Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Keitht on 29 Nov 2009 08:23 Steve Firth wrote: > Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:42:54 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) >> wrote: >> >>> Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>> I'd rate my chances as being about as good as those of stopping a >>>>> cyclist. >>>> Ah, but then you may find yourself drawn into the "relative amount of >>>> damage" argument. >>> No I'd find myself being drawn into the typical cyclists "tu quoque" >>> fallacy. >> I didn't attempt to justify either of them being there. It's a simple >> comparison between getting hit by a ton of fairly hard steel and a >> couple of hundred kilos of steel and squidgy bits. >> > > See previous comment about "tu quoque" it really does draw you like a > moth to a candle, doesn't it? See other comment about the incorrect usage of 'tu quoque' - it seems to be coming a habit. -- Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
From: Mark McNeill on 29 Nov 2009 08:25 Response to Steve Firth: > > > No I'd find myself being drawn into the typical cyclists "tu > > > quoque" fallacy. > > > > How come this incorrectly used phrase has become popular all of a > > sudden? > > It isn't, it hasn't. HTH. The tu quoque fallacy depends on using "tu quoque" as a justification; just calling PKB is not a fallacy. You've fallen into the habit of erroneously saying "fallacy" where no fallacy exists. -- Mark, UK.
From: johnwright ""john" on 29 Nov 2009 08:27 Phil W Lee wrote: > johnwright <""john\"@no spam here.com"> considered Sat, 28 Nov 2009 > 13:39:39 +0000 the perfect time to write: > >> Peter Grange wrote: >>> On 28 Nov 2009 11:31:39 GMT, Huge <Huge(a)nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2009-11-28, Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> On 28 Nov 2009 10:58:07 GMT, Huge <Huge(a)nowhere.much.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2009-11-27, Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:56:05 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) >>>>>>>> No, it's just that the majority of cyclists are selfish, stupid >>>>>>>> bastards. You seem typical of the breed. >>>>>>> There goes the unsubstantiated "majority" word again. >>>>>> I used to walk through the City of London every day to work. In that >>>>>> place and time I'd say "majority of" is indeed incorrect. I'd substitute >>>>>> "all". >>>>> If I've told you once I've told you a million times not to exaggerate. >>>> Damn. Found out. :o) >>>> >>>> But seriously, cyclists in the CoL do seem to be a breed apart. Apart >>> >from the law, that is. >>> >>> I had a spell commuting by bike between Waterloo and Bishopsgate which >>> finished about 2 years ago. There were a number of eejuts as there are >>> in all walks of life. The red-light behaviour at the north side of >>> London Bridge was quite good, as most were going right-ish towards >>> Bishopsgate. Other places it wasn't so good. I did see, and reported >>> on here, a couple of plod stopping cyclists coming south on >>> Bishopsgate who had gone through a red light at the junction of >>> Threadneedle Street. They were there for 2 or 3 days IIRC. So >>> sometimes something is done, but not often enough to discourage the >>> behaviour of those who give the rest of us a bad name. >> Perhaps the real solution would be the equivalent of the drive through >> penalty in F1. Slow them down by means of a plod just talking to them if >> one sees an infraction aimed at reducing journey times. With the result >> that their journey time is extended once again. Needs more assertive >> plod on the beat though. > > Can you imagine how long it would take the average motorist to get > anywhere if that were done? > > They'd be better off on bikes! I think from casual observation it would slow bikes down more than any other group. With the possible exception of motorbikes. -- I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore ?John Wright
From: mileburner on 29 Nov 2009 08:48 "NM" <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote in message news:10e2072e-41df-4a0c-b464-12aa79ccc6db(a)p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On 29 Nov, 11:50, "mileburner" <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> NM wrote: >> > On 28 Nov, 19:46, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: >> >> >> Well, according to the legal system, "killed by a motor vehicle" is >> >> not worth taking seriously, whereas other causes are. >> >> > Rubbish, use you motor vehicle to deliberatly kill will not incur a >> > lesser penalty than another method, you convieniently fail to >> > distinguish between an accident and a deliberate act of murder. >> >> There is however a lot of scope for claiming that murder by use of a car >> was >> merely a terrible and tragic accident and it could be a lot more >> difficult >> to prove otherwise. > > So what, it's still murder. And if you get away with it you will receive a lesser sentence...
From: Mark McNeill on 29 Nov 2009 08:49
Response to Huge: > Look, bozo, attempting to justify ignoring the law because others do > it too is "tu quoque". Er, of course. And when one is not attempting to justify ignoring the law? -- Mark, UK. |