Daniel Cadden Case Appeal Result.

Rob Morley wrote:
More like the difference between a careful driver and an accident
waiting to happen; 'weapon' implies some sort of malicious intent that

This is nitpicking, but no. Cause an accident with a shotgun and you'll
lose the licence for it pretty damn fast, irrespective of whether there
was malice intended. For some reason vehicle operators are not held to
the same standard - probably, again, because it's "normal" to own a car,
and "not normal" to own firearms, and politically OK to require higher
standards from people with minority interests than the general population.

A weapon's just a tool - as the NRA are so fond of pointing out, "guns
don't kill people".


-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

Daniel Barlow wrote:

There are some bad cyclists out there (hence the acronym "POB" -
"Pedestrian On Bike" - that you see here from time to time) but I've
never really understood the justification of how they give the rest a
bad name.

They /shouldn't/, but note how variously over time all non-whites have
been savages, all Germans have been Nazis, all [insert creed here] have
only been fit for burning, all drivers of white transits/taxis have
been homicidal maniacs etc. etc.

Any minority group that can attract a negative stereotype probably will.
It's just the way people seem to be, justification has nothing to do
with it.

After all, the bad motorists (tailgaters, red light jumpers,
Nova drivers with farting subwoofers, middle lane hogs, & cetera) don't
seem to spread their reputation onto the rest of motoring.

But almost everyone applying the stereotypes will be some other part of
motoring, while cyclists will often be a distinctly separate "them".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In article , Daniel Barlow
says...
Rob Morley wrote:
More like the difference between a careful driver and an accident
waiting to happen; 'weapon' implies some sort of malicious intent that

This is nitpicking, but no. Cause an accident with a shotgun and you'll
lose the licence for it pretty damn fast, irrespective of whether there
was malice intended.

I should have made it clear that I was referring to things that would
not 'normally' be considered weapons. A hammer's purpose it to hit
things, a knife's purpose is to cut things and a gun's purpose is to
shoot things, but a car's purpose is to provide transportation (even
though it can also be used as a large hammer).

For some reason vehicle operators are not held to
the same standard - probably, again, because it's "normal" to own a car,
and "not normal" to own firearms, and politically OK to require higher
standards from people with minority interests than the general population.

A weapon's just a tool - as the NRA are so fond of pointing out, "guns
don't kill people".

Indeed.

Quoting Simon Dean :
But you gotta admit (like in all walks of life), there are some bad
cyclists out there who give you guys a bad name?

Conversely, there are some bad motorists out there who kill a few thousand
people every year. I think we can live with the mote in our eye.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corrido r,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyak i,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose :yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!spar kle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

Quoting Simon Dean :
I feel Im tarred with the same brush, that Im the cause of global
warming etc.

Good. You are.
--
OPTIONS=name:Kirsty,menustyle:C,female,lit_corrido r,standout,time,showexp,hilit
e_pet,catname:Akane,dogname:Ryoga,fruitkonomiyak i,pickup_types:"!$?=/,scores:
5 top/2 around,color,boulder:0,autoquiver,autodig,disclose :yiyayvygyc,pickup_bu
rden:burdened,!cmdassist,msg_window:reversed,!spar kle,horsename:Rumiko,showrace

Response to Daniel Barlow:
Do you not appreciate the difference between "a cyclist" and
"someone on a bike"?
[...]
Where would the line be drawn?

If they know what they're doing, they're cyclists

If they're behaving like pedestrians with extra kinetic energy, they're not

Sounds *much* too much like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy for my
liking. I can see the use of various expressive phrases for people who
we see as not "true cyclists"; but the yoof cycling unlit at night on
the pavement is by any normal definition a cyclist, just as the same
yoof a year later pulling handbrake turns in an uninsured rustbucket is
a motorist.


--
Mark, UK
"The government is merely a servant - merely a temporary servant; it
cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong,
and decide who is a patriot and who isn't."

Mark McNeill wrote:

If they know what they're doing, they're cyclists

If they're behaving like pedestrians with extra kinetic energy,
they're not

Sounds *much* too much like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy for my
liking. I can see the use of various expressive phrases for people who
we see as not "true cyclists"; but the yoof cycling unlit at night on
the pavement is by any normal definition a cyclist, just as the same
yoof a year later pulling handbrake turns in an uninsured rustbucket is
a motorist.

Yes, it's "no true Scotsman" and intentionally so: the /objective/ of
introducing different names for cyclists and POB into a conversation
is to cause the listener to think about what "cyclist" means or should
mean, in the hope that he will henceforth distinguish between good and
bad people on bicycles in the same way as he does motorists.

But to be honest, I wasn't attempting to lobby for the redefinition of
the term "cyclist", I'm happy to say "bad cyclist" when describing
POB. I'm just trying to respond to the "elitist and cliquey"
accusation about making a distinction, by pointing out that (in my
mind, at least) the threshold is set very low - and I don't feel that
it /is/ elitist or cliquey to have, uh, "various expressive phrases"
for those cyclists whose actions fall significantly short of what we'd
consider competent or considerate or behaviour.

I suspect we're not actually disagreeing.


-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

Al C-F wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
So Mr Dean, what is it about cyclists that causes you to get incensed
about things they do which you happily accept daily from other
drivers?
Wealth. Fitness. Independence. Good looks. Style. Happiness.

I was comparing myself with the other cyclists I saw on my travels yesterday
morning.

I saw 8 people on full suspension gas-pipes wearing grubby hi-vis jackets
and the clothes of manual workers, one person with a Brompton in smart
clothes, one with a hardtail and decent mountain biking clothes, one with a
20 year old road bike in normal clothes and me, with normal clothes and a
decent quality 7-speed utility bike.

Although the story is almost certainly different in places that aren't Stoke
or Walsall, it seems to me that there is some truth in the perception that
cyclists are not the high status* people the statistics say they are.

--
A
*not that I particularly give a toss about status.

On 27 Jan, 23:33, John Hearns wrote:
Simon Dean wrote:
Let's apply your logic, shall we?
Several days a week, I drive across London at the start of a business
trip by car. Day in, day out I drive across London from Docklands to the
start of the M4 or M40 motorways. It takes me between one hour and one
and a half hours to drive the twelve miles.

The start of the M4 is a lot closer than the start of the M40.

Thats' right - a bicycle goes faster than me.
So let's get those cars off the road in central London - they're holding up the bicycles.

And bluster and posture all you want - if slower vehicles are to get out
of the way of oh-so-important people on their way to oh-so-important
business, then cars should be cleared from the streets of London.

Isn't that what the congestion charge was supposed to do? (At least
along the Thames between Tower Hill and Vauxhall, and soon all the way
to Battersea Bridge).

"Ambrose Nankivell" wrote:
[...] one with a
20 year old road bike in normal clothes [...]

My road bike is probable 20 years old. If it broke, I'd repair or replace
it, but why waste it? I don't see why that changes my status.

[...] it seems to me that there is some truth in the perception that
cyclists are not the high status* people the statistics say they are.

Cyclists vary. In other news, the sky is blue and the taxman collects
taxes!
--
MJR/slef