TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 20/07/2013 18:16, TMS320 wrote:

I didn't say "stationary motor vehicles represent the far greater
threat to pedestrians". I said that "motor vehicles represent the
far greater threat to pedestrians". Is there a factual error?

There is an error in ignoring the correct context, which was the
topic of stationary motor vehicles (with a later comparison between
such stationary vehicles and moving bicycles).

I couldn't give a stuff about context. When I go from place to place,
in order to complete my journey succesfully my actions have to take
into account all sources of danger. It's about absolutes, not about
trying to categorise against some kind of "motive". The wailing and
gnashing of teeth that goes on over the occasional cyclist is totally
out of proportion. Motor vehicles are by far the greatest danger to
pedestrians.

So is there a level below which it just doesn't matter? I mean is it OK if
I only kill one cyclist per year for instance? That would not represent
much danger to cyclists would it? Could I incapacitate two per year? or
perhaps 4 broken bones in a year, all without censure of course, since it
doesn't represent much danger to cyclists in general.