|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. 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. Pedestrians do take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled within us from a very early age. 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. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. 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. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. 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. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
"Incubus" wrote in message news On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. 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. Pedestrians do take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled within us from a very early age. 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. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. 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. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. 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. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. 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. == Yes, I agree! Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I see cyclists continuing straight through!!! How the hell some cars miss them I don't know. Guess who would be in trouble if they did get hit by a car? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 2018-08-16, Ophelia wrote:
"Incubus" wrote in message news On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. 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. Pedestrians do take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled within us from a very early age. 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. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. 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. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. 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. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. 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. == Yes, I agree! Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I see cyclists continuing straight through!!! How the hell some cars miss them I don't know. Guess who would be in trouble if they did get hit by a car? The creators of Monkey Dust understood such people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
"Incubus" wrote in message news On 2018-08-16, Ophelia wrote: "Incubus" wrote in message news On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. 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. Pedestrians do take care when crossing roads; such a preventative course of conduct is instilled within us from a very early age. 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. Further, it is much easier to see and hear an approaching car than it is a speeding cyclist. 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. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. 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. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. 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. == Yes, I agree! Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I see cyclists continuing straight through!!! How the hell some cars miss them I don't know. Guess who would be in trouble if they did get hit by a car? The creators of Monkey Dust understood such people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y == That would be very funny if it were not so apt! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 16/08/18 14:15, Ophelia wrote:
Yes, I agree!* Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I see cyclists continuing straight through!!! How the hell some cars miss them I don't know. Because they miss the cars...? Guess who would be in trouble if they did get hit by a car? People have been whinging about it for long enough that if it is just a theoretical problem, it is not worth worrying about. Alternatively it has already happened and examination of official records would make guesswork unnecessary. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote: On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. In that case you could have left out the words "errant" and "dangerous". 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. 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 (*). 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. 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. 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. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. 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. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. 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. I wonder how many other possible incidents with drivers you have stayed away from without giving it any conscious thought. See above (*). |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
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: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. In that case you could have left out the words "errant" and "dangerous". I had the option to but they are there for the purpose of expressing their meaning. 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. 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 but the burden is on drivers where it comes to red lights and mounting pavements. Who on Earth could possibly think otherwise? 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. 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. 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. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. 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. I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist who did not respect a red light. 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. The driver started driving away from a red light early and wasn't going very fast. The times I have almost been hit by lycra louts, many of them have been cycling at high speed. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
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: On 2018-08-14, TMS320 wrote: On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote: On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote: And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a danger to themselves and to others. I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death. "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles? You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers. Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction. It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words. In that case you could have left out the words "errant" and "dangerous". I had the option to but they are there for the purpose of expressing their meaning. 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. 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"). but the burden is on drivers where it comes to red lights and mounting pavements. Who on Earth could possibly think otherwise? I said nothing about traffic lights. When I said the above, I meant that it happens on all parts of the *road* - which includes junctions without lights and all the parts in between. Since you love your own anecdotes, would you like an anecdote about pedestrians amongst a cyclist riding legally and safely when no motor vehicle is nearby? 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. 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. 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. He flew off his bike, landing in the road in a heap, and was lucky that he didn't injure me. 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? I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclisThjet who did not respect a red light. 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. The driver started driving away from a red light early and wasn't going very fast. The times I have almost been hit by lycra louts, many of them have been cycling at high speed. Stop ignoring statistics. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
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. However, on a footpath, the responsibility is not mine. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:23:00 +0100, Incubus
wrote: On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote: Stop ignoring statistics. No; you stop misusing statistics to change the focus to drivers because of an abiding resentment you harbour towards them. 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. there was this italian fellow crossing the road and a driver swerved to avoid her...so the italian dodged the other way...so the driver swerved again... once more the fellow dodged...as did the driver... the pedestrian finally losing patience screamed at the driver... 'don't you know yet? it's my job to dodge...not yours' -- www.abelard.org |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Death-by-dangerous-cycling law considered | David Lang | UK | 2 | September 4th 15 10:54 AM |
Causing death by dangerous cycling gets approval | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 33 | April 13th 11 07:53 PM |
"Death-by-dangerous-cycling law considered" | Doug[_3_] | UK | 1 | April 12th 11 08:25 AM |