CycleBanter.com

CycleBanter.com (http://www.cyclebanter.com/index.php)
-   UK (http://www.cyclebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered (http://www.cyclebanter.com/showthread.php?t=256254)

Incubus August 16th 18 12:27 PM

'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.

Ophelia[_8_] August 16th 18 02:15 PM

'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?



Incubus August 16th 18 03:57 PM

'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



Ophelia[_8_] August 16th 18 07:03 PM

'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!




TMS320 August 16th 18 08:58 PM

'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.

TMS320 August 16th 18 09:09 PM

'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 (*).

TMS320 August 17th 18 12:22 AM

'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".

Joe August 17th 18 09:35 AM

'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


Incubus August 17th 18 10:15 AM

'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.

Incubus August 17th 18 11:19 AM

'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.

abelard August 17th 18 11:52 AM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:35:07 +0100, Joe wrote:

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.


he is a socialist....he know full well he has a special pass to lie
whenever 'necessary' or 'useful'


--
www.abelard.org

Ophelia[_8_] August 17th 18 12:26 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 


"Joe" wrote in message
...

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

==

Agreed! He can dream all he likes but I do see them and they are always as
you describe - Ferals!

I never see 'normal' cyclists doing that.




Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein[_2_] August 17th 18 12:35 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
In uk.politics.misc Ophelia wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message


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.


Agreed! He can dream all he likes but I do see them and they are always
as you describe - Ferals!


Remarkable! This is fascinating! Do you see unicorns prancing around
the fields too?

This really is fascinating. Two people who if asked would no doubt
consider themselves sane, rational and intelligent, but both absolutely
convinced of the prevalance of a phenomonem which in fact is extremely
rare. And both of them completely immune to reason. The capacity for
delusion is almost awe-inspiring.

One of them a racist, little Engländ UKIP voter and the other .. Joe? Do
you vote UKIP ?

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of
the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish
state...'
(Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Fakestinian Arab Higher Committee, 6
September 1948)

Incubus August 17th 18 12:46 PM

'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:


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.


I was bored just there, and so sat and worked out kinetic energy for car +
driver as opposed to cycle + rider. The formula being 1/2 mv2 (can't do
superscript in ASCII), take a 1,500 kg car travelling at 30 mph. Take a
100 kg bicycle with rider. At what speed would the cyclist have to ride,
to have the same kinetic energy as a car? And of course, 'show your work'.


It's a fun mental exercise but in this case, I estimate the driver was doing no
more than 5mph.


Incubus August 17th 18 01:35 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 2018-08-17, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-17, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:


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.


I was bored just there, and so sat and worked out kinetic energy for car
+ driver as opposed to cycle + rider. The formula being 1/2 mv2 (can't
do superscript in ASCII), take a 1,500 kg car travelling at 30 mph.
Take a 100 kg bicycle with rider. At what speed would the cyclist have
to ride, to have the same kinetic energy as a car? And of course, 'show
your work'.


It's a fun mental exercise but in this case, I estimate the driver was
doing no more than 5mph.


Funny you should say that, but I'd be very surprised if you - as a
non-driver - actually knew what 5 mph looks like on a car, because believe
me, it is very difficult to drive a car at that speedi. OK, 'difficult' is
probably the wrong word, but it takes a concerted effort to keep a car
below 5 mph. Our local supermarket has a sign at the entrance saying '15
kph' which is about 9 mph and on the occasions where we take our not very
powerful car (a Skoda Octavia estate) in there and are driving at what we
_imagine_ is very slowly, we glance at the speedometer and it's reading
something like 25 kph, or 15 mph. 5 mph on a modern car is going to
involve a lot of slipping of the clutch. Let the clutch out fully and
don't touch the accelerator, and the car will slow where it starts to
'hunt' and then will stall. When you start to accelerate from a stop,
you'll pass that speed in I don't know - half a second?

So unless you were standing a few feet in front of this guy's bumper and he
didn't have any time to hit 10 mph, believe me - he was likely going faster
than 5 mph.


He just started to pull away and then promptly stopped. He was inching
forward; nothing more.

Joe August 17th 18 04:19 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 12:35:54 +0100
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:

In uk.politics.misc Ophelia wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message


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.


Agreed! He can dream all he likes but I do see them and they are
always as you describe - Ferals!


Remarkable! This is fascinating! Do you see unicorns prancing
around the fields too?

This really is fascinating. Two people who if asked would no doubt
consider themselves sane, rational and intelligent, but both
absolutely convinced of the prevalance of a phenomonem which in fact
is extremely rare. And both of them completely immune to reason.
The capacity for delusion is almost awe-inspiring.


Are you really sure you want to try to prove a negative? What are you
offering in lieu of evidence?

They may not do it where you live, but they certainly do here. The
crossing I mention is an extreme case: it's a wide, busy road with those
blue cycle paths on both sides, and there's no motor traffic crossing
it there, so from a cyclist's point of view there's little reason to
stop at the red light.

--
Joe


TMS320 August 18th 18 12:47 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 17/08/18 10:15, Incubus wrote:
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


You're blinkered about what I said. Whatever this "obligation" is that
you mention (legal, moral, safety?), in practice they keep out of harms
way amongst motor vehicles (ie, "they don't put any burden on the
driver"). We are in agreement.

Then you completely ignore the part about this not happening when
they're amongst bicycles (ie, "they expect the cyclist to make all the
effort").

but the burden is on drivers where it comes to red lights
and mounting pavements. Who on Earth could possibly think otherwise?


