URCM Rejection

Derek C wrote:
On 6 Apr, 17:10, Matt B wrote:
[removed 'Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation']

On 06/04/2010 16:51, Derek C wrote:





On 6 Apr, 16:44, wrote:
Derek C wrote:
wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
Geoff wrote:
wrote:
That is only a legal(ish) definition which is understood. The matter I pick
up on is when people say that going through red lights is dangerous; I want
to be given the functional reasons of why that should be so.
If it's not dangerous for bikes it's not dangerous for cars.
How do you conclude that?
In the same way as anyone can conclude that it isn't dangerous for a bicycle
to cross a red light because there are other junctions without traffic
lights, one can conclude conclude that it isn't dangerous for a car, or a
van, or a bus, or a lorry, or a tank to cross a red light because there are
other junctions without traffic lights.
Yes, but nearly all junctions have a priority right of way designed by
stop signs, give way signs or traffic lights, or even Priorite a
Droite in France. What don't understand about the fact that the rules
of the road are there to prevent accidents and collisions?
I understand that very readily (it appears to be some others who don't).
But in that case (as you posit it above), there's no need for traffic lights
at all.- Hide quoted text -
Yes but on some very busy road junctions, the non priority traffic
would never get out! Therefore most country roads have give way signs
at junctions, whereas most busy urban roads have traffic lights.
What if it wasn't the major road, but the minor road that had priority,
or if the priority was first come, first served, or even if there was
_no_ priority and everyone had to slow right down and beware of other
road users crossing and progress relied upon consent? AIUI, most
crashes occur at junctions, mainly because someone assumed priority but
weren't given it.

If everybody obeys the law and rules of the road, there shouldn't be
any problems.

That's a very big *if* though isn't it. A system that relies on a lack
of human error is a dodgy system, to say the least! Better, perhaps, to
remove a few of those rules so that everyone *has* to pay attention.

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
Derek C wrote:
On 6 Apr, 17:10, Matt B wrote:
[removed 'Newsgroup: uk.net.news.moderation']

On 06/04/2010 16:51, Derek C wrote:





On 6 Apr, 16:44, wrote:
Derek C wrote:
wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
Geoff wrote:
wrote:
That is only a legal(ish) definition which is understood. The
matter I pick
up on is when people say that going through red lights is
dangerous; I want
to be given the functional reasons of why that should be so.
If it's not dangerous for bikes it's not dangerous for cars.
How do you conclude that?
In the same way as anyone can conclude that it isn't dangerous
for a bicycle
to cross a red light because there are other junctions without
traffic
lights, one can conclude conclude that it isn't dangerous for a
car, or a
van, or a bus, or a lorry, or a tank to cross a red light because
there are
other junctions without traffic lights.
Yes, but nearly all junctions have a priority right of way
designed by
stop signs, give way signs or traffic lights, or even Priorite a
Droite in France. What don't understand about the fact that the rules
of the road are there to prevent accidents and collisions?
I understand that very readily (it appears to be some others who
don't).
But in that case (as you posit it above), there's no need for
traffic lights
at all.- Hide quoted text -
Yes but on some very busy road junctions, the non priority traffic
would never get out! Therefore most country roads have give way signs
at junctions, whereas most busy urban roads have traffic lights.
What if it wasn't the major road, but the minor road that had priority,
or if the priority was first come, first served, or even if there was
_no_ priority and everyone had to slow right down and beware of other
road users crossing and progress relied upon consent? AIUI, most
crashes occur at junctions, mainly because someone assumed priority but
weren't given it.

If everybody obeys the law and rules of the road, there shouldn't be
any problems.

That's a very big *if* though isn't it. A system that relies on a lack
of human error is a dodgy system, to say the least! Better, perhaps, to
remove a few of those rules so that everyone *has* to pay attention.


How does removing a few of the rules eliminate human error?

Matt B wrote:

What if it wasn't the major road, but the minor road that had priority,
or if the priority was first come, first served, or even if there was
_no_ priority and everyone had to slow right down and beware of other
road users crossing and progress relied upon consent?

