On 4 Feb, 22:36, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:08:16 -0800 (PST), Paul Weaver



wrote:
On 4 Feb, 15:53, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:07:39 -0000, "Dave"

wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:35:10 -0800 (PST), Squashme
wrote:

So it goes.

http://tinyurl.com/bm9ydc

Why wasn't the victim wearing body armour, you may ask?

Many thanks for posting that.

It does of course remind us all that cycling can be very dangerous.

Cycling is not dangerous.

What can be sometimes dangerous is the actions of the person riding it or as
is usually the case people around them.

This is without disputing that there are some accidents that are the fault
of cyclists - just like some pedestrian accidents are the fault of
pedestrians. Generally speaking many courts are of the opinion that a
motorist who hits a pedestrian is at majority fault even if the pedestrian
is not looking - yet the same is not always the case with a cyclist involved
with a motorist.

Dave

I disagree - cycling on road is dangerous - as the cyclist is so
dependant on the actions of others - irrespective as to how careful
the cyclist is being.

In the same way that pedestrians are vulnerable to cyclists on
pavements - irrespective as to how careful the pedestrian is being.

In the same way that pedestrians are vulnerable to motorists on
pavements - irrespective as to how careful the pedestrian is be

You are of course quite right - but not to the same degree of
magnitude *- *you are more likely to be hit by a bike on the pavement
than you are by a car.

Perhaps. Anecdotally, I've never been hit by a car on a pavement, I
have been hit by 2 bikes in the last year alone.

But you're more likely to be killed or seriously inhured from being
hit by car on a pavement though.