![]() |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when it comes to pedestrian safety from cyclists. But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous drivers". Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers - in law. The casualty statistics happen to show the danger of drivers and their motor vehicles is ever present. It is not irrelevant. By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by a motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas they expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to observe or experience. I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled within us from a very early age. However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I simply did not see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. Once I had ascertained that he had not succeeded in scratching my cowboy boot, I continued on my way and left him to the ministrations of a sympathetic female. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there is only one incident I can recall when I was almost hit by a car whose driver ignored a red light. Although I always take care, the fact is that cyclists are far more likely to think that they are not obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is upon them. |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
"Incubus" wrote in message ... On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when it comes to pedestrian safety from cyclists. But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous drivers". Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers - in law. The casualty statistics happen to show the danger of drivers and their motor vehicles is ever present. It is not irrelevant. By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by a motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas they expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to observe or experience. I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled within us from a very early age. However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I simply did not see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. Once I had ascertained that he had not succeeded in scratching my cowboy boot, I continued on my way and left him to the ministrations of a sympathetic female. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there is only one incident I can recall when I was almost hit by a car whose driver ignored a red light. Although I always take care, the fact is that cyclists are far more likely to think that they are not obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is upon them. == Yes, I agree! Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I see cyclists continuing straight through!!! How the hell some cars miss them I don't know. Guess who would be in trouble if they did get hit by a car? |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 2018-08-16, Ophelia wrote:
"Incubus" wrote in message ... On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when it comes to pedestrian safety from cyclists. But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous drivers". Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers - in law. The casualty statistics happen to show the danger of drivers and their motor vehicles is ever present. It is not irrelevant. By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by a motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas they expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to observe or experience. I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled within us from a very early age. However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I simply did not see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. Once I had ascertained that he had not succeeded in scratching my cowboy boot, I continued on my way and left him to the ministrations of a sympathetic female. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there is only one incident I can recall when I was almost hit by a car whose driver ignored a red light. Although I always take care, the fact is that cyclists are far more likely to think that they are not obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is upon them. == Yes, I agree! Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I see cyclists continuing straight through!!! How the hell some cars miss them I don't know. Guess who would be in trouble if they did get hit by a car? The creators of Monkey Dust understood such people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
"Incubus" wrote in message ... On 2018-08-16, Ophelia wrote: "Incubus" wrote in message ... On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when it comes to pedestrian safety from cyclists. But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous drivers". Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers - in law. The casualty statistics happen to show the danger of drivers and their motor vehicles is ever present. It is not irrelevant. By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by a motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas they expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to observe or experience. I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled within us from a very early age. However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I simply did not see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. Once I had ascertained that he had not succeeded in scratching my cowboy boot, I continued on my way and left him to the ministrations of a sympathetic female. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there is only one incident I can recall when I was almost hit by a car whose driver ignored a red light. Although I always take care, the fact is that cyclists are far more likely to think that they are not obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is upon them. == Yes, I agree! Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I see cyclists continuing straight through!!! How the hell some cars miss them I don't know. Guess who would be in trouble if they did get hit by a car? The creators of Monkey Dust understood such people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y == That would be very funny if it were not so apt! |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 16/08/18 14:15, Ophelia wrote:
Yes, I agree!* Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I see cyclists continuing straight through!!! How the hell some cars miss them I don't know. Because they miss the cars...? Guess who would be in trouble if they did get hit by a car? People have been whinging about it for long enough that if it is just a theoretical problem, it is not worth worrying about. Alternatively it has already happened and examination of official records would make guesswork unnecessary. |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. In that case you could have left out the words "errant" and "dangerous". Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when it comes to pedestrian safety from cyclists. But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous drivers". Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers - in law. The casualty statistics happen to show the danger of drivers and their motor vehicles is ever present. It is not irrelevant. By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by a motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas they expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to observe or experience. I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled within us from a very early age. Then I did give a fair summation of the facts. But I will state again that it doesn't transfer to being in proximity to cyclists. Even on the road (*). However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. A footpath (not footway) is not reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Though I happen to agree with the sentiment because when I am not near motor vehicles I want to wander with my head in the clouds yet I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured by cyclists. So I wonder what the difference is between us. I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I simply did not see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. Once I had ascertained that he had not succeeded in scratching my cowboy boot, I continued on my way and left him to the ministrations of a sympathetic female. Which shows that a cyclist has a very high chance of auto-punishment. Unlike a driver. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there is only one incident I can recall when I was almost hit by a car whose driver ignored a red light. Although I always take care, the fact is that cyclists are far more likely to think that they are not obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is upon them. And that one occasion put you at enormously higher risk of injury than all the others combined. I wonder how many other possible incidents with drivers you have stayed away from without giving it any conscious thought. See above (*). |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 16/08/18 22:54, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc TMS320 wrote: On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. ... And meanwhile ... 2 people killed by cyclists, 1,698 killed by car drivers. But cyclists are 'the menace'. The cognitive dissonance screams to the ****ing heavens. It is notable that cyclists are always "speeding" - unless a driver is waiting to overtake. Drivers unfailingly underestimate their speed and consider 30mph to be "hardly moving" yet people always overestimate the speed of a cyclist, eg, what the eye witness estimates as 25mph will be 15mph an so on. It seems that cycling at any speed that is faster than the observer (pedestrian or driver stuck in traffic) - even seen at a distance - is "dangerous". |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 22:46:03 +0100
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: In uk.politics.misc Ophelia wrote: Yes, I agree! Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I see cyclists continuing straight through!!! QED. This belief that cyclists 'don't stop at red lights' (or that they fail to stop at red lights at a rate greater than car drivers) is so absolutely and firmly entrenched in the car driver's psyche, that it has been elevated almost to the level of absolute truth. The sun rises in the east. Water boils at 100° C. 1+1=2. Cyclists don't stop at red lights. Except that it isn't true. It's quite fascinating - not only that so many people can believe so fervently in a falsehood that is becomes almost like a religion. But equally fascinating is that public policy can be decided based on this complete fantasy. Except that it is true. At the moment, Whitechapel station has a temporary entrance opposite a traffic-light pedestrian crossing across the A11. A while ago, I had occasion to cross the road there four times a week for a month or so. More than half the time, at least one cyclist, sometimes half a dozen would cross the crossing at about 20mph while I was walking across. I never looked round, so I don't know if the same was happening the other side of the road, but I see no reason to assume otherwise. On the other side of the road from Whitechapel station is the Royal London Hospital, so a fair percentage of the pedestrians were not too steady on their feet. I never actually saw a collision, nor do I know how many of the bicycles had brakes, but the riders were universally what my daughter, a cyclist herself, calls 'feral' cyclists. Big helmets, heads down, oblivious to the world around them... So don't lie. -- Joe |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. In that case you could have left out the words "errant" and "dangerous". I had the option to but they are there for the purpose of expressing their meaning. Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when it comes to pedestrian safety from cyclists. But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous drivers". Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers - in law. The casualty statistics happen to show the danger of drivers and their motor vehicles is ever present. It is not irrelevant. By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by a motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas they expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to observe or experience. I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled within us from a very early age. Then I did give a fair summation of the facts. But I will state again that it doesn't transfer to being in proximity to cyclists. Even on the road (*). It is not a fair summation of the facts; the pedestrian is obliged to be careful on the road but the burden is on drivers where it comes to red lights and mounting pavements. Who on Earth could possibly think otherwise? However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. A footpath (not footway) is not reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Though I happen to agree with the sentiment because when I am not near motor vehicles I want to wander with my head in the clouds yet I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured by cyclists. So I wonder what the difference is between us. Perhaps you have never lived nor worked in places like Weybridge where feral cyclists are numerous. I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I simply did not see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. Once I had ascertained that he had not succeeded in scratching my cowboy boot, I continued on my way and left him to the ministrations of a sympathetic female. Which shows that a cyclist has a very high chance of auto-punishment. Unlike a driver. The cyclist also have a very high chance of harming someone else. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there is only one incident I can recall when I was almost hit by a car whose driver ignored a red light. Although I always take care, the fact is that cyclists are far more likely to think that they are not obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is upon them. And that one occasion put you at enormously higher risk of injury than all the others combined. Actually, it didn't. The driver started driving away from a red light early and wasn't going very fast. The times I have almost been hit by lycra louts, many of them have been cycling at high speed. |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 2018-08-17, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: A footpath (not footway) is not reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Though I happen to agree with the sentiment because when I am not near motor vehicles I want to wander with my head in the clouds yet I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured by cyclists. So I wonder what the difference is between us. Perhaps you have never lived nor worked in places like Weybridge where feral cyclists are numerous. Your lexical choices are revealing. I've never heard a driver described as 'feral'. One calls them 'dangerous' or 'careless'. But 'feral'? 'Of an animal: Wild, untamed. Of a plant, also (rarely), of ground: Uncultivated...' (_The OED_, retrieved 17 August 2018) This really does demonstrate the low regard in which cyclists are held by the general population [1], and the belief that they are 'out of control'. Lawless, maybe. Candour compels me to admit that I deliberately chose that word safe in the knowledge that it would get a rise out of someone. However, it is a reasonable choice of word to describe people who have shouted at me because they expected me to move out of their way while they were riding on the footpath. It's no wonder that there is such clamour on the part of the mentally disadvantaged to have cyclists 'registered' and to 'make' them pay 'insurance'. Another kettle of fish, of course. I would settle for them staying off the pavement, in which case I won't feel the need to elbow them off their machines into the path of an oncoming Audi. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com