|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Attitude to Outgroups
On 31/05/2020 12:23, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote: Cyclists (or the majority of them today) behave badly. That's the only way to describe it. Quote: ...the idea that the UK is menaced by an advancing tide of reckless cyclists ignores the fact that cycling levels across the country have stayed largely static for years, and remain pitifully low, at about 1% or so for all trips. That's democracy (using the word in one of its most basic senses) in action. And just imagine the carnage on our footways if that figure were 10% instead of 1%. ...the pandemic of avoidable ill-health caused by sedentary lifestyles will, if unchecked, pretty soon bankrupt the NHS and social care systems. ...the best way to get people active is exercise which forms part of their everyday life, such as active travel, and that cycling is ideal for this. About 85,000 people in England and Wales die each year from illness connected to inactive living. Obsessing about the supposed dangers caused by cycling, rather than the many, provable benefits it brings, strikes me as extremely odd. Unquote. https://www.theguardian.com/environm...kless-cyclists The Guardian is *full* of weird ideas that do not accord with reality, written by people with fixed agandas, hidden or not. "Ill-health caused by sedentary lifestyles" has precisely *nothing* to do with the issue. There are plenty of ways to take exercise that don't involve breaking the law and/or putting pedestrians in unnecessary danger by cycling along footways (etc). Suggesting - even obliquely - to the contrary is a lunatic idea. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Attitude to Outgroups
On Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 12:23:03 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
...the idea that the UK is menaced by an advancing tide of reckless cyclists ignores the fact that : “[Cyclists] don’t emit any pollution; they don’t create much congestion if any and they’re not a safety risk. Occasionally cyclists alarm people by riding on the pavement or something but the number of people killed by cyclists in London averages out to about 1 or 0.5 a year. The number of people killed by cars in London is about 200 a year I believe. It’s a silly argument.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlton.../#5ba0aa855a3d |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Attitude to Outgroups
On 31/05/2020 02:55, JNugent wrote:
On 29/05/2020 23:12, TMS320 wrote: On 29/05/2020 14:37, JNugent wrote: On 29/05/2020 11:08, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: JNugent * wrote: [] Don't you think it would be less easy to "demonise" cyclists if they (the majority of cyclists) simply behaved better and committed fewer traffic offences? But they do (behave well); it's your selective view that's being reinforced by the transgressors - you discount the ordinary well-behaved.* We all believe what we want, and the brain rewards re-inforcement; we fool ourselves. It is obvious that you are fooling *yourself*, but, please, don't be obtuse. Cycling along footways is not good behaviour. Passing through red traffic lights is not good behaviour. Ignoring one-way working (whether on rhe footway or the carriageway) is not good behaviour. It is objectively correct to see all those as bad behaviour (and each of them is also a traffic offence). You sound as though road law is a set of school rules: "You're a naughty boy: don't run in the corridors, do your tie up properly and get a haircut." You seem to "think" that compliance with the law is merely an option to be considered. Other people need and deserve to be protected from you. Also, "bad behaviour" and "not good behaviour" are not the same thing. shrug No point shrugging. You set yourself out as the language expert. Cyclists (or the majority of them today) behave badly. That's the only way to describe it. A bit like breaking school rules then. Let us see whether you can reasonably disagree with that without resorting to the standard "Cyclists must be allowed to do as they like" attitude. Yawn. I was already well aware that you do not accept that cyclists are under a duty to comply with the law or to consider others. Yawn. Additionally, in current conditions, passing pedestrians with less than six feet of clearance - particularly on a footway - is *terrible* behaviour. This is the only law pedestrians can break. Noticeably more are breaking it than they were a few weeks ago. Does that make it alright for you to do it? Sigh. I am reporting as I find. It means a person on a bike is no different to a person not on on a bike. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Attitude to Outgroups
On 31/05/2020 16:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/05/2020 02:55, JNugent wrote: On 29/05/2020 23:12, TMS320 wrote: On 29/05/2020 14:37, JNugent wrote: On 29/05/2020 11:08, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: JNugent * wrote: [] Don't you think it would be less easy to "demonise" cyclists if they (the majority of cyclists) simply behaved better and committed fewer traffic offences? But they do (behave well); it's your selective view that's being reinforced by the transgressors - you discount the ordinary well-behaved.