
left, causing me to "snatch-up". I, too, gave a non-offensive gesture
(wave of arm). First he slowed down in front of me and was looking over
his shoulder. After a few minutes, he's alongside me again (must have
turned around somewhere), deliberately squeezing me into the curb,
Frightened for my life, I took a turning left (lucky for me was just 20
yards away).

Take primary position past junctions even if you are turning left anyway.
It
stops this from happening as they cannot pass if you are in the centre of
lane. This manoeuvre is covered in Cyclecraft.



Yes that's right - block other traffic whilst you saunter past at 5
mph

"This manoeuvre is covered in Cyclecraft." - so what?

So it is recommended by a more valid source than your selective quoting of
random bits of studies that taken in isolation could be interpreted as
supporting whatever point you are maiking at the time, that's what!

It's a lovely day today - why don't you get on your bike (if you have one),
find a nice busy road and test out your theories on road positioning in the
real world, then report back here? That would be a useful exchange of
information, and we all like those here. ;-)



Perhaps you could quote the bit in Cyclecraft which tells you to "take
the primary position even at junctions where you are turning left"

There will be many people here, including me, who would benefit from
this education.

We look forward to the direct quote.

--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

"Budstaff" wrote in message
...

"Judith Smith" wrote in message

Yes that's right - block other traffic whilst you saunter past at 5
mph

I currently average 17.5 to 18.1 mph over distances of up to 30 miles. I
often go through junctions at higher speeds than I would if I were driving
as my danger to others is considerably less. Same on the motorbike.

"This manoeuvre is covered in Cyclecraft." - so what?

It's basically the authoritive source of safe cycling. Cagers ought to read
it too, there is some useful stuff in there.

It's a lovely day today - why don't you get on your bike (if you have
one), find a nice busy road and test out your theories on road positioning
in the real world, then report back here? That would be a useful exchange
of information, and we all like those here. ;-)

If judith put her theories into practice I don't think she would last very
long on the roads...

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:08:38 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Budstaff" wrote in message
...

"Judith Smith" wrote in message

Yes that's right - block other traffic whilst you saunter past at 5
mph

I currently average 17.5 to 18.1 mph over distances of up to 30 miles. I
often go through junctions at higher speeds than I would if I were driving
as my danger to others is considerably less. Same on the motorbike.

"This manoeuvre is covered in Cyclecraft." - so what?

It's basically the authoritive source of safe cycling. Cagers ought to read
it too, there is some useful stuff in there.

It's a lovely day today - why don't you get on your bike (if you have
one), find a nice busy road and test out your theories on road positioning
in the real world, then report back here? That would be a useful exchange
of information, and we all like those here. ;-)

If judith put her theories into practice I don't think she would last very
long on the roads...


She's already said she doesn't cycle because it's too dangerous, so
maybe she's put her theories into practice already :-)

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 14:21:21 +0100, "Budstaff"
wrote:

judith trolled:
Yes that's right - block other traffic whilst you saunter past at 5
mph

O RLY? You might like to take that up with the enormous queue of
stationary cagers who were holding each other up and impeding the
progress of cyclists along the embankment today.

"This manoeuvre is covered in Cyclecraft." - so what?

So it is recommended by a more valid source than your selective quoting of
random bits of studies that taken in isolation could be interpreted as
supporting whatever point you are maiking at the time, that's what!

Correct. The Highway Code is written by the Driving Standards Agency.
The clue is in the name - the last proposed revision and the dispute
resolution meetings around it showed, if there were ever any doubt,
that they have no idea about safe cycling and no intention of seeking
the expertise of those who do.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Newsgroup may contain nuts.

"Peter Grange" wrote in message
...

If judith put her theories into practice I don't think she would last very
long on the roads...


She's already said she doesn't cycle because it's too dangerous, so
maybe she's put her theories into practice already :-)

I don't actually think the roads are that dangerous for cyclists. The one's
who seem to be the victims of bad driving are those who fail to control the
drivers around them, ride in the gutter and are subservient to traffic.

I suppose we can make it as dangerous as we choose to...

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...

Correct. The Highway Code is written by the Driving Standards Agency.
The clue is in the name - the last proposed revision and the dispute
resolution meetings around it showed, if there were ever any doubt,
that they have no idea about safe cycling and no intention of seeking
the expertise of those who do.

S'funny that because all this stuff that John Franklin writes, and the
experienced cyclists claim, actually turns out to be true. Drivers OTOH seem
to think that *they* know all the right things which cyclists should do on
the roads.

Ho Ho Bloody Ho!

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 20:08:38 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Budstaff" wrote in message
...

"Judith Smith" wrote in message

Yes that's right - block other traffic whilst you saunter past at 5
mph

I currently average 17.5 to 18.1 mph over distances of up to 30 miles. I
often go through junctions at higher speeds than I would if I were driving
as my danger to others is considerably less. Same on the motorbike.

"This manoeuvre is covered in Cyclecraft." - so what?

It's basically the authoritive source of safe cycling. Cagers ought to read
it too, there is some useful stuff in there.

It's a lovely day today - why don't you get on your bike (if you have
one), find a nice busy road and test out your theories on road positioning
in the real world, then report back here? That would be a useful exchange
of information, and we all like those here. ;-)

If judith put her theories into practice I don't think she would last very
long on the roads...



And of course you have no idea of my cycling experience in this
country and abroad.

"Cagers":



Psycholist definition .......


3) "Cager" is used provocatively instead of the word "motorist",
in the hope that it irritates motorists; it doesn't - it makes them
laugh at the psycholist's inadequacies.
4) "Magic paint" - only used by the most inflicted psycholists.
Used to describe signage to cyclist on pavements. Origin unknown.
5) The word "troll" is in common usage in Usenet. However, the
psycholists have adopted it for their own use to apply to anyone who
disagrees with their ingrained and irrational views. This enables
them to say "ignore him - he is a troll" when faced with facts which
are too unpalatable for the psycholist to contemplate - never mind
discuss in a sensible fashion

Not everyone who frequents the group URC is a "psycholist".
Psycholists are not very bright in general and are obliged to
demonstrate that they lack common sense; they are very good at this.

A common pseudonym for a "psycholist" is "****wit".