|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered
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. Yes, responsibility shifts somewhat on a footpath but you are clearly expecting something from a cyclist that you would never expect from a driver. 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. 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. There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct that cyclists are supposed to abide by. 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. 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? I happen to drive, walk and cycle which is clearly far more than you do. |
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 |