Cameron RLJing thoughts

spindrift said:

Either/or

1/

Would any driver, anywhere, bear a two week scrutiny at the hands of
The Mirror? Blatant discrimination against cyclists who kill nobody
yet the carnage wrought on the roads by cars drivers blah blah blah

2/

Cycling is undergoing a renaissance, especially in urban areas.
there's more (broadly positive) media coverage, The Tour, the bike day
in London, commuting rates up, the lovely Vicky Pendleton etc etc blah
blah blah.

I fall between the two camps, it's a silly non-story but perhaps a
sign that cycling is impinging the consciousness more than ever.

Cameron is a [censored] though, goes without saying. Plimsolls and black
socks, sheesh.

I'd heard that, some time ago, a Daily Mail reporter followed David Begg
around whilst he was on holiday in the hope of snatching a picture of
him in a car...
*Anti-car Campaigner Uses Car...*

Jim Chisholm

J. Chisholm said:

spindrift said:

Either/or

Quoted message said:

1/

Quoted message said:

Would any driver, anywhere, bear a two week scrutiny at the hands of
The Mirror? Blatant discrimination against cyclists who kill nobody
yet the carnage wrought on the roads by cars drivers blah blah blah

Quoted message said:

2/

Quoted message said:

Cycling is undergoing a renaissance, especially in urban areas.
there's more (broadly positive) media coverage, The Tour, the bike day
in London, commuting rates up, the lovely Vicky Pendleton etc etc blah
blah blah.

Quoted message said:

I fall between the two camps, it's a silly non-story but perhaps a
sign that cycling is impinging the consciousness more than ever.

Quoted message said:

Cameron is a [censored] though, goes without saying.  Plimsolls and black
socks, sheesh.

I'd heard that, some time ago, a Daily Mail reporter followed David Begg
around whilst he was on holiday in the hope of snatching a picture of
him in a car...
*Anti-car Campaigner Uses Car...*

Jim Chisholm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, The Sun stalked Richard Brunstrom's daughter and claimed they
caught her speeding. Then there's "two jags" and covert footage of
Jamie Oliver in "Kebabish Rat Burgers" in Leytonstone*.

* I made this up.

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:05:58 +0000 someone who may be "J. Chisholm"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I'd heard that, some time ago, a Daily Mail reporter followed David Begg
around whilst he was on holiday in the hope of snatching a picture of
him in a car...
*Anti-car Campaigner Uses Car...*

A long time ago I saw him driving a car into what was then the HQ of
Lothian Regional Council. The underground garage part of the
building.

It was so long ago that the building was subsequently (ISTR) unused,
then had another use as offices of the Scottish Parliament (before
their move to the current ghastly and expensive building) and then
was knocked down. The replacement is being built at the moment.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:20:42 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be
spindrift <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Would any driver, anywhere, bear a two week scrutiny at the hands of
The Mirror?

Especially as the only law he appears to have broken is riding the
wrong way down a one-way street, something the camera operator did
too.

I have no idea how cyclists are supposed to enter the off-street
cycle lane and how the traffic lights are arranged to allow this.

Taking a creative route through the mini-roundabout is no different
to motorists driving over a white dot in the road.

At the entrance to the Westminster Rogues Gallery all he did was
create an informal ASL.

The whole thing was designed to feed the "poor hard done by motorist
and outlaw cyclist" rubbish certain groups spout. On cue they came
out of the woodwork, complaining about the poor oppressed motorist
who is photographed for every minor offence and held to account for
every offence. Of course reality is rather different. The motorists
I see illegally driving on the pavement most days of the week are
seldom photographed by "spy" cameras and I have never heard of a
prosecution in the cases where there is such a camera. The response
of the police to reports of such illegal behaviour would be to
ignore it.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

spindrift said:

Either/or

1/

Would any driver, anywhere, bear a two week scrutiny at the hands of
The Mirror? Blatant discrimination against cyclists who kill nobody
yet the carnage wrought on the roads by cars drivers blah blah blah

2/

Cycling is undergoing a renaissance, especially in urban areas.
there's more (broadly positive) media coverage, The Tour, the bike day
in London, commuting rates up, the lovely Vicky Pendleton etc etc blah
blah blah.

I fall between the two camps, it's a silly non-story but perhaps a
sign that cycling is impinging the consciousness more than ever.

Cameron is a [censored] though, goes without saying. Plimsolls and black
socks, sheesh.

