|
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when it comes to pedestrian safety from cyclists. But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous drivers". Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers - in law. The casualty statistics happen to show the danger of drivers and their motor vehicles is ever present. It is not irrelevant. By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by a motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas they expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to observe or experience. I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled within us from a very early age. However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I simply did not see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. Once I had ascertained that he had not succeeded in scratching my cowboy boot, I continued on my way and left him to the ministrations of a sympathetic female. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there is only one incident I can recall when I was almost hit by a car whose driver ignored a red light. Although I always take care, the fact is that cyclists are far more likely to think that they are not obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is upon them. |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
"Incubus" wrote in message ... On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when it comes to pedestrian safety from cyclists. But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous drivers". Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers - in law. The casualty statistics happen to show the danger of drivers and their motor vehicles is ever present. It is not irrelevant. By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by a motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas they expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to observe or experience. I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled within us from a very early age. However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I simply did not see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. Once I had ascertained that he had not succeeded in scratching my cowboy boot, I continued on my way and left him to the ministrations of a sympathetic female. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there is only one incident I can recall when I was almost hit by a car whose driver ignored a red light. Although I always take care, the fact is that cyclists are far more likely to think that they are not obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is upon them. == Yes, I agree! Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I see cyclists continuing straight through!!! How the hell some cars miss them I don't know. Guess who would be in trouble if they did get hit by a car? |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 2018-08-16, Ophelia wrote:
"Incubus" wrote in message ... On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when it comes to pedestrian safety from cyclists. But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous drivers". Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers - in law. The casualty statistics happen to show the danger of drivers and their motor vehicles is ever present. It is not irrelevant. By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by a motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas they expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to observe or experience. I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled within us from a very early age. However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I simply did not see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. Once I had ascertained that he had not succeeded in scratching my cowboy boot, I continued on my way and left him to the ministrations of a sympathetic female. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there is only one incident I can recall when I was almost hit by a car whose driver ignored a red light. Although I always take care, the fact is that cyclists are far more likely to think that they are not obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is upon them. == Yes, I agree! Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I see cyclists continuing straight through!!! How the hell some cars miss them I don't know. Guess who would be in trouble if they did get hit by a car? The creators of Monkey Dust understood such people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
"Incubus" wrote in message ... On 2018-08-16, Ophelia wrote: "Incubus" wrote in message ... On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when it comes to pedestrian safety from cyclists. But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous drivers". Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers - in law. The casualty statistics happen to show the danger of drivers and their motor vehicles is ever present. It is not irrelevant. By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by a motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas they expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to observe or experience. I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled within us from a very early age. However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I simply did not see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. Once I had ascertained that he had not succeeded in scratching my cowboy boot, I continued on my way and left him to the ministrations of a sympathetic female. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there is only one incident I can recall when I was almost hit by a car whose driver ignored a red light. Although I always take care, the fact is that cyclists are far more likely to think that they are not obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is upon them. == Yes, I agree! Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I see cyclists continuing straight through!!! How the hell some cars miss them I don't know. Guess who would be in trouble if they did get hit by a car? The creators of Monkey Dust understood such people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y == That would be very funny if it were not so apt! |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 16/08/18 14:15, Ophelia wrote:
Yes, I agree!* Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I see cyclists continuing straight through!!! How the hell some cars miss them I don't know. Because they miss the cars...? Guess who would be in trouble if they did get hit by a car? People have been whinging about it for long enough that if it is just a theoretical problem, it is not worth worrying about. Alternatively it has already happened and examination of official records would make guesswork unnecessary. |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. In that case you could have left out the words "errant" and "dangerous". Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when it comes to pedestrian safety from cyclists. But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous drivers". Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers - in law. The casualty statistics happen to show the danger of drivers and their motor vehicles is ever present. It is not irrelevant. By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by a motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas they expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to observe or experience. I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled within us from a very early age. Then I did give a fair summation of the facts. But I will state again that it doesn't transfer to being in proximity to cyclists. Even on the road (*). However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. A footpath (not footway) is not reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Though I happen to agree with the sentiment because when I am not near motor vehicles I want to wander with my head in the clouds yet I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured by cyclists. So I wonder what the difference is between us. I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I simply did not see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. Once I had ascertained that he had not succeeded in scratching my cowboy boot, I continued on my way and left him to the ministrations of a sympathetic female. Which shows that a cyclist has a very high chance of auto-punishment. Unlike a driver. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there is only one incident I can recall when I was almost hit by a car whose driver ignored a red light. Although I always take care, the fact is that cyclists are far more likely to think that they are not obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is upon them. And that one occasion put you at enormously higher risk of injury than all the others combined. I wonder how many other possible incidents with drivers you have stayed away from without giving it any conscious thought. See above (*). |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 16/08/18 22:54, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc TMS320 wrote: On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. ... And meanwhile ... 2 people killed by cyclists, 1,698 killed by car drivers. But cyclists are 'the menace'. The cognitive dissonance screams to the ****ing heavens. It is notable that cyclists are always "speeding" - unless a driver is waiting to overtake. Drivers unfailingly underestimate their speed and consider 30mph to be "hardly moving" yet people always overestimate the speed of a cyclist, eg, what the eye witness estimates as 25mph will be 15mph an so on. It seems that cycling at any speed that is faster than the observer (pedestrian or driver stuck in traffic) - even seen at a distance - is "dangerous". |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 22:46:03 +0100
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: In uk.politics.misc Ophelia wrote: Yes, I agree! Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I see cyclists continuing straight through!!! QED. This belief that cyclists 'don't stop at red lights' (or that they fail to stop at red lights at a rate greater than car drivers) is so absolutely and firmly entrenched in the car driver's psyche, that it has been elevated almost to the level of absolute truth. The sun rises in the east. Water boils at 100° C. 1+1=2. Cyclists don't stop at red lights. Except that it isn't true. It's quite fascinating - not only that so many people can believe so fervently in a falsehood that is becomes almost like a religion. But equally fascinating is that public policy can be decided based on this complete fantasy. Except that it is true. At the moment, Whitechapel station has a temporary entrance opposite a traffic-light pedestrian crossing across the A11. A while ago, I had occasion to cross the road there four times a week for a month or so. More than half the time, at least one cyclist, sometimes half a dozen would cross the crossing at about 20mph while I was walking across. I never looked round, so I don't know if the same was happening the other side of the road, but I see no reason to assume otherwise. On the other side of the road from Whitechapel station is the Royal London Hospital, so a fair percentage of the pedestrians were not too steady on their feet. I never actually saw a collision, nor do I know how many of the bicycles had brakes, but the riders were universally what my daughter, a cyclist herself, calls 'feral' cyclists. Big helmets, heads down, oblivious to the world around them... So don't lie. -- Joe |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. In that case you could have left out the words "errant" and "dangerous". I had the option to but they are there for the purpose of expressing their meaning. Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when it comes to pedestrian safety from cyclists. But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous drivers". Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers - in law. The casualty statistics happen to show the danger of drivers and their motor vehicles is ever present. It is not irrelevant. By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by a motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas they expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to observe or experience. I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts. Pedestrians do take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled within us from a very early age. Then I did give a fair summation of the facts. But I will state again that it doesn't transfer to being in proximity to cyclists. Even on the road (*). It is not a fair summation of the facts; the pedestrian is obliged to be careful on the road but the burden is on drivers where it comes to red lights and mounting pavements. Who on Earth could possibly think otherwise? However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. A footpath (not footway) is not reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Though I happen to agree with the sentiment because when I am not near motor vehicles I want to wander with my head in the clouds yet I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured by cyclists. So I wonder what the difference is between us. Perhaps you have never lived nor worked in places like Weybridge where feral cyclists are numerous. I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I simply did not see. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. Once I had ascertained that he had not succeeded in scratching my cowboy boot, I continued on my way and left him to the ministrations of a sympathetic female. Which shows that a cyclist has a very high chance of auto-punishment. Unlike a driver. The cyclist also have a very high chance of harming someone else. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. On the other hand, there is only one incident I can recall when I was almost hit by a car whose driver ignored a red light. Although I always take care, the fact is that cyclists are far more likely to think that they are not obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is upon them. And that one occasion put you at enormously higher risk of injury than all the others combined. Actually, it didn't. The driver started driving away from a red light early and wasn't going very fast. The times I have almost been hit by lycra louts, many of them have been cycling at high speed. |
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 2018-08-17, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: A footpath (not footway) is not reserved for the use of the pedestrian alone. Though I happen to agree with the sentiment because when I am not near motor vehicles I want to wander with my head in the clouds yet I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured by cyclists. So I wonder what the difference is between us. Perhaps you have never lived nor worked in places like Weybridge where feral cyclists are numerous. Your lexical choices are revealing. I've never heard a driver described as 'feral'. One calls them 'dangerous' or 'careless'. But 'feral'? 'Of an animal: Wild, untamed. Of a plant, also (rarely), of ground: Uncultivated...' (_The OED_, retrieved 17 August 2018) This really does demonstrate the low regard in which cyclists are held by the general population [1], and the belief that they are 'out of control'. Lawless, maybe. Candour compels me to admit that I deliberately chose that word safe in the knowledge that it would get a rise out of someone. However, it is a reasonable choice of word to describe people who have shouted at me because they expected me to move out of their way while they were riding on the footpath. It's no wonder that there is such clamour on the part of the mentally disadvantaged to have cyclists 'registered' and to 'make' them pay 'insurance'. Another kettle of fish, of course. I would settle for them staying off the pavement, in which case I won't feel the need to elbow them off their machines into the path of an oncoming Audi. |
'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 |
'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. |
'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) |
'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. |
'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. |
'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 |
'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. |
'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? |
'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.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* The driver started driving away from a red light early and wasn't going very fast.Â* 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. |
'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 |
'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.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* The driver started driving away from a red light early and wasn't going very fast.Â* 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.Â* 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. |
'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 - )) |
'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.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* The driver started driving away from a red light early and wasn't going very fast.Â* 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.Â* 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. |
'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. |
'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 |
'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. |
'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/ |
'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. |
'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... |
'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. |
'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. |
'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? |
'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? |
'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! |
'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 |
'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. |
'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. |
'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. |
'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 |
'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 06:30 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com