|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 18/08/18 14:23, Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote: 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: 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.Â* 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"). Were I to walk along a cycle lane, I would of course make an effort to stay safe because I had no business being there.Â* However, on a footpath, the responsibility is not mine. You keep flopping between traffic lights and footpaths and snipped my assessment of pedestrian behaviour amongst motor and cycle traffic ON THE ROAD. Please be warned. Next time I shall insult you. Yes, responsibility shifts somewhat on a footpath but you are clearly expecting something from a cyclist that you would never expect from a driver. 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.Â* 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. What you mean to say is that I am not doing you any favours. I don't go through red traffic lights and when I go off ROAD on the bike I am there to potter and enjoy the surroundings. I am here to take issue with your whingeing. 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.Â* He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me.Â* 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? 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.Â* 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. It is not illegal to carry a dagger. There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct that cyclists are supposed to abide by. People claim they do not abide by them but please don't try to suggest that if they don't it is necessarily dangerous - real danger that produces statics, not imaginary. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclisThjet who did not respect a red light.Â* 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.Â* The driver started driving away from a red light early and wasn't going very fast.Â* The times I have almost been hit by lycra louts, many of them have been cycling at high speed. Stop ignoring statistics. No; you stop misusing statistics to change the focus to drivers because of an abiding resentment you harbour towards them.Â* Once you acknowledge that and start to deal with it, you will see things far more clearly and no doubt feel much better as well. So you're suggesting the official figure of thousands of pedestrians killed or injured every year by drivers doesn't make driving a dangerous activity? I happen to drive, walk and cycle which is clearly far more than you do. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
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 justice. Y. -- john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons) 'It never gets any easier. You just get faster' (Greg LeMond (1961 - )) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/08/18 14:23, Incubus wrote: On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote: 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: 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.Â* 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"). Were I to walk along a cycle lane, I would of course make an effort to stay safe because I had no business being there.Â* However, on a footpath, the responsibility is not mine. You keep flopping between traffic lights and footpaths and snipped my assessment of pedestrian behaviour amongst motor and cycle traffic ON THE ROAD. Please be warned. Next time I shall insult you. Oh, the pain! I don't think you know how to insult me. The behaviour of pedestrians towards cyclists on the road is not relevant to the points I made so it would perhaps serve your delicate constitution better were you to refrain from introducing red herrings given the umbrage you take when they are routinely ignored. Yes, responsibility shifts somewhat on a footpath but you are clearly expecting something from a cyclist that you would never expect from a driver. That is a falsehood. I don't expect drivers to ignore red lights or to drive along the pavement either. 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.Â* 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. What you mean to say is that I am not doing you any favours. I don't go through red traffic lights and when I go off ROAD on the bike I am there to potter and enjoy the surroundings. I am here to take issue with your whingeing. Ah, so you premuse to be the standard by which all cyclists are to be judged? 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.Â* He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me.Â* 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? 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.Â* 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. It is not illegal to carry a dagger. It certainly is in a public place. What an utterly foolish reply. There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct that cyclists are supposed to abide by. And do you suppose that they do? People claim they do not abide by them but please don't try to suggest that if they don't it is necessarily dangerous - real danger that produces statics, not imaginary. You are seeking to misuse statistics. I would wager that very few motorists actually cause accidents but according to what puports to be your logic, that means there is no real danger. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclisThjet who did not respect a red light.Â* 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.Â* The driver started driving away from a red light early and wasn't going very fast.Â* The times I have almost been hit by lycra louts, many of them have been cycling at high speed. Stop ignoring statistics. No; you stop misusing statistics to change the focus to drivers because of an abiding resentment you harbour towards them.Â* Once you acknowledge that and start to deal with it, you will see things far more clearly and no doubt feel much better as well. So you're suggesting the official figure of thousands of pedestrians killed or injured every year by drivers doesn't make driving a dangerous activity? That is not what I said. You are going to have to do much better than silly straw man arguments if you wish for me to take you seriously. I happen to drive, walk and cycle which is clearly far more than you do. Your foolish comparisons and personal experience have no bearing on the matter. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
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 justice. It really isn't. I haven't advocated focussing on scofflaw cyclists to the exclusion of bad or downright dangerous drivers. As I have said all along, both should be dealt with. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:49:34 -0000 (UTC), 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 justice. It really isn't. I haven't advocated focussing on scofflaw cyclists to the exclusion of bad or downright dangerous drivers. As I have said all along, both should be dealt with. i do wish you stop talking sense and say instead what he's rather you said...you'd make him far happier and we may get some peace from his whining -- www.abelard.org |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 2018-08-20, abelard wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:49:34 -0000 (UTC), 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 justice. It really isn't. I haven't advocated focussing on scofflaw cyclists to the exclusion of bad or downright dangerous drivers. As I have said all along, both should be dealt with. i do wish you stop talking sense and say instead what he's rather you said...you'd make him far happier and we may get some peace from his whining While I do encourage people to have hobbies and be passionate about them, one musn't lose one's sense of reason. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
