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
  #31  
Old August 20th 18, 08:39 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
The Todal[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 20/08/2018 18:22, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:

I'm not sure that your support for cycling alongside your fanatical anti-
Palestinan views helps us here. Thanks anyway.


Anti-'Palestinian' (sic)?

Is that like 'anti-Kryptonian'?


No, more like anti-Untermenschen.

Ads
  #32  
Old August 21st 18, 11:04 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,979
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 20/08/18 10:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/08/18 14:23, Incubus wrote:
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.


You keep flopping between traffic lights and footpaths and snipped
my assessment of pedestrian behaviour amongst motor and cycle
traffic ON THE ROAD. Please be warned. Next time I shall insult
you.


Oh, the pain! I don't think you know how to insult me.

The behaviour of pedestrians towards cyclists on the road is not
relevant to the points I made so it would perhaps serve your delicate
constitution better were you to refrain from introducing red herrings
given the umbrage you take when they are routinely ignored.


When pedestrians wander aimlessly out in front of a cyclist on the road,
which they don't do to drivers, it is completely relevant in the context
of pedestrian attitudes to cyclists.

Yes, responsibility shifts somewhat on a footpath but you are
clearly expecting something from a cyclist that you would never
expect from a driver.


That is a falsehood. I don't expect drivers to ignore red lights or
to drive along the pavement either.


It is not a falsehood that you demand different standards from cyclists
and drivers.

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 don't go through red traffic lights and when I go off ROAD on the
bike I am there to potter and enjoy the surroundings. I am here to
take issue with your whingeing.


Ah, so you premuse to be the standard by which all cyclists are to be
judged?


I 'premuse' nothing. I merely told you where I stand.

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.


It is not illegal to carry a dagger.


It certainly is in a public place. What an utterly foolish reply.


https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives
"Examples of good reasons to carry a knife or weapon in public can include:

~ taking knives you use at work to and from work
~ taking it to a gallery or museum to be exhibited
~ if it’ll be used for theatre, film, television, historical reenactment
or religious purposes, for example the kirpan some Sikhs carry
~ if it’ll be used in a demonstration or to teach someone how to use it"

There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct
that cyclists are supposed to abide by.


And do you suppose that they do?


If they don't I don't really care because there are more and much
bigger dangerous hazards when going out and about. I just gave a matter
of fact answer to your demand for more laws.

People claim they do not abide by them but please don't try to
suggest that if they don't it is necessarily dangerous - real
danger that produces statics, not imaginary.


You are seeking to misuse statistics. I would wager that very few
motorists actually cause accidents but according to what puports to
be your logic, that means there is no real danger.


The "they" in my reply above was about cyclists, idiot. Follow the
context (the idea is to read an entire paragraph before breaking it up
and letting your short attention span forget what the subjects were).
Yes, the statistics show that drivers and motor vehicles *are*
dangerous. Which is what I have tried to make plain all along.

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.


So you're suggesting the official figure of thousands of
pedestrians killed or injured every year by drivers doesn't make
driving a dangerous activity?


That is not what I said. You are going to have to do much better
than silly straw man arguments if you wish for me to take you
seriously.


You claim that when cyclists do something you don't like they are
"dangerous" yet you chose to ignore real dangers. You really are stupid
if you think you are serious: the number of silly typos in your reply
shows you're in a froth and not rational.

I happen to drive, walk and cycle which is clearly far more than
you do.


Your foolish comparisons and personal experience have no bearing on
the matter.


Apart from "I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured by
cyclists" what personal experience have I related to you?
  #33  
Old August 21st 18, 11:11 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 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:


What do you do about the car drivers who - as we have seen - are far
more numerous on the footway than are cyclists? Do you 'elbow them' out
of the way, too?


That doesn't happen where I live. I imagine I would film them and rely
on the numberplate to identify them...


Well, since that happens across the UK and in far greater numbers than for
cyclists, I can only imagine that you have a bias.

****, no !!


How can I have a bias against something I simply don't experience? You seem to
be operating under the misapprehension that I wish for the misdeeds of drivers
to be ignored in favour of persecuting cyclists. Nothing could be further from
the truth.

