View Single Post
  #17  
Old August 18th 18, 12:47 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,806
Default '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.
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home