Yet another cyclist dies on our unsafe roads, because of the Olympics..

Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win gold medals than kill cyclists.

"A man has been arrested after the death of a cyclist who was struck by an Olympic bus close to the Olympic Park.

The man, aged in his mid-60s, was detained after the cyclist, 28, died at the scene, at the junction of Ruckholt Road and East Cross Road, Hackney.

Police and an air ambulance attended the scene after the crash, which happened at about 19:45 BST.

Scotland Yard said the suspect was being held on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

He was taken to an east London police station.

The crash, involving an Olympic media bus, happened close to the Olympic hockey centre, velodrome and Paralympic tennis arena.

Mo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19087826

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.

On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:

Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win gold medals than kill cyclists.

If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with it.

It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.

So much so that whilst "we" have some sort of collective aim to win medals,
when it comes to killing cyclists, we have quite the opposite sort aim - we
aim for a nil score.

On Wed, 1 Aug 2012 23:49:05 -0700 (PDT), Doug wrote:

Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win gold medals than kill cyclists.

"A man has been arrested after the death of a cyclist who was struck by an Olympic bus close to the Olympic Park.

The man, aged in his mid-60s, was detained after the cyclist, 28, died at the scene, at the junction of Ruckholt Road and East Cross Road, Hackney.

Police and an air ambulance attended the scene after the crash, which happened at about 19:45 BST.

Scotland Yard said the suspect was being held on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

He was taken to an east London police station.

The crash, involving an Olympic media bus, happened close to the Olympic hockey centre, velodrome and Paralympic tennis arena.

Mo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19087826

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.


I think it should be illegal to cycle down the left hand side of a bus or HGV -
and do it on the pain of death

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:38:02 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:



Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win gold medals than kill cyclists.



If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with it..



It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.

Typical motorist's undervaluing of human life, unless of course it involves him.

From my POV gold medals are merely a fantasy of a mob of jingoistic fanatics which will fade with time, thankfully.

I have considered starting a thread here entitled, "It will soon be over" to consider the massive news media overkill and interference with the human rights of others created by the Olympics policing and in which lack of cycling safety would figure strongly.

Are you aware of the recent protests?

"...Despite claiming to be green, and claiming that the Towpath along the river Lee would be a cycling and walking route to the olympics. Despite this they have
now closed the towpath and their suggested alternative route is via the Bow
Roundabout death trap..."


So much so that whilst "we" have some sort of collective aim to win medals,

when it comes to killing cyclists, we have quite the opposite sort aim - we

aim for a nil score.

On the contrary, traffic flow is given priority over cyclists' safety, as evidenced by the special Olympic (ZiL) lanes and the recent protests about Olympic lane/path closures which threaten cyclist's safety.

-- .
One person's managed democracy is another person's Aristotleian mob.

On 08/08/2012 09:03, Doug wrote:

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:38:02 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:

Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win gold medals than kill cyclists.

If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with it.
It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.

Typical motorist's undervaluing of human life, unless of course it involves him.

Bzzzt!

You have totally failed to read and understand what was written: 100% wrong
on your part.

From my POV gold medals are merely a fantasy of a mob of jingoistic fanatics which will fade with time, thankfully.

That's your view. Mine isn't all that different. Not enough to argue about,
at any rate.

I have considered starting a thread here entitled, "It will soon be over" to consider the massive news media overkill and interference with the human rights of others created by the Olympics policing and in which lack of cycling safety would figure strongly.

Have you?

Are you aware of the recent protests?

Which ones?

"...Despite claiming to be green, and claiming that the Towpath along the river Lee would be a cycling and walking route to the olympics. Despite this they have
now closed the towpath and their suggested alternative route is via the Bow
Roundabout death trap..."

What about just not travelling in (the relevant parts of) London at all
during the Olympics? It's what most have decided to do (an easy decision for me).

So much so that whilst "we" have some sort of collective aim to win medals,
when it comes to killing cyclists, we have quite the opposite sort aim - we
aim for a nil score.

Realised your mistake yet?

On the contrary, traffic flow is given priority over cyclists' safety, as evidenced by the special Olympic (ZiL) lanes and the recent protests about Olympic lane/path closures which threaten cyclist's safety.

Don't expect me to support the Olympic Lanes, any more than the John
Prescott/Tony Blair lane on the M4 or the so-called "bus lane" (ie, the hard
shoulder safety strip) on the A329(M).

One person's managed democracy is another person's Aristotleian mob.

That's "Aristotelian", BTW.

On 08/08/2012 09:03, Doug wrote:
On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:38:02 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:



Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win gold medals than kill cyclists.



If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with it.



It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.

Typical motorist's undervaluing of human life, unless of course it involves him.

From my POV gold medals are merely a fantasy of a mob of jingoistic fanatics which will fade with time, thankfully.

I have considered starting a thread here entitled, "It will soon be over" to consider the massive news media overkill and interference with the human rights of others created by the Olympics policing and in which lack of cycling safety would figure strongly.

Are you aware of the recent protests?

"...Despite claiming to be green, and claiming that the Towpath along the river Lee would be a cycling and walking route to the olympics. Despite this they have
now closed the towpath and their suggested alternative route is via the Bow
Roundabout death trap..."


So much so that whilst "we" have some sort of collective aim to win medals,

when it comes to killing cyclists, we have quite the opposite sort aim - we

aim for a nil score.

On the contrary, traffic flow is given priority over cyclists' safety, as evidenced by the special Olympic (ZiL) lanes and the recent protests about Olympic lane/path closures which threaten cyclist's safety.

-- .
One person's managed democracy is another person's Aristotleian mob.


So you think it is more important to kill cyclists than to win gold
medals, and before you argues, that is what your post says.

On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:15:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2012 09:03, Doug wrote:



On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:38:02 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:



Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win gold medals than kill cyclists.



If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with it.

It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.



Typical motorist's undervaluing of human life, unless of course it involves him.



Bzzzt!



You have totally failed to read and understand what was written: 100% wrong

on your part.

Explain then in humanitarian terms how winning gold medals is more important than killing cyclists.


From my POV gold medals are merely a fantasy of a mob of jingoistic fanatics which will fade with time, thankfully.



That's your view. Mine isn't all that different. Not enough to argue about,

at any rate.



I have considered starting a thread here entitled, "It will soon be over" to consider the massive news media overkill and interference with the human rights of others created by the Olympics policing and in which lack of cycling safety would figure strongly.



Have you?

Not yet.


Are you aware of the recent protests?



Which ones?

Any.


"...Despite claiming to be green, and claiming that the Towpath along the river Lee would be a cycling and walking route to the olympics. Despite this they have

now closed the towpath and their suggested alternative route is via the Bow

Roundabout death trap..."



What about just not travelling in (the relevant parts of) London at all

during the Olympics? It's what most have decided to do (an easy decision for me).

So what you are suggesting is a self-imposed total ban on using a certain area of London? Wouldn't this be equivalent to the Critical Mass hold-ups of traffic once a month magnified a zillion-zillion times?


So much so that whilst "we" have some sort of collective aim to win medals,

when it comes to killing cyclists, we have quite the opposite sort aim - we

aim for a nil score.



Realised your mistake yet?

Whose mistake?


On the contrary, traffic flow is given priority over cyclists' safety, as evidenced by the special Olympic (ZiL) lanes and the recent protests about Olympic lane/path closures which threaten cyclist's safety.



Don't expect me to support the Olympic Lanes, any more than the John

Prescott/Tony Blair lane on the M4 or the so-called "bus lane" (ie, the hard

shoulder safety strip) on the A329(M).

Do you agree with me then that cyclist safety has been reduced by the Olympics?


One person's managed democracy is another person's Aristotleian mob.



That's "Aristotelian", BTW.

On 09/08/2012 08:20, Doug wrote:
On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:15:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2012 09:03, Doug wrote:



On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:38:02 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:



Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win gold medals than kill cyclists.



If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with it.

It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.



Typical motorist's undervaluing of human life, unless of course it involves him.



Bzzzt!



You have totally failed to read and understand what was written: 100% wrong

on your part.

Explain then in humanitarian terms how winning gold medals is more important than killing cyclists.

Are you serious?

Can you *read*?

On Aug 9, 3:36*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2012 08:20, Doug wrote:









On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:15:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2012 09:03, Doug wrote:

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:38:02 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:

Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win gold medals than kill cyclists.

If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with it.

It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.

Typical motorist's undervaluing of human life, unless of course it involves him.

Bzzzt!

You have totally failed to read and understand what was written: 100% wrong

on your part.

Explain then in humanitarian terms how winning gold medals is more important than killing cyclists.

Are you serious?

Can you *read*?

Can you explain yourself at all or do you just make empty assertions?

On 10/08/2012 06:53, Doug wrote:
On Aug 9, 3:36 pm, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2012 08:20, Doug wrote:









On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 9:15:49 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/08/2012 09:03, Doug wrote:

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 8:38:02 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

On 02/08/2012 07:49, Doug wrote:

Apparently, according to the news, its more important that we win gold medals than kill cyclists.

If that's what the news (source) says, no-one sane could disagree with it.

It *is* more important that "we" win gold medals than kill cyclists.

Typical motorist's undervaluing of human life, unless of course it involves him.

Bzzzt!

You have totally failed to read and understand what was written: 100% wrong

on your part.

Explain then in humanitarian terms how winning gold medals is more important than killing cyclists.

Are you serious?

Can you *read*?

Can you explain yourself at all or do you just make empty assertions?


I also think that it is more important to win gold medals, than it is to
kill cyclists.