'Death by dangerous cycling' law considered

[Bod]

Cyclists who kill pedestrians could face charges of "death by dangerous
cycling" or "death by careless cycling", under government proposals.

The Department for Transport has launched a 12-week consultation looking
at whether new offences should be introduced for dangerous cyclists.

Matt Briggs, whose wife was killed by a cyclist, welcomed the proposed
changes to current "arcane laws".

But campaigners accused the government of "tinkering".

Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14
years' imprisonment. Death by careless driving has a maximum sentence of
five years.

Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK's head of campaigns, said: "Adding one or
two new offences specific to cyclists would be merely tinkering around
the edges.

"If the government is serious about addressing behaviour that puts
others at risk on our roads, they should grasp the opportunity to do the
job properly, rather than attempt to patch up an area of legislation
that's simply not working."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45154708
--
Bod

[Ian Smith]

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 07:15:26 +0100, Bod <bodr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Cyclists who kill pedestrians could face charges of "death by dangerous
> cycling" or "death by careless cycling", under government proposals.
>
> The Department for Transport has launched a 12-week consultation looking
> at whether new offences should be introduced for dangerous cyclists.

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/new-cycling-offences-causing-death-or-serious-injury-when-cycling
being the relevant link.

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[TMS320]

On 12/08/18 07:15, Bod wrote:
> Cyclists who kill pedestrians could face charges of "death by dangerous
> cycling" or "death by careless cycling", under government proposals.

Given how few seriously bad drivers are found guilty of being dangerous,
what problem does knee jerking solve?

> The Department for Transport has launched a 12-week consultation looking
> at whether new offences should be introduced for dangerous cyclists.
>
> Matt Briggs, whose wife was killed by a cyclist, welcomed the proposed
> changes to current "arcane laws".

Seems odd that "gross negligence" and "breach of duty of care" -
potentially a life sentence - doesn't cover a lot of eventualities.

> But campaigners accused the government of "tinkering".
>
> Causing death by dangerous driving carries a maximum sentence of 14
> years' imprisonment. Death by careless driving has a maximum sentence of
> five years.

Gosh, what on earth does a driver have to do to get 14 years?

[Tosspot]

On 12/08/18 11:52, TMS320 wrote:
> On 12/08/18 07:15, Bod wrote:
>> Cyclists who kill pedestrians could face charges of "death by
>> dangerous cycling" or "death by careless cycling", under government
>> proposals.
>
> Given how few seriously bad drivers are found guilty of being dangerous,
> what problem does knee jerking solve?
>
>> The Department for Transport has launched a 12-week consultation
>> looking at whether new offences should be introduced for dangerous
>> cyclists.
>>
>> Matt Briggs, whose wife was killed by a cyclist, welcomed the proposed
>> changes to current "arcane laws".
>
> Seems odd that "gross negligence" and "breach of duty of care" -
> potentially a life sentence - doesn't cover a lot of eventualities.

Exactly. It seems governments measure progress on the number of new
laws introduced per month. If I had my way we could encompass half a
dozen existing laws under "Driving/cycling like a cunt".

[TMS320]

On 14/08/18 09:08, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 14/08/2018 07:19, tim... wrote:
>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>> news:fta6ge...@mid.individual.net...

>>>
>>> Can you tell us why cyclists who kill by dangerous cycling
>>> should not suffer any consequences?
>>
>> presumably they do just not via a targeted law
>>
>> And how often does this event happen? Almost never would appear to
>> be the answer.
>
> Then it won't affect any cyclists, will it? So, why are you so
> against it?

Perhaps the effort would be better spent on behaviour that leaves
casualties, not on fiddling about with the words the courts can play
with after the event?

> What we really need of course is an adequate and up-to-date law to
> deal with careless cycling in general, like motorists have to abide
> by. Not just 'wanton and furious' driving which is all cyclists can
> be charged with currently, a hangover from Victorian laws relating
> mainly to horse-drawn carriages.
>
> An offence of careless cycling would catch a lot more, I'm sure
> you'd agree.

Catch a lot more doing what?

> And be hugely beneficial.

To casualty reduction...?

[Norman Wells]

On 14/08/2018 10:17, TMS320 wrote:
> On 14/08/18 09:08, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 14/08/2018 07:19, tim... wrote:
>>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>>> news:fta6ge...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>>>
>>>> Can you tell us why cyclists who kill by dangerous cycling
>>>> should not suffer any consequences?
>>>
>>> presumably they do just not via a targeted law
>>>
>>> And how often does this event happen? Almost never would appear to
>>> be the answer.
>>
>> Then it won't affect any cyclists, will it?  So, why are you so
>> against it?
>
> Perhaps the effort would be better spent on behaviour that leaves
> casualties, not on fiddling about with the words the courts can play
> with after the event?

