"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
JNugent wrote:
Keitht wrote: JNugent wrote: Keitht wrote: JNugent wrote: Phil W Lee wrote: Doug : Surely if every time a driver set off on a journey they knew they could be facing a long prison sentence for killing or seriously injuring someone they would drive much more carefully and have more respect for the safety of vulnerable cyclists and pedestrians? I favour the spiked steering wheel boss myself, although for maximum psychological impact the spike would ideally be mounted about 14" lower. Doug and Lee interacting and egging each other on. A better example of the social reinforcement of bullying would be hard to find. The steering wheel spike is frequently quoted by police as being the only real item that would stop people riving like idiots. PL is only repeating what I've seen on telly several times. Doug, Lee and KeithT interacting and egging each other on. A better example of the social reinforcement of bullying would be hard to find. Unless another name can be added to the list. But we are only repeating what has been said by those who have to deal with the everyday mess that with is caused by poor and inconsiderate drivers. It would be better if you all stopped, *thought* about the topic, *considered* it and then either: It may be better if you stopped and thought. (a) made *sensible* suggestions instead of your usual fourth form level remarks, or (b) refrained from making any suggestions at all (since you don't appear to have any sensible ones to make). Pot -kettle Option (b) would make you all look less silly and less like demented beings braying against the normal (and real) world. Motor cars are not going away this side of a world cataclysm. Get used to it. Erm - I have never said anything about riddng the planet of motor vehicles? More than one person having seen or heard similar remarks from those qualified to investigate and interpret vehicle crashes are not engaged in some form of bullying. Real life - not something you seem to be that familiar with. Or is it just that you are jumping on the 'hate Doug' bandwagon which is is obvious bullying. I - as Doug ought to be the very first to admit - have never done that. When he is right (and he sometimes is), I support him. My pink half of the drainpipe. -- Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts. |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
On 13 Sep, 10:04, "Brimstone" wrote:
Doug wrote: On 12 Sep, 10:36, "Brimstone" wrote: Simon Brooke wrote: On 12 Sep, 08:03, "mileburner" wrote: I would suggest that you keep an eye on the traffic and be prepared to get out of it's way if it is coming at you and looking like it is not going to stop. The roads are dangerous donchaknow? While I agree they are dangerous, the question is whether it is tolerable in a civilised society to allow them to be this dangerous? It seems to me that either the people who drive have got to get a lot better at driving (I include myself), or slow down drastically, or be prevented from driving. Current standards of driving skill in this country are not acceptable. How do you legislate for a driver suffering a heart attack whilst in motion? Give every driver a medical once a year and impose draconian sentencing when they kill vulnerable road users. How does that stop a driver suffering from a heart attack whilst driving, how would you pay for the additional new doctors required to carry out the check and what sentence would you impose on a dead car driver? With testing you can mimimise the chances of a heart attack. As things stand heart attacks are being encouraged if there is no medical testing. The drivers would have to pay for their own medicals. When a driver hits a vulnerable road user the driver is unlikely to die. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill. |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
On 13 Sep, 13:18, "mileburner" wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote in message ... Doug wrote: On 12 Sep, 10:36, "Brimstone" wrote: Simon Brooke wrote: On 12 Sep, 08:03, "mileburner" wrote: I would suggest that you keep an eye on the traffic and be prepared to get out of it's way if it is coming at you and looking like it is not going to stop. The roads are dangerous donchaknow? While I agree they are dangerous, the question is whether it is tolerable in a civilised society to allow them to be this dangerous? It seems to me that either the people who drive have got to get a lot better at driving (I include myself), or slow down drastically, or be prevented from driving. Current standards of driving skill in this country are not acceptable. How do you legislate for a driver suffering a heart attack whilst in motion? Give every driver a medical once a year and impose draconian sentencing when they kill vulnerable road users. How does that stop a driver suffering from a heart attack whilst driving, how would you pay for the additional new doctors required to carry out the check and what sentence would you impose on a dead car driver? Howsabout banning anyone from driving who has a BMI 25. That way it would dramatically reduce the probability of said driver having heart attack, it would mean all the fatties would be forced to walk a bit more and get some much needed exercise, and reduce the traffic at the same time Big problems often have very simple solutions. Although an attractive idea it would be perceived as discrimination. Instead, a widespread reduction in car use could have several beneficial effects. I am thinking along the lines of the use of psychology to reduce wander-lust. Somehow remove the urge to move about aimlessly in cars and planes. -- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net Travel broadens the damage. |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