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 justice. It really isn't. Erm, yes it is. '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'. I haven't advocated focussing on scofflaw cyclists to the exclusion of bad or downright dangerous drivers. As I have said all along, both should be dealt with. Your bias is revealed every single time you concentrate on cyclists who - you claim - are more of a nuisance than car drivers. This is not the case, and this has been amply demonstrated. But still, you keep on spouting this completely inaccurate 'factoid' as if it were an accepted truth. This is like Naziboi talking about 'illegal settlements' as if they were a generally accepted truth. Do you think it'll 'become' true if you keep writing it? Y. -- Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein 'A conservative is a man who sits and thinks. Mostly sits'. (Woodrow Wilson) http://www.palwatch.org/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
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 justice. It really isn't. Erm, yes it is. What utter rot. '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. 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. I haven't advocated focussing on scofflaw cyclists to the exclusion of bad or downright dangerous drivers. As I have said all along, both should be dealt with. Your bias is revealed every single time you concentrate on cyclists who - you claim - are more of a nuisance than car drivers. I didn't say that. I said my experience is that they are more of a danger because certain areas of England appear to be particularly hazardous when it comes to scofflaw cyclists and lycra louts. It is in those areas that such laws would be beneficial to the hapless pedestrian. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-17, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: 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. Your lexical choices are revealing. I've never heard a driver described as 'feral'. One calls them 'dangerous' or 'careless'. But 'feral'? 'Of an animal: Wild, untamed. Of a plant, also (rarely), of ground: Uncultivated...' (_The OED_, retrieved 17 August 2018) This really does demonstrate the low regard in which cyclists are held by the general population [1], and the belief that they are 'out of control'. Lawless, maybe. Candour compels me to admit that I deliberately chose that word safe in the knowledge that it would get a rise out of someone. Uh-huh. However, it is a reasonable choice of word to describe people who have shouted at me because they expected me to move out of their way while they were riding on the footpath. It's no wonder that there is such clamour on the part of the mentally disadvantaged to have cyclists 'registered' and to 'make' them pay 'insurance'. Another kettle of fish, of course. I would settle for them staying off the pavement, in which case I won't feel the need to elbow them off their machines into the path of an oncoming Audi. What do you do about the car drivers who - as we have seen - are far more numerous on the footway than are cyclists? Do you 'elbow them' out of the way, too? That doesn't happen where I live. I imagine I would film them and rely on the numberplate to identify them... |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 06:06:25 GMT, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
wrote: In uk.politics.misc Joe wrote: On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 12:35:54 +0100 Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: In uk.politics.misc Ophelia wrote: "Joe" wrote in message Yes, I agree! Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I see cyclists continuing straight through!!! QED. This belief that cyclists 'don't stop at red lights' (or that they fail to stop at red lights at a rate greater than car drivers) is so absolutely and firmly entrenched in the car driver's psyche, that it has been elevated almost to the level of absolute truth. The sun rises in the east. Water boils at 100° C. 1+1=2. Cyclists don't stop at red lights. Except that it isn't true. It's quite fascinating - not only that so many people can believe so fervently in a falsehood that is becomes almost like a religion. But equally fascinating is that public policy can be decided based on this complete fantasy. Except that it is true. At the moment, Whitechapel station has a temporary entrance opposite a traffic-light pedestrian crossing across the A11. A while ago, I had occasion to cross the road there four times a week for a month or so. More than half the time, at least one cyclist, sometimes half a dozen would cross the crossing at about 20mph while I was walking across. I never looked round, so I don't know if the same was happening the other side of the road, but I see no reason to assume otherwise. On the other side of the road from Whitechapel station is the Royal London Hospital, so a fair percentage of the pedestrians were not too steady on their feet. I never actually saw a collision, nor do I know how many of the bicycles had brakes, but the riders were universally what my daughter, a cyclist herself, calls 'feral' cyclists. Big helmets, heads down, oblivious to the world around them... So don't lie. Agreed! He can dream all he likes but I do see them and they are always as you describe - Ferals! Remarkable! This is fascinating! Do you see unicorns prancing around the fields too? This really is fascinating. Two people who if asked would no doubt consider themselves sane, rational and intelligent, but both absolutely convinced of the prevalance of a phenomonem which in fact is extremely rare. And both of them completely immune to reason. The capacity for delusion is almost awe-inspiring. Are you really sure you want to try to prove a negative? What are you offering in lieu of evidence? What _is_ it about the right and its complete inability to grasp logic? Oh, wait. The right. I just answered my own question. _You_ are asserting a greater prevalance of 'bad behaviour' on the part of cyclists than car drivers. _You_ provide the proof - which you have steadfastly refused to do, relying on anecdotal evidence, just like WS/Incubus. They may not do it where you live, but they certainly do here. The crossing I mention is an extreme case: it's a wide, busy road with those blue cycle paths on both sides, and there's no motor traffic crossing it there, so from a cyclist's point of view there's little reason to stop at the red light. Anecdotal evidence, i.e. totally irrelevant. Next ! Y. I'm not sure that your support for cycling alongside your fanatical anti- Palestinan views helps us here. Thanks anyway. -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Death-by-dangerous-cycling law considered | David Lang | UK | 2 | September 4th 15 10:54 AM |
Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 33 | April 13th 11 07:53 PM |
"Death-by-dangerous-cycling law considered" | Doug[_3_] | UK | 1 | April 12th 11 08:25 AM |