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.