Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: MasonS on 29 Dec 2009 06:43 On 28 Dec, 23:18, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > Mas...(a)BP.com wrote: > > On 28 Dec, 12:21, JNugent <J...(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > >> Do you actually *believe* that drivers on the school run (to take just one of > >> the categories mentioned) are among the worst drivers on the road? > >> If so, why? > > OK - I had credited you with enough sense to be able to work it out > > for yourself, but I'll go along with it. > > > The school run imposes its own set of dangers on to a normal car > > journey. > > To start with, there is a time constraint that is not present when say > > visiting the shops. > > If the stererotypical harassed mum is "running late", she may exceed > > the speed limit and take extra risks in order not to be late. > > She may be a fashion victim and drive a much larger car than she is > > comfortable with which may give her a restricted view, both front and > > rear, especially if she is of a diminutive stature. > > She probably has a job herself and so has two deadlines to meet - > > again putting her under additional stress. > > She may be tempted to "make time" by applying make up, eating and > > brushing her hair in the car, rather than at home, meaning she is not > > paying attention to the road. > > Her children will normally be in the back, meaning she could be > > turning her head around quite a lot to check on her charges, > > especially if they are being disruptive. > > The local streets will, by definition, be populated by similar drivers > > causing more risks of accidents. > > The parking arrangements at the school will be severly restricted, but > > since she is "just" stopping for a short time, she may ignore them. > > The pavements will be full of children, again by definition and she > > and other drivers will be tempted to mount pavements to avoid > > obstructing the road completely. > > ...and so on. > > I'm sure you can think of many more that I have missed. > > I see. > > There are a heck of a lot of probables, mays, coulds, maybes, perhapses and > normallys in there, aren't there. Oh, and most risible of all, a "by > definition" or two. > > All in all, an answer straight out of the "Making It Up As You Go Along" > book. You have the most vivid of imaginations. > > No actual evidence, of course. Not that anyone can have expected any. > > And best/worst of all, you seem to think that women with jobs shouldn't be > allowed to drive. Have you any other nasty little prejudices you'd like to share? > > You're just irrational. You seem to think that your own biased conjectures > are evidence. They're not. And you cannot bear the thought of people being > free to make up their own minds about what suits their families best. > > Why didn't you just say so? It would have been at least as convincing as that > lot you posted above.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - As I stated, I was not one of the 70000 people that were polled. I merely responded to your insistance that I provide a list of reasons as to why these 70000 people may have come to their conclusions. The rest of your conclusions about me and my opinions are totally unfounded, I have no opinion on school run mums at all as they don't affect me. Again, (and finally), you would have to ask one of the 70000 people polled how *they* came to their conclusion and not use me as their spokesman. -- Simon Mason
From: DavidR on 29 Dec 2009 12:33 On 24/12/2009 01:04, The Medway Handyman wrote: > DavidR wrote: >> "The Medway Handyman"<davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote >>> DavidR wrote: > > The problems are perfectly clear to someone who isn't a fanatic cyclist. There must be a lot of fanatic cyclists about that never ride a bike. >> I will say here that, really, I don't give a stuff whether cyclists >> obey traffic lights. > > So you are openly admitting that you think cyclists are above the laws that > apply to other vehicle users? No. It says that I don't give a stuff if they break it. >> In a car, limited visibility usually makes it >> nigh on impossible to proceed safely against a red light. On a bike >> this not generally a restriction and normal junction precautions are >> easily performed. > > Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. Jumping red lights is dangerous Yes, it can be... if done just by blundering blindly through. It's not inherently so. Anecdotally, it has been suggested that, on balance, cyclists are probably safer left to their own judgement. > and against the law. And long may it stand. But it doesn't mean I should get in a froth about cyclists breaking it. > But you appear to think that cyclists are some sort of super > beings who don't need to obey the law? Being a "super being" is unnecessary. The vast majority of road junctions are not light controlled so the skills needed for judging gaps are acquired as a matter of routine. Perhaps it's because London has so many traffic lights that drivers brought up there have particular difficulty coping with junctions where they are required to think for themselves? > Shame you and your kind aren't bright enough to realise that the word > 'moton' dates from 1480 and refers to a small plate or armour designed to > protect the underarm. My mistake. It didn't occur to me that the language could have changed so much in the 100 years after Chaucer and then stopped all further development. > No fuckwit - because...... And a happy new year to you too.