"Doug" wrote in message ... On 13 Sep, 13:18, "mileburner" wrote: Howsabout banning anyone from driving who has a BMI 25. That way it would dramatically reduce the probability of said driver having heart attack, it would mean all the fatties would be forced to walk a bit more and get some much needed exercise, and reduce the traffic at the same time Big problems often have very simple solutions. Although an attractive idea it would be perceived as discrimination. Instead, a widespread reduction in car use could have several beneficial effects. I am thinking along the lines of the use of psychology to reduce wander-lust. Somehow remove the urge to move about aimlessly in cars and planes. A big part of the problem is not that people *want* to travel aimlessly (as they might do by foot or cycle) but that people feel compelled that they *have* to travel; to work, to shop, take kids to school etc. by car, and firmly believe that there is no other option. Many people have said to me that they would *love* to cycle to work but they can't because [insert reason here] but most of the reasons could be overcome if they really wanted to cycle. It might mean moving home, or changing work, but it could be done *if* that is what they really wanted. The fact of the matter is, people generally prefer the comfort and convenience of sitting in their own car, than using other methods. Until such a time where people have a very good motive to use alternative methods (cost, health, time etc) they will continue to take the easier option. And for most people, that is a car. |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
Doug wrote:
On 13 Sep, 10:04, "Brimstone" wrote: Doug wrote: On 12 Sep, 10:36, "Brimstone" wrote: Simon Brooke wrote: On 12 Sep, 08:03, "mileburner" wrote: I would suggest that you keep an eye on the traffic and be prepared to get out of it's way if it is coming at you and looking like it is not going to stop. The roads are dangerous donchaknow? While I agree they are dangerous, the question is whether it is tolerable in a civilised society to allow them to be this dangerous? It seems to me that either the people who drive have got to get a lot better at driving (I include myself), or slow down drastically, or be prevented from driving. Current standards of driving skill in this country are not acceptable. How do you legislate for a driver suffering a heart attack whilst in motion? Give every driver a medical once a year and impose draconian sentencing when they kill vulnerable road users. How does that stop a driver suffering from a heart attack whilst driving, how would you pay for the additional new doctors required to carry out the check and what sentence would you impose on a dead car driver? With testing you can mimimise the chances of a heart attack. As things stand heart attacks are being encouraged if there is no medical testing. The drivers would have to pay for their own medicals. Many very fit people, the kind who are in physically demanding jobs, run or take physical exercise every day, die of heart attacks Doug. The people paying for exams down't pay for the training of new doctors Doug, where are they to come from and where will they be accommodated to carry out their duties? When a driver hits a vulnerable road user the driver is unlikely to die. Which shows your inability to follow an argument through. If a driver has a heart attack and collides with anything or anyone, he is quite possibly already dead or is shortly after. Why should someone who has no history of heart trouble but suffers a heart attack be imprisoned Doug? |
"Cycling is not dangerous. Cars are dangerous."
Brimstone wrote:
Doug wrote: On 13 Sep, 10:04, "Brimstone" wrote: Doug wrote: On 12 Sep, 10:36, "Brimstone" wrote: Simon Brooke wrote: On 12 Sep, 08:03, "mileburner" wrote: I would suggest that you keep an eye on the traffic and be prepared to get out of it's way if it is coming at you and looking like it is not going to stop. The roads are dangerous donchaknow? While I agree they are dangerous, the question is whether it is tolerable in a civilised society to allow them to be this dangerous? It seems to me that either the people who drive have got to get a lot better at driving (I include myself), or slow down drastically, or be prevented from driving. Current standards of driving skill in this country are not acceptable. How do you legislate for a driver suffering a heart attack whilst in motion? Give every driver a medical once a year and impose draconian sentencing when they kill vulnerable road users. How does that stop a driver suffering from a heart attack whilst driving, how would you pay for the additional new doctors required to carry out the check and what sentence would you impose on a dead car driver? With testing you can mimimise the chances of a heart attack. As things stand heart attacks are being encouraged if there is no medical testing. The drivers would have to pay for their own medicals. Many very fit people, the kind who are in physically demanding jobs, run or take physical exercise every day, die of heart attacks Doug. The people paying for exams down't pay for the training of new doctors Doug, where are they to come from and where will they be accommodated to carry out their duties? When a driver hits a vulnerable road user the driver is unlikely to die. Which shows your inability to follow an argument through. If a driver has a heart attack and collides with anything or anyone, he is quite possibly already dead or is shortly after. Why should someone who has no history of heart trouble but suffers a heart attack be imprisoned Doug? Indeed should it be any different if a cyclist suffers a heart attack? -- Tony Dragon |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com