I said nothing about traffic lights. When I said the above, I meant that
it happens on all parts of the *road* - which includes junctions without
lights and all the parts in between.

Since you love your own anecdotes, would you like an anecdote about
pedestrians amongst a cyclist riding legally and safely when no motor
vehicle is nearby?

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.


You're not doing yourself any favours.

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.


How high is "very high"? Let's take a cyclist and a driver that each go
through a red traffic light 100 times. How many bodies will each leave
behind?

I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a
cyclisThjet 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.


Stop ignoring statistics.

TMS320 August 18th 18 01:03 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 17/08/18 16:19, Joe wrote:

The
crossing I mention is an extreme case: it's a wide, busy road with those
blue cycle paths on both sides, and there's no motor traffic crossing
it there, so from a cyclist's point of view there's little reason to
stop at the red light.

Why not do what pedestrians normally do when there are few motor
vehicles about and walk blindly out in front of the cyclists?

Incubus August 18th 18 02:23 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/18 10:15, Incubus wrote:
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:


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


You're blinkered about what I said. Whatever this "obligation" is that
you mention (legal, moral, safety?), in practice they keep out of harms
way amongst motor vehicles (ie, "they don't put any burden on the
driver"). We are in agreement.

Then you completely ignore the part about this not happening when
they're amongst bicycles (ie, "they expect the cyclist to make all the
effort").


Were I to walk along a cycle lane, I would of course make an effort to
stay safe because I had no business being there. However, on a
footpath, the responsibility is not mine.

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.


You're not doing yourself any favours.


What you mean to say is that I am not doing you any favours.

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.


How high is "very high"? Let's take a cyclist and a driver that each go
through a red traffic light 100 times. How many bodies will each leave
behind?


It's irrelevant. You seem to think that specific laws against dangerous
cycling shouldn't be introduced because a bicycle is less likely to kill
someone than a car. That's like saying it shouldn't be illegal to carry
a dagger because it is far less likely to cause grievous injury than a
rifle.

I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a
cyclisThjet 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.


Stop ignoring statistics.


No; you stop misusing statistics to change the focus to drivers because
of an abiding resentment you harbour towards them. Once you acknowledge
that and start to deal with it, you will see things far more clearly and
no doubt feel much better as well.

abelard August 18th 18 03:12 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:23:00 +0100, Incubus
wrote:

On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:


Stop ignoring statistics.


No; you stop misusing statistics to change the focus to drivers because
of an abiding resentment you harbour towards them. Once you acknowledge
that and start to deal with it, you will see things far more clearly and
no doubt feel much better as well.


there was this italian fellow crossing the road and a driver
swerved to avoid her...so the italian dodged the other
way...so the driver swerved again...
once more the fellow dodged...as did the driver...

the pedestrian finally losing patience screamed at the driver...

'don't you know yet? it's my job to dodge...not yours'


--
www.abelard.org

TMS320 August 18th 18 04:31 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 18/08/18 14:23, Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/18 10:15, Incubus wrote:
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:


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


You're blinkered about what I said. Whatever this "obligation" is that
you mention (legal, moral, safety?), in practice they keep out of
harms way amongst motor vehicles (ie, "they don't put any burden on
the driver"). We are in agreement.

Then you completely ignore the part about this not happening when
they're amongst bicycles (ie, "they expect the cyclist to make all the
effort").


Were I to walk along a cycle lane, I would of course make an effort to
stay safe because I had no business being there.* However, on a
footpath, the responsibility is not mine.


You keep flopping between traffic lights and footpaths and snipped my
assessment of pedestrian behaviour amongst motor and cycle traffic ON
THE ROAD. Please be warned. Next time I shall insult you.

Yes, responsibility shifts somewhat on a footpath but you are clearly
expecting something from a cyclist that you would never expect from a
driver.

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.


You're not doing yourself any favours.


What you mean to say is that I am not doing you any favours.


I don't go through red traffic lights and when I go off ROAD on the bike
I am there to potter and enjoy the surroundings. I am here to take issue
with your whingeing.

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.


How high is "very high"? Let's take a cyclist and a driver that each
go through a red traffic light 100 times. How many bodies will each
leave behind?


It's irrelevant. You seem to think that specific laws against dangerous
cycling shouldn't be introduced because a bicycle is less likely to kill
someone than a car.* That's like saying it shouldn't be illegal to carry
a dagger because it is far less likely to cause grievous injury than a
rifle.


It is not illegal to carry a dagger.

There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct that
cyclists are supposed to abide by. People claim they do not abide by
them but please don't try to suggest that if they don't it is
necessarily dangerous - real danger that produces statics, not imaginary.

I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a
cyclisThjet 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.


Stop ignoring statistics.


No; you stop misusing statistics to change the focus to drivers because
of an abiding resentment you harbour towards them.* Once you acknowledge
that and start to deal with it, you will see things far more clearly and
no doubt feel much better as well.


So you're suggesting the official figure of thousands of pedestrians
killed or injured every year by drivers doesn't make driving a dangerous
activity?

I happen to drive, walk and cycle which is clearly far more than you do.


Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee August 20th 18 07:19 AM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
In uk.rec.cycling Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:


How high is "very high"? Let's take a cyclist and a driver that each go
through a red traffic light 100 times. How many bodies will each leave
behind?


It's irrelevant. You seem to think that specific laws against dangerous
cycling shouldn't be introduced because a bicycle is less likely to kill
someone than a car. That's like saying it shouldn't be illegal to carry
a dagger because it is far less likely to cause grievous injury than a
rifle.