Might I remind you that the subject at hand is the consideration of a law
against 'Death by Dangerous Cycling'. Am I to take it therefore that you would
prefer cyclists who kill a pedestrian to simply be free to go about their
business?
  #34  
Old August 21st 18, 11:24 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 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:


You keep flopping between traffic lights and footpaths and snipped my
assessment of pedestrian behaviour amongst motor and cycle traffic ON
THE ROAD. Please be warned. Next time I shall insult you.


Oh, the pain! I don't think you know how to insult me.


From where I'm sitting, he doesn't really need to.


He needs to do something to give a good account of himself. The same might be
said of you likewise.

Yes, responsibility shifts somewhat on a footpath but you are clearly
expecting something from a cyclist that you would never expect from a
driver.


That is a falsehood. I don't expect drivers to ignore red lights or to
drive along the pavement either.


You obviously do.


Where on Earth have I implied that? Please refrain from making things up.

It is not illegal to carry a dagger.


It certainly is in a public place. What an utterly foolish reply.


It is only 'illegal' if done without good reason or lawful authority (s. 1
Prevention of Crime Act 1953).


Do you think his pointless reply serves any other purpose than an attempt to change the subject?

There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct that
cyclists are supposed to abide by.


And do you suppose that they do?


Overwhelmingly so.


And is it your considered opinion that they cover cases of 'death by dangerous
cycling'? It seems to me that if that were the case, it would not have been
necessary to revert to a law that was created when the bicycle was not even in
widespread use!
  #35  
Old August 21st 18, 11:33 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 Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:24:41 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
wrote:

On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:


You keep flopping between traffic lights and footpaths and snipped my
assessment of pedestrian behaviour amongst motor and cycle traffic ON
THE ROAD. Please be warned. Next time I shall insult you.


Oh, the pain! I don't think you know how to insult me.


From where I'm sitting, he doesn't really need to.


He needs to do something to give a good account of himself. The same might be
said of you likewise.

Yes, responsibility shifts somewhat on a footpath but you are clearly
expecting something from a cyclist that you would never expect from a
driver.


That is a falsehood. I don't expect drivers to ignore red lights or to
drive along the pavement either.


You obviously do.


Where on Earth have I implied that? Please refrain from making things up.

It is not illegal to carry a dagger.


It certainly is in a public place. What an utterly foolish reply.


It is only 'illegal' if done without good reason or lawful authority (s. 1
Prevention of Crime Act 1953).


Do you think his pointless reply serves any other purpose than an attempt to change the subject?

There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct that
cyclists are supposed to abide by.


And do you suppose that they do?


Overwhelmingly so.


And is it your considered opinion that they cover cases of 'death by dangerous
cycling'? It seems to me that if that were the case, it would not have been
necessary to revert to a law that was created when the bicycle was not even in
widespread use!


g'wan..don't be mean...let pork pie change the subject...

you know he wants to...so very much


--
www.abelard.org
  #36  
Old August 21st 18, 11:33 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 2018-08-20, 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!'

'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. A simile is used for descriptive purposes. The above is an analogy
intended for purposes of comparison.

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.

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.
  #37  
Old August 21st 18, 12:22 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 2018-08-21, TMS320 wrote:
On 20/08/18 10:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/08/18 14:23, Incubus wrote:
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.

You keep flopping between traffic lights and footpaths and snipped
my assessment of pedestrian behaviour amongst motor and cycle
traffic ON THE ROAD. Please be warned. Next time I shall insult
you.


Oh, the pain! I don't think you know how to insult me.

The behaviour of pedestrians towards cyclists on the road is not
relevant to the points I made so it would perhaps serve your delicate
constitution better were you to refrain from introducing red herrings
given the umbrage you take when they are routinely ignored.


When pedestrians wander aimlessly out in front of a cyclist on the road,
which they don't do to drivers, it is completely relevant in the context
of pedestrian attitudes to cyclists.


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?

Yes, responsibility shifts somewhat on a footpath but you are
clearly expecting something from a cyclist that you would never
expect from a driver.


That is a falsehood. I don't expect drivers to ignore red lights or
to drive along the pavement either.


It is not a falsehood that you demand different standards from cyclists
and drivers.


That is absolutely a falsehood and if such falsehoods are the basis for your
argument then you are doing very poorly indeed.

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 don't go through red traffic lights and when I go off ROAD on the
bike I am there to potter and enjoy the surroundings. I am here to
take issue with your whingeing.


Ah, so you premuse to be the standard by which all cyclists are to be
judged?


I 'premuse' nothing. I merely told you where I stand.