* We all believe what we want, and the brain rewards re-inforcement; we fool ourselves. It is obvious that you are fooling *yourself*, but, please, don't be obtuse. Cycling along footways is not good behaviour. Passing through red traffic lights is not good behaviour. Ignoring one-way working (whether on rhe footway or the carriageway) is not good behaviour. It is objectively correct to see all those as bad behaviour (and each of them is also a traffic offence). You sound as though road law is a set of school rules: "You're a naughty boy: don't run in the corridors, do your tie up properly and get a haircut." You seem to "think" that compliance with the law is merely an option to be considered. Other people need and deserve to be protected from you. Ah... you don't take issue with that. Also, "bad behaviour" and "not good behaviour" are not the same thing. shrug No point shrugging. You set yourself out as the language expert. And you set out two concepts as a comparison when the comparison is an irrelevance. Cyclists (or the majority of them today) behave badly. That's the only way to describe it. A bit like breaking school rules then. Or like breaching the Theft Act. Or... the Road Traffic Acts... Let us see whether you can reasonably disagree with that without resorting to the standard "Cyclists must be allowed to do as they like" attitude. Yawn. I was already well aware that you do not accept that cyclists are under a duty to comply with the law or to consider others. Yawn. You have no credible answer to the charge. Additionally, in current conditions, passing pedestrians with less than six feet of clearance - particularly on a footway - is *terrible* behaviour. This is the only law pedestrians can break. Noticeably more are breaking it than they were a few weeks ago. Does that make it alright for you to do it? Sigh. I am reporting as I find. It means a person on a bike is no different to a person not on on a bike. ....except for not being allowed - by law - on a footway, you mean? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Attitude to Outgroups
On 31/05/2020 17:19, JNugent wrote:
On 31/05/2020 16:58, TMS320 wrote: On 31/05/2020 02:55, JNugent wrote: On 29/05/2020 23:12, TMS320 wrote: On 29/05/2020 14:37, JNugent wrote: On 29/05/2020 11:08, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: JNugent * wrote: [] Don't you think it would be less easy to "demonise" cyclists if they (the majority of cyclists) simply behaved better and committed fewer traffic offences? But they do (behave well); it's your selective view that's being reinforced by the transgressors - you discount the ordinary well-behaved.* We all believe what we want, and the brain rewards re-inforcement; we fool ourselves. It is obvious that you are fooling *yourself*, but, please, don't be obtuse. Cycling along footways is not good behaviour. Passing through red traffic lights is not good behaviour. Ignoring one-way working (whether on rhe footway or the carriageway) is not good behaviour. It is objectively correct to see all those as bad behaviour (and each of them is also a traffic offence). You sound as though road law is a set of school rules: "You're a naughty boy: don't run in the corridors, do your tie up properly and get a haircut." You seem to "think" that compliance with the law is merely an option to be considered. Other people need and deserve to be protected from you. Ah... you don't take issue with that. To the best of my ability, I go about my business safely and responsibly, which achieves all necessary objectives. Also, "bad behaviour" and "not good behaviour" are not the same thing. shrug No point shrugging. You set yourself out as the language expert. And you set out two concepts as a comparison when the comparison is an irrelevance. That depends. Blind obedience is not the primary determinant of good or bad road "behaviour". Cyclists (or the majority of them today) behave badly. That's the only way to describe it. A bit like breaking school rules then. Or like breaching the Theft Act. Nothing like theft. The hypothetical QC you raised the other day... you suggested there would be no reason why a record of speeding should prevent him/her acting in a case of theft. So... Or... the Road Traffic Acts... ....turn it round. If this QC was charged with theft, he/she would be suspended. If then found guilty, he/she would be struck off. Let us see whether you can reasonably disagree with that without resorting to the standard "Cyclists must be allowed to do as they like" attitude. Yawn. I was already well aware that you do not accept that cyclists are under a duty to comply with the law or to consider others. Yawn. You have no credible answer to the charge. I'm bored with your obsession. Additionally, in current conditions, passing pedestrians with less than six feet of clearance - particularly on a footway - is *terrible* behaviour. This is the only law pedestrians can break. Noticeably more are breaking it than they were a few weeks ago. Does that make it alright for you to do it? Sigh. I am reporting as I find. It means a person on a bike is no different to a person not on on a bike. ...except for not being allowed - by law - on a footway, you mean? The matter was about pedestrians breaking the 2m rule. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Attitude to Outgroups
On 31/05/2020 19:28, TMS320 wrote:
