Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: The Medway Handyman on 20 Dec 2009 12:24 MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 20 Dec, 00:13, "The Medway Handyman" > <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: >>> On 19 Dec, 20:07, "The Medway Handyman" > > Cyclists riding at high speeds are a >> danger to pedestrians. > > I though they were toys ridden by kids? > Make your mind up. The should be toys only ridden by kids, its when they are ridden by overgrown kids - and are capable of even killing pedestrians. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 20 Dec 2009 12:26 Phil W Lee wrote: > "The Medway Halfwit" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered > Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:34:15 GMT the perfect time to write: > >> Phil W Lee wrote: >>> "The Medway Handjob" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered >>> Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:07:59 GMT the perfect time to write: >>> >>>> Now it has reasoning. I look forward to your response. >>> >>> No it doesn't. >> >> No what doesn't? >> >>> You clearly wouldn't know reasoning if it came in the form of a >>> 2"x4" cluebat. >>> >>> For any of this to make sense, you'd have to show a need. >>> This means quantifying the danger that cyclists pose to others. >> >> So, a cyclist travelling at 30mph is able to stop in a safe distance >> if a pedestrian walks into the road? >> >> OK, how about Bournemouth Council having to enforce a cycling speed >> limit to protect pedestrians? How about cyclists completely >> ignoring a ban on riding through Hyde Park? How about cyclists >> ignoring one way streets in Islington? How about so many cyclists >> ignoring traffic law in London that the Police admit they can't cope >> with the volume? >> >>> I look forward to you attempting this (or more likely, claiming that >>> it isn't necessary), given that more cyclists are killed by >>> pedestrians than the reverse, and the total of both is outweighed by >>> several orders of magnitude by the number of victims of motor >>> vehicle use. >> >> That more cyclists are killed by pedestrians is simply idiotic - I >> trust you can provide evidence to support this ridiculous claim? A >> pedestrian hit by a cyclist is going to come off worse, simple >> schoolboy physics. > > I don't produce statistics myself, but fortunately the government do. > That is where these facts are reported. So, find them & publish then then. >> That cyclists come off worse when colliding with motor vehicles is >> obvious - again simple schoolboy physics - but they cause more >> accidents because they frequently ignore traffic law. > > No, the government is also good enough to publish reports on that too. > In the vast majority of collisions between a cyclist and a motor > vehicle, it is the driver of the motor vehicle who is at fault. Well come on then - publish the figures. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: MasonS on 20 Dec 2009 12:33 On 20 Dec, 17:21, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: > > On 20 Dec, 01:30, "The Medway Handyman" > > <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> Phil W Lee wrote: > > >> Or how about this from The Evening Standard :- > > >> "A City fund manager has been knocked down and killed in a collision > >> with a cyclist on his way to work. > >> Nick Bancroft was a year away from retirement when the accident > >> happened just yards from his £2 million Holland Park home". > > > That was more than *two years* ago. > > Which proves? Which proves *how far* you have to go back to find even *one* cyclist related casualty. I'd have thousands of innocent people killed by cars since then to choose from like this one from earlier this month. "The plank in your own eye" springs to mind yet again. http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/Pedestrian-killed-as-two-cars.5880133.jp -- Simon Mason
From: MasonS on 20 Dec 2009 12:41 On 20 Dec, 17:26, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Phil W Lee wrote: > > "The Medway Halfwit" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered > > Sun, 20 Dec 2009 00:34:15 GMT the perfect time to write: > > >> Phil W Lee wrote: > >>> "The Medway Handjob" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> considered > >>> Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:07:59 GMT the perfect time to write: > > >>>> Now it has reasoning. I look forward to your response. > > >>> No it doesn't. > > >> No what doesn't? > > >>> You clearly wouldn't know reasoning if it came in the form of a > >>> 2"x4" cluebat. > > >>> For any of this to make sense, you'd have to show a need. > >>> This means quantifying the danger that cyclists pose to others. > > >> So, a cyclist travelling at 30mph is able to stop in a safe distance > >> if a pedestrian walks into the road? > > >> OK, how about Bournemouth Council having to enforce a cycling speed > >> limit to protect pedestrians? How about cyclists completely > >> ignoring a ban on riding through Hyde Park? How about cyclists > >> ignoring one way streets in Islington? How about so many cyclists > >> ignoring traffic law in London that the Police admit they can't cope > >> with the volume? > > >>> I look forward to you attempting this (or more likely, claiming that > >>> it isn't necessary), given that more cyclists are killed by > >>> pedestrians than the reverse, and the total of both is outweighed by > >>> several orders of magnitude by the number of victims of motor > >>> vehicle use. > > >> That more cyclists are killed by pedestrians is simply idiotic - I > >> trust you can provide evidence to support this ridiculous claim? A > >> pedestrian hit by a cyclist is going to come off worse, simple > >> schoolboy physics. > > > I don't produce statistics myself, but fortunately the government do. > > That is where these facts are reported. > > So, find them & publish then then. > > >> That cyclists come off worse when colliding with motor vehicles is > >> obvious - again simple schoolboy physics - but they cause more > >> accidents because they frequently ignore traffic law. > > > No, the government is also good enough to publish reports on that too. > > In the vast majority of collisions between a cyclist and a motor > > vehicle, it is the driver of the motor vehicle who is at fault. > > Well come on then - publish the figures. "With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time." http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
From: The Medway Handyman on 20 Dec 2009 14:54
DavidR wrote: > "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote >> DavidR wrote: >>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote >>> >>>>>> Perhaps you could tell us why you object so strongly to a >>>>>> perfectly reasonable concept? >>>>> >>>>> Asking the person making the proposals to give their reasoning >>>>> first is a strong objection is it? >>>> >>>> Not at all, but they are so clearly written there is no need to. >>> >>> The requests are clearly written, true... I still don't see any >>> reasoning. >> >> I would have thought it glaringly obvious; > > Not at all. Otherwise I wouldn't be asking. > > <...> > >> Now it has reasoning. I look forward to your response. > > You have replied only in the manner of a religious believer. I can > accept that you're not a scientist or statistician. Nor am I. But > substance is absent. I've replied in a perfectly logiocal manner. What 'substance' is missing? > Ok, let me suggest that all motor vehicles should have a flashing > warning light when going at over 30mph. It's a brilliant idea - and > glaringly obvious (to me). Now, you could dive in straight away and > say it's stupid. I certainly will. Its stupid. > > Or you could ask about the content of my head. If I then said that > driving motor vehicles at over 30mph in built up areas is a safety > hazard and this measure "would"(*) increase safety, would you accept > that as an answer? Frankly I wouldn't accept the content of your head to prove anything. Certain areas do have 20mph limits, but I wouldn't accept that as an answer. I would regard that as evading the issue. > Well, it's an answer. And it's on a similar level > to the one that you gave. But it's not an answer any sensible person > should accept for taking the proposal seriously. I've justified every point. Perhaps you could justify why cyclists should not have a licence proving they are competant to ride a bike, why cyclists shouldn't have compulsory insurance, why cycles shouln't be roadworthy, why cyclists shouldn't wear hi viz vests to improve safety, why they shouldn't have a registration number displayed so they can be identified? Most sensible persons would not find anything unacceptable in those entirely reasonable proposals. > So you need to try harder. I don't think so. I think you should start to explain why cyclists consider they should be above the law? I further think you should explain why you have ignored all the relevant points raised. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist |