Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Bizarre coincidences

When I got home tonight, I was going to write about how much cyclists irritate the shit out of me. But, having scanned the blogs whilst Blogger was down (briefly, it seems), it has become obvious that I don't need to, because Mike Rouse has done it for me.
With cars there is a respect for the rules taught at the early phases of learning to drive. Those rules are enforced by the use of signage and the sheer fact that not following the rules can kill people quite easily. Most drivers recognise the importance of these rules and their responsibilities. Cyclists, however, do not - or at least so it seems to me and others. Some disagree, of course.

They ride through red lights, even at pedestrian crossings, they attempt to under-take slow moving traffic and often occupy the driver’s blindspot. Then there’s those that use the pavement as a shortcut, the ones that think they’re invincible by cutting in front of traffic, and utlimately there’s those that think they are part of some Cyclist Army.

The Cyclist Army is the worst. They kick vehicles that get in their way, hurl abuse at motorists and pedestrians and generally think that the streets of Britain should be a cyclist utopia.

There's not an awful lot that I can add to that diatribe, except to point out the following because, apparently, cyclists simply haven't got the fucking message:
  • You are not allowed to cycle on the pavement.

  • If you cycle on the road, you must obey the laws of the road.

  • This includes being equipped with lights.

Mike thinks that one should license cyclists. Me, I rather favour stringing cheese-wire across the road and laughing in childish delight as another cyclist's head, neatly detached from its body, goes bouncing down the road.

UPDATE: in reply to some of the comments—mainly from cyclists justifying themselves—I would like to add the following points:
  • Yes, yes, I am sure that the majority of cyclists are wonderful people. I am specifically targeting those who do not obey the law. (There is nothing un-Libertarian about that, Newmania. As I have explained to you before, libertarian is not the same as libertine.)

  • Yes, there are many car drivers who are utter pricks too. However, cyclists (especially in London) tend to adopt a particularly irritating holier-than-thou attitude which is ripe for pricking.

  • Although I have a full and (almost unbelievably) clean driving license, I do not (and have not ever) owned a car and carry no torch for car drivers.

  • I am, however, a pedestrian and object to nearly being knocked over by cyclists. Red lights apply to cyclists too: they aren't an optional fucking extra and I shouldn't have to wait until that cyclist has definitely stopped in order to know that they are going to do so (all caveats about people running red lights in cars, etc. applying, of course).

  • Further, if cyclists continually run red light into streams of traffic (as I have seen them do), they can't honestly be surprised if, one day, they get hit by a fucking car. Those actions don't affect me particularly, it's just that demonstrable stupidity irritates me.

  • Having respect for everyone on the road—and being bloody cautious—would be a good thing (and that applies to drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians).

As for the danger of bodily fluids caused by the decapitated cyclists, perhaps we could try a high-intensity laser which would cauterise the wound on contact...?

OFF-TOPIC: is anyone else finding that Blogger is really playing up at present?

34 comments:

thud said...

I had run in with cyclist whilst driving my evil hummer in Napa valley recently...he was very militant...it did not end well for him as he decided to berate me for pulling over to attend my sick baby...some mistake.

verity said...

I like the cheesewire option and think it should be legal.

Why are these people so insanely aggressive and why are they tolerated? I think pumping pedals ups the androgen pumped out by male bodies and that's why they behave so bat shit.

There is a huge disconnect between cyclists/drivers and pedestrians. If only they knew how embarrassing they look from behind - little over-muscular legs pumping away and a silly, aggressive little bottom on the saddle. They look like such jerks.

Mac the Knife said...

Me, I rather favour stringing cheese-wire across the road and laughing in childish delight as another cyclist's head, neatly detached from its body, goes bouncing down the road.

Eh? I don't want their filthy internal fluids pumped all over my pristine paintwork; and what happens if I have my window down? Get a grip DK... *tsk tsk*

Chanticleer said...

Those bouncing heads would create quite a hazard, methinks..

Newmania said...