No, we just import the words from the corresponding motoring law, all of
which have undergone massive judicial scrutiny and have extremely
well-settled meanings.

>> What we really need of course is an adequate and up-to-date law to
>> deal with careless cycling in general, like motorists have to abide
>> by.  Not just 'wanton and furious' driving which is all cyclists can
>> be charged with currently, a hangover from Victorian laws relating
>> mainly to horse-drawn carriages.
>>
>> An offence of careless cycling would catch a lot more, I'm sure
>> you'd agree.
>
> Catch a lot more doing what?

Cycling without due care and attention of course.

>> And be hugely beneficial.
>
> To casualty reduction...?

To accident reduction generally.

[TMS320]

On 14/08/18 11:08, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 14/08/2018 10:17, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 14/08/18 09:08, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 14/08/2018 07:19, tim... wrote:
>>>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>>>> news:fta6ge...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you tell us why cyclists who kill by dangerous cycling
>>>>> should not suffer any consequences?
>>>>
>>>> presumably they do just not via a targeted law
>>>>
>>>> And how often does this event happen? Almost never would appear to
>>>> be the answer.
>>>
>>> Then it won't affect any cyclists, will it?  So, why are you so
>>> against it?
>>
>> Perhaps the effort would be better spent on behaviour that leaves
>> casualties, not on fiddling about with the words the courts can play
>> with after the event?
>
> No, we just import the words from the corresponding motoring law, all of
> which have undergone massive judicial scrutiny and have extremely
> well-settled meanings.

The law sometimes doesn't seem to understand its own purpose. Is it a)
to give everybody a nice warm feeling or b) will it reduce casualties?
If the answer is not b) then it has to be a).

>>> What we really need of course is an adequate and up-to-date law to
>>> deal with careless cycling in general, like motorists have to abide
>>> by.  Not just 'wanton and furious' driving which is all cyclists can
>>> be charged with currently, a hangover from Victorian laws relating
>>> mainly to horse-drawn carriages.
>>>
>>> An offence of careless cycling would catch a lot more, I'm sure
>>> you'd agree.
>>
>> Catch a lot more doing what?
>
> Cycling without due care and attention of course.

How so?

>>> And be hugely beneficial.
>>
>> To casualty reduction...?
>
> To accident reduction generally.

The motoring law does not prevent; it describes how the perpetrator may
be punished after someone dies.

[Incubus]

On 2018-08-16, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2018-08-14, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote:
>>>> On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car drivers are a
>>>>> danger to themselves and to others.
>>>>
>>>> I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has gone on to abuse me
>>>> for being in their way. To put it in terms you might use, some of them are
>>>> vermin who deserve to be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of
>>>> death.
>>>
>>> "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many thousands
>>> that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor vehicles?
>>
>> You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists need not preclude
>> dealing with dangerous drivers.
>
> Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous
> drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction.

It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of words.

>> 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. 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.

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.

I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a cyclist 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.

[JNugent]

On 12/08/2018 11:46, Tosspot wrote:
> On 12/08/18 11:52, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 12/08/18 07:15, Bod wrote:
>>> Cyclists who kill pedestrians could face charges of "death by
>>> dangerous cycling" or "death by careless cycling", under government
>>> proposals.
>>
>> Given how few seriously bad drivers are found guilty of being
>> dangerous, what problem does knee jerking solve?
>>
>>> The Department for Transport has launched a 12-week consultation
>>> looking at whether new offences should be introduced for dangerous
>>> cyclists.
>>>
>>> Matt Briggs, whose wife was killed by a cyclist, welcomed the
>>> proposed changes to current "arcane laws".
>>
>> Seems odd that "gross negligence" and "breach of duty of care" -
>> potentially a life sentence - doesn't cover a lot of eventualities.
>
> Exactly.  It seems governments measure progress on the number of new
> laws introduced per month.  If I had my way we could encompass half a
> dozen existing laws under "Driving/cycling like a cunt".

Such a law would at least have the beauty of simplicity and ease of
administration about it. A police officer could just arrest every
cyclist he encountered - and be right far more times than he was ever wrong.

Mr Mac the ever-cautious man from the Pru with his cycle clips is no
longer with us.

[Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee]

Thus proving what I wrote recently...

One of the posters on this newsgroup - Nugent - trolls regularly on
uk.rec.cycling. He believes that driver pay 'road tax'. He believes that
100% of cyclists fail to stop at red lights, and that 100% of cyclists ride
on the footway. He also believes that drivers in the UK are 'heavily
sanctioned'.

Having one's opinion is one thing. Inventing 'facts' in order to endanger
other people is another. Anyone who does so should be found and dealt
with.

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 - ))

[Ophelia]

"Incubus" wrote in message news:pl3n28$3lc$1...@dont-email.me...

