Top Gear

in message <[email hidden]>, Richard

(') said:

Peter Clinch said:

Steven said:

Not only are you so perfect that you think people should not be
protected against their own stupidity, you can also outpace an e-type
Jaguar on very bendy
roads, *AND* spare the time to check the expression on its driver's
face, when
any mortal cyclist would certainly be concentrating on watching where
he was
going.

If you've never left behind someone you shouldn't have been able to
leave behind then you won't realise the enormous satisfaction to be
had
seeing them having a problem with it. It's perfectly normal human
behaviour. At 40 mph there's plenty of time to look behind you

And, indeed, on the Kirkstone Pass it's quite possible in some places
to look *forward* to see the expression of someone you've left
behind...

Indeed. Although I noted his face as I passed him; subsequently I was too
busy concentrating on the road. Still, a /very/ memorable occasion. I
wore right through a new set of brake blocks on that one descent - at
least, they had been new 48 hours previously. They were replaced the
next day.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ring of great evil
Small one casts it into flame
Bringing rise of Men ;; gonzoron

in message <[email hidden]>, Steven

(') said:

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 14:20:37 +0100, Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Clive

George (') said:

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

> The special circumstances involved where that we were descending the
> Kirkstone pass, and the road is both very steep and very twisty. I
> was able to out-corner the E-Type by some margin.

Given that he had to be prepared for stuff coming the other way, yes.
Shut the road and make him drive at the same level of risk as you
(I'd guess you were going for it - well, I would be in that situation
:-) ), and he'll out-corner you.

Don't think so. Not on that road. The bends are simply too tight and
the road too narrow for a car with a wheelbase that long to take fast.
But yes, I was seventeen, immortal, and going for it.

Amazing, and I bet you weren't even wearing a helmet, which, of course,
would have protected you from any and all possible injuries.

I don't think I'd even /seen/ a helmet then. They weren't at all common.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Hobbit ringleader gives Sauron One in the Eye.

Steven said:

Although, in reality, the frown on his face was more likely to be one of
concentration than any particular distress that a cyclist was able to stay
ahead.

In reality it's often reasonably easy to tell the difference
between annoyed and careful concentration IME. I'd take the call
from the person who was there.

Quoted message said:

Well it would have to be, wouldn't it. Simon doesn't believe that people should
be protected from their own stupidity, so it is clear that he would never behave
stupidly himself.

Not at all clear. ISTM he just feels that if he is stupid then
it's *his* problem and/or decision, and he's a big enough lad to
take that responsibility himself. Nowhere that I've seen has he
said or implied that he never does anything dumb, though he's
obviously avoided any immediately terminally stupid behaviour to date.

Quoted message said:

No, I think he's cycling God.

From what he posts.

Well, there again you think it must be verging on the impossible to
work out the balance point of a tandem so it can be picked up by
the top tube, so your judgement may be circumspect...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

In reality it's often reasonably easy to tell the difference between
annoyed and careful concentration IME. I'd take the call from the
person who was there.

So you believe all those fishermen's tales?

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

2:30 for a marathon isn't exactly "jogging" :-)

regards,
D.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:13:44 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Although, in reality, the frown on his face was more likely to be one of
concentration than any particular distress that a cyclist was able to stay
ahead.

In reality it's often reasonably easy to tell the difference
between annoyed and careful concentration IME. I'd take the call
from the person who was there.

Were the person who was there a disinterested observer, yes.

Where you only have the report of someone who was relishing the fact that he was
pissing off the other driver, no, I don't think so.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well it would have to be, wouldn't it. Simon doesn't believe that people should
be protected from their own stupidity, so it is clear that he would never behave
stupidly himself.

Not at all clear. ISTM he just feels that if he is stupid then
it's *his* problem and/or decision, and he's a big enough lad to
take that responsibility himself.

Unfortunately, he seems to think that other people should not be protected from
the occasional act of stupidity.

So, either he's being a complete hypocrite, or he clearly believes that he's so
good that he will never make a life (or limb) threatening mistake, even if all
the measure that are in place to protect people from their own stupidity are
removed.