Oho I see when it comes to your convenience that tumescent Libertarian pose is suddenly flaccid. Bikes do less damage than the prats in their cars who will take a life and death decision in the road but will lie awake all night worrying ABOUT A 0.25% rate increase in their mortgage. What is it with cars that people lose all perspective when they get behind the wheel ?
A cyclist is only going to hurt himself and he can do whatever the fuck he likes . Ken Livingstone wanted them licensed . The result , far far less cycling because breaking the law is one of the perks and the result ….more prats in cars killing each other as well as innocent pedestrians because , usually , they cannot drive .
It’s the classic case of individual freedom providing safety . Cyclists are incredibly safe because they suffer the consequences of their actions . Car drivers , cased in steel , with crush zones and belts behave like fucking children and most of all when they bitch about cyclists.
Leave cyclists alone …especially this one , stop people driving until they approach the elevated standard of someone like myself , which includes an ability to be aware if what is around them. I`d take half of them off the road slap the taste out of their mouths and send them back to their mothers

knirirr said...

Newmania - I am a motorcyclist, and therefore share with cyclists the chance of being run into by ignorant motorists. I still complain about the cyclists, though, for many of them share with motorists the lack of observation and ability to signal. They worry me, for I would not like to run them over.
Oxford is particularly bad for unsafe cyclists, such that even other cyclists complain about them. This presumably has something to do with the large number of students present.
The other thing that they do is litter every available space with their contraptions, often abandoning them.

Anonymous said...

Many of today's cyclists do not comply with the rules of the road, putting themselves at risk as well as pedestrians and the motorists who will be blamed for the inevitable accidents. I link this to the abandonment of cycle proficiency training in schools, and the police's disinterest in enforcement. I suppose we can only look to Darwin for improvement

Jackart said...

Whinge whinge whinge

The point at which a cyclist is at most danger (of his fucking life) is as the lights change.

It is safer to run the red lights. and you fat motoring cunts are just jealous that you'll never be as quick across town as us.

I cycled in london and Edinburgh for over a decade and I'm still alive.

ThunderDragon said...

Cyclists break the law in order to preserve their own life. Motorists break the law and endanger life in order to get where they are going fie seconds faster. Who's more in the wrong here?

Tomrat247 said...

Agreed; cyclists take the responsibility of their own lives in their own hands (there are very few cyclist up here in Leeds; lucky considering the overwhelmingly crap stock of drivers we have on the roads) - what isn't in their hands though is a significant duty of care, which is approportioned mainly into the hands of car and truck drivers, so much so that they can behave recklessly enough knowing that it will be the driver who faces the consequences (how many times have you ever heard of "Death by dangerous cycling/walking"?).

This is a serious problem in the north; having just bought a new car (my old one finally died) I was test driving it yesterday and took my wife and mum to the pub for a meal (no booze; i'm rubbish enough as it is). On the way there we were accosted on the road by 3 lil scroteletts on BMX's who refused to move from across the road. When they finally did - after 3 minutes - I drove on only to be followed down the hill and have them weave in and out of oncoming traffic; would it be the driver at fault or the cyclist?

knirirr said...

There was a very good blog post recently about Labour party supporters. Unfortunately I can't remember who made it, but the gist of it was that if they were challenged over Labour running gulags their response would be "but the Tories introduced the poll tax!" I.e. anything they do is OK because their tribal enemies are worse.
With tedious inevitability this always happens when bicycles are mentioned on the internet and is the main reason I don't look at uk.transport any more.

Newmania said...

I am also a motor cyclist, and that really is scary at times . I used to cycle from Islignton to Croydon and back every day until I was run over in Brixton by a tit in a car who acclerated out of his lane into me uninsured, unlicensed and utterly incapable of looking where he was going . I had no chance and was lucky not to break my back.( This was because his windscreen crushed in a and took the force from the impact)

Cyclist are sufering saints by comparison and , needless to say I am a car driver too.

Anonymous said...

I want to have all pedestrians stopped and shot as there is always one or two of them that pay no attention to road laws.
They are normally the ones who skoot around the side of cars trying to cross the road and then they write about how bad cyclists are as they had just got a correct and proper slagging.

Pascal said...

Agreed with the last comment.

I ride a motorbike every day, and what scares me the most nowadays are pedestrians. I have slapped a few, or braked really late whilst beeping the horn to scare the shit out of the idiots who do not look, or look the wrong way, or look but don't see.

It is not that I give a shit about knocking one over, it is that I could get injured myself and damage my bike.

Bad cyclists ? There are probably some, but I don't think it is any worse than drivers.

DK, it is not like you to repeat tired old cliches.

Newmania said...

DK, it is not like you to repeat tired old cliches.

oo I don`t know .....

Cleanthes said...