==

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

How the hell some cars miss them I don't know. Guess who would be in
trouble if they did get hit by a car?

[Incubus]

The creators of Monkey Dust understood such people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBFFrsvgu1Y

[Ophelia]

"Incubus" wrote in message news:pl43cf$at8$1...@dont-email.me...

==

That would be very funny if it were not so apt!

[TMS320]

On 16/08/18 14:15, Ophelia wrote:

> Yes, I agree!  Many times when I have been stopped at traffic lights, I
> see cyclists continuing straight through!!!
>
> How the hell some cars miss them I don't know.

Because they miss the cars...?

> Guess who would be in trouble if they did get hit by a car?

People have been whinging about it for long enough that if it is just a
theoretical problem, it is not worth worrying about. Alternatively it
has already happened and examination of official records would make
guesswork unnecessary.

[TMS320]

On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote:
> On 2018-08-16, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote:
>>> On 2018-08-14, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car
>>>>>> drivers are a danger to themselves and to others.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has
>>>>> gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in
>>>>> terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to
>>>>> be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death.
>>>>
>>>> "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many
>>>> thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor
>>>> vehicles?
>>>
>>> You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists
>>> need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers.
>>
>> Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous
>> drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction.
>
> It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of
> words.

In that case you could have left out the words "errant" and "dangerous".

>>> 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 (*).

> 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.

> 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.

> I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a
> cyclist 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. I wonder how many other possible incidents with
drivers you have stayed away from without giving it any conscious
thought. See above (*).

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

In uk.politics.misc Ophelia <OphEl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Y.

--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'there is no such thing as a right wing fascist...'
('abelard' 15 August 2018)
ehttp://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

In uk.politics.misc TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2018-08-16, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 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.

There's a curious phenomenon whereby every time cyclists or cycling appears
in the UK national press (particularly _The Daily Mail_ and _The London_
_Evening Standard_), the comments are flooded with tales of how someone
knows someone whose best friend had an Aunt Agnes who was knocked down by a
cyclist on a zebra crossing, and why won't the bleedin' government do
something about those dangerous cyclists, they're a bloody menace.

And meanwhile ... 2 people killed by cyclists, 1,698 killed by car drivers.

But cyclists are 'the menace'.

The cognitive dissonance screams to the fucking heavens.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'Two great European narcotics: alcohol and Christianity'
(Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

In uk.politics.misc Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Your 'experience' is not borne out by statistics from The Department for
Transport, TFL, RoSPA and equivalent studies carried out by the University
of Leeds, the University of Glasgow and the University of Sheffield.

Probably more, but those are the studies I have seen.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'Smile first thing in the morning. Get it over with'
(W.C. Fields (1880 - 1946))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[TMS320]

On 16/08/18 22:54, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
> In uk.politics.misc TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote:
>>> On 2018-08-16, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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.

<...>

> And meanwhile ... 2 people killed by cyclists, 1,698 killed by car drivers.
>
> But cyclists are 'the menace'.
>
> The cognitive dissonance screams to the fucking heavens.

It is notable that cyclists are always "speeding" - unless a driver is
waiting to overtake. Drivers unfailingly underestimate their speed and
consider 30mph to be "hardly moving" yet people always overestimate the
speed of a cyclist, eg, what the eye witness estimates as 25mph will be
15mph an so on. It seems that cycling at any speed that is faster than
the observer (pedestrian or driver stuck in traffic) - even seen at a
distance - is "dangerous".

[Joe]

On Thu, 16 Aug 2018 22:46:03 +0100

Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> In uk.politics.misc Ophelia <OphEl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.

--
Joe

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

In uk.politics.misc TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/08/18 22:54, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
>> In uk.politics.misc TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote:
>>>> On 2018-08-16, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> 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.

>> And meanwhile ... 2 people killed by cyclists, 1,698 killed by car
>> drivers.
>>
>> But cyclists are 'the menace'.
>>
>> The cognitive dissonance screams to the fucking heavens.

> It is notable that cyclists are always "speeding" - unless a driver is
> waiting to overtake.

It's a commonly-observed phenomenon. Cyclists always cycle too fast ..
except when they're cycling too slow. Their lights are too bright.. except
when they're not bright enough. They should ride in the fucking cycle
lane.. except when drivers want to park there. They should ride on the
road instead... oh, hang on ... not when drivers don't want them there.
No, wait - they should ride on the pavement ... except when pedestrians
don't want them there.

Cyclists - the new Jews of the Road.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'Sometimes I get the feeling the whole world is against me, but deep
down, I know that's not true. Some smaller countries are neutral'
(Robert Orben (1927 - ))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Fascinating. Utterly fascinating.

> So don't lie.