The throughput of the major road may be reduced which could result in a
significant increase in congestion.

In article ,
says...

In article ,
Geoff Berrow wrote:
If it's not dangerous for bikes it's not dangerous for cars. The fact
of the matter is that it's the law and it applies to mounted cyclists
just as much as cars (unless they have changed the law since I did my
cycling proficiency test).

Please stop posting this discussion to uk.net.news.moderation.
If I wanted to read it I would go to uk.rec.cycling.

You mean that awful newsgroup where posts are allowed from *anyone*, no
matter what their opinions? I can see why you steer clear of it.

Del Copeland, that goes for you too. Your proportion of off-topic
postings here in unnm is very high and you are close to my killfile.

Ooh, big man. One would hope that someone who routinely killfiled
anyone who disagreed with them on certain topics would be ashamed of
that fact, but not a bit of it: you boast about it at every opportunity.
Do you not realise how obvious it is that you're only killfiling such
people because you know they're right and you're wrong but you're too
pathetic to admit it? Why else would their opinions bother you so much?
I think someone being in your killfile is a good indication that they're
a reasonable person who isn't of the opinion that cyclists can do no
wrong and (heaven forbid) prioritises actual road safety above the
persecution of motorists.

Other than Chapman and Spindrift, I honestly can't think of *anyone* who
I'd want less as the Chief Moderator of URCM. Happi Monday would do a
better job FFS. Have some consideration for others for once and jump
before you're pushed please.

BTW who might you be voting for, given your insistence on censoring the
"wrong" opinions, your refusal to accept science where it conflicts with
your socialist ideology, and your hatred of cars and the freedom that
they provide? I was wondering who (other than "I've always voted for
them" types) would *still* be mental enough to vote Labour after
everything, but I now have an answer: ****wits like you. You're not
just ruining parts of usenet, you're ruining the ****ing country as
well. Way to go and thanks so much.

Clive George wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Clive George wrote:

[ ... ]

cyclists ignoring traffic signage, especiually red traffic lights:

Thus I do have a significant amount more information available
to me, and that information can be used to make a safe
crossing when it wouldn't be safe in a car.

So you say.
None of it is substantiated.

I'm not sure about that - simple maths provides much of it. What
are you looking for?

Substantiation?

Transsubstantiation more like.

I ignored that first time. I bet you thought it was a really witty thing
to say.

In the real world it's really very easy to prove what I say
about the improved vision and hearing cyclists have, and I'm
surprised you're arguing with it.
What would you like as proof?

Evidence?
By which I do not mean "evidence" of the itstanzterreasondunnit
type you are putting forward.

Evidence of the form I mentioned in the bit you snipped?
Diagrams, photographs, sound meter readings, being shown yourself?

Where are they?
Who did the study?
What - precisely - where their conclusions? What hypothesis/es were
they testing? What is their academic standing? Where are they in
the social and economic research pecking-order? How were they
supervised and how were the results moderated and verified?
There may well be more questions.

They're the wrong questions.

So there is no evidence.

Well, no-one really thought there was any.

Correction: They're the right (sort of) questions, but I strongly
suspect that the (correct and honest) answers would be inconvenient for
you.

It's rarely deemed necessary to do a full scientific study to
demonstrate simple facts which can be demonstrated using o-level maths
and simple measuring devices.

Translation: "I don't think the correct answers will help my case, such
as it is."

You don't really understand science, do you.

Clearly, since I have already outlined the scientific method to you, I
have some grasp of it, whereas your position appears that you don't need
to bother with all that stuff because you're well... you.

What I was asking was what evidence would demonstrate the answer for
you.

I've given you an indication of that. It would have to be something
better than saloon bar talk.

Which of my proposed methods of demonstrating it aren't better than
saloon bar talk?

All of them.

But they're precisely what would be used by anybody attempting to prove
what I'm asserting. Can you think of a better way to prove/disprove my
hypothesis : that when on a bike, you can hear more and see more than
when in a car?