Quoted message said:

Well, there again you think it must be verging on the impossible to
work out the balance point of a tandem so it can be picked up by
the top tube, so your judgement may be circumspect...

Not really. It's obviously very easy to find the balance point of any bike, but
as you probably know, it's quite critical, and it would certainly change with
the addition of an ad hoc box. He'd have had to find the balance point *after*
the box was in place, by putting his hand in a hole whose position he was going
to find by putting his hand in a hole that ....

I don't doubt that there are ways it could be done, but, on the whole I prefer
to think of it as an urban legend.

Quoted message said:

2:30 for a marathon isn't exactly "jogging" :-)

Crawling more like.

Whilst jogging I have overtaken Simon Brooke on his bike on an unlimited
road, and then managed to stay ahead of him for eight miles - not because
he couldn't pass me but because he couldn't /catch/ me.

Tony Raven said:

So you believe all those fishermen's tales?

It would depend on the fisherman... Similar setup here.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Steven said:

Where you only have the report of someone who was relishing the fact that he was
pissing off the other driver, no, I don't think so.

As opposed to the report of someone who wasn't there and is currently
engaged in trying to rubbish anything that other person has to say?

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, he seems to think that other people should not be protected from
the occasional act of stupidity.

If it's their /own/ stupidity and only affects them, I don't see why
that's so black and white unacceptable.

Quoted message said:

So, either he's being a complete hypocrite, or he clearly believes that he's so
good that he will never make a life (or limb) threatening mistake, even if all
the measure that are in place to protect people from their own stupidity are
removed.

But he hasn't said anything of the sort, you've just read your own
meanings onto words that say otherwise. Where has he said he won't ever
make a terminal mistake? The whole discussion is public domain so it
should be easy to quote if it's true.

Quoted message said:

Not really. It's obviously very easy to find the balance point of any bike, but
as you probably know, it's quite critical, and it would certainly change with
the addition of an ad hoc box.
He'd have had to find the balance point *after*
the box was in place, by putting his hand in a hole whose position he was going
to find by putting his hand in a hole that ....

I don't doubt that there are ways it could be done, but, on the whole I prefer
to think of it as an urban legend.

Oh *dear*... hole in wrong place, extend hole or make new hole to
compensate! Not really /that/ requiring a degree in Rocket Science to
do that with a pocket knife and some cardboard you'll chuck as soon as
you get off at the other end. It's *so* easy, yet to you it's so
*hard*, if it interferes with your unassailable notion that the person
you're "going off on one" against can't be anything but wrong.

As I pointed out previously, I've been telling the same story for many
years and the details have remained *remarkably* static, and verifiably
static through Google, for all that time. Phil, Speedmachine pilot who
also posts on u.r.c., works with Neil, so you can probably get
independent verification if you want through him.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Simon Brooke said:

I have overtaken an E-Type Jaguar on an unlimited road[1], and then
managed to stay ahead of it for eight miles - not because it couldn't
pass me but because it couldn't /catch/ me. The driver did not look
the least little bit amused.

Similar experience descending Hartside towards Penrith. After I had
overtaken an XJ6[1], Mrs. Green (driving the support vee-hickle) reported
said motorcar pulling off and the driver getting out and inspecting the
engine.

Sadly, further progress was impeded by a Transit van too large and opaque to
be overtaken with the available reserves of space and gearing.

1 - being a Jag it could, of course, have broken down of its own accord

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?" And
the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries
of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and
to them it is the holocaust."

Dave Larrington said:

Sadly, further progress was impeded by a Transit van too large and opaque
to be overtaken with the available reserves of space and gearing.

1 - being a Jag it could, of course, have broken down of its own accord

Being a Jag, I thought they were all repaired using silk stockings.
You should have stopped to offer assistance.

John Hearns said:

Dave Larrington said:

Sadly, further progress was impeded by a Transit van too large and opaque
to be overtaken with the available reserves of space and gearing.