From: DavidR on 30 Dec 2009 04:56 On 29/12/2009 18:13, The Medway Handyman wrote: > DavidR wrote: >> On 24/12/2009 01:04, The Medway Handyman wrote: >>> DavidR wrote: >>>> "The Medway Handyman"<davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote >>>>> DavidR wrote: >> >>> >>> The problems are perfectly clear to someone who isn't a fanatic >>> cyclist. >> >> There must be a lot of fanatic cyclists about that never ride a bike. > > How much evidence to you want - to ignore? When are you going to provide some? >>>> I will say here that, really, I don't give a stuff whether cyclists >>>> obey traffic lights. >>> >>> So you are openly admitting that you think cyclists are above the >>> laws that apply to other vehicle users? >> >> No. It says that I don't give a stuff if they break it. > > So you are condoning cyclists breaking the law then Cambridge dictionary definition of 'condone' ~to accept or allow behaviour that is wrong~. So it suggests nothing about not giving a stuff. >>>> In a car, limited visibility usually makes it >>>> nigh on impossible to proceed safely against a red light. On a bike >>>> this not generally a restriction and normal junction precautions are >>>> easily performed. >>> >>> Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. Jumping red lights is dangerous >> >> Yes, it can be... if done just by blundering blindly through. It's not >> inherently so. > > So, if motorists ignored red lights there would be no outcry from cyclists? As I explained earlier, the restricted visibility from a car usually makes it impossible to do anything other than blunder through. >> Anecdotally, it has been suggested that, on balance, cyclists are >> probably safer left to their own judgement. > > So they are above the law then? >> >>> and against the law. >> >> And long may it stand. But it doesn't mean I should get in a froth >> about cyclists breaking it. > > Is it OK for cyclists to mug people, burgle house's& commit murder? I have a garage full of equipment that can be very dangerous if misused (including a car). If I wanted to murder somebody, a bicycle would be a very clumsy and probably unreliable instrument of choice - awkward getting upstairs to the victim's bedroom and hard to grip for a decent swing. However, the thought that a "cyclist" could be let off is an interesting suggestion. But rather impractical because it would lead to all sorts of problems about the definition of a "cyclist". >>> But you appear to think that cyclists are some sort of super >>> beings who don't need to obey the law? >> >> Being a "super being" is unnecessary. The vast majority of road >> junctions are not light controlled so the skills needed for judging >> gaps are acquired as a matter of routine. > > Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. Is there some doubt to the fact that the vast majority of junctions (outside London) are not light controlled? >> Perhaps it's because London has so many traffic lights that drivers >> brought up there have particular difficulty coping with junctions >> where they are required to think for themselves? >> >>> Shame you and your kind aren't bright enough to realise that the word >>> 'moton' dates from 1480 and refers to a small plate or armour >>> designed to protect the underarm. >> >> My mistake. It didn't occur to me that the language could have changed >> so much in the 100 years after Chaucer and then stopped all further >> development. > > It wouldn't occur to you would it. The word hasn't changed meaning at all. The accepted convention about punctuation hasn't changed in the last week or so. It wouldn't occur to you, would it?