I don't lie, for the simple reason that I don't like being lied to.

HTH, HaND etc.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'Those who welcome death have only tried it from the ears up'
(Wilson Mizner (1876 - 1933))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Incubus]

On 2018-08-16, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2018-08-16, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 15/08/18 10:02, Incubus wrote:
>>>> On 2018-08-14, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 14/08/18 11:52, Incubus wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-08-14, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that's it. They are - in general - 'a nuisance'. Car
>>>>>>> drivers are a danger to themselves and to others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have been at risk of injury from many a cyclist, who has
>>>>>> gone on to abuse me for being in their way. To put it in
>>>>>> terms you might use, some of them are vermin who deserve to
>>>>>> be hunted down and severly beaten unto the point of death.
>>>>>
>>>>> "...at risk of injury..." Huh? Is this worse than the many
>>>>> thousands that are actually harmed by drivers and their motor
>>>>> vehicles?
>>>>
>>>> You miss the point which is that dealing with errant cyclists
>>>> need not preclude dealing with dangerous drivers.
>>>
>>> Interesting that you use the words "errant cyclists" and "dangerous
>>> drivers". So at least you recognise some distinction.
>>
>> It is more the case that my writing style precludes repetition of
>> words.
>
> In that case you could have left out the words "errant" and "dangerous".

I had the option to but they are there for the purpose of expressing their
meaning.

>>>> 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 but the burden is on drivers where it comes to red lights
and mounting pavements. Who on Earth could possibly think otherwise?

>> 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.

>> 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.

>
>> I can recall other such occasions when I have almost been hit by a
>> cyclist 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.

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

In uk.politics.misc Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-08-16, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> 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.

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.

Y.

[1] even by those who don't drive
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
'If Algeria introduced a draft resolution in the UN, declaring
that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would
pass by a vote of 164 to 13, with 26 abstentions'
(Abba Eban (1915-2000))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Incubus]

On 2018-08-17, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> In uk.politics.misc Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2018-08-16, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> 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. 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.

[abelard]

he is a socialist....he know full well he has a special pass to lie
whenever 'necessary' or 'useful'


--
www.abelard.org

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

I was bored just there, and so sat and worked out kinetic energy for car +
driver as opposed to cycle + rider. The formula being 1/2 mv2 (can't do
superscript in ASCII), take a 1,500 kg car travelling at 30 mph. Take a
100 kg bicycle with rider. At what speed would the cyclist have to ride,
to have the same kinetic energy as a car? And of course, 'show your work'.

1/2 mv2 --> 1/2 1500 kg x 13.4 m/s2 == 134,670 joules

Then ..

134,670 joules = 1/2 100 kg * ? m/s2

An easier way would of course be:

mv2
------- = KE * 2
2

So the answer is 51.89 metres per second, which is around 116 mph. I
know that force and kinetic energy are not the same, but 'vulgarised': a
cyclist would have to be cycling at one hundred and sixteen miles per hour,
to generate the same kinetic energy as a 1.5 tonne car at thirty miles per
hour. And a lot of cars are heavier than that. The penis substitute
from Audi, for example - that big 'SUV' - comes in at 2,445 kg. Let's add
two people at 80 kg each, and a half tank of petrol - I think their fuel
tanks are about 75 litres, so let's go with 37 litres, which will weigh
around 28 kg). So we have a car weighing 2,633 kg. Let's go with 30 mph.

The same formula ..

1/2 mv2 --> 1/2 2633 * 13.4 m/s2 == 236,390 joules.

To generate the same kinetic energy, our trusty 100 kg cyclist would need
to be cycling at ...

236,390 = 1/2 100 kg * ? m/s2

.. or 68 metres per second. What's that in mph? A very handy 152 mph.
The land speed record on a bicycle would appear to be 207.9 mph, which was
on a treadmill, but the actual flat surface, 'motor-paced' record is 167
mph. Put another way, rich, self-entitled businessman in his Audi SUV
complains that 30 mph is 'too slow for modern cars', whilst complaining
that cyclists are 'a menace'. I wonder how many of these 'menacing'
cyclists he sees going at 150 mph on his daily commute from Chelsea to the
Square Mile.

But let's go with the 'average' car. One hundred and sixteen miles per
hour. How many cyclists have you seen at that speed? Yet that is
considered 'slow' for a car, and many car drivers bleat if they get a
ticket by exceeding that speed. Funny that, isn't it? A cyclist at 20 mph
is 'speeding', yet a car driver at 30 mph is 'being unfairly restricted'.

Let's say the car you saw had just started off and was at 10 mph. 10 mph
is 4.47 m/s so we get..

1/2 mv2 --> 1/2 1500 kg x 4.47 m/s2 == 14,985 joules.

So..

