OMG....have you seen this?

Hey Jax

http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/ ... sions.html

greg66_tri_v2.0

Hmm. I have to say, he's the sort of car/driver hating fascist that gives cyclists a bad name.

Foamer. At the mouth.

lost_in_thought

Damn it, blocked.

Copy and paste please!

the_hundredth_idiot

Must say, I read that as www.bikeradar.com to start off with.

Doesn't start off too controversially - makes the reasonable point that a "green car" is something of an oxymoron (and, to be clear, my car has a much bigger engine than it needs - I'll be getting stung for a lot of car tax soon). Some cars may be less polluting than others - that doesn't make them green, just slightly less environmentally damaging than the others. (Wasn't there a study recently that showed that a Prius was more polluting than a BMW M3, once you took into account the pollution caused by the manufacture of the battery?) Encouraging people to cycle where possible is a much more "green" policy than paying them an increasing sum based on how much fuel their car consumes.

One of his "weasle words" [sic] rang some bells given my ride in this morning: "I didn't see you - 1) I didn't look. 2) I looked but as you are only a cyclist I decided to pull out anyway". Some "stupid tw4t" :evil: (in quotes as that is exactly how I referred to him in our subsquent discussion) pulled out on me, causing me to slam on the brakes (downhill, 20 mph, wet road, skinny tyres) and swerve around him just managing to avoid him by a few inches. When I remonstrated with him at the lights a bit further down the road, it was, apparently, my fault as he was indicating that he was pulling out. He had seen me, just didn't seem to occur to him to wait a few seconds until I had passed.

But he does go into a bit of a rant after that. I found it reasonably funny and not as offensive as some of the anti-cyclist rants on thisislondon. I liked the transcript of the call between Joe Public and a traffic officer (not really clear what the traffic officer was).

mattybain

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

Must say, I read that as www.bikeradar.com to start off with.

But he does go into a bit of a rant after that. I found it reasonably funny and not as offensive as some of the anti-cyclist rants on thisislondon. I liked the transcript of the call between Joe Public and a traffic officer (not really clear what the traffic officer was).

Are we really reading the same thing? "car/driver hating fascist " "bit of a rant after that" what bits of what he is saying is controversial?

Some bits from the page pasted below
_________________________________

"I requested a meeting with the officer involved and was told that he wished to see the facility removed as he "didn't agree" with the provision of facilities for cyclists as they made cyclists "more arrogant" and led them to "believe that they had a right to be on the road". I also learnt that the officer had intended that once the facility was removed, cyclists would simply wait on the left hand side of the road just before the pedestrian crossing and then cross on foot when the pedestrian signals allowed them to. As can be seen from the photo, the crossing is situated on a bend. A large number of HGVs use this road, making it a distinct possibility that waiting cyclists would be mown down by the trailer of a turning articulated lorry. The possibility of this happening did not seem to concern the officer at all and he tried to dismiss my concerns. However, by now the cat was out of the bag, and modified plans were accepted that retained the right turn facility."

"Another senior officer in the Traffic Management section informed me he was opposed to the use of coloured surfacing for ASL's on the basis that it will "make them easier to remove when there are no cyclists left on the road in a few years time."

"Will ASL's be installed at all the signal controlled junctions in the East Riding by 2006? Well, the Principal officer who is in charge of the street lighting team which must be closely involved in any such works is none other than our old friend who does not agree with providing cyclists with facilities on the basis that it "encourages them to be arrogant" and to "believe that they have a right to be on the road.""


_________

How Green was my Green Team
and other Confessions of a Cycling Officer

by Howard Peel

The East Riding of Yorkshire Council had a 'Green Team': a collection of officers who were supposedly interested in lessening the environmental impact of the authorities' activities. Feeling that encouraging employees to walk and cycle to work might fit in with the aims of the Green Team I went along to a meeting.

Involved and earnest discussions included topics such as how best to recycle toner cartridges and the advisability of using both sides of a sheet of paper when taking notes. Then I took the stand. I outlined the aims of the Local Transport Plan and in passing mentioned that whilst there was no 'mileage allowance' for 'business' cycle usage, the council did have a banded car user mileage allowance that effectively subsidized those choosing to drive larger-engined, more environmentally unfriendly vehicles. I also noted that the single biggest environmental impact the council had was almost certainly due to the huge business mileages most officers clocked up.

I suggested that they might like to recommend the adoption of a single, lower mileage rate to encourage drivers to use more economical cars on council business and in order to give the message that the Authority was genuinely committed to reducing the environmental impact of its activities.

How was this received? Negatively... Then, what can one expect when people will in all seriousness argue that they drive a 'green' car?

---

Have ever wondered what words and phrases such as 'fast but safe' actually mean? Use this to decode the real meaning behind the 'weasle words' of the popular press.

accident - A crash, especially when death or injury is involved.
to go out of control - as in 'the vehicle went out of control'. The driver lost control of the vehicle.
I didn't see you - 1) I didn't look. 2) I looked but as you are only a cyclist I decided to pull out anyway.
road tax - Motor vehicle excise duty.
fast but safe - a driver who habitually speeds and is a danger to other road users.
killed (by a motor vehicle), as in 'the cyclist was killed by the lorry' - Usually used to deflect responsibility away from the driver of the vehicle and as a way of avoiding saying 'The cyclist was killed by the lorry driver.'
in collison with, as in 'the cyclist was in collision with the car'. The cyclists was run down by the car driver.
hurtling, as in 'the cyclist was hurtling along'.The Cyclist was doing 14 MPH.
racing, as in 'The Cyclist was racing along''. The cyclist was doing 16 MPH.
madman or 'maniac' as in 'The cyclist was riding like a madman/maniac'. The cyclist was doing 18 MPH.
dawdling, as in 'The driver was dawdling along'. The diver was only exceeding the legal speed limit by 2-3 MPH.
obstructive, as in 'The driver was deliberately obstructing me.' The motorist was driving along at 29 MPH in a 30 MPH zone.
social inadequate - 1) any cyclist, 2) a motor vehicle driver who keeps to the speed limits.
two wheeled terrorist - any cyclist who in consideration of their own safety takes to a section of footway.
lycra lout - Any cyclist who rides in an assertive and confident manner or appears to expect other road users to recognise that they have equal rights on the public road.
innocent motorist - All drivers of motor vehicles, including those who speed or drive without due consideration of others.
persecuted motorist - A driver who has been prosecuted for breaking road traffic law.
occasionally drift over the speed limit - 'habitually and wilfully flaunt the speed limit.

---

Meet 'The Great British Motorist' *
(*Copyright of the Automobile Association).

The following is typical of the sort of calls a traffic management section gets every day, and all the caller comments are genuine, albeit from more than one caller.

Caller: I want to register an official complaint about all these bloody humps that have been put down my road.
Self: Could you tell me what the nature of the problem is, sir.
Caller: I banged the exhaust of my car on them. If there is any damage I am going to sue you.
Self: You should be able to pass over them without a problem if you keep to the 20 MPH speed limit. Is your exhaust securely fastened?
Caller: Of course it bloody is, are you trying to pass the blame onto me?
Self: Well, the cushions are constructed to a nationally recognised design.
Caller: Why are you lot and the police always trying to persecute the motorist, I got a speeding ticket last week. How the hell is a driver supposed to know what the speed limit is where there are no signs?
Self: Actually sir, if you read your copy of the Highway Code you will note than in a built up area the speed limit will be 30 MPH unless there are signs indicating otherwise. Each lamppost is effectively a sign showing that a 30 MPH speed limit is in force.
Caller: That's not good enough, you should put signs up as well. Anyway, the speed limits are too low for modern cars. Modern cars have air bags.
Self: But even if modern cars have better crash protection, this only is of help to the driver, not other road users.
Caller: But the roads are for cars.
Self: Actually, sir, pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders have a legal right to use the road as well.
Caller: Well in this day and age they shouldn't be allowed on the road. Bloody cyclists don't even pay road tax.
Self: Speed checks showed that almost 80% of drivers were exceeding the 30 MPH limit on that section of road.
Caller: But people only do 40 MPH up there, it is not as though anyone would be hurt if you hit them at that speed.
Self: Actually sir, at 40 MPH there is a 95% likelihood that they would be killed.
Caller: That's rubbish. Racing drivers crash at 100 MPH and don't get hurt.
Self: That stretch of road has a very poor record for injury accidents.
Caller: I have lived down here for years and never seen a crash.
Self: The police accident computer shows that there have been 14 injury accidents on that stretch of road in the last 3 years, of which 4 were children. That is why the scheme was approved.
Caller: Why should I care, I don't have any kids. Anyway, if they get run down it's their parents' fault, they shouldn't let them out into the street...

the_hundredth_idiot

mattybain wrote:

Are we really reading the same thing? "car/driver hating fascist " "bit of a rant after that" what bits of what he is saying is controversial?

Well, the bit where he "decodes" phrases went on for quite a while (18 definitions) which, IMHO, was a few too many which, coupled with some of the definitions being a little repetitive, turned into a bit of a rant. :roll:

Re car/driver hating fascist: not my phrase - you'll have to ask Greg66.

Hey Jax

I can't believe the authorites would think/be like that. .. surely cycling is on the up?

and those quotes from motorists are classics! great that he's gone public with it all! hope they are shamed by it all!

and thanks mattyB for clearing that up

greg66_tri_v2.0

The following is typical of the sort of calls a traffic management section gets every day, and all the caller comments are genuine, albeit from more than one caller.

What follows plainly isn't "typical". It's a pastiche of what lots of different people have said on different occasions. But don't let that get in the way of painting a picture of the World's Most Selfish Road User.

innocent motorist - All drivers of motor vehicles, including those who speed or drive without due consideration of others.
persecuted motorist - A driver who has been prosecuted for breaking road traffic law.
occasionally drift over the speed limit - 'habitually and wilfully flaunt the speed limit.

Hates cars and their drivers much?

the_hundredth_idiot

And without wishing for this thread to morph into another grammar and language thread (one of those a day is enough to keep me warm and moist ): "'habitually and wilfully flaunt the speed limit".

Flaunt! Flaunt?

Flout, dear boy, flout.

Christophe3967

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

Must say, I read that as www.bikeradar.com to start off with.

Doesn't start off too controversially - makes the reasonable point that a "green car" is something of an oxymoron (and, to be clear, my car has a much bigger engine than it needs - I'll be getting stung for a lot of car tax soon). Some cars may be less polluting than others - that doesn't make them green, just slightly less environmentally damaging than the others. (Wasn't there a study recently that showed that a Prius was more polluting than a BMW M3, once you took into account the pollution caused by the manufacture of the battery?) Encouraging people to cycle where possible is a much more "green" policy than paying them an increasing sum based on how much fuel their car consumes.
quote]

People with agendas - you gotta watch 'em.

I think the report you refer to said that the Prius had a greater total carbon footprint than a Hummer. Certainly, there was much food for thought there. I hadn't realised exactly how damaging to the environment and people's health the mining and smelting of nickel is, nor that it is transported 10,000 miles round the world, from Canada via Wales and China to Japan. I didn't know that there is only about 75 years' supply left in the world and that Toyota use about 5% of it each year. I didn't know that you need special tyres, which tend to last only for 12-15,000 miles, on a Prius in order to maximise it's fuel consumption (which most people don't fit). I didn't know that a BMW 320d used less fuel than a Prius on a trip from London to Berlin, and that most drivers fail to obtain more than 45mpg in normal use. But they're exempt from the congestion charge, so they must be really green.

greg66_tri_v2.0

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

And without wishing for this thread to morph into another grammar and language thread (one of those a day is enough to keep me warm and moist ): "'habitually and wilfully flaunt the speed limit".

Flaunt! Flaunt?

Flout, dear boy, flout.

Well, you say that, but ... perhaps he has in mind a subset of motorists who have stolen "30" signs, and flounce around town with them dangling from their arms, and a "Dahhrling!" manner...

biondino

If the Prius is a key evolutionary step between current gas-guzzlers and genuinely green cars of the future then its place is invaluable even if it doesn't save the world as some people hoped.

Underscore

biondino wrote:

If the Prius is a key evolutionary step between current gas-guzzlers and genuinely green cars of the future then its place is invaluable even if it doesn't save the world as some people hoped.

Indeed, but that is a huge "if". I suspect that one could make an equally compelling case that it is one car manufacturer's last ditch attempt to salve their customers' consciences and persuade both world governments, and the green lobbies, that the product that they produce is sustainable in the long term without radically redesigning it.

_

DancesWithSheep

biondino

Underscore wrote:

biondino wrote:

If the Prius is a key evolutionary step between current gas-guzzlers and genuinely green cars of the future then its place is invaluable even if it doesn't save the world as some people hoped.

Indeed, but that is a huge "if". I suspect that one could make an equally compelling case that it is one car manufacturer's last ditch attempt to salve their customers' consciences and persuade both world governments, and the green lobbies, that the product that they produce is sustainable in the long term without radically redesigning it.

_

I understand your point, but I don't think the "if" is an "if" in reality - the Prius IS, for better or for worse, one stage in the environmentalising of vehicular transport. It may prove to be a dead end in itself but even that would be of use in demonstrating an avenue that ultimately doesn't work. Obviously in an ideal world we'd have the "right" technological pathway obvious to us already but it doesn't work like that, sadly.

To compare - I've been told (including by green types) that recycling office paper may be less efficient than manufacturing new paper. But even if this were the case (and I have no evidence either way), the usefulness of workplace paper recycling in making people *used* to recycling can only have a positive effect on their future recycling efforts in all areas,