Prev: R4 play depiction of a 4x4
Next: Record number of motorists prosecuted for driving while using mobile phones
From: Doug on 13 Mar 2010 11:48
On 13 Mar, 15:48, delboy <del.copel...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 3:28 pm, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
> > On 13 Mar, 12:09, Elder <carl.rob...(a)bouncing-czechs.com> wrote:> In article <04f15ac3-cb20-49d9-ba16-3900ba1b0fd0
> > > @b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, jag...(a)riseup.net says...> Bicycles are much less dangerous than cars and this should always be
> > > > taken into account.
> > > Not true, there is a much greater chance of a pedestrian body being
> > > punctured by part of a bicycle involved in an accident than a car. Cars
> > > are designed to be pedestrian friendly in an accident, bicycles are
> > > designed to eviscerate them and a lethal weapon far more dangerous than
> > > a machete or a flick knife, because the bicycle pretends to be something
> > > other than a murderous weapon of the sociopath.
> > Rubbish. Bicycles have a much lower momentum than a car therefore they
> > are less likely to kill. Also the fronts of many cars have metal
> > projections, such as insignia, grills.and number plates.The time
> > before last when I was hit by a car I received a number of cuts to my
> > head and legs.
> > --
> > UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
> That depends how heavy the cyclist is (as they make up most of the
> mass) and how fast he (or she) is going. A heavy cyclist riding fast
> downhill can do a serious amount of damage to himself, a vehicle, or a
> Modern cars are designed to minimise injuries to pedestrians (and
> presumably cyclists), by having well rounded fronts, an absence of
> sharp projections and crumple zones to absorb energy.
Yeah sure! What about this one?
> I guess that the
> last but one driver who failed to kill you must have been driving a
> vintage car.
I guess you haven't looked at many car fronts recently.
UK Radical Campaigns
A driving licence is a licence to kill.