What a splendid false dichotomy. In fact, it is like having over thirty
people killed every week by rifle-wielding thugs and telling the police to
ignore it... and then, on the one occasion where someone holding a dagger
kills someone, declare it a national emergency and demand that 'public
enemy number 1' be brought to justice.

Y.
--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

Incubus August 20th 18 10:27 AM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/08/18 14:23, Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/18 10:15, Incubus wrote:
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:


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

You're blinkered about what I said. Whatever this "obligation" is that
you mention (legal, moral, safety?), in practice they keep out of
harms way amongst motor vehicles (ie, "they don't put any burden on
the driver"). We are in agreement.

Then you completely ignore the part about this not happening when
they're amongst bicycles (ie, "they expect the cyclist to make all the
effort").


Were I to walk along a cycle lane, I would of course make an effort to
stay safe because I had no business being there.* However, on a
footpath, the responsibility is not mine.


You keep flopping between traffic lights and footpaths and snipped my
assessment of pedestrian behaviour amongst motor and cycle traffic ON
THE ROAD. Please be warned. Next time I shall insult you.


Oh, the pain! I don't think you know how to insult me.

The behaviour of pedestrians towards cyclists on the road is not relevant to
the points I made so it would perhaps serve your delicate constitution better
were you to refrain from introducing red herrings given the umbrage you take
when they are routinely ignored.

Yes, responsibility shifts somewhat on a footpath but you are clearly
expecting something from a cyclist that you would never expect from a
driver.


That is a falsehood. I don't expect drivers to ignore red lights or to drive
along the pavement either.

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.

You're not doing yourself any favours.


What you mean to say is that I am not doing you any favours.


I don't go through red traffic lights and when I go off ROAD on the bike
I am there to potter and enjoy the surroundings. I am here to take issue
with your whingeing.


Ah, so you premuse to be the standard by which all cyclists are to be judged?

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.

How high is "very high"? Let's take a cyclist and a driver that each
go through a red traffic light 100 times. How many bodies will each
leave behind?


It's irrelevant. You seem to think that specific laws against dangerous
cycling shouldn't be introduced because a bicycle is less likely to kill
someone than a car.* That's like saying it shouldn't be illegal to carry
a dagger because it is far less likely to cause grievous injury than a
rifle.


It is not illegal to carry a dagger.


It certainly is in a public place. What an utterly foolish reply.

There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct that
cyclists are supposed to abide by.


And do you suppose that they do?

People claim they do not abide by
them but please don't try to suggest that if they don't it is
necessarily dangerous - real danger that produces statics, not imaginary.


You are seeking to misuse statistics. I would wager that very few motorists
actually cause accidents but according to what puports to be your logic, that
means there is no real danger.

I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a
cyclisThjet 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.

Stop ignoring statistics.


No; you stop misusing statistics to change the focus to drivers because
of an abiding resentment you harbour towards them.* Once you acknowledge
that and start to deal with it, you will see things far more clearly and
no doubt feel much better as well.


So you're suggesting the official figure of thousands of pedestrians
killed or injured every year by drivers doesn't make driving a dangerous
activity?


That is not what I said. You are going to have to do much better than silly
straw man arguments if you wish for me to take you seriously.

I happen to drive, walk and cycle which is clearly far more than you do.


Your foolish comparisons and personal experience have no bearing on the matter.

Incubus August 20th 18 10:49 AM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 2018-08-20, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:


How high is "very high"? Let's take a cyclist and a driver that each go
through a red traffic light 100 times. How many bodies will each leave
behind?


It's irrelevant. You seem to think that specific laws against dangerous
cycling shouldn't be introduced because a bicycle is less likely to kill
someone than a car. That's like saying it shouldn't be illegal to carry
a dagger because it is far less likely to cause grievous injury than a
rifle.


What a splendid false dichotomy. In fact, it is like having over thirty
people killed every week by rifle-wielding thugs and telling the police to
ignore it... and then, on the one occasion where someone holding a dagger
kills someone, declare it a national emergency and demand that 'public
enemy number 1' be brought to justice.


It really isn't. I haven't advocated focussing on scofflaw cyclists to the
exclusion of bad or downright dangerous drivers. As I have said all along,
both should be dealt with.

abelard August 20th 18 11:17 AM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:49:34 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
wrote:

On 2018-08-20, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:


How high is "very high"? Let's take a cyclist and a driver that each go
through a red traffic light 100 times. How many bodies will each leave
behind?


It's irrelevant. You seem to think that specific laws against dangerous
cycling shouldn't be introduced because a bicycle is less likely to kill
someone than a car. That's like saying it shouldn't be illegal to carry
a dagger because it is far less likely to cause grievous injury than a
rifle.


What a splendid false dichotomy. In fact, it is like having over thirty
people killed every week by rifle-wielding thugs and telling the police to
ignore it... and then, on the one occasion where someone holding a dagger
kills someone, declare it a national emergency and demand that 'public
enemy number 1' be brought to justice.


It really isn't. I haven't advocated focussing on scofflaw cyclists to the
exclusion of bad or downright dangerous drivers. As I have said all along,
both should be dealt with.


i do wish you stop talking sense and say instead what he's rather
you said...you'd make him far happier
and we may get some peace from his whining

--
www.abelard.org

Incubus August 20th 18 12:04 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 2018-08-20, abelard wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:49:34 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
wrote:

On 2018-08-20, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:

How high is "very high"? Let's take a cyclist and a driver that each go
through a red traffic light 100 times. How many bodies will each leave
behind?

