Richard Madeley's rant.

"mileburner" wrote in message
...
Brimstone wrote:
"mileburner" wrote in message
...
Old Skullface wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:34:03 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:

It's rare but I guess it does happen. So on those rare occasions
where the cyclist *does* cause the accident I guess that the
cyclist ought to bear part of the responsibility at least. The car
driver on the other hand ought to be deemed as at fault if there
is any doubt whatsoever.

Why? Because you personally don't like motorists?

Nope, because I believe that currently, drivers generally do not take
enough responsibility for their actions.

Can you name any group of people who readily admit to their mistakes?

Nope, but I think that if you choose to drive a vehicle at speed through
busy areas you need to accept that you will eventually hit people unless
you do it very very carefully.

But if one never admits to making mistakes how do you suppose that such a
collision will ever occur?

What deters cycling is fear, not of the law, but of traffic.

In that case, why fight so hard against sensible, lifesaving helmet
laws on the basis that they'll "discourage cycling"?

I have never fought against sensible, lifesaving helmet laws. I wear
a helmet most of the time myself. Next...

If you never make mistakes why do you need to wear a helmet and how
does a helmet prevent damage to your legs and arms?

Wearing a helmet is not about "making mistakes". It is about offering
*some* protection when you head comes into contact with something hard.

But if one never makes mistakes how will one's head comes into contact with
something hard?

There is also the possibility that as a result of failing to wear a helmet
I may be deemed partly responsible for any injury, even if a collision was
legally somone elses fault.

What a twisted outlook.

Fortunately, I have a very good record of avoiding collisions where the
fault would have been somone elses. But no matter how good I am at
avoiding collisions, there is still that risk that I might not.

To encourage
cycling we need to enhance the fear of drivers so they take more
care.

...or, better still, give up driving altogether.

Sure, it would be better. Problem is that drivers are often bleating
on about how thay *have* to drive as there is no other option.

Thanks to the barmy planning laws that were imposed there very often
isn't.

There is always an alternative.

Are you quite sure about that?

Most people just don't have the motive to find one.

In many cases that's not untrue.

Banging drivers up for a long time for causing death and serious
injury would be a good start.

That's right, even if they just make a momentary, honest mistake.

Yep. If you can't drive at a safe speed in a safe manner don't do
it.
So you never, ever make mistakes?

Sometimes I do, everyone does. But if the drivers were driving more
cautiously in the first place the KSIs would be far less. And if I was
driving like a knob and killed somone I would accept full responsibility
for that, even if "it wasn't my fault".

But people who drive like knobs rarely understand that they do.

JNugent writes:

Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:

Have you really never heard of columnists - the supreme example being
the late, great, Keith Waterhouse - being engaged to write *opinion*
pieces?

Or do you simply insist that opinions you can't support are invalid
and must be suppressed?

Richard is of course entitled to his opinion and I would not seek to
suppress it.

So you must also believe that he has as much right to propagate his
opinion as you do yours. He, being him, has more opportunity to do
that than you or I do.

I've already said I wouldn't seek to suppress it. That doesn't prevent
me (and, I expect, many other people) from disagreeing with it. I'm
sure you can see the difference,


-dan

Keitht wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:

For anything of which one might have knowledge, there is a time before
one acquires that knowledge, and there might (or might not) be a time
when one has acquired that knowledge. The second phase is largely a
matter of chance.

Most responsible people, if tasked with writing a newspaper article
concerning something of which they have no knowledge, would make some
effort to acquire said knowledge before putting pen to paper rather than
leaving the second phase to chance.

I am happy, therefore, that I will never be expected to write about
"Richard and Judy" in a newspaper, because on the evidence so far he
doesn't appear to be anything I want to have knowledge of.

Have you really never heard of columnists - the supreme example being
the late, great, Keith Waterhouse - being engaged to write *opinion*
pieces?

Or do you simply insist that opinions you can't support are invalid
and must be suppressed?

They are employed to write stuff for a particular market, with a
particular angle on the subject.
They are employed to follow the line that the newspaper requires for its
readers - it is nothing more or less than marketing.

Well, it's business, at least.

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
"mileburner" wrote in message

Nope, but I think that if you choose to drive a vehicle at speed through
busy areas you need to accept that you will eventually hit people unless
you do it very very carefully.

But if one never admits to making mistakes how do you suppose that such a
collision will ever occur?

Come on! No one has to admit to a mistake for a collision to occur.

Wearing a helmet is not about "making mistakes". It is about offering
*some* protection when you head comes into contact with something hard.

But if one never makes mistakes how will one's head comes into contact
with something hard?

Everyone makes mistakes. As a cyclist I am more concerned about numpty
drivers making mistakes. As a driver I am more concerned about the mistakes
I could make that could cause damage or injury to others. But if you find
yourself sliding along the tarmac (however that situation came to be), I
think it is better to be wearing something on your head. That's just my
personal choice.

There is also the possibility that as a result of failing to wear a
helmet I may be deemed partly responsible for any injury, even if a
collision was legally somone elses fault.

What a twisted outlook.

It is, but sadly this appears to be the position that some lawyers are
claiming when they are trying to mitigate their clients blame for injury
their client caused.

There is always an alternative.

Are you quite sure about that?

In absolute terms, yes. It may mean changing job or home, but there is
always an alternative.

Most people just don't have the motive to find one.

In many cases that's not untrue.

If they lost their drivers licence they would find an alternative.

Sometimes I do, everyone does. But if the drivers were driving more
cautiously in the first place the KSIs would be far less. And if I was
driving like a knob and killed somone I would accept full responsibility
for that, even if "it wasn't my fault".

But people who drive like knobs rarely understand that they do.