1 - being a Jag it could, of course, have broken down of its own accord

Being a Jag, I thought they were all repaired using silk stockings.
You should have stopped to offer assistance.

Do you know something about Larrington cycling attire that the rest of
us don't?

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

John Hearns said:

Dave Larrington said:

1 - being a Jag it could, of course, have broken down of its own
accord

Being a Jag, I thought they were all repaired using silk stockings.
You should have stopped to offer assistance.

The twin facts of:

o lacking a silk stocking, and
o being half a mile down the road travelling at some 45 mph

might, however, have made this somewhat problemmatical...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Barley, barley, barley, world cruise. You never see a farmer on a bike.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:58:14 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Steven said:

Where you only have the report of someone who was relishing the fact that he was
pissing off the other driver, no, I don't think so.

As opposed to the report of someone who wasn't there

There is no other report.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, he seems to think that other people should not be protected from
the occasional act of stupidity.

If it's their /own/ stupidity and only affects them, I don't see why
that's so black and white unacceptable.

That is a very sad reflection on your humanity. Very sad indeed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, either he's being a complete hypocrite, or he clearly believes that he's so
good that he will never make a life (or limb) threatening mistake, even if all
the measure that are in place to protect people from their own stupidity are
removed.

But he hasn't said anything of the sort, you've just read your own
meanings onto words that say otherwise. Where has he said he won't ever
make a terminal mistake?

Sane people usually approve of measures that will save their lives, or save them
from being horribly crippled. The fact that he's stated that you should not act
to protect people from their own stupidity implies that either he has an
overblown sense of his own ability to operate and never make a mistake that will
cost him his life, or he has an indifference to his own safety that verges on
the insane.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not really. It's obviously very easy to find the balance point of any bike, but
as you probably know, it's quite critical, and it would certainly change with
the addition of an ad hoc box.
He'd have had to find the balance point *after*
the box was in place, by putting his hand in a hole whose position he was going
to find by putting his hand in a hole that ....

I don't doubt that there are ways it could be done, but, on the whole I prefer
to think of it as an urban legend.

Oh *dear*...

As I said, I'm sure there are ways it could be done.

Quoted message said:

As I pointed out previously, I've been telling the same story for many
years and the details have remained *remarkably* static, and verifiably
static through Google, for all that time. Phil, Speedmachine pilot who
also posts on u.r.c., works with Neil, so you can probably get
independent verification if you want through him.

It just *screams* urban legend (no matter how consistent the tale).

It's the sort of thing that if you hear it and don't think about it to any
depth, it just sounds like a funny tale, but when you *do* try and visualise it,
it sounds more like a candidate for a Mr Bean farce.

I've no doubt there are people gulible enough to be taken in by it, but that's
the beauty of urban legends, isn't it?

Steven said:

That is a very sad reflection on your humanity. Very sad indeed.

So you say, but there's no objective backup to that, any more than it's
a sad reflection of yours that people would have their liberty watered
down for their safety from themselves.

Quoted message said:

Sane people usually approve of measures that will save their lives, or save them
from being horribly crippled.

And here you disingenuously sweep measures that will save people from
others' stupidity into measures that will save them from their own.

Quoted message said:

The fact that he's stated that you should not act
to protect people from their own stupidity implies that either he has an
overblown sense of his own ability to operate and never make a mistake that will
cost him his life, or he has an indifference to his own safety that verges on
the insane.

Not necessarily, if he's happy to accept the consequences of his own
actions, however dumb or terminal they may be, then that is entirely
consistent with what he's said while not satisfying either of your
possible alternatives.

Quoted message said:

As I said, I'm sure there are ways it could be done.

But you've always suggested that they are very, very hard, while in fact
they are very, very easy. Faced with having to get something done to
get home with the bike Neil tackled the problem to try and solve it,
rather than deciding everything was an insurmountable problem. Had he
done the latter, he'd have been left with a bigger problem: what to do
with the bike?

Quoted message said:

It just *screams* urban legend (no matter how consistent the tale).

