A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old August 22nd 18, 11:52 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,385
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 22/08/18 10:12, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-21, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/08/18 12:22, Incubus wrote:


In actual fact, some pedestrians do walk out in front of cars and
they are very foolish to do so. Yet what has this to do with the
consideration of a law on death by dangerous cycling?


Mistakes apart, they don't as a general rule.


And what has this to do with the consideration of a law concerning death by
dangerous cycling?


I told you a long time ago.
Ads
  #42  
Old August 23rd 18, 10:41 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Incubus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 2018-08-22, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/08/18 10:12, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-21, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/08/18 12:22, Incubus wrote:


In actual fact, some pedestrians do walk out in front of cars and
they are very foolish to do so. Yet what has this to do with the
consideration of a law on death by dangerous cycling?

Mistakes apart, they don't as a general rule.


And what has this to do with the consideration of a law concerning death by
dangerous cycling?


I told you a long time ago.


Then I am sure you will happily oblige in quoting the opinion you gave.
  #43  
Old August 23rd 18, 08:51 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,385
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 23/08/18 10:41, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-22, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/08/18 10:12, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-21, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/08/18 12:22, Incubus wrote:


In actual fact, some pedestrians do walk out in front of cars and
they are very foolish to do so. Yet what has this to do with the
consideration of a law on death by dangerous cycling?

Mistakes apart, they don't as a general rule.

And what has this to do with the consideration of a law concerning death by
dangerous cycling?


I told you a long time ago.


Then I am sure you will happily oblige in quoting the opinion you gave.


Sigh. Because they do in front of cyclists.

By coincidence, today, I came across a sign on a shared path. It said
"Pedestrians - do not take up the full width".

  #44  
Old August 24th 18, 11:22 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Incubus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 2018-08-23, TMS320 wrote:
On 23/08/18 10:41, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-22, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/08/18 10:12, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-21, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/08/18 12:22, Incubus wrote:

In actual fact, some pedestrians do walk out in front of cars and
they are very foolish to do so. Yet what has this to do with the
consideration of a law on death by dangerous cycling?

Mistakes apart, they don't as a general rule.

And what has this to do with the consideration of a law concerning death by
dangerous cycling?

I told you a long time ago.


Then I am sure you will happily oblige in quoting the opinion you gave.


Sigh. Because they do in front of cyclists.


Once mo what has that to do with causing death by dangerous cycling? There
is no law under consideration for failing to stop for a pedestrian on a road or
cycle path, nor any law giving right of way to pedestrians on the road or cycle
path, nor any law transferring the entirety of the responsibilty for pedestrian
safety to cyclists. It would be a law concerning dangerous cycling, which so
far as I am aware is not intended to include as the mens rea failing to swerve
or brake at the last moment before impact.

By coincidence, today, I came across a sign on a shared path. It said
"Pedestrians - do not take up the full width".


Some pedestrians are selfish. Does that absolve any cyclist who rides at speed
without functioning brakes or collides with a pedestrian when the pedestrian
has right or way or is walking on a footpath?
  #45  
Old August 24th 18, 11:34 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Kerr-Mudd,John[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 108
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 19:51:17 GMT, TMS320 wrote:

On 23/08/18 10:41, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-22, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/08/18 10:12, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-21, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/08/18 12:22, Incubus wrote:

In actual fact, some pedestrians do walk out in front of cars and
they are very foolish to do so. Yet what has this to do with the
consideration of a law on death by dangerous cycling?

Mistakes apart, they don't as a general rule.

And what has this to do with the consideration of a law concerning
death by dangerous cycling?

I told you a long time ago.


Then I am sure you will happily oblige in quoting the opinion you
gave.


Sigh. Because they do in front of cyclists.

By coincidence, today, I came across a sign on a shared path. It said
"Pedestrians - do not take up the full width".



There's something in the pedesterian's guide to cycletracks that tells
them:

Wear headphones and act surprised that a bicycle is using a cyclepath.

If you hear a cycle bell ignore it; if it becomes annoyingly loud, jump
into the cyclist's path and say "I didn't hear you, you should ring your
bell!"

Always walk on the wrong side of the path.

If in a group, each member should dive to the opposite side of the path.

Dogs should be let off the lead when possible; if not, use a long lead
and ensure the dog stays at the opposite side to you.

Dog mess should be carefully retained in a black plastic bag which you
can then hang on a branch.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
  #46  
Old August 24th 18, 02:18 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Incubus
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
justice.


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
lost.


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.


Wrong.


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.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simile

"...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.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy

"...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
children,


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.


*phew!*


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.
  #47  
Old October 19th 18, 10:40 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 259
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 17/08/2018 00:22, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/18 22:54, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:


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.


...

And meanwhile ... 2 people killed by cyclists, 1,698 killed by car
drivers.

But cyclists are 'the menace'.

The cognitive dissonance screams to the ****ing heavens.


It is notable that cyclists are always "speeding" - unless a driver is
waiting to overtake.


15mph along a 50mph dual carriageway is slow.

15mph along a city centre footway is (far too) fast.

I hope you find this of assistance.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.