At last, someone has spotted the elephant

"cyclists must obey law after fifth death in nine days"

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...s-superhighway

Mrcheerful wrote:

"cyclists must obey law after fifth death in nine days"

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...s-superhighway

Also from that article:

"Discussing the deaths in a radio interview on Thursday morning,
Johnson said that while there could be "no question of blame or finger-pointing",
cyclists had a duty to obey the laws of the road and heed signals.

"Some of the cases that we've seen in the last few days really make your
heart bleed because you can see that people have taken decisions that
really did put their lives in danger," he told Nick Ferrari on LBC 97.3.

"You cannot blame the victim in these circumstances. But what you can
say is that when people make decisions on the road that are very
risky – jumping red lights, moving across fast-moving traffic in a
way that is completely unexpected and without looking to see what
traffic is doing – it's very difficult for the traffic engineers to
second-guess that."

--
Kim Bolton

"Kim Bolton" wrote in message
...
Mrcheerful wrote:

"cyclists must obey law after fifth death in nine days"

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...s-superhighway

Also from that article:

"Discussing the deaths in a radio interview on Thursday morning,
Johnson said that while there could be "no question of blame or
finger-pointing",
cyclists had a duty to obey the laws of the road and heed signals.

"Some of the cases that we've seen in the last few days really make your
heart bleed because you can see that people have taken decisions that
really did put their lives in danger," he told Nick Ferrari on LBC 97.3.

"You cannot blame the victim in these circumstances. But what you can
say is that when people make decisions on the road that are very
risky – jumping red lights, moving across fast-moving traffic in a
way that is completely unexpected and without looking to see what
traffic is doing – it's very difficult for the traffic engineers to
second-guess that."

Which is echoing what we've all been saying; it doesn't matter how much
money we pour into road schemes, we simply can't trust cyclists to ride
responsibly within the law, or with any sort of regard for their own safety
or the safety of others. The risks are so well known, we can only conclude
that some cyclists consider themselves expendable when they do these stupid
things on roads.

On 14/11/2013 14:56, Kim Bolton wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:

"cyclists must obey law after fifth death in nine days"

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...s-superhighway

Also from that article:

"Discussing the deaths in a radio interview on Thursday morning,
Johnson said that while there could be "no question of blame or finger-pointing",
cyclists had a duty to obey the laws of the road and heed signals.

The mayor is wrong when he says that there can be no question of blame
or finger-pointing.

There will definitely be blame and/or finger-pointing. That's the whole
purpose of the legal processes which follow a sudden death. Inquests
will be held and the Coroner will attempt to attribute blame (I accept
that the phrase isn't ideal) to the parties who were to blame - in
whatever proportions - for the fatal incidents.

If, in any of the cases, the person responsible is the cyclist, the
verdict will make that clear. That's the duty of the court. If it is the
fault of someone else, that will be made clear. And either way, quite
right too.

"Some of the cases that we've seen in the last few days really make your
heart bleed because you can see that people have taken decisions that
really did put their lives in danger," he told Nick Ferrari on LBC 97.3.

That sounds a lot like blame or finger-pointing, even if the cases are
only identified in vague terms.

"You cannot blame the victim in these circumstances.

Where the "victim" is the achitect of his own demise, we certainly *can*
blame him. And we *must* blame him. Failing to do so leaves other,
innocent, people, under unjustified suspicion.

Boris is playing to a gallery by the sound of it.

But what you can
say is that when people make decisions on the road that are very
risky – jumping red lights, moving across fast-moving traffic in a
way that is completely unexpected and without looking to see what
traffic is doing – it's very difficult for the traffic engineers to
second-guess that."

The only way that traffic engineers could prevent cyclists from doing
what they usually do at traffic lights is to (ideally) have the whole
junction equipped with sci-fi force-fields or (more prosaically) equip
the intersection with level-crossing-type barriers. But as we know,
cyclists don't even always stop for those, even with an approaching
train a very few yards away.

"JNugent" wrote in message ...

On 14/11/2013 14:56, Kim Bolton wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:

"cyclists must obey law after fifth death in nine days"

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...s-superhighway

Also from that article:

"Discussing the deaths in a radio interview on Thursday morning,
Johnson said that while there could be "no question of blame or
finger-pointing",
cyclists had a duty to obey the laws of the road and heed signals.

The mayor is wrong when he says that there can be no question of blame
or finger-pointing.

There will definitely be blame and/or finger-pointing. That's the whole
purpose of the legal processes which follow a sudden death. Inquests
will be held and the Coroner will attempt to attribute blame (I accept
that the phrase isn't ideal) to the parties who were to blame - in
whatever proportions - for the fatal incidents.

If, in any of the cases, the person responsible is the cyclist, the
verdict will make that clear. That's the duty of the court. If it is the
fault of someone else, that will be made clear. And either way, quite
right too.

"Some of the cases that we've seen in the last few days really make your
heart bleed because you can see that people have taken decisions that
really did put their lives in danger," he told Nick Ferrari on LBC 97.3.

That sounds a lot like blame or finger-pointing, even if the cases are
only identified in vague terms.

"You cannot blame the victim in these circumstances.

Where the "victim" is the achitect of his own demise, we certainly *can*
blame him. And we *must* blame him. Failing to do so leaves other,
innocent, people, under unjustified suspicion.

Boris is playing to a gallery by the sound of it.

But what you can
say is that when people make decisions on the road that are very
risky – jumping red lights, moving across fast-moving traffic in a
way that is completely unexpected and without looking to see what
traffic is doing – it's very difficult for the traffic engineers to
second-guess that."

The only way that traffic engineers could prevent cyclists from doing
what they usually do at traffic lights is to (ideally) have the whole
junction equipped with sci-fi force-fields or (more prosaically) equip
the intersection with level-crossing-type barriers. But as we know,
cyclists don't even always stop for those, even with an approaching
train a very few yards away.

No, that wouldn't work. You'd get this sort of thing happening all over the
place:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXV4PU5DRRY

On 14/11/2013 12:59, Mrcheerful wrote:
"cyclists must obey law after fifth death in nine days"

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...s-superhighway


But you don't want cyclists to obey the law.