It doesn't matter what I can or can't think of. I'm not being asked to prove
your unsupported assertions (and it isn't a task I would relish, I assure you).

Can you come up with any mechanism which explains why "It's really
obvious" isn't sufficient?

I've already done that. The body of human knowledge is not progressed on
the basis you prefer.

Until you can, I'm telling you black is not white and I really don't
need scientific papers to prove that.

Yes... but you're seeking to assert something a bit more complex than
your perception or otherwise of a colour, aren't you?

Not really, no. I'm asserting that you can hear more and see more when
you're on a bike - this isn't exactly news.

You don't know that. You are supposing it.

Incidentally, are you under the mistaken impression that either a cyclist or
a driver is allowed to cycle or drive if they have normal hearing?

DavidR wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
Clive George wrote:

Evidence of the form I mentioned in the bit you snipped?
Diagrams, photographs, sound meter readings, being shown yourself?
Where are they?

Who did the study?

What - precisely - where their conclusions? What hypothesis/es were they
testing? What is their academic standing? Where are they in the social and
economic research pecking-order? How were they supervised and how were the
results moderated and verified?

There may well be more questions.

Geometry was devised by the Greeks over 2000 years ago. It is adequate
proof that a cyclist can see more from their positioning.

You may as well ask for academic proof that the
sun rises in the east every morning.

Astronomy and astro-physics have the answer to that one. Asking it would not
be as futile as asking for evidence of cyclists' alleged better perception of
the world around them.

JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

Incidentally, are you under the mistaken impression that either a
cyclist or a driver is allowed to cycle or drive if they have normal
hearing?

There is a letter "n" missing there... :-(

Incidentally, are you under the mistaken impression that neither a cyclist or
a driver is allowed to cycle or drive if they have normal hearing?

On 07/04/2010 10:36, JNugent wrote:

Not really, no. I'm asserting that you can hear more and see more when
you're on a bike - this isn't exactly news.

You don't know that. You are supposing it.

I do know that it's true for me, and I can easily demonstrate it for the
general population. We were discussing what it would take to prove it to
you, but you keep getting sidetracked.

Incidentally, are you under the mistaken impression that either a
cyclist or a driver is allowed to cycle or drive if they have normal
hearing?

No, but that's not relevant to my assertion.

On 7 Apr, 10:39, JNugent wrote:
DavidR wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
Clive George wrote:

Evidence of the form I mentioned in the bit you snipped?
Diagrams, photographs, sound meter readings, being shown yourself?
Where are they?

Who did the study?

What - precisely - where their conclusions? What hypothesis/es were they
testing? What is their academic standing? Where are they in the social and
economic research pecking-order? How were they supervised and how were the
results moderated and verified?

There may well be more questions.

Geometry was devised by the Greeks over 2000 years ago. It is adequate
proof that a cyclist can see more from their positioning.

You may as well ask for academic proof *that the
sun rises in the east every morning.

Astronomy and astro-physics have the answer to that one. Asking it would not
be as futile as asking for evidence of cyclists' alleged better perception of
the world around them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Better perception" is a phrase you have erroneously introduced
yourself, in this more than slightly protracted semantics debate. I
believe that Clive originally talked about there being more
"information available" to cyclists and that information could/can be
used - nothing more. You've been shown above that geometry adequately
proves that cyclists are able to see more than car drivers due to
their positioning, lack of pillars, etc. A simple thing to show that
sound is also reduced when you are inside a car is...well... try it
and see!

Colin

On 7 Apr, 10:45, JNugent wrote:
JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

Incidentally, are you under the mistaken impression that either a
cyclist or a driver is allowed to cycle or drive if they have normal
hearing?

There is a letter "n" missing there... :-(

Incidentally, are you under the mistaken impression that neither a cyclist or
a driver is allowed to cycle or drive if they have normal hearing?

No. Are you under the mistaken impression that hearing makes no
difference?

Colin