On 31/05/2020 17:19, JNugent wrote: On 31/05/2020 16:58, TMS320 wrote: On 31/05/2020 02:55, JNugent wrote: On 29/05/2020 23:12, TMS320 wrote: On 29/05/2020 14:37, JNugent wrote: On 29/05/2020 11:08, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: JNugent * wrote: [] Don't you think it would be less easy to "demonise" cyclists if they (the majority of cyclists) simply behaved better and committed fewer traffic offences? But they do (behave well); it's your selective view that's being reinforced by the transgressors - you discount the ordinary well- behaved. We all believe what we want, and the brain rewards re-inforcement; we fool ourselves. It is obvious that you are fooling *yourself*, but, please, don't be obtuse. Cycling along footways is not good behaviour. Passing through red traffic lights is not good behaviour. Ignoring one-way working (whether on rhe footway or the carriageway) is not good behaviour. It is objectively correct to see all those as bad behaviour (and each of them is also a traffic offence). You sound as though road law is a set of school rules: "You're a naughty boy: don't run in the corridors, do your tie up properly and get a haircut." You seem to "think" that compliance with the law is merely an option to be considered. Other people need and deserve to be protected from you. Ah... you don't take issue with that. To the best of my ability, I go about my business safely and responsibly, which achieves all necessary objectives. But not lawfully, which is why you cannot bring yourself to condemn legal infractions by cyclists. Also, "bad behaviour" and "not good behaviour" are not the same thing. shrug No point shrugging. You set yourself out as the language expert. And you set out two concepts as a comparison when the comparison is an irrelevance. That depends. Blind obedience is not the primary determinant of good or bad road "behaviour". Lawful behaviour is an essential part - the most essential part - of good behaviour. Cyclists (or the majority of them today) behave badly. That's the only way to describe it. A bit like breaking school rules then. Or like breaching the Theft Act. Nothing like theft. The hypothetical QC you raised the other day... you suggested there would be no reason why a record of speeding should prevent him/her acting in a case of theft. So... The analogy holds up in principle. Thieves have no compunction in stealing and disregarding the Theft Act(s). Cyclists have no compunction breaking traffic law (treating it as though it didn't exist). Or... the Road Traffic Acts... ...turn it round. If this QC was charged with theft, he/she would be suspended. If then found guilty, he/she would be struck off. It was an *analogy*. Your ability to deal with nuance is severely compromised. Let us see whether you can reasonably disagree with that without resorting to the standard "Cyclists must be allowed to do as they like" attitude. Yawn. I was already well aware that you do not accept that cyclists are under a duty to comply with the law or to consider others. Yawn. You have no credible answer to the charge. I'm bored with your obsession. And you can't honestly claim to be law-abiding. You have no intention of complying with the law. Additionally, in current conditions, passing pedestrians with less than six feet of clearance - particularly on a footway - is *terrible* behaviour. This is the only law pedestrians can break. Noticeably more are breaking it than they were a few weeks ago. Does that make it alright for you to do it? Sigh. I am reporting as I find. It means a person on a bike is no different to a person not on on a bike. ...except for not being allowed - by law - on a footway, you mean? The matter was about pedestrians breaking the 2m rule. It was. But not only about that. Cyclists are still using footways despite the 2m rule which cannot possibly be complied with there. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Attitude to Outgroups
On 31/05/2020 21:39, JNugent wrote:
On 31/05/2020 19:28, TMS320 wrote: On 31/05/2020 17:19, JNugent wrote: If you don't my like snipping, don't be lazy and look it up To the best of my ability, I go about my business safely and responsibly, which achieves all necessary objectives. But not lawfully, which is why you cannot bring yourself to condemn legal infractions by cyclists. Nothing requires me to. ... That depends. Blind obedience is not the primary determinant of good or bad road "behaviour". Lawful behaviour is an essential part - the most essential part - of good behaviour. That is the school rules attitude. ... Or like breaching the Theft Act. Nothing like theft. The hypothetical QC you raised the other day... you suggested there would be no reason why a record of speeding should prevent him/her acting in a case of theft. So... The analogy holds up in principle. Thieves have no compunction in stealing and disregarding the Theft Act(s). Cyclists have no compunction breaking traffic law (treating it as though it didn't exist). "Compunction" has to be proved in court. Be consistent. ... Or... the Road Traffic Acts... ...turn it round. If this QC was charged with theft, he/she would be suspended. If then found guilty, he/she would be struck off. It was an *analogy*. So was mine. To show that the law understands the difference between theft and traffic violations. Your ability to deal with nuance is severely compromised. I am only interested in practical matters. ... I'm bored with your obsession. And you can't honestly claim to be law-abiding. You have no intention of complying with the law. You are never be honest about your claims to be law-abiding; you always add a list of conditions. You may be correct that I don't intend to comply with the rules. But what happens if it turns out that when I follow my own objectives, I unintentionally comply with the rules? Does a parallel universe explode? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why is hi-vis clothing easier to see? What’s so special about the colour? | Max Demian | UK | 37 | September 5th 19 08:43 AM |
Dog walker almost decapitated by lorry that passes inches from herhead | Bod[_5_] | UK | 1 | June 13th 16 10:49 PM |
Arrogant, abusive and oh-so smug . | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 32 | December 8th 12 01:58 PM |
That's my smug moment for the year. | wafflycat | UK | 22 | March 19th 07 01:01 PM |
Smug | archierob | UK | 4 | September 13th 05 01:40 PM |