From: The Medway Handyman on 30 Dec 2009 14:15 DavidR wrote: > On 29/12/2009 18:13, The Medway Handyman wrote: >> DavidR wrote: >>> On 24/12/2009 01:04, The Medway Handyman wrote: >>>> DavidR wrote: >>>>> "The Medway Handyman"<davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote >>>>>> DavidR wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> The problems are perfectly clear to someone who isn't a fanatic >>>> cyclist. >>> >>> There must be a lot of fanatic cyclists about that never ride a >>> bike. >> >> How much evidence to you want - to ignore? > > When are you going to provide some? I've provided plenty, you choose to ignore it. Local authorities, police, hosptals, schools all over the UK are concerned about dangerous cyclists. Real problems, real concerns from responsible people - and you choose to ignore it. Speaks volumes. >>>>> I will say here that, really, I don't give a stuff whether >>>>> cyclists obey traffic lights. >>>> >>>> So you are openly admitting that you think cyclists are above the >>>> laws that apply to other vehicle users? >>> >>> No. It says that I don't give a stuff if they break it. >> >> So you are condoning cyclists breaking the law then > > Cambridge dictionary definition of 'condone' ~to accept or allow > behaviour that is wrong~. > > So it suggests nothing about not giving a stuff. Are you a Nu Labour politician? > >>>>> In a car, limited visibility usually makes it >>>>> nigh on impossible to proceed safely against a red light. On a >>>>> bike this not generally a restriction and normal junction >>>>> precautions are easily performed. >>>> >>>> Pathetic. Utterly pathetic. Jumping red lights is dangerous >>> >>> Yes, it can be... if done just by blundering blindly through. It's >>> not inherently so. >> >> So, if motorists ignored red lights there would be no outcry from >> cyclists? > > As I explained earlier, the restricted visibility from a car usually > makes it impossible to do anything other than blunder through. You appear to have overlooked those large glass areas called windows. > >>> Anecdotally, it has been suggested that, on balance, cyclists are >>> probably safer left to their own judgement. >> >> So they are above the law then? >>> >>>> and against the law. >>> >>> And long may it stand. But it doesn't mean I should get in a froth >>> about cyclists breaking it. >> >> Is it OK for cyclists to mug people, burgle house's& commit murder? > > I have a garage full of equipment that can be very dangerous if > misused (including a car). If I wanted to murder somebody, a bicycle > would be a very clumsy and probably unreliable instrument of choice - > awkward getting upstairs to the victim's bedroom and hard to grip for > a decent swing. However, the thought that a "cyclist" could be let > off is an interesting suggestion. But rather impractical because it > would lead to all sorts of problems about the definition of a > "cyclist". Nice try an evading the question. Failed. > >>>> But you appear to think that cyclists are some sort of super >>>> beings who don't need to obey the law? >>> >>> Being a "super being" is unnecessary. The vast majority of road >>> junctions are not light controlled so the skills needed for judging >>> gaps are acquired as a matter of routine. >> >> Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle. > > Is there some doubt to the fact that the vast majority of junctions > (outside London) are not light controlled? How can you jump the lights at a junction that isn't light controlled? Please pay attention. > >>> Perhaps it's because London has so many traffic lights that drivers >>> brought up there have particular difficulty coping with junctions >>> where they are required to think for themselves? >>> >>>> Shame you and your kind aren't bright enough to realise that the >>>> word 'moton' dates from 1480 and refers to a small plate or armour >>>> designed to protect the underarm. >>> >>> My mistake. It didn't occur to me that the language could have >>> changed so much in the 100 years after Chaucer and then stopped all >>> further development. >> >> It wouldn't occur to you would it. The word hasn't changed meaning >> at all. > > The accepted convention about punctuation hasn't changed in the last > week or so. It wouldn't occur to you, would it? Irrelevant attack. Cyclists fucked up when they tried to be clever. The word 'moton' has only one meaning. -- Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.
From: DavidR on 30 Dec 2009 19:19
On 30/12/2009 19:15, The Medway Handyman wrote: > DavidR wrote: >>> >>> How much evidence to you want - to ignore? >> >> When are you going to provide some? > > I've provided plenty, you choose to ignore it. Local authorities, police, > hosptals, schools all over the UK are concerned about dangerous cyclists. > Real problems, real concerns from responsible people - and you choose to > ignore it. Speaks volumes. Then it's necessary to disagree on what constitutes "evidence". >> As I explained earlier, the restricted visibility from a car usually >> makes it impossible to do anything other than blunder through. > > You appear to have overlooked those large glass areas called windows. And since I am familiar with both modes, I don't overlook other principal factors. You just have to accept a simple fact that there is a VERY big difference. |