View Single Post
Old August 24th 18, 02:18 PM posted to,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
external usenet poster
Posts: 54
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 2018-08-24, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-20, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:

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.

What a splendid false dichotomy. In fact, it is like having over
thirty people killed every week by rifle-wielding thugs and telling
the police to ignore it... and then, on the one occasion where
someone holding a dagger kills someone, declare it a national
emergency and demand that 'public enemy number 1' be brought to

It really isn't.

Erm, yes it is.

What utter rot.

Yeah, the bit three lines up.

Such a witty rejoinder takes me back to my school days where one might
hear a fierce rebuttal expressed in terms of 'I know you are!'

I felt the same way when reading, 'What utter rot'.

That's why after this response, I shall be 'bowing out' of the thread.

I understand your need for a tactical withdrawal at this stage.

Whilst determination and 'pluckiness' can be admirable, it's somewhat
unseemly to keep arguing the toss when you have lost the argument. And
that you evidently don't think you have, is testament simply to your
overinflated ego and your refusal to recognise and accept that you have

One could equally apply those words to you. However, I have long noticed that
those are typical sentiments that someone expresses in order that they may
claim to have won an argument without having the burden of formulating any
substantive response.

'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'.

That is known as an analogy.

No, it would be a simile and not an analogy.


No I'm not.

Oh yes you are.

A simile is used for descriptive purposes.

'simile, _n_
A comparison of one thing with another, esp. as an ornament in
poetry or rhetoric....'
(_The OED_, retrieved 24 August 2018)

Ah, one of your selective pastes for the purposes of obfuscation.

"...a figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by
like or as (as in cheeks like roses)"

The above is an analogy intended for purposes of comparison.

'analogy, _n_
Similarity, resemblance; an instance of this...


Correspondence between two things, or in the relationship between
two things and their respective attributes; parallelism,
equivalence, or an instance of this....'
(_The OED_, retrieved 24 August 2018)

Another selective paste.

"...a : a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect"

Since it reads very much as if you went to school in Britain after the end
of the 'golden period' when English grammar was actually taught to

This concerns word definitions and has nothing to do with grammar.

you should know that whilst it is by no means whatsoever a hard
and fast rule, a simile is often introduced by 'like'.

The 'as' or 'like' is of course for descriptive purposes. The fact that I used
the word 'like' does not render my usage a simile any more than saying 'It's
like you don't want to be here' is a simile.

But it is neither, because it is a false dichotomy, i.e. an 'either or'
presented as the only two options.

And as I said, the false dichotomy is not mine but rather that which has
been presented as the main objection within this thread to a law on Death
By Dangerous Cycling: that car drivers cause far more harm than cyclists,
the implication being that cyclists should be left alone.

This is a statistical fact.

It might well be but it does not imply that cyclists should therefore be let
off for dangerous cycling that results in death.

If you want a good example of a false dichotomy, one need look no
further than the suggestion that no further laws are needed to deal
with cylists because cars present a more significant danger.


Just as well no one has suggested this, then.

In fact, they have.

No they haven't.

The problem is that TM has indicated directly that this was his suggestion so I
am afraid you are wrong once again.

What I - and, I believe, many others - have pointed out
is that the far right government in the UK,

That is a most amusing assertion.

in hock to the Road Haulage
Association and to the automobile and petrolchemincal industries, has
deliberately dragged its feet on a 'road safety review' study that was
supposed to be published four years ago.

I don't suppose you have proof of those assertions?

One cyclist kills one pedestrian,
and the sky is falling.

In actual fact, the sky isn't falling; there is a law under consideration.

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home