Motorists above the law.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Bridge 1:0 Bus
Next: Ford Fiesta Auto Wipe
From: The Medway Handyman on 26 Dec 2009 16:12 Doug wrote: >> > Thought asd much, more of a motorist than a cyclist then, hence your > critical approach to cyclists. Need I remind you that cars/motorists > are much more dangerous than bicycles/cyclists and cause many more > deaths? That is why motoring needs to be exercised with much greater > restraint and care, which unfortunately it is not. Is that more dangerous and cause's more deaths based on numbers of motorists/cyclists or miles travelled by each? Or just the total? Which would be deliberate spinning of the truth to support your fanatical cause. -- Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the underarm.
From: Doug on 27 Dec 2009 02:31 On 26 Dec, 21:12, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > > Thought asd much, more of a motorist than a cyclist then, hence your > > critical approach to cyclists. Need I remind you that cars/motorists > > are much more dangerous than bicycles/cyclists and cause many more > > deaths? That is why motoring needs to be exercised with much greater > > restraint and care, which unfortunately it is not. > > Is that more dangerous and cause's more deaths based on numbers of > motorists/cyclists or miles travelled by each? > No based on relative momentum. > > Or just the total? Which would be deliberate spinning of the truth to > support your fanatical cause. > I don't see anything fanatical about wishing to see a serious source of death and injuries reduced. OTOH, your harmful car cultism is indeed fanatical. -- World Carfree Network http://www.worldcarfree.net/ Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.
From: The Medway Handyman on 27 Dec 2009 08:43 Doug wrote: > On 26 Dec, 21:12, "The Medway Handyman" > <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> Doug wrote: >> >>> Thought asd much, more of a motorist than a cyclist then, hence your >>> critical approach to cyclists. Need I remind you that cars/motorists >>> are much more dangerous than bicycles/cyclists and cause many more >>> deaths? That is why motoring needs to be exercised with much greater >>> restraint and care, which unfortunately it is not. >> >> Is that more dangerous and cause's more deaths based on numbers of >> motorists/cyclists or miles travelled by each? >> > No based on relative momentum. Thats fairly obvious. If only cyclists were as adept at avoiding collisions as they are at avoiding questions, they would be perfectly safe. >> Or just the total? Which would be deliberate spinning of the truth to >> support your fanatical cause. >> > I don't see anything fanatical about wishing to see a serious source > of death and injuries reduced. OTOH, your harmful car cultism is > indeed fanatical. A 'serious source'. Hmmmm. Around 33,000,000 motorists and around 3,300 deaths. Whilst each death is clearly a tradegy, its hardly a seroius source is it? That you use phrases lile 'harmful car cultism' and then call me a fanatic is simply bizzare. Presumably you have practical suggestions on how to abolish 'harmful car cultism'? 33,000,000 push bikes perhaps? -- Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the underarm.
From: Doug on 27 Dec 2009 11:02 On 27 Dec, 13:43, "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > Doug wrote: > > On 26 Dec, 21:12, "The Medway Handyman" > > <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >> Doug wrote: > > >>> Thought asd much, more of a motorist than a cyclist then, hence your > >>> critical approach to cyclists. Need I remind you that cars/motorists > >>> are much more dangerous than bicycles/cyclists and cause many more > >>> deaths? That is why motoring needs to be exercised with much greater > >>> restraint and care, which unfortunately it is not. > > >> Is that more dangerous and cause's more deaths based on numbers of > >> motorists/cyclists or miles travelled by each? > > > No based on relative momentum. > > Thats fairly obvious. If only cyclists were as adept at avoiding collisions > as they are at avoiding questions, they would be perfectly safe. > They can never be perfectly safe in the presence of killer drivers. > > >> Or just the total? Which would be deliberate spinning of the truth to > >> support your fanatical cause. > > > I don't see anything fanatical about wishing to see a serious source > > of death and injuries reduced. OTOH, your harmful car cultism is > > indeed fanatical. > > A 'serious source'. Hmmmm. Around 33,000,000 motorists and around 3,300 > deaths. Whilst each death is clearly a tradegy, its hardly a seroius source > is it? > It depends how seriously you regard the right to life. > > That you use phrases lile 'harmful car cultism' and then call me a fanatic > is simply bizzare. > Why? Many motorists treat their cars almost reverentially as some kind of status symbol, instead of the harmful and polluting machine that it really is. > > Presumably you have practical suggestions on how to abolish 'harmful car > cultism'? > I doubt that it can ever be completely abolished, especially while it continues to be regarded as a desirable object. > > 33,000,000 push bikes perhaps? > No simply by allowing alternative lifestyles to evolve which are free of car dependency instead of totally reliant on it. -- Car Free Cities http://www.carfree.com/ Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.
From: Ian Dalziel on 28 Dec 2009 05:15
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:34:42 -0800 (PST), Doug <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote: >> 'Killer Drivers'? �1 in 10,000 drivers are involved in a fatality. �Just a >> slight exageration don't you think? >> >Not if you believe that ANY death should be avoided. Besides there are >many more serious injuries from which some may later die or have the >rest of their lives seriously affected. There was allegedly one death which was avoided. For the rest, I think you're on a sticky wicket trying to do any more than delay them. -- Ian D |