Agreed, which is why we need 20mph limits, speed cameras, "stop" signs,
double whites, and all manner of street furniture which sends out the
message "don't drive like a knob".

"Keitht" KeithT wrote in message
...
mileburner wrote:

Drivers should be more willing to take responsibility over collisions
instead of bleating "it wasn't my fault". Technically speaking, perhaps
the collision wasn't their fault but perhaps they should have been
driving a bit more carefully so they could have avoided it.
When taking the advice of one's insurance company in the event of a
collision - you never admit fault, ever.

Indeed, from an insurance point of view, we do not have the authority to
admit liability or the expertise to deny it.

But that is different to driving in a responsible manner, so as not to
result in a possible collision.

"mileburner" wrote in message
...

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
"mileburner" wrote in message

Nope, but I think that if you choose to drive a vehicle at speed through
busy areas you need to accept that you will eventually hit people unless
you do it very very carefully.

But if one never admits to making mistakes how do you suppose that such a
collision will ever occur?

Come on! No one has to admit to a mistake for a collision to occur.

Perhaps I phrased it badly, let me try again. For those people who never
admit to making mistakes to accept that they might be involved in a
collision would require them to change their attitude and admit that they do
get things wrong.

Wearing a helmet is not about "making mistakes". It is about offering
*some* protection when you head comes into contact with something hard.

But if one never makes mistakes how will one's head comes into contact
with something hard?

Everyone makes mistakes.

Indeed they do, but not everyone accepts the possibility that it will be
they who makes the mistake and that a collision will occur.

As a cyclist I am more concerned about numpty drivers making mistakes. As
a driver I am more concerned about the mistakes I could make that could
cause damage or injury to others. But if you find yourself sliding along
the tarmac (however that situation came to be), I think it is better to be
wearing something on your head. That's just my personal choice.

Indeed it is your choice, but on a practical level of all the times that you
have been knocked off your bicycle on how many occasions have you hot your
head?

There is also the possibility that as a result of failing to wear a
helmet I may be deemed partly responsible for any injury, even if a
collision was legally somone elses fault.

What a twisted outlook.

It is, but sadly this appears to be the position that some lawyers are
claiming when they are trying to mitigate their clients blame for injury
their client caused.

There is always an alternative.

Are you quite sure about that?

In absolute terms, yes. It may mean changing job or home, but there is
always an alternative.

And what if that change makes things more difficult for someone else?

Most people just don't have the motive to find one.

In many cases that's not untrue.

If they lost their drivers licence they would find an alternative.

AIUI that alternative is quite often the dole.

Sometimes I do, everyone does. But if the drivers were driving more
cautiously in the first place the KSIs would be far less. And if I was
driving like a knob and killed somone I would accept full responsibility
for that, even if "it wasn't my fault".

But people who drive like knobs rarely understand that they do.

Agreed, which is why we need 20mph limits, speed cameras, "stop" signs,
double whites, and all manner of street furniture which sends out the
message "don't drive like a knob".

Nope, wrong approach because where those items are not in use it gives the
knobs permission to drive like a knob. Remove the vast majority of those
devices and they have to pay more attention to what's going on around them.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:42:47 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote:

Judith M Smith wrote:


Or you have a Google set up so that every cycling, cyclists, accident,
death and combination thereof are all trigger words for alerts for
you.


Much like the way you seem to have your news reader set up?


Stick to your games sunshine.
--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:42:47 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote:

Judith M Smith wrote:


Or you have a Google set up so that every cycling, cyclists, accident,
death and combination thereof are all trigger words for alerts for
you.


Much like the way you seem to have your news reader set up?


No - I have a ****wit detector.

Oh look - why have I responded to your post?

(You're not doing very well in the *game* - do you want to start
again? By the way : you need to bone up on security matters when
using a PC)
--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:39:03 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote:

OG wrote:
"Old Skullface" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:34:03 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:

"Old Skullface" wrote in message
...

When a cyclist causes a collision
between themselves and a motorist, do you think the cyclist should be
100% liable or not?
It's rare but I guess it does happen. So on those rare occasions where the
cyclist *does* cause the accident I guess that the cyclist ought to bear
part of the responsibility at least. The car driver on the other hand
ought
to be deemed as at fault if there is any doubt whatsoever.
Why? Because you personally don't like motorists?

Don't you think it's a good idea to make cyclists
less liable than they otherwise would be, in order to "encourage
cycling" (and discourage motoring)?
What deters cycling is fear, not of the law, but of traffic.
In that case, why fight so hard against sensible, lifesaving helmet
laws on the basis that they'll "discourage cycling"?


Where have they ever been shown to be effective?


On jms's sigs? ;-)


Ho, ho, ho:

--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:41:21 -0700 (PDT), RudiL
wrote:

On 30 Sep, 10:39, Keitht KeithT wrote:
OG wrote:
"Old Skullface" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:34:03 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:

"Old Skullface" wrote in message
...

When a cyclist causes a collision
between themselves and a motorist, do you think the cyclist should be
100% liable or not?
It's rare but I guess it does happen. So on those rare occasions where the
cyclist *does* cause the accident I guess that the cyclist ought to bear
part of the responsibility at least. The car driver on the other hand
ought
to be deemed as at fault if there is any doubt whatsoever.
Why? *Because you personally don't like motorists?

Don't you think it's a good idea to make cyclists
less liable than they otherwise would be, in order to "encourage
cycling" (and discourage motoring)?
What deters cycling is fear, not of the law, but of traffic.
In that case, why fight so hard against sensible, lifesaving helmet
laws on the basis that they'll "discourage cycling"?

Where have they ever been shown to be effective?

On jms's sigs? * * *;-)


LOL

Rudi

Hilarious

Silly old fart

--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents