texting motorist

On 10/09/2016 16:46, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 12:14:40 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 09/09/2016 01:22, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:49:46 +0100, Aubrey Straw
wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 21:57:26 +0100, Aubrey Straw
wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 20:51:22 +0100, Aubrey Straw
wrote:

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Aubrey Straw wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Tony Dragon wrote:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698









Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while
texting jailed for nine years

Why he wasn't banned before beggars belief.

Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the
footpath and the road texting all the time. If a
texting cyclist was to hit and kill a
pedestrian, would he get 9 years in jail? Or, do
we both know the answer to that one?

We may be a long time waiting for the answer to
that one being confirmed. What is more likely to
happen first out of a) and b) I wonder:

a) A pedestrian being hit and killed by
lightening.

b) A pedestrian being hit and killed by a texting
cyclist who already has six previous convictions
for texting while cycling.

Nice wriggle. It did not work.

You mean you really believe it's a serious concern of
pedestrians that they are going to be hit and killed
by a serial texting cyclists who have already been
convicted several times for texting whilst cycling?
Has any pedestrian ever lost their life to such a
cyclist since mobile phones were invented?

Well we can assume nobody was before they were invented,
so you didn't need to put in that requirement.

But that date is important because we can then know how
long a time scale we are looking at.

Now, would you like to try and answer my question
sensibly?

It's difficult to give a sensible answer to a question
that is far from sensible itself. But I would have
thought it was obvious that a cyclist is highly
unlikely to be given a nine year sentence if they were
to hit and kill a pedestrian, even if they did have a
history of cycling and texting.

Who is going to get the more severe sentence if they
hit and injure a pedestrian walking along the pavement
- a serial pavement riding cyclist or a serial
pavement driving motorist? Both the cyclist and driver
are acting illegally and both deserve to be prosecuted
for doing so. But the driver will get the greater
punishment of the two and you don't think that is how
it should be?

If both acts result in the same outcome, then why should
there be a difference?

The potential for the outcome to be fatal is much greater
with a car than a bicycle. Come on it's obvious, which
vehicle would you prefer to see hurtling towards you as a
pedestrian? Your responsibilities are far greater as a car
driver than a cyclist, hence all the extra hassle to which
you are subject to become a driver and then continue to
be so.

If both ended up killing the pedestrian, you cannot say one
was worse than the other. Both resulted in precisely one
death.

If both happened. But I was questioning if one of them has
ever even happened (i.e. has a convicted serial texting cyclist
ever gone on to hit and kill a pedestrian and, if not, over how
long a period of time would that be).

Irrelevant. If you cycle with a phone and don't harm anyone,
then I drive with a phone and don't harm anyone, neither of us
caused more harm.

Knowing you didn't cause harm after the event is not enough. You
must know with a high degree of certainty that something you want
to do is not going to cause harm. The record amongst drivers is
shown to be poor.

Bull****. If something doesn't happen, then it didn't happen, end of
story.

It's percentages. A high percentage of the time, a risky action doesn't
produce a harmful consequence. But harm is caused when enough people do
it often enough: so if the risk can't be reduced the frequency needs to
be controlled.

If we both kill someone, we both caused identical harm.

In both cases we should receive precisely the same punishment.

No problem with that. We shall just have to wait for a texting
cyclist to kill someone. I'm not holding my breath for such news
and I don't suppose you are. However, since some posters here seem
to think all the world's problems are caused by cyclists, I expect
the idea is making them terrified of stepping out of the front
door.

People like Mr Pounder believe a bicycle can cause £400 damage to a
car, so I'm betting he thinks they can kill a pedestrian too.

A bicycle is a means from getting from A to B faster than
walking. You can wear normal clothes.

...or you can wear abnormal clothes. The choice is rightly up
to the individual concerned.

Only if they want to be seen as and treated as a ****ing
imbecile.

Specific clothing is used in many occupations and activities. Why
do you take such exception to riding a bicycle? Of course it's
possible to ride to the shops in whatever but a 30-50 mile ramble
through the countryside is something different. It's usty not easy
for an outsider to distinguish between a "touring" cyclist and a
TdF wannabe.

I laugh at workmen in hivis jackets too.

Over use has devalued hivis to have become useless.

I find it is not useful to use on a bicycle in day time. People have an
attention/patience span of about 2-3 seconds and when, say, approaching
a side turning it seems that if noticed from further away they just
hesitate before pulling out, rather than pulling out in better time.

On 10/09/2016 12:22, TMS320 wrote:

On 08/09/2016 13:25, JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2016 20:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 07/09/2016 17:00, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698

Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while
texting jailed for nine years Why he wasn't banned before
beggars belief. Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the footpath and the road
texting all the time. If a texting cyclist was to hit and kill a
pedestrian, would he get 9 years in jail? Or, do we both know
the answer to that one?

Fortunately you will not get the opportunity to find out.

I hope you are right.
But experience teaches sensible people to never say "never".

Sensible people read what is written, not what they wish had been
written and not what they imagined had been written.

If it happens, we will merely need to see the reports of it in order to
find out what the reactions are. But like you, I hope it never happens.

Can I help you with anything else?

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 10:05:24 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/09/2016 16:46, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 12:14:40 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 09/09/2016 01:22, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:49:46 +0100, Aubrey Straw
wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 21:57:26 +0100, Aubrey Straw
wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 20:51:22 +0100, Aubrey Straw
wrote:

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Aubrey Straw wrote:
Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Tony Dragon wrote:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698









Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while
texting jailed for nine years

Why he wasn't banned before beggars belief.

Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the
footpath and the road texting all the time. If a
texting cyclist was to hit and kill a
pedestrian, would he get 9 years in jail? Or, do
we both know the answer to that one?

We may be a long time waiting for the answer to
that one being confirmed. What is more likely to
happen first out of a) and b) I wonder:

a) A pedestrian being hit and killed by
lightening.

b) A pedestrian being hit and killed by a texting
cyclist who already has six previous convictions
for texting while cycling.

Nice wriggle. It did not work.

You mean you really believe it's a serious concern of
pedestrians that they are going to be hit and killed
by a serial texting cyclists who have already been
convicted several times for texting whilst cycling?
Has any pedestrian ever lost their life to such a
cyclist since mobile phones were invented?

Well we can assume nobody was before they were invented,
so you didn't need to put in that requirement.

But that date is important because we can then know how
long a time scale we are looking at.

Now, would you like to try and answer my question
sensibly?

It's difficult to give a sensible answer to a question
that is far from sensible itself. But I would have
thought it was obvious that a cyclist is highly
unlikely to be given a nine year sentence if they were
to hit and kill a pedestrian, even if they did have a
history of cycling and texting.

Who is going to get the more severe sentence if they
hit and injure a pedestrian walking along the pavement
- a serial pavement riding cyclist or a serial
pavement driving motorist? Both the cyclist and driver
are acting illegally and both deserve to be prosecuted
for doing so. But the driver will get the greater
punishment of the two and you don't think that is how
it should be?

If both acts result in the same outcome, then why should
there be a difference?

The potential for the outcome to be fatal is much greater
with a car than a bicycle. Come on it's obvious, which
vehicle would you prefer to see hurtling towards you as a
pedestrian? Your responsibilities are far greater as a car
driver than a cyclist, hence all the extra hassle to which
you are subject to become a driver and then continue to
be so.

If both ended up killing the pedestrian, you cannot say one
was worse than the other. Both resulted in precisely one
death.

If both happened. But I was questioning if one of them has
ever even happened (i.e. has a convicted serial texting cyclist
ever gone on to hit and kill a pedestrian and, if not, over how
long a period of time would that be).

Irrelevant. If you cycle with a phone and don't harm anyone,
then I drive with a phone and don't harm anyone, neither of us
caused more harm.

Knowing you didn't cause harm after the event is not enough. You
must know with a high degree of certainty that something you want
to do is not going to cause harm. The record amongst drivers is
shown to be poor.

Bull****. If something doesn't happen, then it didn't happen, end of
story.

It's percentages. A high percentage of the time, a risky action doesn't
produce a harmful consequence. But harm is caused when enough people do
it often enough: so if the risk can't be reduced the frequency needs to
be controlled.

No, you punish anyone who causes harm. Then there is a risk of being punished, directly proportional to the risk of harm. I know that if I crash my car into a pedestrian and kill him, I will get into trouble, so I avoid it.

If we both kill someone, we both caused identical harm.

In both cases we should receive precisely the same punishment.

No problem with that. We shall just have to wait for a texting
cyclist to kill someone. I'm not holding my breath for such news
and I don't suppose you are. However, since some posters here seem
to think all the world's problems are caused by cyclists, I expect
the idea is making them terrified of stepping out of the front
door.

People like Mr Pounder believe a bicycle can cause £400 damage to a
car, so I'm betting he thinks they can kill a pedestrian too.

A bicycle is a means from getting from A to B faster than
walking. You can wear normal clothes.

...or you can wear abnormal clothes. The choice is rightly up
to the individual concerned.

Only if they want to be seen as and treated as a ****ing
imbecile.

Specific clothing is used in many occupations and activities. Why
do you take such exception to riding a bicycle? Of course it's
possible to ride to the shops in whatever but a 30-50 mile ramble
through the countryside is something different. It's usty not easy
for an outsider to distinguish between a "touring" cyclist and a
TdF wannabe.

I laugh at workmen in hivis jackets too.

Over use has devalued hivis to have become useless.

I see dog walkers with them on. Then I see a blind man with one and think, "I should have noticed him against everyone else, but he looks the same."

I see people driving with daytime running lights on, then fail to spot an indicator because the world is flooded with unnecessary light.

I see blue tinted headlights and flashing bicycle lamps, then fail to spot an ambulance assuming it's just one of them.

I find it is not useful to use on a bicycle in day time. People have an
attention/patience span of about 2-3 seconds and when, say, approaching
a side turning it seems that if noticed from further away they just
hesitate before pulling out, rather than pulling out in better time.

If I see a cyclist wearing something stupid, I give him less space.

--
The only intuitive user interface is the nipple.