Times Letters

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not even sure you're a
cyclist.

If your definition of a cyclist is someone who sometimes rides a bike
then I /am/ a cyclist.

Go on then, post a ride report.

...d

The Luggage said:

Matt B said:

Nigel Cliffe wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For every cyclist on the road, the remaining car driver benefits from a
slightly less congested road.

No they don't, because more road is taken than is freed.

But these are fixed 'facilities', which are there "whether the cyclists
want
them or not." A cyclist (either on the road or a 'facility'😉 is not
taking up
space that could be used by a larger vehicle.

Eh? It is the provision of the 'facility' which I am referring to. The
'facility' is provided, at vast expense to the tax payer and dedicated
to the exclusive use of cyclists, who don't seem to want it, and
certainly haven't paid specifically for it. The space it takes is thus
unavailable to other traffic, thus increasing congestion. As, in my
experience, these 'facilities' seem to be largely vacant for most of the
day, the tax money used to provide them, 10% of which has been raised
purely from the use of motor vehicles, is being used, effectively, to
/increase/ congestion.

--
Matt B

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not even sure you're a
cyclist.

If your definition of a cyclist is someone who sometimes rides a bike
then I /am/ a cyclist.

Go on then, post a ride report.

What, after the 'rapturous' reception my last one got! You must be
joking ;-)

--
Matt B

Peter B said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

And the letter they were responding to (on the second page)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-1958796,00.html

But I liked this one the most:

"Helmets do save lives. How many may be difficult to judge, and proof
difficult to ascertain, but they do."

So there you have it!

Apparently, skulls abrade as easily as thin plastic coatings, as well.
According to the author of that letter.

--
Ambrose

..

"MartinM" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

LSMike said:

Pinky said:

>
> Perhaps Tony is right, you are a troll?
>
For goodness sake of course he is a troll --- and you keep feeding
him. and
not even snipping his unending drivel. Kill file him and he will
eventually
disappear!

No one is asking you to read the topic. Just ignore it.

Quoted message said:

Since he ( LSMike) feels that way I have kill filed him as well. Bye
LSMike!

and I shall not respond on this endless string/thread/topic again. The
troll Matt B often starts these endless threads and he has now also changed
his alias and has been sidelined ( kill filed ) by me again.
I have also deleted a response to LSMike since it was pointless.
--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom

On 3 Jan 2006 13:54:29 -0800, "LSMike" <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps Tony is right, you are a troll?

I think the jury returned that verdict and slipped off to the pub for
a celebratory pint some months ago :-)

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

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

Just zis Guy said:

On 3 Jan 2006 13:54:29 -0800, "LSMike" <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps Tony is right, you are a troll?

I think the jury returned that verdict and slipped off to the pub for
a celebratory pint some months ago :-)

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

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

But then you think John Doe is a troll, when from more experience I
know him not to be. I think he is annoying, and not quite as stupid as
MattB, perhaps a close run thing though.

LSMike said:

Just zis Guy said:

On 3 Jan 2006 13:54:29 -0800, "LSMike" <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps Tony is right, you are a troll?

I think the jury returned that verdict and slipped off to the pub for
a celebratory pint some months ago :-)

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

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

But then you think John Doe is a troll, when from more experience I
know him not to be. I think he is annoying, and not quite as stupid as
MattB, perhaps a close run thing though.

Cloff!!

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

LSMike said:

Just zis Guy said:

On 3 Jan 2006 13:54:29 -0800, "LSMike" <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps Tony is right, you are a troll?

I think the jury returned that verdict and slipped off to the pub for
a celebratory pint some months ago :-)

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

But then you think John Doe is a troll, when from more experience I
know him not to be.

He, generally, seems to think anyone he loses an argument with is one.

Quoted message said:

I think he is annoying, and not quite as stupid as
MattB, perhaps a close run thing though.

Gee thanks for the endorsement ;-)

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

The Luggage said:

Matt B said:

Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>For every cyclist on the road, the remaining car driver benefits from a
>slightly less congested road.

No they don't, because more road is taken than is freed.