The thing that screams urban legend is if it happens to "a friend of a
friend". But this one happened to a close friend, who related the tale
to me very shortly after it happened with lots of easily verifiable
details. That's why the tale is consistent, and didn't need
re-engineering to fit whatever I wanted to illustrate.

Quoted message said:

It's the sort of thing that if you hear it and don't think about it to any
depth, it just sounds like a funny tale, but when you *do* try and visualise it,
it sounds more like a candidate for a Mr Bean farce.

When *you* try and visualise it you see nothing but insoluble problems,
because you've *decided* it can't be true. Faced with the genuine
problem, Neil worked his way to a solution in order to avoid a bigger
problem.

Quoted message said:

I've no doubt there are people gulible enough to be taken in by it, but that's
the beauty of urban legends, isn't it?

The fact that I could use a tale that you accused me of making up to
illustrate a point I was making almost a decade after I started telling
the tale, without any clear modification, should tell you something, but
since you've decided the answer and closed your mind it won't happen.
You're so ungullible you can't be taken in by things that have really
happened, if they don't suit your beliefs.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

Being a Jag, I thought they were all repaired using silk stockings. You
should have stopped to offer assistance.

Do you know something about Larrington cycling attire that the rest of us
don't?

Definitely not interested in the Larrington cycling gear.

Much more interested in pretty lady in headscarf, motoring along the
Cote d' Azur, who has the brains to repair a broken fan belt using silk
stockings. Remember the advert now?

John Hearns said:

Much more interested in pretty lady in headscarf, motoring along the
Cote d' Azur, who has the brains to repair a broken fan belt using silk
stockings. Remember the advert now?

Sure. Did enormous damage to the reliability reputation of British
cars. "Sorry Darhling but the old motor seems to have broken down in
this dark layby. Would you be so kind as to remove your stockings for
me old thing?"

Much more convincing than the old "run out of petrol" line ;-)

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:01:57 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>
wrote:

As I said, Peter, I believe it's an urban legend, and I believe that you're very
gullible.

'nuff said.

in message <[email hidden]>, Steven

(') said:

Sane people usually approve of measures that will save their lives, or
save them from being horribly crippled.

You mean you would. People /choose/ to ride mountain bikes, climb
mountains, sail small boats in open water, descend potholes, jump out of
aeroplanes, etc. All of these things are dangerous and involve risk of
death and/or being horribly crippled. Many of these people are sane.

Personally, I sail, cycle, and (sometimes) climb. And, indeed, virtually
everyone travels by car, which has a fairly high risk of being killed or
horribly crippled.

Quoted message said:

The fact that he's stated that you
should not act to protect people from their own stupidity implies that
either he has an overblown sense of his own ability to operate and
never make a mistake that will cost him his life, or he has an
indifference to his own safety that verges on the insane.

We all have to die. Having watched both my parents die in great distress
in hospital beds I have no desire to follow them. As far as I'm
concerned, the one fundamental human right is the right to take your own
risks, and it carries the concommitant responsibility to live (or die)
with the consequences.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ Disclaimer:  This is a work displacement exercise.  Please feel free ]
[ to reply either on or off group.  Expect lengthy replies until the ]
[ deadline has passed.  Thank-you for your cooperation. ]

Steven said:

As I said, Peter, I believe it's an urban legend, and I believe that you're very
gullible.

Urban legends don't have verifiable audit trails, as when you ask the
friend who's friend it was, suddenly it jumps further away. This story
does have a verifiable audit trail, because it isn't an urban legend,
and I heard it first hand from the people it happened to, one of my best
friends and his partner, who is also a good friend. They aren't in the
habit of making up tall tales, primarily because when life can be so
ridiculous there's no need.

You believe I'm very gullible because it suits your closed mind. I know
my close friends better rather than you do. One of the close friends in
question is a colleague of another u.r.c. poster, as I've mentioned.
Have you asked his opinion yet? Or is he assumed to be gullible too,
because it suits your theory?

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/