helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Roland Perry on 17 Apr 2010 03:05 In message <1jh0ijh.12fcdxo1ve6nliN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, at 23:00:44 on Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked: >Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> Please answer the question. >> > >> >I have, clearly and in English. >> >> q: "are you claiming that motorists won't give more >> vulnerable-looking cyclists more caution/respect?" >> >> a: "I'm pointing out that motorists tend to treat cyclists with >> caution and respect." >> >> Which doesn't answer the question about a possible sliding scale, and >> the "more" in my question. > >Which part of the answer do you not understand? Whether or not the degree of "caution and respect" varies, specifically do you give more of it to a vulnerable-looking motorist. >> Only common sense. Sorry, I don't have a peer reviewed paper defining >> "common sense". > >Ah yes, "common sense", that last resort of the scoundrel. It beats stupidity or dogma. -- Roland Perry
From: Steve Firth on 17 Apr 2010 03:57 Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > >> Which doesn't answer the question about a possible sliding scale, and > >> the "more" in my question. > > > >Which part of the answer do you not understand? > > Whether or not the degree of "caution and respect" varies, specifically > do you give more of it to a vulnerable-looking motorist. Why would one give more than that is adequate? You're trying, in a very amateur way, to pilot thhis discussion to give the answer that you want. That's foolish on your part. > >> Only common sense. Sorry, I don't have a peer reviewed paper defining > >> "common sense". > > > >Ah yes, "common sense", that last resort of the scoundrel. > > It beats stupidity or dogma. All you have is adequate supplies of both. Your claims about the degree of caution shown by a driver are classic examples of dogma. You believe, absent of evidence that what you say is true. You refuse to obtain the evidence, that adds stupidity to dogma.
From: Roland Perry on 17 Apr 2010 05:53 In message <1jh34s0.12c5wy5cr4ta8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, at 08:57:50 on Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked: >Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > >> >> Which doesn't answer the question about a possible sliding scale, and >> >> the "more" in my question. >> > >> >Which part of the answer do you not understand? >> >> Whether or not the degree of "caution and respect" varies, specifically >> do you give more of it to a vulnerable-looking motorist. > >Why would one give more than that is adequate? Because "adequate" might vary depending upon the perceived vulnerability of the cyclist. Giving more room to a wobbly five year old than a professional looking adult, for example. >Your claims about the degree of caution shown by a driver are classic >examples of dogma. I would regard it as one kind of common sense for me as a driver to give a wobbly child more room, and another kind of common sense for me to realise that drivers in general might do that. -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 17 Apr 2010 06:02 In message <hq7ntj$jtk$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, at 20:03:06 on Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> remarked: >>>>>> Or are you claiming that motorists won't give more >>>>>>vulnerable-looking cyclists more caution/respect? >>>>> >>> >>> I am implying appreciation / regard / esteem, the normal meaning of >>>'giving respect to someone'. >> Whereas I mean "giving them more consideration, showing more care". > > OK, that is clearer. Hmm, only if you count children as 'vulnerable >looking' rather than 'untrained and unpredictable looking'. My experience shows that children are more likely to swerve/wobble unpredictably. >>> Road users will tend follow dozy looking road users more closely >> Another highly ambiguous word. Perhaps you mean "diligently" rather >>than "at a much sorter distance"? > > Again, I am using the normal sense of 'at a shorter distance'. What's your strategy there? To make them slow down because they feel intimidated? >>> than they will competent looking ones, but I don't know how that >>>fits into your interpretation of 'caution'. >> "Diligently" would indeed fit my idea of caution. > > Following diligently would imply continuing to follow (at a close >distance) No, it means paying extra attention. (And no, I don't think all drivers are paying maximum attention at all times regardless of their surroundings). >even when there were perfectly good opportunities to pass. Which would >not be considerate. That's an entirely different issue, deciding when it's safe to pass. -- Roland Perry
From: Steve Firth on 17 Apr 2010 06:42
Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > In message <1jh34s0.12c5wy5cr4ta8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, at 08:57:50 on > Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked: > >Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> >> Which doesn't answer the question about a possible sliding scale, and > >> >> the "more" in my question. > >> > > >> >Which part of the answer do you not understand? > >> > >> Whether or not the degree of "caution and respect" varies, specifically > >> do you give more of it to a vulnerable-looking motorist. > > > >Why would one give more than that is adequate? > > Because "adequate" might vary depending upon the perceived vulnerability > of the cyclist. Giving more room to a wobbly five year old than a > professional looking adult, for example. Keep digging. > >Your claims about the degree of caution shown by a driver are classic > >examples of dogma. > > I would regard it as one kind of common sense for me as a driver to give > a wobbly child more room, and another kind of common sense for me to > realise that drivers in general might do that. What you keep claiming as "common sense" is dogma. |