DK,

I'm sorry but this time you have overstepped the mark. I bicycle to work regularly so perhaps I have a vested interest.

Here is my take.

Cyclists need to obey the law:
- They need to stop at red lights.
- They show refrain from riding on pavements - though that does NOT preclude dismounting and wheeling your bicycle along the pavement. I'll come back to this later.
- They need to use lights after lighting up time.

In addition there are things cyclists *should* do, but which they are not required to do by law:
- they should wear cycle helmets
- they should use more than one light front and back and they should use them in flashing mode during daytime
- they should wear bright/flourescent clothing so that they can be clearly seen.

Once they have done those things, then here is the deal. MOTORISTS SHOULD OBEY THE F*CKING LAW.

That means that they respect the rule that says that a bicycle occupies the same amount of space as a small car. You cannot pass a small car in the same lane SO DON'T FUCKING DO IT WITH A BICYCLE.

That means that they should try and "just squeeze through" because there's something coming the other way or a car waiting to turn right.

That means that they should not encroach on bicycle lanes on the road. It's there a purpose dickheads. If you don't want cyclists to hold you up by occupying your lane, don't take the lane that has actually been given over to them.

That means NOT FUCKING PARKING IN A BICYCLE LANE.

Now DK: you are all for individual rights and for treating individuals as individuals. Let's apply this. Just because you see some w*nkers riding on the pavement or whatever DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO TREAT ALL BICYCLISTS LIKE W*NKERS.

Cyclists have to work really really hard to stay alive on the roads because we HAVE to assume that drivers will NOT give us the room unless we make them. We have to be aware of what is happening 200-300 yards BEHIND us to know how to judge the road ahead. We have to be able to detect from a car's engine note whether or not it is likely to pass us sensibly, and whether or not it is likely to pass us then stop to turn right, causing the car behind it to knock us off.

You require an awareness and anticipation of road conditions FAR in excess of that needed in a car.

In many circumstances the risk is simply too great. The kind of clip that knocks off a wing mirror will put a cyclist in hospital and quite possibly the morgue. There are many times when you are trying to turn right when quite frankly there is not a hope in hell. There is too much traffic desperate to get through lights before they change or whatever. Getting off and crossing as a pedestrian is very often a better solution.

All that is by the by. Your main gripe is that cyclists do not abide by the rules. That that is not correct - you need very clearly to state that it is only SOME cyclists who do not abide by the rules - is the by the by. That it is possible to tell at a single glance whether the cyclist in front of you is going to be a moron or not - if it's correctly dressed, uses lights, has a helmet etc, it's probably not going to be wilfully reckless - ought to give you pause for thought, but that is also by the by.

The other infractions that Mike complains of - particularly sitting in the driver's blindspot and undertaking slow moving traffic - are a mixed bag. Cyclists who sit in blindspots do indeed put themselves at greater risk, but again the position is rarely as simple as that. More often that not, you will find that the reason a cyclist does this is because the moron car driver has shot past the cyclist then pulled up at a queue for the lights, without leaving enough room for the cyclist to pass. That's the car driver's fault.

In fact, it is one of the reasons that bicyclists are forced onto pavements - because there are car drivers trying to kill them on the road. For what? two seconds or less.

Getting to the front of the queue at lights has been dealt with above. I would never do anything else because it is the safest thing for me to do. I can get away faster than a car, so that car will be able to see me in front.

But that's not my main gripe with your post. I have ACTUALLY ENCOUNTERED the behaviour that you recommend. I have actually come across a deliberate obstruction of a bicycle path. The scrotes had taken the liberty of knocking out the streetlight around it to raise their chances of causing serious harm.

This is real. It does happen. It has happened to me.

Cyclists do you no harm. They do not tax you. They do not restrict your freedom of speech. Perhaps you could see your way not to recommend killing them.

Longrider said...

Well, you walked into that little firestorm...

For what it's worth, I'm a motorist, motorcyclist, cyclist and pedestrian and all of those road users piss me off at times because all groups of road users have tits amongst their number. I don't much like it when truckers think that a passing motorcyclist can instantly step sideways on a motorway because they want to overtake the truck in front. It doesn't mean all truckers are homicidal idiots.

Which pretty much repeats Cleanthes' point, really. Was it a good night down the pub?

Cleanthes said...

LR,

Agreed.

Actually, there is one other point that I probably bring up to the summary.

