Torygraph argues that driving crime is not real crime...

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 15:10:34 +0100, Melanie wrote:

Do you think I sound dangerous?

I think you sound Curious.

Colin

"Melanie" writes:
Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
"Melanie" writes:

Is that how you ride your bike?

More to the point, how do you ride your bike?

Do you think I sound dangerous?

No, I want to know whether you ride a bike.

A

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
"Melanie" writes:
Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
"Melanie" writes:

Is that how you ride your bike?

More to the point, how do you ride your bike?

Do you think I sound dangerous?

No, I want to know whether you ride a bike.

I do when I can't get anyone to give me a lift.

--
Melanie xxx

"Melanie" writes:

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
"Melanie" writes:
Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
"Melanie" writes:

Is that how you ride your bike?

More to the point, how do you ride your bike?

Do you think I sound dangerous?

No, I want to know whether you ride a bike.

I do when I can't get anyone to give me a lift.

Right, so what are you doing here, then?

A

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
"Melanie" writes:

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
"Melanie" writes:
Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
"Melanie" writes:

Is that how you ride your bike?

More to the point, how do you ride your bike?

Do you think I sound dangerous?

No, I want to know whether you ride a bike.

I do when I can't get anyone to give me a lift.

Right, so what are you doing here, then?

Aren't girl cyclists accepted here in the macho world of uk.rec.cycling?

--
Melanie xxx

Melanie wrote:

If more people would slow down without being told to it would be safer. Put
signs with children and houses and things on and everyone will know to be
safe.

Well, you're hopelessly naive. That does explain a lot, though not how
you can think that while being so sure that you just say what you see.

If your wife put a sign in your dinner saying EAT and you did would it be
because of the sign or because you were hungry?

a) I don't have a wife
b) how is the question relevant?

He hasn't got a computer

That only matters if you don't have access to a printer.

If with a 30 people go at 40 and with a 40 at 50 I wondered.

People do not necessarily see 30 as "I must go faster than 30". Often
they see it as "I should be going slower than I otherwise would". You
appear to assume all people think and act for the same motives.

Is that how you ride your bike?

Sometimes, yes, but not often. But cyclists only manage to kill a very
few people, orders of magnitude less than cars.

Is the speed sign better for those that like to obey them or for those that
dont?

This is irrelevant if the net effect of the sign is beneficial. The
only evidence you have that it isn't is vague and uninformed supposition.

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/

"Melanie" writes:

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
"Melanie" writes:

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
"Melanie" writes:
Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
"Melanie" writes:

Is that how you ride your bike?

More to the point, how do you ride your bike?

Do you think I sound dangerous?

No, I want to know whether you ride a bike.

I do when I can't get anyone to give me a lift.

Right, so what are you doing here, then?

Aren't girl cyclists accepted here in the macho world of uk.rec.cycling?

Not unless they talk about bikes.

Most people who post to uk.rec.cycling prefer cycling to getting a
lift, but those who don't are most welcome. As long as they talk about
bikes. Seems reasonable to me. Obviously the rules are only enforced
by expressions of disapproval, but that generally works.

A

Melanie wrote:

You need a sign to say HOUSES if you cant see them so you know if they are
there.

On the one hand you claim people break limits to be macho, which is
stupid, and on the other hand you try and claim that if houses are
clearly in evidence then they won't be stupid. You can't have it both ways.

They do I think.

So why won't they try and be macho and speed around near houses, where
they've an audience to appreciate their macho behaviour? Not too long
ago I saw some yoof in a hot hatch doing handbrake turns around a car
park. There wasn't a sign telling them not to do it, and the proximity
of people and property made it obviously stupid, but they did it anyway.

Not if there is no limit to break. They'll have to do something else.

Go as fast as possible, rather than quite fast but tempered a /bit/
knowing they're breaking a limit?

So you think that a 30 sign really means 40.

No, I never said that.
You trumpeted earlier that you just say what you see, and I see a lot of
people slowing down to 40 for 30 limits, even in the wee small hours
when nobody's about, when they enter them from 60 limits.

People do stupid things when they are told not to.

If people were completely able to stop doing them otherwise you might
have a point, but experience shows that they aren't.

The badge doesn't make it safer it is the driver.

Okay, so you have the world's best driver and a learner, WBD in an old
Ford Anglia and the learner in a new Volvo V70. Each is hit in the side
by a completely unexpected, out of control boy racer doing 50 in an
Astra. Who do you think is safer at this point?

Active safety does indeed count for a lot, but it does /not/ count for
everything, and a lot of cars are sold on the strength of their passive
safety features.

Do you only do things that it says on signs? If you saw a wall with no sign
to say stop would you ride your bike in to it and complain when it hurt?

No. Why do you assume that I do?
I am pointing out that posted speed limits affect the behaviour of lots
of road users. I am saying what I see. Why do you think I'm saying
what /I/ do and inferring everyone else is the same? FWIW I try quite
hard not to exceed speed limits when I'm driving, so the "30 means 40"
certainly doesn't apply to me. But it appears to apply to lots of
people I see.

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/

davek wrote:

If you say yes to either question, then I say it's only "correct/fair"
that the laws relating to motoring offences should also be stricter
and applied more vigorously than they are at present.

THen you are agreeing with what I originally said which was that it's only
fair (and if the intention is genuinally to increase safety) to increase the
application of laws if it's done across ALL transport mediums.

So increase speed detection for motorists.
But equally increase the application of laws such as obeying red lights for
cyclists.

Melanie wrote:

Do you think I sound dangerous?

You sound very poorly informed and prone to unfounded assumptions, which
sometimes equates to dangerous. For cyclists that generally means for
the cyclist themself rather than anyone else.

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/