It's irrelevant. You seem to think that specific laws against dangerous
cycling shouldn't be introduced because a bicycle is less likely to kill
someone than a car. That's like saying it shouldn't be illegal to carry
a dagger because it is far less likely to cause grievous injury than a
rifle.

What a splendid false dichotomy. In fact, it is like having over thirty
people killed every week by rifle-wielding thugs and telling the police to
ignore it... and then, on the one occasion where someone holding a dagger
kills someone, declare it a national emergency and demand that 'public
enemy number 1' be brought to justice.


It really isn't. I haven't advocated focussing on scofflaw cyclists to the
exclusion of bad or downright dangerous drivers. As I have said all along,
both should be dealt with.


i do wish you stop talking sense and say instead what he's rather
you said...you'd make him far happier
and we may get some peace from his whining


:)

While I do encourage people to have hobbies and be passionate about them, one
musn't lose one's sense of reason.

Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein[_2_] August 20th 18 02:30 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-20, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:


How high is "very high"? Let's take a cyclist and a driver that each
go through a red traffic light 100 times. How many bodies will each
leave behind?


It's irrelevant. You seem to think that specific laws against
dangerous cycling shouldn't be introduced because a bicycle is less
likely to kill someone than a car. That's like saying it shouldn't be
illegal to carry a dagger because it is far less likely to cause
grievous injury than a rifle.


What a splendid false dichotomy. In fact, it is like having over thirty
people killed every week by rifle-wielding thugs and telling the police
to ignore it... and then, on the one occasion where someone holding a
dagger kills someone, declare it a national emergency and demand that
'public enemy number 1' be brought to justice.


It really isn't.


Erm, yes it is.

'That's like saying it shouldn't be illegal to carry a dagger because it is
far less likely to cause grievous injury than a rifle'.

I haven't advocated focussing on scofflaw cyclists to the exclusion of
bad or downright dangerous drivers. As I have said all along, both
should be dealt with.


Your bias is revealed every single time you concentrate on cyclists who -
you claim - are more of a nuisance than car drivers. This is not the case,
and this has been amply demonstrated. But still, you keep on spouting this
completely inaccurate 'factoid' as if it were an accepted truth. This is
like Naziboi talking about 'illegal settlements' as if they were a
generally accepted truth.

Do you think it'll 'become' true if you keep writing it?

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'A conservative is a man who sits and thinks. Mostly sits'.
(Woodrow Wilson)
http://www.palwatch.org/

Incubus August 20th 18 03:27 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-20, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:


How high is "very high"? Let's take a cyclist and a driver that each
go through a red traffic light 100 times. How many bodies will each
leave behind?


It's irrelevant. You seem to think that specific laws against
dangerous cycling shouldn't be introduced because a bicycle is less
likely to kill someone than a car. That's like saying it shouldn't be
illegal to carry a dagger because it is far less likely to cause
grievous injury than a rifle.


What a splendid false dichotomy. In fact, it is like having over thirty
people killed every week by rifle-wielding thugs and telling the police
to ignore it... and then, on the one occasion where someone holding a
dagger kills someone, declare it a national emergency and demand that
'public enemy number 1' be brought to justice.


It really isn't.


Erm, yes it is.


What utter rot.

'That's like saying it shouldn't be illegal to carry a dagger because it is
far less likely to cause grievous injury than a rifle'.


That is known as an analogy. If you want a good example of a false dichotomy,
one need look no further than the suggestion that no further laws are needed to
deal with cylists because cars present a more significant danger.

I haven't advocated focussing on scofflaw cyclists to the exclusion of
bad or downright dangerous drivers. As I have said all along, both
should be dealt with.


Your bias is revealed every single time you concentrate on cyclists who -
you claim - are more of a nuisance than car drivers.


I didn't say that. I said my experience is that they are more of a danger
because certain areas of England appear to be particularly hazardous when it
comes to scofflaw cyclists and lycra louts. It is in those areas that such
laws would be beneficial to the hapless pedestrian.

Incubus August 20th 18 03:29 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
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.


Uh-huh.

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.


What do you do about the car drivers who - as we have seen - are far more
numerous on the footway than are cyclists? Do you 'elbow them' out of the
way, too?


That doesn't happen where I live. I imagine I would film them and rely on the
numberplate to identify them...

Kerr-Mudd,John[_2_] August 20th 18 06:04 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 06:06:25 GMT, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
wrote:

In uk.politics.misc Joe wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 12:35:54 +0100
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Ophelia wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message


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.


Agreed! He can dream all he likes but I do see them and they are
always as you describe - Ferals!


Remarkable! This is fascinating! Do you see unicorns prancing
around the fields too?

This really is fascinating. Two people who if asked would no doubt
consider themselves sane, rational and intelligent, but both
absolutely convinced of the prevalance of a phenomonem which in fact
is extremely rare. And both of them completely immune to reason.
The capacity for delusion is almost awe-inspiring.


Are you really sure you want to try to prove a negative? What are you
offering in lieu of evidence?


What _is_ it about the right and its complete inability to grasp
logic?

Oh, wait. The right. I just answered my own question.

_You_ are asserting a greater prevalance of 'bad behaviour' on the
part of cyclists than car drivers. _You_ provide the proof - which
you have steadfastly refused to do, relying on anecdotal evidence,
just like WS/Incubus.

They may not do it where you live, but they certainly do here. The
crossing I mention is an extreme case: it's a wide, busy road with
those blue cycle paths on both sides, and there's no motor traffic
crossing it there, so from a cyclist's point of view there's little
reason to stop at the red light.


Anecdotal evidence, i.e. totally irrelevant.

Next !

Y.


