|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Fake Youtube videos
On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 19:44:44 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
True. And I too can say it as a pedestrian. But I have never had a car approach me driving along a footway. I can't say that about cycles - sometimes a whole family, who can never see anything wrong with their behaviour. When I had the misfortune to work in Liverpool I was walking up Lord Nelson Street from Lime Street Station and a car drove at me on the footway. The moronist's excuse for attempted murder was he was just trying to keep the traffic flowing. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Fake Youtube videos
JNugent wrote:
On 19/05/2020 19:18, Kelly wrote: JNugent wrote: All citizens have the right to point out that many (most?) cyclists today routinely break traffic law... Thanks for putting that question mark against most. The whole statement sounds quite damning, and the most (with a question mark) is on reflection (speaking as a cyclist) a dispassionate addition. Well, let's face it, the statement is quite damning. Let us now just consider our companion road users, car drivers. Can we say: 'All citizens have the right to point out that many (most?) car drivers today routinely break traffic law.' Of course we can. Good. Whether it is as true as the one about cyclists is another question. ....I guess it would have been too easy otherwise. Is that statement dispassionately true in the same way as the one applying to cyclists? No, it isn't. All drivers occasionally breach road traffic rules. Sometimes deliberately, often inadvertently. Nevertheless, I would argue that very few drivers leave home in the morning with the attitude that they are going to break speed limits, pass red traffic lights, proceed the wrong way in a one-way system, drive during the hours of darkness without lights switched on, etc, etc. A very few might, but that proportion will be vanishingly small. Okay. I'll give you an example. I have found myself driving the wrong way along along a one-way street a few times, in nearly 50 years' driving (and something in excess of a million miles driven). Each time it was inadvertent. On each occasion, I took steps to rectify the position immediately (or as immediately as possible in a narrow street). The last such incident took place about fifteen years ago in one of those towns just north west of Birmingham. I was heading for a late night supermarket for a bottle of wine to have in my hotel room. I didn't know the area and misread a town centre junction. It happens. On none of those occasions did I intend to ignore traffic signs, traffic lights, speed limit signs or anything else. It was just a result of human frailty. I can remember when cyclists took the same approach (I'm that old). But you cannot realistically claim that cyclists ignoring red traffic lights or riding on the footway have done that accidentally. And I know you would not try to claim it. Today, only some cyclists set out planning to obey traffic law do - and you know that to be true. Cyclists and car drivers, though, set up and face different consequences when they fail to obey traffic law, even though you may compare them as being equal to each other. I am not trying to make excuses already for some cyclists, I appreciate this is serious issue. Cars and bicycles have similar obligations on the roads but there are many differences between them - protection afforded the users of cars being a major one. Well, (speaking as a driver who considers their chance of being caught for speeding to be highly unlikely - touch wood) I would say it is. Being caught for speeding used to be unusual. Not now. Not for nothing do most manufacturers now fit a controllable speed limiter as an adjunct to cruise control. Not for nothing do I always have it set to 30mph, the only open question being whether it is switched in (in a 30 zone) or out or set to a higher limit (in a zone with a higher limit). The speed limiter is the best accessory for motor vehicles invented in the last twenty years. Well, joint-first with the satnav. Yes, interesting points I hadn't considered before. Even careful and aware car drivers know how easy it is to exceed the speed limit, albeit if only fleetingly. Absolutely. So speaking as a pedestrian then, I could dispassionately say: 'All citizens have the right to point out that many (most?) car drivers and cyclist today routinely break traffic law'. True. And I too can say it as a pedestrian. But I have never had a car approach me driving along a footway. I can't say that about cycles - sometimes a whole family, who can never see anything wrong with their behaviour. I know what you mean, but on certain occasions I am particularly reminded that cyclists are much more like pedestrians than they are like car drivers. As far as vulnerability goes you could consider them to be similar to pedestrians on bicycles (if you see what I mean). Yet they are required to travel with road traffic and denied the protection of the pavement - that can be quite perilous especially for young cyclists. Can you, and the rest of the group, accept that? I can, subject to that distinction(s) I made above, and of which you were already well aware in any case. Even with the distinction(s) you made and, as you say, I am aware of, that is still good. (ps. I always knew you weren't totally one of the 'baddies'.) |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Fake Youtube videos