I thought that the CTC spokesman's 'defence' of Cameron on Radio 4 was
pathetic. Had he explained that C wasn't trying to cross against the
lights, but rather was putting himself in the safest position for the
change (as I understand was the case) then we might have got somewhere.
I can't remember what he said exactly now, but he came across as
defending RLJs. His opponent brought up the 'cyclists' who do behave
badly on the roads and even put footage of themselves doing it on
youtube. Did our man condemn that? No. This reinforces the opinion that
we're all at it and thus reduces the tolerance from the motorised that
we all rely on.
Roger Thorpe

Quoted message said:

The whole thing was designed to feed the "poor hard done by motorist
and outlaw cyclist" rubbish certain groups spout. On cue they came
out of the woodwork, complaining about the poor oppressed motorist
who is photographed for every minor offence and held to account for
every offence. Of course reality is rather different. The motorists
I see illegally driving on the pavement most days of the week are
seldom photographed by "spy" cameras and I have never heard of a
prosecution in the cases where there is such a camera. The response
of the police to reports of such illegal behaviour would be to
ignore it.

Exactly.

On 25 Mar, 14:37, Roger Thorpe <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

spindrift said:

Either/or

Quoted message said:

1/

Quoted message said:

Would any driver, anywhere, bear a two week scrutiny at the hands of
The Mirror? Blatant discrimination against cyclists who kill nobody
yet the carnage wrought on the roads by cars drivers blah blah blah

Quoted message said:

2/

Quoted message said:

Cycling is undergoing a renaissance, especially in urban areas.
there's more (broadly positive) media coverage, The Tour, the bike day
in London, commuting rates up, the lovely Vicky Pendleton etc etc blah
blah blah.

Quoted message said:

I fall between the two camps, it's a silly non-story but perhaps a
sign that cycling is impinging the consciousness more than ever.

Quoted message said:

Cameron is a [censored] though, goes without saying. Plimsolls and black
socks, sheesh.

I thought that the CTC spokesman's 'defence' of Cameron on Radio 4 was
pathetic. Had he explained that C wasn't trying to cross against the
lights, but rather was putting himself in the safest position for the
change (as I understand was the case) then we might have got somewhere.
I can't remember what he said exactly now, but he came across as
defending RLJs. His opponent brought up the 'cyclists' who do behave
badly on the roads and even put footage of themselves doing it on
youtube. Did our man condemn that? No. This reinforces the opinion that
we're all at it and thus reduces the tolerance from the motorised that
we all rely on.
Roger Thorpe

From what I read about the LCC's point of view, why should they be
jumping to the defence of every single individual who does something
stupid? (I know you said CTC, bear with me). They are a campaigning
group to get better facilities for its members and, as a result, for
every cyclist in London.

Why should the people from these groups be jumping through hoops for
the media on the weekend, doing ad-hoc interviews in the supermarket
queue whilst trying to enjoy their Easter break.

It's a non-issue and is clearly politically driven to make the bloke
look like a fool. They needn't have bothered IMO.

elyob said:

From what I read about the LCC's point of view, why should they be
jumping to the defence of every single individual who does something
stupid? (I know you said CTC, bear with me). They are a campaigning
group to get better facilities for its members and, as a result, for
every cyclist in London.

Why should the people from these groups be jumping through hoops for
the media on the weekend, doing ad-hoc interviews in the supermarket
queue whilst trying to enjoy their Easter break.

It's a non-issue and is clearly politically driven to make the bloke
look like a fool. They needn't have bothered IMO.

I can see your point, but, as a lifelong socialist the defence of
Cameron isn't that important to me. The problem, as I see it is that
Clarkson and others are attacking cyclists as a group using evidence of
some pretty thoughtless and dangerous cycling. I don't mind being
thought of as a smug tree-hugging do-gooder, but when motorists start to
see me as an uninsured, tax avoiding, untraceable, pedestrian killing,
motorist delaying anarchist then I start to worry. We need their
goodwill and I think that this is the best 'facility' that could be
provided.

Roger Thorpe

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:37:42 +0000 someone who may be Roger Thorpe
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I thought that the CTC spokesman's 'defence' of Cameron on Radio 4 was
pathetic.

I didn't hear it too well, but it didn't sound that bad to me.

Quoted message said:

Had he explained that C wasn't trying to cross against the
lights, but rather was putting himself in the safest position for the
change (as I understand was the case) then we might have got somewhere.

I thought that is what he did.

Quoted message said:

I can't remember what he said exactly now, but he came across as
defending RLJs.

As I recall he pointed out that the only really illegal thing was
riding the wrong way down the one-way street and that the other
things were

Quoted message said:

His opponent brought up the 'cyclists' who do behave
badly on the roads and even put footage of themselves doing it on
youtube. Did our man condemn that? No.

What he should have done is point out that motorists also put up
footage of themselves behaving badly on the same site. However, most
people kick themselves after radio/television interviews as they
think of better ways of saying what they said.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54