I'm not sure that your support for cycling alongside your fanatical anti-
Palestinan views helps us here. Thanks anyway.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

The Todal[_4_] August 20th 18 08:39 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 20/08/2018 18:22, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:

I'm not sure that your support for cycling alongside your fanatical anti-
Palestinan views helps us here. Thanks anyway.


Anti-'Palestinian' (sic)?

Is that like 'anti-Kryptonian'?


No, more like anti-Untermenschen.


TMS320 August 21st 18 11:04 AM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 20/08/18 10:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/08/18 14:23, Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/18 10:15, Incubus wrote:
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:

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

You're blinkered about what I said. Whatever this "obligation"
is that you mention (legal, moral, safety?), in practice they
keep out of harms way amongst motor vehicles (ie, "they don't
put any burden on the driver"). We are in agreement.

Then you completely ignore the part about this not happening
when they're amongst bicycles (ie, "they expect the cyclist to
make all the effort").

Were I to walk along a cycle lane, I would of course make an
effort to stay safe because I had no business being there.
However, on a footpath, the responsibility is not mine.


You keep flopping between traffic lights and footpaths and snipped
my assessment of pedestrian behaviour amongst motor and cycle
traffic ON THE ROAD. Please be warned. Next time I shall insult
you.


Oh, the pain! I don't think you know how to insult me.

The behaviour of pedestrians towards cyclists on the road is not
relevant to the points I made so it would perhaps serve your delicate
constitution better were you to refrain from introducing red herrings
given the umbrage you take when they are routinely ignored.


When pedestrians wander aimlessly out in front of a cyclist on the road,
which they don't do to drivers, it is completely relevant in the context
of pedestrian attitudes to cyclists.

Yes, responsibility shifts somewhat on a footpath but you are
clearly expecting something from a cyclist that you would never
expect from a driver.


That is a falsehood. I don't expect drivers to ignore red lights or
to drive along the pavement either.


It is not a falsehood that you demand different standards from cyclists
and drivers.

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.

You're not doing yourself any favours.

What you mean to say is that I am not doing you any favours.


I don't go through red traffic lights and when I go off ROAD on the
bike I am there to potter and enjoy the surroundings. I am here to
take issue with your whingeing.


Ah, so you premuse to be the standard by which all cyclists are to be
judged?


I 'premuse' nothing. I merely told you where I stand.

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.

How high is "very high"? Let's take a cyclist and a driver that
each go through a red traffic light 100 times. How many bodies
will each leave behind?

It's irrelevant. You seem to think that specific laws against
dangerous cycling shouldn't be introduced because a bicycle is
less likely to kill someone than a car. That's like saying it
shouldn't be illegal to carry a dagger because it is far less
likely to cause grievous injury than a rifle.


It is not illegal to carry a dagger.


It certainly is in a public place. What an utterly foolish reply.


https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives
"Examples of good reasons to carry a knife or weapon in public can include:

~ taking knives you use at work to and from work
~ taking it to a gallery or museum to be exhibited
~ if it’ll be used for theatre, film, television, historical reenactment
or religious purposes, for example the kirpan some Sikhs carry
~ if it’ll be used in a demonstration or to teach someone how to use it"

There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct
that cyclists are supposed to abide by.


And do you suppose that they do?


If they don't I don't really care because there are more and much
bigger dangerous hazards when going out and about. I just gave a matter
of fact answer to your demand for more laws.

People claim they do not abide by them but please don't try to
suggest that if they don't it is necessarily dangerous - real
danger that produces statics, not imaginary.


You are seeking to misuse statistics. I would wager that very few
motorists actually cause accidents but according to what puports to
be your logic, that means there is no real danger.


The "they" in my reply above was about cyclists, idiot. Follow the
context (the idea is to read an entire paragraph before breaking it up
and letting your short attention span forget what the subjects were).
Yes, the statistics show that drivers and motor vehicles *are*
dangerous. Which is what I have tried to make plain all along.

I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been
hit by a cyclisThjet 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.

Stop ignoring statistics.

No; you stop misusing statistics to change the focus to drivers
because of an abiding resentment you harbour towards them. Once
you acknowledge that and start to deal with it, you will see
things far more clearly and no doubt feel much better as well.


So you're suggesting the official figure of thousands of
pedestrians killed or injured every year by drivers doesn't make
driving a dangerous activity?


That is not what I said. You are going to have to do much better
than silly straw man arguments if you wish for me to take you
seriously.


You claim that when cyclists do something you don't like they are
"dangerous" yet you chose to ignore real dangers. You really are stupid
if you think you are serious: the number of silly typos in your reply
shows you're in a froth and not rational.

I happen to drive, walk and cycle which is clearly far more than
you do.


Your foolish comparisons and personal experience have no bearing on
the matter.


Apart from "I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured by
cyclists" what personal experience have I related to you?

Incubus August 21st 18 11:11 AM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:


What do you do about the car drivers who - as we have seen - are far
more numerous on the footway than are cyclists? Do you 'elbow them' out
of the way, too?


That doesn't happen where I live. I imagine I would film them and rely
on the numberplate to identify them...


Well, since that happens across the UK and in far greater numbers than for
cyclists, I can only imagine that you have a bias.

****, no !!


How can I have a bias against something I simply don't experience? You seem to
be operating under the misapprehension that I wish for the misdeeds of drivers
to be ignored in favour of persecuting cyclists. Nothing could be further from
the truth.

Might I remind you that the subject at hand is the consideration of a law
against 'Death by Dangerous Cycling'. Am I to take it therefore that you would
prefer cyclists who kill a pedestrian to simply be free to go about their
business?