14,985 joules = 1/2 100 kg * ? ms/2

And that gives us .. 17.1 m/s or roughly 38.2 mph.

Now, I'm a pretty strong cyclist, and I just checked my stats from the last
month commuting, and my top speed on a very steep hill is 36 mph and my
average speed over the ten miles (when I take the long route) to work
varies between 14.8 mph and 19 mph. On the flat, I tend to 'peak' at 25
to 30 mph and at my age, can't really hold that for more than a couple of
minutes. And the faster speeds are when I'm rested, have had a day or two
off the bike, and haven't drunk too much the night before.

Your claim is that you are often placed in more danger by a cyclist 'at
speed' going through a red light, than by a car whose driver has just
started to accelerate. How many of those cyclists are going faster than 40
mph when they 'almost hit you'?

I'm willing to bet that the answer is 'none'.

And my experience of car drivers in the UK, in France and here in Israel is
that when they're coming up to a set of traffic lights and those lights go
to amber or red (here, they flash before becoming red) is that they put the
foot down. Matey in his Audi screams through the lights at 30 mph, and
hits a pedestrian. Oh no! Cries the pedestrian! Just as well I didn't get
hit by a cyclist, 'cos he's much more dangerous to me! I mean, every
second cyclist goes through these fucking lights at a hundred and fifty
miles an hour!

No. I don't think so.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'No amount of cajolery can eradicate from my heart a deep burning
hatred for the Tory Party. They are lower than vermin'.
(Aneurin Bevan (1897 - 1960))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Ophelia]

"Joe" wrote in message
news:20180817093...@jresid.jretrading.com...

Joe

==

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

I never see 'normal' cyclists doing that.

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

In uk.politics.misc Ophelia <OphEl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> "Joe" wrote in message

> 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.

One of them a racist, little Engländ UKIP voter and the other .. Joe? Do
you vote UKIP ?

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of
the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish
state...'
(Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Fakestinian Arab Higher Committee, 6
September 1948)

[Incubus]

On 2018-08-17, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> In uk.politics.misc Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2018-08-16, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> I was bored just there, and so sat and worked out kinetic energy for car +
> driver as opposed to cycle + rider. The formula being 1/2 mv2 (can't do
> superscript in ASCII), take a 1,500 kg car travelling at 30 mph. Take a
> 100 kg bicycle with rider. At what speed would the cyclist have to ride,
> to have the same kinetic energy as a car? And of course, 'show your work'.

It's a fun mental exercise but in this case, I estimate the driver was doing no
more than 5mph.

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Funny you should say that, but I'd be very surprised if you - as a
non-driver - actually knew what 5 mph looks like on a car, because believe
me, it is very difficult to drive a car at that speedi. OK, 'difficult' is
probably the wrong word, but it takes a concerted effort to keep a car
below 5 mph. Our local supermarket has a sign at the entrance saying '15
kph' which is about 9 mph and on the occasions where we take our not very
powerful car (a Skoda Octavia estate) in there and are driving at what we
_imagine_ is very slowly, we glance at the speedometer and it's reading
something like 25 kph, or 15 mph. 5 mph on a modern car is going to
involve a lot of slipping of the clutch. Let the clutch out fully and
don't touch the accelerator, and the car will slow where it starts to
'hunt' and then will stall. When you start to accelerate from a stop,
you'll pass that speed in I don't know - half a second?

So unless you were standing a few feet in front of this guy's bumper and he
didn't have any time to hit 10 mph, believe me - he was likely going faster
than 5 mph.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

[Incubus]

He just started to pull away and then promptly stopped. He was inching
forward; nothing more.

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

LOL ..

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'Time is that quality of nature which keeps events from happening all
at once. Lately it doesn't seem to be working'
(Anon)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Joe]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 12:35:54 +0100

Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

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

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.

--
Joe

[TMS320]

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").

> but the burden is on drivers where it comes to red lights
> and mounting pavements. Who on Earth could possibly think otherwise?

I said nothing about traffic lights. When I said the above, I meant that
it happens on all parts of the *road* - which includes junctions without
lights and all the parts in between.

Since you love your own anecdotes, would you like an anecdote about
pedestrians amongst a cyclist riding legally and safely when no motor
vehicle is nearby?

>>> 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.

>>> 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?

>>> 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.

[TMS320]

On 17/08/18 16:19, Joe wrote:

> 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.

Why not do what pedestrians normally do when there are few motor
vehicles about and walk blindly out in front of the cyclists?

[Incubus]

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.

>>>> 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 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.

>>>> 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.

[abelard]

On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 14:23:00 +0100, Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com>
wrote:

there was this italian fellow crossing the road and a driver
swerved to avoid her...so the italian dodged the other
way...so the driver swerved again...
once more the fellow dodged...as did the driver...

the pedestrian finally losing patience screamed at the driver...

