On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-20, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:

How high is "very high"? Let's take a cyclist and a driver that each
go through a red traffic light 100 times. How many bodies will each
leave behind?

It's irrelevant. You seem to think that specific laws against
dangerous cycling shouldn't be introduced because a bicycle is less
likely to kill someone than a car. That's like saying it shouldn't be
illegal to carry a dagger because it is far less likely to cause
grievous injury than a rifle.

What a splendid false dichotomy. In fact, it is like having over thirty
people killed every week by rifle-wielding thugs and telling the police
to ignore it... and then, on the one occasion where someone holding a
dagger kills someone, declare it a national emergency and demand that
'public enemy number 1' be brought to justice.

It really isn't.

Erm, yes it is.

What utter rot.

'That's like saying it shouldn't be illegal to carry a dagger because it is
far less likely to cause grievous injury than a rifle'.

That is known as an analogy. If you want a good example of a false dichotomy,
one need look no further than the suggestion that no further laws are needed to
deal with cylists because cars present a more significant danger.

I haven't advocated focussing on scofflaw cyclists to the exclusion of
bad or downright dangerous drivers. As I have said all along, both
should be dealt with.

Your bias is revealed every single time you concentrate on cyclists who -
you claim - are more of a nuisance than car drivers.

I didn't say that. I said my experience is that they are more of a danger
because certain areas of England appear to be particularly hazardous when it
comes to scofflaw cyclists and lycra louts. It is in those areas that such
laws would be beneficial to the hapless pedestrian.