On 19/05/2020 20:18, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 19:44:44 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: True. And I too can say it as a pedestrian. But I have never had a car approach me driving along a footway. I can't say that about cycles - sometimes a whole family, who can never see anything wrong with their behaviour. When I had the misfortune to work in Liverpool I was walking up Lord Nelson Street from Lime Street Station and a car drove at me on the footway. The moronist's excuse for attempted murder was he was just trying to keep the traffic flowing. In Lord Nelson Street (a minor side street where a great aunt of mine and my great-grandmother) used to live and which I know very well? A street where there is virtually no traffic? You are making it up. To no effect, of course. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Fake Youtube videos
On 19/05/2020 22:48, Kelly wrote:
(ps. I always knew you weren't totally one of the 'baddies'.) Except he refuses to acknowledge differences in practicality and danger caused. It isn't just the protection of the cyclist but also the capacity to harm others. To him it is pure black and white. Take a one way street - if a driver goes down one, it can block the road, whereas a cyclist still has lots of options. If it is done unintentionally, the consequences can be worse that when it is done in full knowledge. Yet if the law is applied by the book, which considers the state of mind, the latter is often considered to be a worse offence than the former. Sometimes the law has to be (and is) pragmatic. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Fake Youtube videos
TMS320 wrote:
On 19/05/2020 22:48, Kelly wrote: (ps. I always knew you weren't totally one of the 'baddies'.) Except he refuses to acknowledge differences in practicality and danger caused. It isn't just the protection of the cyclist but also the capacity to harm others. To him it is pure black and white. I thought, maybe, I shouldn't push my luck too far. And was content to be allowed to get as far as I had - it's a compromise. Take a one way street - if a driver goes down one, it can block the road, whereas a cyclist still has lots of options. If it is done unintentionally, the consequences can be worse that when it is done in full knowledge. I understand what you are saying, in your whole post here, and I wouldn't argue against any of it. Yet if the law is applied by the book, which considers the state of mind, the latter is often considered to be a worse offence than the former. Sometimes the law has to be (and is) pragmatic. At least give the cyclist a dispassionate (i.e. fair) hearing - a sympathetic one would be even better... |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Fake Youtube videos
On 20/05/2020 08:44, Kelly wrote:
TMS320 wrote: On 19/05/2020 22:48, Kelly wrote: (ps. I always knew you weren't totally one of the 'baddies'.) Except he refuses to acknowledge differences in practicality and danger caused. It isn't just the protection of the cyclist but also the capacity to harm others. To him it is pure black and white. I thought, maybe, I shouldn't push my luck too far. And was content to be allowed to get as far as I had - it's a compromise. I daresay the culture comes from the idea that if there is a body and you have blood on your hands, it is essential to establish the circumstances and your state of mind. The traditional innocent until proven guilty. With roads, statistics need to be involved so it is far more complicated. There are acts that have a pattern of causing harm, even though no harm was caused on a particular occasion. So we have fixed penalties for things such as speeding and drunk driving. FPs ignore the driver's state of mind. FPs run against the traditional view of law. Some argue that it is wrong. At least give the cyclist a dispassionate (i.e. fair) hearing - a sympathetic one would be even better... If criticism comes from a pedestrian, I think it is fair to consider everything. If it's from a driver, they have nothing to say. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Fake Youtube videos
On 20:18 19 May 2020, Mike Collins said:
On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 19:44:44 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: True. And I too can say it as a pedestrian. But I have never had a car approach me driving along a footway. I can't say that about cycles - sometimes a whole family, who can never see anything wrong with their behaviour. When I had the misfortune to work in Liverpool I was walking up Lord Nelson Street from Lime Street Station and a car drove at me on the footway. The moronist's excuse for attempted murder was he was just trying to keep the traffic flowing. You failed to provide any evidence to support that far-fetched claim about "attempted murder". A police report would do. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Fake Youtube videos