Incubus August 21st 18 11:24 AM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:


You keep flopping between traffic lights and footpaths and snipped my
assessment of pedestrian behaviour amongst motor and cycle traffic ON
THE ROAD. Please be warned. Next time I shall insult you.


Oh, the pain! I don't think you know how to insult me.


From where I'm sitting, he doesn't really need to.


He needs to do something to give a good account of himself. The same might be
said of you likewise.

Yes, responsibility shifts somewhat on a footpath but you are clearly
expecting something from a cyclist that you would never expect from a
driver.


That is a falsehood. I don't expect drivers to ignore red lights or to
drive along the pavement either.


You obviously do.


Where on Earth have I implied that? Please refrain from making things up.

It is not illegal to carry a dagger.


It certainly is in a public place. What an utterly foolish reply.


It is only 'illegal' if done without good reason or lawful authority (s. 1
Prevention of Crime Act 1953).


Do you think his pointless reply serves any other purpose than an attempt to change the subject?

There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct that
cyclists are supposed to abide by.


And do you suppose that they do?


Overwhelmingly so.


And is it your considered opinion that they cover cases of 'death by dangerous
cycling'? It seems to me that if that were the case, it would not have been
necessary to revert to a law that was created when the bicycle was not even in
widespread use!

abelard August 21st 18 11:33 AM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:24:41 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
wrote:

On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:


You keep flopping between traffic lights and footpaths and snipped my
assessment of pedestrian behaviour amongst motor and cycle traffic ON
THE ROAD. Please be warned. Next time I shall insult you.


Oh, the pain! I don't think you know how to insult me.


From where I'm sitting, he doesn't really need to.


He needs to do something to give a good account of himself. The same might be
said of you likewise.

Yes, responsibility shifts somewhat on a footpath but you are clearly
expecting something from a cyclist that you would never expect from a
driver.


That is a falsehood. I don't expect drivers to ignore red lights or to
drive along the pavement either.


You obviously do.


Where on Earth have I implied that? Please refrain from making things up.

It is not illegal to carry a dagger.


It certainly is in a public place. What an utterly foolish reply.


It is only 'illegal' if done without good reason or lawful authority (s. 1
Prevention of Crime Act 1953).


Do you think his pointless reply serves any other purpose than an attempt to change the subject?

There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct that
cyclists are supposed to abide by.


And do you suppose that they do?


Overwhelmingly so.


And is it your considered opinion that they cover cases of 'death by dangerous
cycling'? It seems to me that if that were the case, it would not have been
necessary to revert to a law that was created when the bicycle was not even in
widespread use!


g'wan..don't be mean...let pork pie change the subject...

you know he wants to...so very much


--
www.abelard.org

Incubus August 21st 18 11:33 AM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-20, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:


How high is "very high"? Let's take a cyclist and a driver that each
go through a red traffic light 100 times. How many bodies will each
leave behind?


It's irrelevant. You seem to think that specific laws against
dangerous cycling shouldn't be introduced because a bicycle is less
likely to kill someone than a car. That's like saying it shouldn't
be illegal to carry a dagger because it is far less likely to cause
grievous injury than a rifle.


What a splendid false dichotomy. In fact, it is like having over
thirty people killed every week by rifle-wielding thugs and telling
the police to ignore it... and then, on the one occasion where
someone holding a dagger kills someone, declare it a national
emergency and demand that 'public enemy number 1' be brought to
justice.


It really isn't.


Erm, yes it is.


What utter rot.


Yeah, the bit three lines up.


Such a witty rejoinder takes me back to my school days where one might hear a
fierce rebuttal expressed in terms of 'I know you are!'

'That's like saying it shouldn't be illegal to carry a dagger because it
is far less likely to cause grievous injury than a rifle'.


That is known as an analogy.


No, it would be a simile and not an analogy.


Wrong. A simile is used for descriptive purposes. The above is an analogy
intended for purposes of comparison.

But it is neither, because it
is a false dichotomy, i.e. an 'either or' presented as the only two
options.


And as I said, the false dichotomy is not mine but rather that which has been
presented as the main objection within this thread to a law on Death By
Dangerous Cycling: that car drivers cause far more harm than cyclists, the
implication being that cyclists should be left alone.

If you want a good example of a false dichotomy, one need look no further
than the suggestion that no further laws are needed to deal with cylists
because cars present a more significant danger.


*phew!*

Just as well no one has suggested this, then.


In fact, they have.

Incubus August 21st 18 12:22 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 2018-08-21, TMS320 wrote:
On 20/08/18 10:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/08/18 14:23, Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/18 10:15, Incubus wrote:
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:

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

You're blinkered about what I said. Whatever this "obligation"
is that you mention (legal, moral, safety?), in practice they
keep out of harms way amongst motor vehicles (ie, "they don't
put any burden on the driver"). We are in agreement.

Then you completely ignore the part about this not happening
when they're amongst bicycles (ie, "they expect the cyclist to
make all the effort").

Were I to walk along a cycle lane, I would of course make an
effort to stay safe because I had no business being there.
However, on a footpath, the responsibility is not mine.

You keep flopping between traffic lights and footpaths and snipped
my assessment of pedestrian behaviour amongst motor and cycle
traffic ON THE ROAD. Please be warned. Next time I shall insult
you.


Oh, the pain! I don't think you know how to insult me.

The behaviour of pedestrians towards cyclists on the road is not
relevant to the points I made so it would perhaps serve your delicate
constitution better were you to refrain from introducing red herrings
given the umbrage you take when they are routinely ignored.


