A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 18th 18, 04:31 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,285
Default '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.* 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.


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.* 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.* 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?


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.


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.* 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.


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.


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.

Ads
  #22  
Old August 20th 18, 07:19 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

In uk.rec.cycling Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:


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.


What a splendid false dichotomy. In fact, it is like having over thirty
people killed every week by rifle-wielding thugs and telling the police to
ignore it... and then, on the one occasion where someone holding a dagger
kills someone, declare it a national emergency and demand that 'public
enemy number 1' be brought to justice.

Y.
--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))
  #23  
Old August 20th 18, 10:27 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Incubus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 2018-08-18, TMS320 wrote:
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.* 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.


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.


Oh, the pain! I don't think you know how to insult me.

The behaviour of pedestrians towards cyclists on the road is not relevant to
the points I made so it would perhaps serve your delicate constitution better
were you to refrain from introducing red herrings given the umbrage you take
when they are routinely ignored.

Yes, responsibility shifts somewhat on a footpath but you are clearly
expecting something from a cyclist that you would never expect from a
driver.


That is a falsehood. I don't expect drivers to ignore red lights or to drive
along the pavement either.

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.


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.


Ah, so you premuse to be the standard by which all cyclists are to be judged?

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?


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.


It is not illegal to carry a dagger.


It certainly is in a public place. What an utterly foolish reply.

There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct that
cyclists are supposed to abide by.


And do you suppose that they do?

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.


You are seeking to misuse statistics. I would wager that very few motorists
actually cause accidents but according to what puports to be your logic, that
means there is no real danger.

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.


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.


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?


That is not what I said. You are going to have to do much better than silly
straw man arguments if you wish for me to take you seriously.

I happen to drive, walk and cycle which is clearly far more than you do.


Your foolish comparisons and personal experience have no bearing on the matter.
  #24  
Old August 20th 18, 10:49 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Incubus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 2018-08-20, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:


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.


What a splendid false dichotomy. In fact, it is like having over thirty
people killed every week by rifle-wielding thugs and telling the police to
ignore it... and then, on the one occasion where someone holding a dagger
kills someone, declare it a national emergency and demand that 'public
enemy number 1' be brought to justice.


It really isn't. I haven't advocated focussing on scofflaw cyclists to the
exclusion of bad or downright dangerous drivers. As I have said all along,
both should be dealt with.
  #25  
Old August 20th 18, 11:17 AM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
abelard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:49:34 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
wrote:

On 2018-08-20, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:


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.


What a splendid false dichotomy. In fact, it is like having over thirty
people killed every week by rifle-wielding thugs and telling the police to
ignore it... and then, on the one occasion where someone holding a dagger
kills someone, declare it a national emergency and demand that 'public
enemy number 1' be brought to justice.


It really isn't. I haven't advocated focussing on scofflaw cyclists to the
exclusion of bad or downright dangerous drivers. As I have said all along,
both should be dealt with.


i do wish you stop talking sense and say instead what he's rather
you said...you'd make him far happier
and we may get some peace from his whining

--
www.abelard.org
  #26  
Old August 20th 18, 12:04 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Incubus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 2018-08-20, abelard wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:49:34 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
wrote:

On 2018-08-20, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:

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.

What a splendid false dichotomy. In fact, it is like having over thirty
people killed every week by rifle-wielding thugs and telling the police to
ignore it... and then, on the one occasion where someone holding a dagger
kills someone, declare it a national emergency and demand that 'public
enemy number 1' be brought to justice.


It really isn't. I haven't advocated focussing on scofflaw cyclists to the
exclusion of bad or downright dangerous drivers. As I have said all along,
both should be dealt with.


i do wish you stop talking sense and say instead what he's rather
you said...you'd make him far happier
and we may get some peace from his whining




While I do encourage people to have hobbies and be passionate about them, one
musn't lose one's sense of reason.
  #27  
Old August 20th 18, 02:30 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-20, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:


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.


What a splendid false dichotomy. In fact, it is like having over thirty
people killed every week by rifle-wielding thugs and telling the police
to ignore it... and then, on the one occasion where someone holding a
dagger kills someone, declare it a national emergency and demand that
'public enemy number 1' be brought to justice.


It really isn't.


Erm, yes it is.

'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 haven't advocated focussing on scofflaw cyclists to the exclusion of
bad or downright dangerous drivers. As I have said all along, both
should be dealt with.


Your bias is revealed every single time you concentrate on cyclists who -
you claim - are more of a nuisance than car drivers. This is not the case,
and this has been amply demonstrated. But still, you keep on spouting this
completely inaccurate 'factoid' as if it were an accepted truth. This is
like Naziboi talking about 'illegal settlements' as if they were a
generally accepted truth.

Do you think it'll 'become' true if you keep writing it?

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'A conservative is a man who sits and thinks. Mostly sits'.
(Woodrow Wilson)
http://www.palwatch.org/
  #28  
Old August 20th 18, 03:27 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Incubus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-20, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee wrote:
In uk.rec.cycling Incubus wrote:
On 18/08/18 12:47, TMS320 wrote:


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.