'don't you know yet? it's my job to dodge...not yours'


--
www.abelard.org

[TMS320]

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.

[TMS320]

On 17/08/18 16:30, JNugent wrote:
> On 14/08/2018 17:00, TMS320 wrote:
>> On 14/08/18 10:22, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 14/08/2018 09:50, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> On 14/08/18 07:28, harry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> They need to all have number plates too.
>>>>> Plus insurance. Maybe even road tax.
>>>>
>>>> People love solutions but don't define the problem. I have just
>>>> replied to another poster about this.  What needs to be fixed...
>>>> behaviour you don't like or a real problem of actual casualties?
>>>
>>> Whay are they alternatives?
>>
>> Behaviour that is undesirable doesn't necessarily produce casualties.
>
> Absolutely corect.
>
> The majority of instances of driving with more alcohol in the blood than
> is permitted by law do not result in an unorward outcome of any sort.
> The driver (and any passengers) get home safely and that's that.

For any individual case, hindsight is always a wonderful thing.

> So on your logic, driving with excess alcohol in the blood should not be
> illegal.

Wrong.

> If, though, you think it *should* be illegal (despite the majority of
> instances causing no harm), please explain what distinction there is as
> betwen risky behaviours. Why are some (in your opinion) acceptable and
> some (again, in your opinion) not?

The law has to look at the consequences of something done collectively.
The past tells us that your "majority" of journeys completed without
harm done is not a high enough number to accept the risk of allowing
people to drive drunk in future. A very clear example of behaviour that
produces casualties [at a level which is significantly above background].

>> Any behaviour that produces casualties is undesirable by definition.
>
> That only parses as "It's an offence to be involved in a collision".

Well, it would when you start with the assumption (as you do) that
everything you don't like causes danger.

> What about law designed to prevent collisions? You know... a
> breathalyser law, a law against going through red traffoc lights, or
> cycling on footways. That sort of thing.

Which behaviour is actually dangerous? Provide data.

>> They're alternatives insofar that if answers appear we have two
>> buckets to drop them into, only one of which matters.
>
> Perhaps you know what you meant by that.
>
> That's rhetorical. There's no need to explain it. It isn't that important.

You're too blinkered to want to know.

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

In uk.politics.misc Joe <j...@jretrading.com> wrote:

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.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'The Arab states succeeded in scattering the Fakestinian people and in
destroying their unity...'
(Mahmoud Abbas)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee]

In uk.rec.cycling Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> 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 - ))

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Boy, oh-boy. Those two rightards standing fucking that football. A
sight to behold!

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'If law school is so difficult to get through, how come there are so
many lawyers?'
(Calvin Trillin (1935 - ))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Incubus]

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.

[Incubus]

On 2018-08-20, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee <new_nym_to_pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In uk.rec.cycling Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> 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.

[abelard]

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

[Incubus]

:)

While I do encourage people to have hobbies and be passionate about them, one
musn't lose one's sense of reason.

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

In uk.politics.misc abelard <abel...@abelard.org> wrote:

I know that you're hurting, my poor little fascist troll - what with
everyone on uk.politics.misc (and now, apparently, on uk.rec.cycling as
well) except your sockpuppets and your tame righties, knocking seven bells
out of you, but one would have imagined that by now, you'd know not to
engage your betters.

Although ... on reflection, that would more or less shut you down on every
newsgroup.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'Intellectual growth should commence at birth and cease only at death'
(Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

In uk.politics.misc Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2018-08-20, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee <new_nym_to_pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In uk.rec.cycling Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> 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/>

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

In uk.politics.misc Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-08-17, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>> In uk.politics.misc Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2018-08-16, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> 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?

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'I want to tell you a terrific story about oral contraception. I asked
this girl to sleep with me and she said "No"'
(Woody Allen)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Incubus]

On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> In uk.politics.misc Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2018-08-20, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee <new_nym_to_pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In uk.rec.cycling Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> 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.

[Incubus]

That doesn't happen where I live. I imagine I would film them and rely on the
numberplate to identify them...

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

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

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

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

In uk.politics.misc Kerr-Mudd,John <nots...@invalid.org> wrote:

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

Anti-'Palestinian' (sic)?

Is that like 'anti-Kryptonian'?

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction,
can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party.
So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin'
(Aneurin Bevan 1897 - 1960)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[The Todal]

On 20/08/2018 18:22, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:
> In uk.politics.misc Kerr-Mudd,John <nots...@invalid.org> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure that your support for cycling alongside your fanatical anti-
>> Palestinan views helps us here. Thanks anyway.
>
> Anti-'Palestinian' (sic)?
>
> Is that like 'anti-Kryptonian'?
>

No, more like anti-Untermenschen.

