On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:41:56 +0000, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" considered Sun, 25
Jan 2009 08:33:16 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:02:05 +0000, JNugent
said in
:

Why not just "start" by arresting footway cyclists, fining them (heavily) and
crushing their bikes?

For the same reason that you don't treat a runny nose by nasal
amputation. It's a symptom, and not even a serious one as far as
the available evidence goes.

I think you're feeding the trolls


Good old ****** - the questions are now becoming much too difficult
and are showing cyclists up in a bad light - it's time to play the
"troll" card.

Here's a difficult one for you:

Do you think that as a pedestrian you are more likely to be hit by a
bike being intentionally ridden along the path than you are by a car
being intentionally driven along the path.

--

Example 5 from the definition of a psycholist :

5) The word "troll" is in common usage in Usenet. However, the
psycholists have adopted it for their own use to apply to anyone who
disagrees with their ingrained and irrational views. This enables
them to say "ignore him - he is a troll" when faced with facts which
are too unpalatable for the psycholist to contemplate - never mind
discuss in a sensible fashion

--
Some say that cycling is as safe as walking:
There is a 39% greater chance of being killed or seriously injured as
a cyclist compared to as a pedestrian (DfT)