View Single Post
  #23  
Old August 20th 18, 10:27 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Incubus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/08/18 14:23, Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/08/18 10:15, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote:


Dangerous drivers are wholly irrelevant when it comes to
pedestrian safety from cyclists.

But please note that I did not use the expression "dangerous
drivers". Most pedestrians are not harmed by dangerous drivers -
in law. The casualty statistics happen to show the danger of
drivers and their motor vehicles is ever present. It is not
irrelevant.

By and large people take it upon themselves not to get run over by
a motor vehicle and don't put any burden on the driver. Whereas
they expect the cyclist to make all the effort. It is easy to
observe or experience.

I don't think that is a fair summation of the facts.Â* Pedestrians do
take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct
is instilled within us from a very early age.

Then I did give a fair summation of the facts. But I will state again
that it doesn't transfer to being in proximity to cyclists. Even on the
road (*).

It is not a fair summation of the facts; the pedestrian is obliged to be
careful on the road

You're blinkered about what I said. Whatever this "obligation" is that
you mention (legal, moral, safety?), in practice they keep out of
harms way amongst motor vehicles (ie, "they don't put any burden on
the driver"). We are in agreement.

Then you completely ignore the part about this not happening when
they're amongst bicycles (ie, "they expect the cyclist to make all the
effort").


Were I to walk along a cycle lane, I would of course make an effort to
stay safe because I had no business being there.Â* However, on a
footpath, the responsibility is not mine.


You keep flopping between traffic lights and footpaths and snipped my
assessment of pedestrian behaviour amongst motor and cycle traffic ON
THE ROAD. Please be warned. Next time I shall insult you.


Oh, the pain! I don't think you know how to insult me.

The behaviour of pedestrians towards cyclists on the road is not relevant to
the points I made so it would perhaps serve your delicate constitution better
were you to refrain from introducing red herrings given the umbrage you take
when they are routinely ignored.

Yes, responsibility shifts somewhat on a footpath but you are clearly
expecting something from a cyclist that you would never expect from a
driver.


That is a falsehood. I don't expect drivers to ignore red lights or to drive
along the pavement either.

However, a pedestrian is under no obligation to take care when
walking on a footpath because the footpath is reserved for the use of
the pedestrian alone.Â* Further, it is much easier to see and hear an
approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist.

A footpath (not footway) is not reserved for the use of the pedestrian
alone. Though I happen to agree with the sentiment because when I am
not
near motor vehicles I want to wander with my head in the clouds yet I
don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured by cyclists. So I
wonder what the difference is between us.

Perhaps you have never lived nor worked in places like Weybridge
where feral
cyclists are numerous.

You're not doing yourself any favours.


What you mean to say is that I am not doing you any favours.


I don't go through red traffic lights and when I go off ROAD on the bike
I am there to potter and enjoy the surroundings. I am here to take issue
with your whingeing.


Ah, so you premuse to be the standard by which all cyclists are to be judged?

I recall one occasion when crossing the road, the light was green for
pedestrians and I was hit by a cylist who failed to stop whom I
simply did not see.Â* He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a
heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me.Â* Once I had
ascertained that he had not succeeded in scratching my cowboy boot, I
continued on my way and left him to the ministrations of a
sympathetic female.

Which shows that a cyclist has a very high chance of auto-punishment.
Unlike a driver.

The cyclist also have a very high chance of harming someone else.

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.Â* 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.


It is not illegal to carry a dagger.


It certainly is in a public place. What an utterly foolish reply.

There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct that
cyclists are supposed to abide by.


And do you suppose that they do?

People claim they do not abide by
them but please don't try to suggest that if they don't it is
necessarily dangerous - real danger that produces statics, not imaginary.


You are seeking to misuse statistics. I would wager that very few motorists
actually cause accidents but according to what puports to be your logic, that
means there is no real danger.

I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a
cyclisThjet who did not respect a red light.Â* On the other hand, there
is only one incident I can recall when I was almost hit by a car
whose driver ignored a red light. Although I always take care, the
fact is that cyclists are far more likely to think that they are not
obliged to stop for a red light and the burden is upon them.

And that one occasion put you at enormously higher risk of injury than
all the others combined.

Actually, it didn't.Â* The driver started driving away from a red
light early
and wasn't going very fast.Â* The times I have almost been hit by
lycra louts,
many of them have been cycling at high speed.

Stop ignoring statistics.


No; you stop misusing statistics to change the focus to drivers because
of an abiding resentment you harbour towards them.Â* Once you acknowledge
that and start to deal with it, you will see things far more clearly and
no doubt feel much better as well.


So you're suggesting the official figure of thousands of pedestrians
killed or injured every year by drivers doesn't make driving a dangerous
activity?


That is not what I said. You are going to have to do much better than silly
straw man arguments if you wish for me to take you seriously.

I happen to drive, walk and cycle which is clearly far more than you do.


Your foolish comparisons and personal experience have no bearing on the matter.
Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home