One of the reasons that cyclists are constantly in danger is because of appalling posts such as this one.

This post comes jolly close to asserting some kind of moral equivalence between the actions of drivers and cyclists. That is frankly lethal to cyclists.

You don't have to hit a cyclist to knock them off. Every time you get a post like this, it prevents the key message getting across:

When cyclists do stupid things, they kill themselves, but drivers are completely unaffected. When a car driver is just mildly inconsiderate, he stands a good chance of killing the cyclist.

That message is one we never hear. It's not the "stop, think, bike" that gets my goat - it's the deliberate cutting up by drivers that have seen the cyclist but think "he'll be fine" that is never addressed.

Posts like DK's reinforce this latter attitude - and that is likely to kill me. I object to that.

Angry Steve said...

One of those red light jumping cyclists had the cheek to curse at me this morning. I was on the pedestrian crossing, and the green man had *just* gone off. He had clearly gone through a red light, and cycled round a corner to find me not hurrying to get out of his way.

He swore at me, and I was so taken aback, I forgot to call him a red light jumping cunt. I hate Haymarket. It's an armpit of a station.

Anonymous said...

Right, the next time I get barged into on the PAVEMENT by a cyclist I'll pull him off his bike and kick shit out of the arrogant fucking cunt. You have been warned.

Peter S.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Cleanthes,

"One of the reasons that cyclists are constantly in danger is because of appalling posts such as this one.

This post comes jolly close to asserting some kind of moral equivalence between the actions of drivers and cyclists. That is frankly lethal to cyclists."


And you are now drawing a moral equivalnece between me writing a post about how some cyclists piss me off and those drivers who kill cyclists.

Hardly a proportionate response.

It is always amusing to see how people respond when you push their buttons: no one objects to my assertions that all politicians are lying scum (even though you must know that it is not true) and that we should hang them all (even though advocating murder is fairly unpleasant too).

Ah, but criticise cyclists, or a certain section of them, and suddenly I am the equivalent of a hit-and-run driver.

May I suggest that a proportionate response from you cyclists would be to write a post decrying bad drivers? You can propose methods of execution or not, as you like.

As a pedestrian, bad (by which I mean illegal) cyclists have irritated me for years and, from some of the behaviour of those that I see in London (particularly), many of them do stupid fucking things that put themselves in unnecessary danger.

Look, it's all very well saying that you should afford the cyclist the same space as a small car and not overtake them in the same lane, but I see cyclists and motorcyclists doing precisely that with cars: if you weave between cars in the same lane, then you cannot necessarily expect cars to then accord you the entire lane to yourself since you have just demonstrated that you don't need it.

DK

Longrider said...

if you weave between cars in the same lane, then you cannot necessarily expect cars to then accord you the entire lane to yourself since you have just demonstrated that you don't need it.

Yeah, I've come across this argument before. When filtering, I am in control of the space I use. When someone carves in, nearly taking my front wheel from under me, forcing me to take avoiding action, they are in control. On a motorcycle, I assert my roadspace by riding well out in my lane, forcing them to treat me as a small car. I can't do that on a push-bike, so don't ride one on the city streets. But, then, we are lucky in Bristol as we have plenty of separated cycleways.

Oh, and filtering is not the same thing as weaving in and out of moving traffic - that is suicidal.

urko said...

In an odd coincidence I was nearly mown down by a pillock riding a bike the wrong way along a one way street last night.

Cleanthes said...

Various above:

"Right, the next time I get barged into on the PAVEMENT by a cyclist I'll pull him off his bike and kick shit out of the arrogant fucking cunt. You have been warned."

Not that you need it, you have my blessing to do exactly that. Cyclists that break the law make MY life more difficult because DK uses it as justification to write shit like this.



DK,

"And you are now drawing a moral equivalnece between me writing a post about how some cyclists piss me off and those drivers who kill cyclists."

And

" I am specifically targeting those who do not obey the law."

Forgive me if I misinterpretted
"Me, I rather favour stringing cheese-wire across the road "

I'm sorry but this topic isn't funny. I have actually been bloody nearly killed twice in two years and I DO stop at red lights.

The dangers posed by cyclists to cars are non-existent. The dangers posed by car drivers just thinking "I'm just squeezing through" are well documented in the number of cyclist deaths.


"then you cannot necessarily expect cars to then accord you the entire lane to yourself since you have just demonstrated that you don't need it."