TMS320 wrote:
On 20/05/2020 08:44, Kelly wrote: TMS320 wrote: On 19/05/2020 22:48, Kelly wrote: (ps. I always knew you weren't totally one of the 'baddies'.) Except he refuses to acknowledge differences in practicality and danger caused. It isn't just the protection of the cyclist but also the capacity to harm others. To him it is pure black and white. I thought, maybe, I shouldn't push my luck too far. And was content to be allowed to get as far as I had - it's a compromise. I daresay the culture comes from the idea that if there is a body and you have blood on your hands, it is essential to establish the circumstances and your state of mind. The traditional innocent until proven guilty. With roads, statistics need to be involved so it is far more complicated. There are acts that have a pattern of causing harm, even though no harm was caused on a particular occasion. So we have fixed penalties for things such as speeding and drunk driving. FPs ignore the driver's state of mind. FPs run against the traditional view of law. Some argue that it is wrong. I have been reading up on FPN's and note how they were initially introduced to deal with minor parking offences but have since been expanded to cover many traffic offences. They certainly discourage you from opting for a court hearing. At least give the cyclist a dispassionate (i.e. fair) hearing - a sympathetic one would be even better... If criticism comes from a pedestrian, I think it is fair to consider everything. If it's from a driver, they have nothing to say. Okay, you are not reticent over this issue then. I probably still have a bit of work to do on my self-confidence and self-reliance before I could entirely say the same of myself. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Fake Youtube videos
On 20/05/2020 11:21, Pamela wrote:
On 20:18 19 May 2020, Mike Collins said: On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 19:44:44 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: True. And I too can say it as a pedestrian. But I have never had a car approach me driving along a footway. I can't say that about cycles - sometimes a whole family, who can never see anything wrong with their behaviour. When I had the misfortune to work in Liverpool I was walking up Lord Nelson Street from Lime Street Station and a car drove at me on the footway. The moronist's excuse for attempted murder was he was just trying to keep the traffic flowing. You failed to provide any evidence to support that far-fetched claim about "attempted murder". A police report would do. I know Lord Nelson Street *very* well. I have known it all my life, because my family (both sides) have residential and other roots in the area dating from before WW2 right up until the 1970s. There is no appreciable traffic in Lord Nelson Street. It is a destination, not a route. Traffic using it cannot make progress since it feeds back into one-way streets and dual-carriageways with limited turns. MC's not knowing that led him into the fabrication of his story. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Fake Youtube videos
On 17:05 20 May 2020, JNugent said:
On 20/05/2020 11:21, Pamela wrote: On 20:18 19 May 2020, Mike Collins said: On Tuesday, 19 May 2020 19:44:44 UTC+1, JNugent wrote: True. And I too can say it as a pedestrian. But I have never had a car approach me driving along a footway. I can't say that about cycles - sometimes a whole family, who can never see anything wrong with their behaviour. When I had the misfortune to work in Liverpool I was walking up Lord Nelson Street from Lime Street Station and a car drove at me on the footway. The moronist's excuse for attempted murder was he was just trying to keep the traffic flowing. You failed to provide any evidence to support that far-fetched claim about "attempted murder". A police report would do. I know Lord Nelson Street *very* well. I have known it all my life, because my family (both sides) have residential and other roots in the area dating from before WW2 right up until the 1970s. There is no appreciable traffic in Lord Nelson Street. It is a destination, not a route. Traffic using it cannot make progress since it feeds back into one-way streets and dual-carriageways with limited turns. MC's not knowing that led him into the fabrication of his story. It sounds like Mike Collins is exaggerating again. This group has more than a few fantasists, with Simon being the fantasist-in-chief. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fake dash cam videos | Simon Jester | UK | 4 | July 10th 18 10:18 PM |
Some high quality recumbent trike videos on YouTube | Anton Berlin | Racing | 1 | November 28th 10 05:58 PM |
Some high quality recumbent trike videos on YouTube | Phil H | Racing | 0 | November 27th 10 02:15 PM |
Cycling doctor gets death threats after posting videos of crapdriving on Youtube. | spindrift | UK | 29 | March 27th 08 02:24 PM |
Bicycles videos all type of stunts and repairing and masthi videos | nice | Techniques | 0 | January 11th 08 01:48 PM |