But these are fixed 'facilities', which are there "whether the cyclists
want them or not." A cyclist (either on the road or a 'facility'😉
is not taking up space that could be used by a larger vehicle.

Eh? It is the provision of the 'facility' which I am referring to. The
'facility' is provided, at vast expense to the tax payer and dedicated
to the exclusive use of cyclists, who don't seem to want it, and
certainly haven't paid specifically for it. The space it takes is thus
unavailable to other traffic, thus increasing congestion. As, in my
experience, these 'facilities' seem to be largely vacant for most of the
day, the tax money used to provide them, 10% of which has been raised
purely from the use of motor vehicles, is being used, effectively, to
/increase/ congestion.

There are two separate parts to this discussion. The first is whether a
cycle lane adds to congestion. You may well be right, particularly if
it does not cause an increase in the number of cyclists using a
particular route.

The second part is whether the decision of a few people to change from
driving to cycling along a route will decrease congestion. I assert
that it will because a cycle take less road space that a car. The fact
that a few people decide to cycle along a route does not mean that a
cycle facility will suddenly appear on that route and make the
congestion worse.

The provision of these facilities is happening anyway, and I agree that
most of it is due to other agendas, such as a poor attempt to push
people out of cars, or to meet silly 'targets'. Because the provision
of facilities and the number of cyclists is disconnected, Nigel
Cliffe's point still stands.

TL

The Luggage said:

Matt B said:

The Luggage said:

Matt B wrote:

>Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>
>>For every cyclist on the road, the remaining car driver benefits from a
>>slightly less congested road.
>
>No they don't, because more road is taken than is freed.

But these are fixed 'facilities', which are there "whether the cyclists
want them or not." A cyclist (either on the road or a 'facility'😉
is not taking up space that could be used by a larger vehicle.

Eh? It is the provision of the 'facility' which I am referring to. The
'facility' is provided, at vast expense to the tax payer and dedicated
to the exclusive use of cyclists, who don't seem to want it, and
certainly haven't paid specifically for it. The space it takes is thus
unavailable to other traffic, thus increasing congestion. As, in my
experience, these 'facilities' seem to be largely vacant for most of the
day, the tax money used to provide them, 10% of which has been raised
purely from the use of motor vehicles, is being used, effectively, to
/increase/ congestion.

There are two separate parts to this discussion. The first is whether a
cycle lane adds to congestion. You may well be right, particularly if
it does not cause an increase in the number of cyclists using a
particular route.

The second part is whether the decision of a few people to change from
driving to cycling along a route will decrease congestion. I assert
that it will because a cycle take less road space that a car. The fact
that a few people decide to cycle along a route does not mean that a
cycle facility will suddenly appear on that route and make the
congestion worse.

I agree with your 'two separate parts' idea. I also agree with your
assertion that a person on a bike occupies less road than the same
person in an average car.

My assertion though is that the road space wasted by donating vast areas
of road, free of charge, for exclusive use by cyclists is /far/ greater
than the road space gained because of the number of people now cycling
rather than driving because of the provision of these 'facilities'.

Quoted message said:

The provision of these facilities is happening anyway, and I agree that
most of it is due to other agendas, such as a poor attempt to push
people out of cars, or to meet silly 'targets'. Because the provision
of facilities and the number of cyclists is disconnected, Nigel
Cliffe's point still stands.

Yes, but outweighed by the wastage outlined above.

--
Matt B

"Matt B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

He, generally, seems to think anyone he loses an argument with is one.

The only mistake he made was to think he could pick a battle of wits with
you - he should have backed down when he realised you were unarmed.

Tim

--
Sent from Birmingham, UK timdunne at blueyonder.co.uk
'God's electrician sparked up the heavens once again, heading northbound
on the 7:10. And the lord said let there be commuters...' - Thea Gilmore
Look, mum, an anorak on a bike! Check out www.nervouscyclist.org

On 4 Jan 2006 14:38:52 -0800, "LSMike" <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

But then you think John Doe is a troll, when from more experience I
know him not to be. I think he is annoying, and not quite as stupid as
MattB, perhaps a close run thing though.

LOL!

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

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