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
  #11  
Old August 17th 18, 11:52 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
abelard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:35:07 +0100, Joe wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 22:46:03 +0100
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:

In uk.politics.misc Ophelia wrote:

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.


he is a socialist....he know full well he has a special pass to lie
whenever 'necessary' or 'useful'


--
www.abelard.org
Ads
  #12  
Old August 17th 18, 12:26 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Ophelia[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered



"Joe" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 22:46:03 +0100
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:

In uk.politics.misc Ophelia wrote:

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.

Joe

==

Agreed! He can dream all he likes but I do see them and they are always as
you describe - Ferals!

I never see 'normal' cyclists doing that.



  #13  
Old August 17th 18, 12:35 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

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.

One of them a racist, little Engländ UKIP voter and the other .. Joe? Do
you vote UKIP ?

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of
the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish
state...'
(Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Fakestinian Arab Higher Committee, 6
September 1948)
  #14  
Old August 17th 18, 12:46 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 2018-08-17, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:


And that one occasion put you at enormously higher risk of injury than
all the others combined.


Actually, it didn't. The driver started driving away from a red light
early and wasn't going very fast. The times I have almost been hit by
lycra louts, many of them have been cycling at high speed.


I was bored just there, and so sat and worked out kinetic energy for car +
driver as opposed to cycle + rider. The formula being 1/2 mv2 (can't do
superscript in ASCII), take a 1,500 kg car travelling at 30 mph. Take a
100 kg bicycle with rider. At what speed would the cyclist have to ride,
to have the same kinetic energy as a car? And of course, 'show your work'.


It's a fun mental exercise but in this case, I estimate the driver was doing no
more than 5mph.

  #15  
Old August 17th 18, 01:35 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 2018-08-17, 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:


And that one occasion put you at enormously higher risk of injury than
all the others combined.


Actually, it didn't. The driver started driving away from a red light
early and wasn't going very fast. The times I have almost been hit by
lycra louts, many of them have been cycling at high speed.


I was bored just there, and so sat and worked out kinetic energy for car
+ driver as opposed to cycle + rider. The formula being 1/2 mv2 (can't
do superscript in ASCII), take a 1,500 kg car travelling at 30 mph.
Take a 100 kg bicycle with rider. At what speed would the cyclist have
to ride, to have the same kinetic energy as a car? And of course, 'show
your work'.


It's a fun mental exercise but in this case, I estimate the driver was
doing no more than 5mph.


Funny you should say that, but I'd be very surprised if you - as a
non-driver - actually knew what 5 mph looks like on a car, because believe
me, it is very difficult to drive a car at that speedi. OK, 'difficult' is
probably the wrong word, but it takes a concerted effort to keep a car
below 5 mph. Our local supermarket has a sign at the entrance saying '15
kph' which is about 9 mph and on the occasions where we take our not very
powerful car (a Skoda Octavia estate) in there and are driving at what we
_imagine_ is very slowly, we glance at the speedometer and it's reading
something like 25 kph, or 15 mph. 5 mph on a modern car is going to
involve a lot of slipping of the clutch. Let the clutch out fully and
don't touch the accelerator, and the car will slow where it starts to
'hunt' and then will stall. When you start to accelerate from a stop,
you'll pass that speed in I don't know - half a second?

So unless you were standing a few feet in front of this guy's bumper and he
didn't have any time to hit 10 mph, believe me - he was likely going faster
than 5 mph.


He just started to pull away and then promptly stopped. He was inching
forward; nothing more.
  #16  
Old August 17th 18, 04:19 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Joe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

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?

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.

--
Joe

  #17  
Old August 18th 18, 12:47 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,350
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

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:
On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
wrote:

And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car
drivers are a danger to themselves and to others.

I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has
gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in
terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to
be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death.

"...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many
thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor
vehicles?

You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists
need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers.

Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous
drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction.

It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of
words.


In that case you could have left out the words "errant" and "dangerous".


I had the option to but they are there for the purpose of expressing their
meaning.

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. 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").

but the burden is on drivers where it comes to red lights
and mounting pavements. Who on Earth could possibly think otherwise?


I said nothing about traffic lights. When I said the above, I meant that
it happens on all parts of the *road* - which includes junctions without
lights and all the parts in between.

Since you love your own anecdotes, would you like an anecdote about
pedestrians amongst a cyclist riding legally and safely when no motor
vehicle is nearby?

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.


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.

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. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a
heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. 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?

I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a
cyclisThjet who did not respect a red light. 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. The driver started driving away from a red light early
and wasn't going very fast. The times I have almost been hit by lycra louts,
many of them have been cycling at high speed.


Stop ignoring statistics.
  #18  
Old August 18th 18, 01:03 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,350
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 17/08/18 16:19, Joe wrote:

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.

Why not do what pedestrians normally do when there are few motor
vehicles about and walk blindly out in front of the cyclists?
  #19  
Old August 18th 18, 02:23 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 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.* 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. However, on a
footpath, the responsibility is not mine.

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.

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 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.* He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a
heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me.* 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. 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 can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a
cyclisThjet who did not respect a red light.* 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.* The driver started driving away from a red light
early
and wasn't going very fast.* 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. 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.
  #20  
Old August 18th 18, 03:12 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
abelard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:23:00 +0100, Incubus
wrote:

On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:


Stop ignoring statistics.


No; you stop misusing statistics to change the focus to drivers because
of an abiding resentment you harbour towards them. 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.


there was this italian fellow crossing the road and a driver
swerved to avoid her...so the italian dodged the other
way...so the driver swerved again...
once more the fellow dodged...as did the driver...

the pedestrian finally losing patience screamed at the driver...

'don't you know yet? it's my job to dodge...not yours'


--
www.abelard.org
 




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 01:16 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.