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

Well, since that happens across the UK and in far greater numbers than for
cyclists, I can only imagine that you have a bias.

Shit, no !!

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'Two great European narcotics: alcohol and Christianity'
(Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

In uk.politics.misc Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2018-08-18, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 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.

From where I'm sitting, he doesn't really need to.

>> 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.

You obviously do.

>> It is not illegal to carry a dagger.

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

It is only 'illegal' if done without good reason or lawful authority (s. 1
Prevention of Crime Act 1953).

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

> And do you suppose that they do?

Overwhelmingly so.

>> 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.

The Medway Handyman Dodge.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'If Algeria introduced a draft resolution in the UN, declaring
that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would
pass by a vote of 164 to 13, with 26 abstentions'
(Abba Eban (1915-2000))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

In uk.politics.misc Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>> In uk.politics.misc Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2018-08-20, Bruce 'Not Glug' Lee <new_nym_to_pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> In uk.rec.cycling Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> 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.

Yeah, the bit three lines up.

>> '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.

No, it would be a simile and not an analogy. But it is neither, because it
is a false dichotomy, i.e. an 'either or' presented as the only two
options.

> 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.

*phew!*

Just as well no one has suggested this, then.

>>> 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.

Your 'experience' is as valid as the racist whose 'experience' is that
'most wogs are yobbos, innit?'.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'I can calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the
madness of people'
(Sir Isaac Newton (1643 - 1727))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[TMS320]

When pedestrians wander aimlessly out in front of a cyclist on the road,
which they don't do to drivers, it is completely relevant in the context
of pedestrian attitudes to cyclists.

>> 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.

It is not a falsehood that you demand different standards from cyclists
and drivers.

>>>>>>> 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 'premuse' nothing. I merely told you where I stand.

>>>>>>> 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.

https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives
"Examples of good reasons to carry a knife or weapon in public can include:

~ taking knives you use at work to and from work
~ taking it to a gallery or museum to be exhibited
~ if it’ll be used for theatre, film, television, historical reenactment
or religious purposes, for example the kirpan some Sikhs carry
~ if it’ll be used in a demonstration or to teach someone how to use it"

>> There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct
>> that cyclists are supposed to abide by.
>
> And do you suppose that they do?

If they don't I don't really care because there are more and much
bigger dangerous hazards when going out and about. I just gave a matter
of fact answer to your demand for more laws.

>> 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.

The "they" in my reply above was about cyclists, idiot. Follow the
context (the idea is to read an entire paragraph before breaking it up
and letting your short attention span forget what the subjects were).
Yes, the statistics show that drivers and motor vehicles *are*
dangerous. Which is what I have tried to make plain all along.

You claim that when cyclists do something you don't like they are
"dangerous" yet you chose to ignore real dangers. You really are stupid
if you think you are serious: the number of silly typos in your reply
shows you're in a froth and not rational.

>> 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.

Apart from "I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured by
cyclists" what personal experience have I related to you?

[Incubus]

On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> In uk.politics.misc Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
>>> 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...
>
> Well, since that happens across the UK and in far greater numbers than for
> cyclists, I can only imagine that you have a bias.
>
> Shit, no !!

How can I have a bias against something I simply don't experience? You seem to
be operating under the misapprehension that I wish for the misdeeds of drivers
to be ignored in favour of persecuting cyclists. Nothing could be further from
the truth.

Might I remind you that the subject at hand is the consideration of a law
against 'Death by Dangerous Cycling'. Am I to take it therefore that you would
prefer cyclists who kill a pedestrian to simply be free to go about their
business?

[Incubus]

On 2018-08-20, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yit...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> In uk.politics.misc Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2018-08-18, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> From where I'm sitting, he doesn't really need to.

He needs to do something to give a good account of himself. The same might be
said of you likewise.

>>> 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.
>
> You obviously do.

Where on Earth have I implied that? Please refrain from making things up.

>>> It is not illegal to carry a dagger.
>
>> It certainly is in a public place. What an utterly foolish reply.
>
> It is only 'illegal' if done without good reason or lawful authority (s. 1
> Prevention of Crime Act 1953).

Do you think his pointless reply serves any other purpose than an attempt to change the subject?

>>> There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct that
>>> cyclists are supposed to abide by.
>
>> And do you suppose that they do?
>
> Overwhelmingly so.

And is it your considered opinion that they cover cases of 'death by dangerous
cycling'? It seems to me that if that were the case, it would not have been
necessary to revert to a law that was created when the bicycle was not even in
widespread use!

[Incubus]

Such a witty rejoinder takes me back to my school days where one might hear a
fierce rebuttal expressed in terms of 'I know you are!'

>>> '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.
>
> No, it would be a simile and not an analogy.

Wrong. A simile is used for descriptive purposes. The above is an analogy
intended for purposes of comparison.

