|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
'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
|
|||
|
|||
'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
|
|||
|
|||
'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
|
|||
|
|||
'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
|
|||
|
|||
'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
|
|||
|
|||
'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
|
|||
|
|||
'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.Â* 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 | |
|
|
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 |