UTTER UTTER UTTER BOLLOCKS. A car coming from behind you with a closing speed of 20-30 mph is simply not even close to being same thing as a cyclist passing a car. The car has a slipstream that massively affects the cyclist, the bicyclist does not.

"May I suggest that a proportionate response from you cyclists would be to write a post decrying bad drivers?"

Or we could engage in a blogging type manner and discuss it here.

"no one objects to my assertions that all politicians are lying scum (even though you must know that it is not true) and that we should hang them all (even though advocating murder is fairly unpleasant too)."

Cyclists don't try to run your lives. Cyclists don't take your money. Even the ones that ride on pavements.

"As a pedestrian, bad (by which I mean illegal) cyclists have irritated me for years and, from some of the behaviour of those that I see in London (particularly), many of them do stupid fucking things that put themselves in unnecessary danger."

And where did I or anyone else say anything different?

"However, cyclists (especially in London) tend to adopt a particularly irritating holier-than-thou attitude which is ripe for pricking."

Because motorists can tend to make a good fist of killing you simply by being mildly inconsiderate. The kind of behaviour that wouldn't even raise an eyebrow if it was done to you in a car can quite likely kill a cyclist.

How often do you have a situation as a driver where you get a sudden rush of adrenaline because you think you are going to have a serious crash? Once every few months perhaps. Cyclists - especially in London - are fighting that feeling almost all the time they are in traffic.

That's the point that you are singularly failing to address.

"Red lights apply to cyclists too: they aren't an optional fucking extra and I shouldn't have to wait until that cyclist has definitely stopped in order to know that they are going to do so "

And where have I or anyone else suggested anything else?

Cyclists that run red lights make me angry because they allow you to write nonsense that suggests cyclists are fair game.

You castigate cyclists for running red lights, but then you also castigate them for going to the front of the line at the ligts where they can be seen. Oh and also for not going to the front of the line.

Which is it to be?

"Further, if cyclists continually run red light into streams of traffic (as I have seen them do), they can't honestly be surprised if, one day, they get hit by a fucking car."

And where have I or anyone else suggested anything else?

"Having respect for everyone on the road—and being bloody cautious—would be a good thing (and that applies to drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians)."

But in the case of cyclists vs cars, the car cannot even afford to be mildly inconsiderate.

Look: there are three problems here.
1) Some cyclists are inconsiderate to pedestrians.
2) Some cyclists are inconsiderate to cars
3) Some cars are inconsiderate to cyclists.

In 1), both will come off badly. Not too badly, but the important point is that the cyclist is equally likely to be hurt.
In 2) you have a moron. The cyclist is going to lose.
In 3), however, the cyclist is going to be killed and the car largely untouched.

It is ONLY in 3) that there is a problem with incentives. Your banging on here about 1) and 2) does not tell anyone anything that they don't already know.

Meanwhile it makes 3) more likely to happen.

This isn't a joke. People who do not regularly cycle through rush hour traffic have absolutely no conception of the ease with which they can seriously endanger a cyclist. You are displaying precisely this pathology.

Cleanthes said...

LR,

"On a motorcycle, I assert my roadspace by riding well out in my lane, forcing them to treat me as a small car. I can't do that on a push-bike, so don't ride one on the city streets."

Actually you can, and indeed you have to. This happens to me all the time, but it is sometimes necessary to do it.

As soon as I see a car ahead indicate to turn right, I do so too so that I can pull out into the middle of the lane and so that the car behind me physically cannot get past without hitting me square with the middle of his bonnet.

But then you get hooted at and accused of being an arrogant whatever.

The fact that you do is proof that you did the right thing. It is proof that the car WAS going to try and push through.

There is a fundamental lack of awareness in a huge proportion of car drivers as to how to deal with a cyclist. It's not that car drivers are wankers - it is simply that many have absolutely no idea how much room a cyclist needs.

That is a very real problem. Cyclists on pavements cause bruises. Lack of awareness - not maliciousness, not being arrogant, not being a wanker - causes deaths.

DK thinks the former is more notable than the latter. I disagree.

Mike Rouse said...

Having read your thoughts on laser treatment for cyclists, I think you're probably right. They could be placed along the side of cycle lanes and at traffic lights. Veer out from either and you're dead. Seems simple enough.

Anonymous said...