And what has where you stand got to do with the consideration of a law on death
by dangerous cycling?

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.

It is not illegal to carry a dagger.


It certainly is in a public place. What an utterly foolish reply.


https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives
"Examples of good reasons to carry a knife or weapon in public can include:

~ taking knives you use at work to and from work


That rather precludes carrying a dagger!

~ taking it to a gallery or museum to be exhibited
~ if it’ll be used for theatre, film, television, historical reenactment
or religious purposes, for example the kirpan some Sikhs carry
~ if it’ll be used in a demonstration or to teach someone how to use it"


So there are circumstances in which one may carry a dagger but saying it is not
illegal was utterly foolish and a very silly attempt at diversion.

There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct
that cyclists are supposed to abide by.


And do you suppose that they do?


If they don't I don't really care because there are more and much
bigger dangerous hazards when going out and about. I just gave a matter
of fact answer to your demand for more laws.


So your entire argument is on the basis that cars are bigger, faster and
heavier and therefore we don't need further laws against cyclists who cause
death by dangerous driving. Presumably, dredging up a law made in 1861 when
bicycles were a curiosity is sufficient.

Then again, I seem to recall you defending the criminal cyclist to whom I
refer, at least in part, so one may surmise where your sympathies lie.

People claim they do not abide by them but please don't try to
suggest that if they don't it is necessarily dangerous - real
danger that produces statics, not imaginary.


You are seeking to misuse statistics. I would wager that very few
motorists actually cause accidents but according to what puports to
be your logic, that means there is no real danger.


The "they" in my reply above was about cyclists, idiot. Follow the
context (the idea is to read an entire paragraph before breaking it up
and letting your short attention span forget what the subjects were).


I am well aware to whom the 'they' referred. Had you read my reply properly
with an attention span of sufficient duration, you had surely realised that I
was applying what passes for your logic to car drivers; viz., that one could
similarly misuse statistics to shew that few motorists cause harm and then
advocate ignoring the instances of those who do.

Yes, the statistics show that drivers and motor vehicles *are*
dangerous. Which is what I have tried to make plain all along.


And I have taken great pains to point out to you that pointing the finger at
motorists is nothing more than a diversionary tactic.

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.

So you're suggesting the official figure of thousands of
pedestrians killed or injured every year by drivers doesn't make
driving a dangerous activity?


That is not what I said. You are going to have to do much better
than silly straw man arguments if you wish for me to take you
seriously.


You claim that when cyclists do something you don't like they are
"dangerous"


I claim that when they do something dangerous then they are dangerous. I don't
like it much when they ring their bells at me from behind when they are riding
slowly on the pavement but I don't say that particular activity is dangerous.

yet you chose to ignore real dangers.


On the contrary, you would have us ignore the dangers that cyclists may pose by
pointing the finger at motorists instead. It is a classic diversionary tactic.
Even though motor vehicles pose an inherently greater danger, that has no
bearing on whether a law against death by dangerous cycling is needed.

You really are stupid
if you think you are serious: the number of silly typos in your reply
shows you're in a froth and not rational.


In actual fact, one may easily apprehend that you have become quite excitable
and you are not someone who should think to lecture anyone on typographical
errors.

I happen to drive, walk and cycle which is clearly far more than
you do.


Your foolish comparisons and personal experience have no bearing on
the matter.


Apart from "I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured by
cyclists" what personal experience have I related to you?


You just purported to suggest that your driving, walking and cycling more than
I somehow makes you an authority, as though that lends greater weight to your
arguments. As I said, were it the case it would still have absolutely no
bearing on the matter.
  #38  
Old August 21st 18, 08:45 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,979
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 21/08/18 12:22, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-21, TMS320 wrote:
On 20/08/18 10:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:



The behaviour of pedestrians towards cyclists on the road is not
relevant to the points I made so it would perhaps serve your
delicate constitution better were you to refrain from introducing
red herrings given the umbrage you take when they are routinely
ignored.


When pedestrians wander aimlessly out in front of a cyclist on the
road, which they don't do to drivers, it is completely relevant in
the context of pedestrian attitudes to cyclists.


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.

I don't go through red traffic lights and when I go off ROAD on
the bike I am there to potter and enjoy the surroundings. I am
here to take issue with your whingeing.

Ah, so you premuse to be the standard by which all cyclists are
to be judged?


I 'premuse' nothing. I merely told you where I stand.


And what has where you stand got to do with the consideration of a
law on death by dangerous cycling?


I told you that I am replying to your whingeing. A it happens, I haven't
given any opinion on the creation of such a law.

I happen to drive, walk and cycle which is clearly far more
than you do.

Your foolish comparisons and personal experience have no bearing
on the matter.


Apart from "I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured
by cyclists" what personal experience have I related to you?


You just purported to suggest that your driving, walking and cycling
more than I somehow makes you an authority, as though that lends
greater weight to your arguments. As I said, were it the case it
would still have absolutely no bearing on the matter.


Of course it does. It can't possibly have occurred to you that
pedestrians wander about in front of bicycles but don't in front of
motor vehicles.

Other stuff snipped because it is getting boring.
  #39  
Old August 21st 18, 08:47 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



"TMS320" wrote in message news
On 21/08/18 12:22, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-21, TMS320 wrote:
On 20/08/18 10:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:



The behaviour of pedestrians towards cyclists on the road is not
relevant to the points I made so it would perhaps serve your
delicate constitution better were you to refrain from introducing
red herrings given the umbrage you take when they are routinely
ignored.


When pedestrians wander aimlessly out in front of a cyclist on the
road, which they don't do to drivers, it is completely relevant in
the context of pedestrian attitudes to cyclists.


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.

I don't go through red traffic lights and when I go off ROAD on
the bike I am there to potter and enjoy the surroundings. I am
here to take issue with your whingeing.

Ah, so you premuse to be the standard by which all cyclists are
to be judged?


I 'premuse' nothing. I merely told you where I stand.


And what has where you stand got to do with the consideration of a
law on death by dangerous cycling?


I told you that I am replying to your whingeing. A it happens, I haven't
given any opinion on the creation of such a law.

I happen to drive, walk and cycle which is clearly far more
than you do.

Your foolish comparisons and personal experience have no bearing
on the matter.


Apart from "I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured
by cyclists" what personal experience have I related to you?


You just purported to suggest that your driving, walking and cycling
more than I somehow makes you an authority, as though that lends
greater weight to your arguments. As I said, were it the case it
would still have absolutely no bearing on the matter.


Of course it does. It can't possibly have occurred to you that
pedestrians wander about in front of bicycles but don't in front of
motor vehicles.

Other stuff snipped because it is getting boring.

==

LOL PKB
  #40  
Old August 22nd 18, 10:12 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 2018-08-21, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/08/18 12:22, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-21, TMS320 wrote:
On 20/08/18 10:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:



The behaviour of pedestrians towards cyclists on the road is not
relevant to the points I made so it would perhaps serve your
delicate constitution better were you to refrain from introducing
red herrings given the umbrage you take when they are routinely
ignored.

When pedestrians wander aimlessly out in front of a cyclist on the
road, which they don't do to drivers, it is completely relevant in
the context of pedestrian attitudes to cyclists.


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 don't go through red traffic lights and when I go off ROAD on
the bike I am there to potter and enjoy the surroundings. I am
here to take issue with your whingeing.

Ah, so you premuse to be the standard by which all cyclists are
to be judged?

I 'premuse' nothing. I merely told you where I stand.


And what has where you stand got to do with the consideration of a
law on death by dangerous cycling?


I told you that I am replying to your whingeing. A it happens, I haven't
given any opinion on the creation of such a law.


It seems to me that you are rather engaging in 'whinging' and are operating
under the false assumption that projecting such onto me will serve to discredit
me.

I happen to drive, walk and cycle which is clearly far more
than you do.

Your foolish comparisons and personal experience have no bearing
on the matter.

Apart from "I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured
by cyclists" what personal experience have I related to you?


You just purported to suggest that your driving, walking and cycling
more than I somehow makes you an authority, as though that lends
greater weight to your arguments. As I said, were it the case it
would still have absolutely no bearing on the matter.


Of course it does. It can't possibly have occurred to you that
pedestrians wander about in front of bicycles but don't in front of
motor vehicles.


Pedestrians do wander in front of other vehicles but even if they do so far
less in front of motor vehicles than they do in front of bicycles, it still has
no bearing on the legality of cyclists' conduct and whether there need be a law
to deal with death by dangerous cycling.

Other stuff snipped because it is getting boring.


One may draw whatever conclusions from that as would serve to give a more
likely explanation.
 




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 03:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.