When pedestrians wander aimlessly out in front of a cyclist on the road,
which they don't do to drivers, it is completely relevant in the context
of pedestrian attitudes to cyclists.


In actual fact, some pedestrians do walk out in front of cars and they are very
foolish to do so. Yet what has this to do with the consideration of a law on
death by dangerous cycling?

Yes, responsibility shifts somewhat on a footpath but you are
clearly expecting something from a cyclist that you would never
expect from a driver.


That is a falsehood. I don't expect drivers to ignore red lights or
to drive along the pavement either.


It is not a falsehood that you demand different standards from cyclists
and drivers.


That is absolutely a falsehood and if such falsehoods are the basis for your
argument then you are doing very poorly indeed.

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.

You're not doing yourself any favours.

What you mean to say is that I am not doing you any favours.

I don't go through red traffic lights and when I go off ROAD on the
bike I am there to potter and enjoy the surroundings. I am here to
take issue with your whingeing.


Ah, so you premuse to be the standard by which all cyclists are to be
judged?


I 'premuse' nothing. I merely told you where I stand.


And what has where you stand got to do with the consideration of a law on death
by dangerous cycling?

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.

How high is "very high"? Let's take a cyclist and a driver that
each go through a red traffic light 100 times. How many bodies
will each leave behind?

It's irrelevant. You seem to think that specific laws against
dangerous cycling shouldn't be introduced because a bicycle is
less likely to kill someone than a car. That's like saying it
shouldn't be illegal to carry a dagger because it is far less
likely to cause grievous injury than a rifle.

It is not illegal to carry a dagger.


It certainly is in a public place. What an utterly foolish reply.


https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives
"Examples of good reasons to carry a knife or weapon in public can include:

~ taking knives you use at work to and from work


That rather precludes carrying a dagger!

~ taking it to a gallery or museum to be exhibited
~ if it’ll be used for theatre, film, television, historical reenactment
or religious purposes, for example the kirpan some Sikhs carry
~ if it’ll be used in a demonstration or to teach someone how to use it"


So there are circumstances in which one may carry a dagger but saying it is not
illegal was utterly foolish and a very silly attempt at diversion.

There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct
that cyclists are supposed to abide by.


And do you suppose that they do?


If they don't I don't really care because there are more and much
bigger dangerous hazards when going out and about. I just gave a matter
of fact answer to your demand for more laws.


So your entire argument is on the basis that cars are bigger, faster and
heavier and therefore we don't need further laws against cyclists who cause
death by dangerous driving. Presumably, dredging up a law made in 1861 when
bicycles were a curiosity is sufficient.

Then again, I seem to recall you defending the criminal cyclist to whom I
refer, at least in part, so one may surmise where your sympathies lie.

People claim they do not abide by them but please don't try to
suggest that if they don't it is necessarily dangerous - real
danger that produces statics, not imaginary.


You are seeking to misuse statistics. I would wager that very few
motorists actually cause accidents but according to what puports to
be your logic, that means there is no real danger.


The "they" in my reply above was about cyclists, idiot. Follow the
context (the idea is to read an entire paragraph before breaking it up
and letting your short attention span forget what the subjects were).


I am well aware to whom the 'they' referred. Had you read my reply properly
with an attention span of sufficient duration, you had surely realised that I
was applying what passes for your logic to car drivers; viz., that one could
similarly misuse statistics to shew that few motorists cause harm and then
advocate ignoring the instances of those who do.

Yes, the statistics show that drivers and motor vehicles *are*
dangerous. Which is what I have tried to make plain all along.


And I have taken great pains to point out to you that pointing the finger at
motorists is nothing more than a diversionary tactic.

I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been
hit by a cyclisThjet 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.

Stop ignoring statistics.

No; you stop misusing statistics to change the focus to drivers
because of an abiding resentment you harbour towards them. Once
you acknowledge that and start to deal with it, you will see
things far more clearly and no doubt feel much better as well.

So you're suggesting the official figure of thousands of
pedestrians killed or injured every year by drivers doesn't make
driving a dangerous activity?


That is not what I said. You are going to have to do much better
than silly straw man arguments if you wish for me to take you
seriously.


You claim that when cyclists do something you don't like they are
"dangerous"


I claim that when they do something dangerous then they are dangerous. I don't
like it much when they ring their bells at me from behind when they are riding
slowly on the pavement but I don't say that particular activity is dangerous.

yet you chose to ignore real dangers.


On the contrary, you would have us ignore the dangers that cyclists may pose by
pointing the finger at motorists instead. It is a classic diversionary tactic.
Even though motor vehicles pose an inherently greater danger, that has no
bearing on whether a law against death by dangerous cycling is needed.

You really are stupid
if you think you are serious: the number of silly typos in your reply
shows you're in a froth and not rational.


In actual fact, one may easily apprehend that you have become quite excitable
and you are not someone who should think to lecture anyone on typographical
errors.

I happen to drive, walk and cycle which is clearly far more than
you do.


Your foolish comparisons and personal experience have no bearing on
the matter.


Apart from "I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured by
cyclists" what personal experience have I related to you?


You just purported to suggest that your driving, walking and cycling more than
I somehow makes you an authority, as though that lends greater weight to your
arguments. As I said, were it the case it would still have absolutely no
bearing on the matter.

TMS320 August 21st 18 08:45 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 21/08/18 12:22, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-21, TMS320 wrote:
On 20/08/18 10:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:



The behaviour of pedestrians towards cyclists on the road is not
relevant to the points I made so it would perhaps serve your
delicate constitution better were you to refrain from introducing
red herrings given the umbrage you take when they are routinely
ignored.