Cyclists may be unaware of their vulnerability in say, jumping a red light and being in collision with a car or bus or ambulance or whatever (yes, that's right, not every vehicle on the road is a private car). However in hospital with a broken leg they may slowly become aware of their drain on the NHS as they occupy a bed for a couple of weeks. True, the motorist may be uninjured but will feel pretty crap for a long time that they were in an accident they didn't cause.

Cyclists are also possibly ignorant too that colliding with a pedestrian as they ride on footpaths can cause considerable damage to both parties. Emotional but true: a pregnant woman, perhaps, may not enjoy the experience.

I am however prepared to accept that the moral superiority that comes with having an unlicensed vehicle excuses all actions.

And as for motorcycles, is there a single one who has, in the era of the internal combustion engine, ever obeyed a speed limit?

Longrider said...

And as for motorcycles, is there a single one who has, in the era of the internal combustion engine, ever obeyed a speed limit?

Yes - on a daily basis. But I presume what you actually meant was; was there ever one who has never disobeyed a speed limit? That, frankly, applies to every motor vehicle user, doesn't it?

knirirr said...

Ah, but criticise cyclists, or a certain section of them, and suddenly I am the equivalent of a hit-and-run driver.

If you want the full effect you should say that because cyclists ride so slowly they hold you up when you're out driving in your BMW, and should be forced to use cycle lanes. They hate that.

if you weave between cars in the same lane, then you cannot necessarily expect cars to then accord you the entire lane to yourself since you have just demonstrated that you don't need it.

The thing about "weaving between* cars" is that sometimes it is safe, and sometimes it isn't. A bit like other forms of overtaking, in fact. Those who ride two-wheeled vehicles have to know which situation is which and ride accordingly. Unfortunately, people who are not experienced at riding tend to lack such judgement and therefore assume that it is always safe (and therefore cut up bikes of all sorts) or always dangerous. The latter are safer on the road but sometimes write letters to the Daily Mail complaining about speeding, "weaving" motorcyclists or red-light-jumping bicycles.

* Actually, we go alongside the cars, not between them.

Cleanthes said...

Anon,

"Cyclists may be unaware of their vulnerability in say, jumping a red light and being in collision with a car or bus or ambulance or whatever."

There are at least two of us on this thread putting a very simple case for the cyclist.

Perhaps you can show where any of suggested that cyclists who run red lights deserve everything they get.

"I am however prepared to accept that the moral superiority that comes with having an unlicensed vehicle excuses all actions."

that's very big of you.

What I'd actually like is for you to recognise the incredible vulnerability of cyclists - law abiding or not - and give us room. We don't have an automatic right to do anything we like on the road, but we *do* have a right to be there and you do *not* have a right to barge us out of the way.

Mike,

Grow up.

Try cycling to work more than once or twice and you will soon change your tune.

As for the laser treatment. I'll agree with one modification: instead of zapping the cyclist when he needs to pull OUT of the cycle lane, why not zap the driver when he strays IN?

After all, the driver has no need to stray in at all, where the cyclist very often does need to pull out. To avoid being killed.

I'm sorry to be a killjoy, but I don't find any of this remotely funny. When you have nearly been killed, you tend not to think it amusing.

There is plenty of room on the road for everyone. Cyclists hardly take up much and all we're asking is that drivers try not to kill us. I don't see that that is much to ask.

DK,

Want to sum up and bring this thing to a close? It's not exactly going anywhere.

I'm getting slightly bored of repeating stuff to people who appear spectacularly unable to read.

DK is a cockmuncher said...

DK, you collectivist tosser.

Well played Clenthes.

Devil's Kitchen said...

I'm sorry, Cockmuncher; I hadn't realised that asking cyclists to obey the fucking law was collectivist.

I had this silly idea that libertarianism was built on the rule of law. Silly me...

DK

Cleanthes said...

DK,

When I said
"Want to sum up and bring this thing to a close? It's not exactly going anywhere."

I hadn't expected my thoughts to be demonstrated quite so spectacularly.

With supporters like these, who needs detractors?
Ah well...

dk is still a cockmuncher said...

I'm sorry, Cockmuncher; I hadn't realised that asking cyclists to obey the fucking law was collectivist.

All blah blah are this or that is undoubtably collectivist. If you don't treat people as individuals then you are a collectivist.

I had this silly idea that libertarianism was built on the rule of law. Silly me...

Like delighting in murder? You're simply the pretendy libertarian we suspected all along.