What a splendid false dichotomy. In fact, it is like having over thirty
people killed every week by rifle-wielding thugs and telling the police
to ignore it... and then, on the one occasion where someone holding a
dagger kills someone, declare it a national emergency and demand that
'public enemy number 1' be brought to justice.


It really isn't.


Erm, yes it is.


What utter rot.

'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'.


That is known as an analogy. If you want a good example of a false dichotomy,
one need look no further than the suggestion that no further laws are needed to
deal with cylists because cars present a more significant danger.

I haven't advocated focussing on scofflaw cyclists to the exclusion of
bad or downright dangerous drivers. As I have said all along, both
should be dealt with.


Your bias is revealed every single time you concentrate on cyclists who -
you claim - are more of a nuisance than car drivers.


I didn't say that. I said my experience is that they are more of a danger
because certain areas of England appear to be particularly hazardous when it
comes to scofflaw cyclists and lycra louts. It is in those areas that such
laws would be beneficial to the hapless pedestrian.
  #29  
Old August 20th 18, 03:29 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Incubus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-17, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Incubus wrote:
On 2018-08-16, TMS320 wrote:


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.


Your lexical choices are revealing. I've never heard a driver described
as 'feral'. One calls them 'dangerous' or 'careless'. But 'feral'?

'Of an animal: Wild, untamed. Of a plant, also (rarely), of
ground: Uncultivated...' (_The OED_, retrieved 17 August 2018)

This really does demonstrate the low regard in which cyclists are held
by the general population [1], and the belief that they are 'out of
control'. Lawless, maybe.


Candour compels me to admit that I deliberately chose that word safe in
the knowledge that it would get a rise out of someone.


Uh-huh.

However, it is a reasonable choice of word to describe people who have
shouted at me because they expected me to move out of their way while
they were riding on the footpath.


It's no wonder that there is such clamour on the part of the mentally
disadvantaged to have cyclists 'registered' and to 'make' them pay
'insurance'. Another kettle of fish, of course.


I would settle for them staying off the pavement, in which case I won't
feel the need to elbow them off their machines into the path of an
oncoming Audi.


What do you do about the car drivers who - as we have seen - are far more
numerous on the footway than are cyclists? Do you 'elbow them' out of the
way, too?


That doesn't happen where I live. I imagine I would film them and rely on the
numberplate to identify them...
  #30  
Old August 20th 18, 06:04 PM posted to uk.legal,uk.politics.misc,uk.rec.cycling
Kerr-Mudd,John[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default 'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 06:06:25 GMT, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
wrote:

In uk.politics.misc Joe wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 12:35:54 +0100
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
In uk.politics.misc Ophelia wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message


Yes, I agree! Many times when I have been stopped at traffic
lights, I see cyclists continuing straight through!!!


QED. This belief that cyclists 'don't stop at red lights' (or
that they fail to stop at red lights at a rate greater than car
drivers) is so absolutely and firmly entrenched in the car
driver's psyche, that it has been elevated almost to the level
of absolute truth. The sun rises in the east. Water boils at
100° C. 1+1=2. Cyclists don't stop at red lights.

Except that it isn't true. It's quite fascinating - not only
that so many people can believe so fervently in a falsehood that
is becomes almost like a religion. But equally fascinating is
that public policy can be decided based on this complete
fantasy.


Except that it is true. At the moment, Whitechapel station has a
temporary entrance opposite a traffic-light pedestrian crossing
across the A11. A while ago, I had occasion to cross the road
there four times a week for a month or so.

More than half the time, at least one cyclist, sometimes half a
dozen would cross the crossing at about 20mph while I was walking
across. I never looked round, so I don't know if the same was
happening the other side of the road, but I see no reason to
assume otherwise.

On the other side of the road from Whitechapel station is the
Royal London Hospital, so a fair percentage of the pedestrians
were not too steady on their feet. I never actually saw a
collision, nor do I know how many of the bicycles had brakes, but
the riders were universally what my daughter, a cyclist herself,
calls 'feral' cyclists. Big helmets, heads down, oblivious to the
world around them...

So don't lie.


Agreed! He can dream all he likes but I do see them and they are
always as you describe - Ferals!


Remarkable! This is fascinating! Do you see unicorns prancing
around the fields too?

This really is fascinating. Two people who if asked would no doubt
consider themselves sane, rational and intelligent, but both
absolutely convinced of the prevalance of a phenomonem which in fact
is extremely rare. And both of them completely immune to reason.
The capacity for delusion is almost awe-inspiring.


Are you really sure you want to try to prove a negative? What are you
offering in lieu of evidence?


What _is_ it about the right and its complete inability to grasp
logic?

Oh, wait. The right. I just answered my own question.

_You_ are asserting a greater prevalance of 'bad behaviour' on the
part of cyclists than car drivers. _You_ provide the proof - which
you have steadfastly refused to do, relying on anecdotal evidence,
just like WS/Incubus.

They may not do it where you live, but they certainly do here. The
crossing I mention is an extreme case: it's a wide, busy road with
those blue cycle paths on both sides, and there's no motor traffic
crossing it there, so from a cyclist's point of view there's little
reason to stop at the red light.


Anecdotal evidence, i.e. totally irrelevant.

Next !

Y.


I'm not sure that your support for cycling alongside your fanatical anti-
Palestinan views helps us here. Thanks anyway.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.