When pedestrians wander aimlessly out in front of a cyclist on the
road, which they don't do to drivers, it is completely relevant in
the context of pedestrian attitudes to cyclists.


In actual fact, some pedestrians do walk out in front of cars and
they are very foolish to do so. Yet what has this to do with the
consideration of a law on death by dangerous cycling?


Mistakes apart, they don't as a general rule.

I don't go through red traffic lights and when I go off ROAD on
the bike I am there to potter and enjoy the surroundings. I am
here to take issue with your whingeing.

Ah, so you premuse to be the standard by which all cyclists are
to be judged?


I 'premuse' nothing. I merely told you where I stand.


And what has where you stand got to do with the consideration of a
law on death by dangerous cycling?


I told you that I am replying to your whingeing. A it happens, I haven't
given any opinion on the creation of such a law.

I happen to drive, walk and cycle which is clearly far more
than you do.

Your foolish comparisons and personal experience have no bearing
on the matter.


Apart from "I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured
by cyclists" what personal experience have I related to you?


You just purported to suggest that your driving, walking and cycling
more than I somehow makes you an authority, as though that lends
greater weight to your arguments. As I said, were it the case it
would still have absolutely no bearing on the matter.


Of course it does. It can't possibly have occurred to you that
pedestrians wander about in front of bicycles but don't in front of
motor vehicles.

Other stuff snipped because it is getting boring.

Ophelia[_8_] August 21st 18 08:47 PM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 


"TMS320" wrote in message ...

On 21/08/18 12:22, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-21, TMS320 wrote:
On 20/08/18 10:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:



The behaviour of pedestrians towards cyclists on the road is not
relevant to the points I made so it would perhaps serve your
delicate constitution better were you to refrain from introducing
red herrings given the umbrage you take when they are routinely
ignored.


When pedestrians wander aimlessly out in front of a cyclist on the
road, which they don't do to drivers, it is completely relevant in
the context of pedestrian attitudes to cyclists.


In actual fact, some pedestrians do walk out in front of cars and
they are very foolish to do so. Yet what has this to do with the
consideration of a law on death by dangerous cycling?


Mistakes apart, they don't as a general rule.

I don't go through red traffic lights and when I go off ROAD on
the bike I am there to potter and enjoy the surroundings. I am
here to take issue with your whingeing.

Ah, so you premuse to be the standard by which all cyclists are
to be judged?


I 'premuse' nothing. I merely told you where I stand.


And what has where you stand got to do with the consideration of a
law on death by dangerous cycling?


I told you that I am replying to your whingeing. A it happens, I haven't
given any opinion on the creation of such a law.

I happen to drive, walk and cycle which is clearly far more
than you do.

Your foolish comparisons and personal experience have no bearing
on the matter.


Apart from "I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured
by cyclists" what personal experience have I related to you?


You just purported to suggest that your driving, walking and cycling
more than I somehow makes you an authority, as though that lends
greater weight to your arguments. As I said, were it the case it
would still have absolutely no bearing on the matter.


Of course it does. It can't possibly have occurred to you that
pedestrians wander about in front of bicycles but don't in front of
motor vehicles.

Other stuff snipped because it is getting boring.

==

LOL PKB

Incubus August 22nd 18 10:12 AM

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
 
On 2018-08-21, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/08/18 12:22, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-21, TMS320 wrote:
On 20/08/18 10:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:



The behaviour of pedestrians towards cyclists on the road is not
relevant to the points I made so it would perhaps serve your
delicate constitution better were you to refrain from introducing
red herrings given the umbrage you take when they are routinely
ignored.

When pedestrians wander aimlessly out in front of a cyclist on the
road, which they don't do to drivers, it is completely relevant in
the context of pedestrian attitudes to cyclists.


In actual fact, some pedestrians do walk out in front of cars and
they are very foolish to do so. Yet what has this to do with the
consideration of a law on death by dangerous cycling?


Mistakes apart, they don't as a general rule.


And what has this to do with the consideration of a law concerning death by
dangerous cycling?

I don't go through red traffic lights and when I go off ROAD on
the bike I am there to potter and enjoy the surroundings. I am
here to take issue with your whingeing.

Ah, so you premuse to be the standard by which all cyclists are
to be judged?

I 'premuse' nothing. I merely told you where I stand.


And what has where you stand got to do with the consideration of a
law on death by dangerous cycling?


I told you that I am replying to your whingeing. A it happens, I haven't
given any opinion on the creation of such a law.


It seems to me that you are rather engaging in 'whinging' and are operating
under the false assumption that projecting such onto me will serve to discredit
me.

I happen to drive, walk and cycle which is clearly far more
than you do.

Your foolish comparisons and personal experience have no bearing
on the matter.

Apart from "I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured
by cyclists" what personal experience have I related to you?


You just purported to suggest that your driving, walking and cycling
more than I somehow makes you an authority, as though that lends
greater weight to your arguments. As I said, were it the case it
would still have absolutely no bearing on the matter.


Of course it does. It can't possibly have occurred to you that
pedestrians wander about in front of bicycles but don't in front of
motor vehicles.


Pedestrians do wander in front of other vehicles but even if they do so far
less in front of motor vehicles than they do in front of bicycles, it still has
no bearing on the legality of cyclists' conduct and whether there need be a law
to deal with death by dangerous cycling.

Other stuff snipped because it is getting boring.


One may draw whatever conclusions from that as would serve to give a more
likely explanation.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:28 PM.
Home - Home - Home - Home - Home

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com