> But it is neither, because it
> is a false dichotomy, i.e. an 'either or' presented as the only two
> options.

And as I said, the false dichotomy is not mine but rather that which has been
presented as the main objection within this thread to a law on Death By
Dangerous Cycling: that car drivers cause far more harm than cyclists, the
implication being that cyclists should be left alone.

>> 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.
>
> *phew!*
>
> Just as well no one has suggested this, then.

In fact, they have.

[abelard]

g'wan..don't be mean...let pork pie change the subject...

you know he wants to...so very much


--
www.abelard.org

[Incubus]

In actual fact, some pedestrians do walk out in front of cars and they are very
foolish to do so. Yet what has this to do with the consideration of a law on
death by dangerous cycling?

>>> 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.
>
> It is not a falsehood that you demand different standards from cyclists
> and drivers.

That is absolutely a falsehood and if such falsehoods are the basis for your
argument then you are doing very poorly indeed.

>>>>>>>> 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 'premuse' nothing. I merely told you where I stand.

And what has where you stand got to do with the consideration of a law on death
by dangerous cycling?

That rather precludes carrying a dagger!

> ~ taking it to a gallery or museum to be exhibited
> ~ if it’ll be used for theatre, film, television, historical reenactment
> or religious purposes, for example the kirpan some Sikhs carry
> ~ if it’ll be used in a demonstration or to teach someone how to use it"

So there are circumstances in which one may carry a dagger but saying it is not
illegal was utterly foolish and a very silly attempt at diversion.

>>> There are already lots of laws and regulations covering conduct
>>> that cyclists are supposed to abide by.
>>
>> And do you suppose that they do?
>
> If they don't I don't really care because there are more and much
> bigger dangerous hazards when going out and about. I just gave a matter
> of fact answer to your demand for more laws.

So your entire argument is on the basis that cars are bigger, faster and
heavier and therefore we don't need further laws against cyclists who cause
death by dangerous driving. Presumably, dredging up a law made in 1861 when
bicycles were a curiosity is sufficient.

Then again, I seem to recall you defending the criminal cyclist to whom I
refer, at least in part, so one may surmise where your sympathies lie.

>>> 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.
>
> The "they" in my reply above was about cyclists, idiot. Follow the
> context (the idea is to read an entire paragraph before breaking it up
> and letting your short attention span forget what the subjects were).

I am well aware to whom the 'they' referred. Had you read my reply properly
with an attention span of sufficient duration, you had surely realised that I
was applying what passes for your logic to car drivers; viz., that one could
similarly misuse statistics to shew that few motorists cause harm and then
advocate ignoring the instances of those who do.

> Yes, the statistics show that drivers and motor vehicles *are*
> dangerous. Which is what I have tried to make plain all along.

And I have taken great pains to point out to you that pointing the finger at
motorists is nothing more than a diversionary tactic.

I claim that when they do something dangerous then they are dangerous. I don't
like it much when they ring their bells at me from behind when they are riding
slowly on the pavement but I don't say that particular activity is dangerous.

> yet you chose to ignore real dangers.

On the contrary, you would have us ignore the dangers that cyclists may pose by
pointing the finger at motorists instead. It is a classic diversionary tactic.
Even though motor vehicles pose an inherently greater danger, that has no
bearing on whether a law against death by dangerous cycling is needed.

> You really are stupid
> if you think you are serious: the number of silly typos in your reply
> shows you're in a froth and not rational.

In actual fact, one may easily apprehend that you have become quite excitable
and you are not someone who should think to lecture anyone on typographical
errors.

>>> 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.
>
> Apart from "I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured by
> cyclists" what personal experience have I related to you?

You just purported to suggest that your driving, walking and cycling more than
I somehow makes you an authority, as though that lends greater weight to your
arguments. As I said, were it the case it would still have absolutely no
bearing on the matter.

[TMS320]

On 21/08/18 12:22, Incubus wrote:
> On 2018-08-21, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 20/08/18 10:27, Incubus wrote:
>>> On 2018-08-18, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:


>>> 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.
>>
>> When pedestrians wander aimlessly out in front of a cyclist on the
>> road, which they don't do to drivers, it is completely relevant in
>> the context of pedestrian attitudes to cyclists.
>
> In actual fact, some pedestrians do walk out in front of cars and
> they are very foolish to do so. Yet what has this to do with the
> consideration of a law on death by dangerous cycling?

Mistakes apart, they don't as a general rule.

>>>> 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 'premuse' nothing. I merely told you where I stand.
>
> And what has where you stand got to do with the consideration of a
> law on death by dangerous cycling?

I told you that I am replying to your whingeing. A it happens, I haven't
given any opinion on the creation of such a law.

>>>> 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.
>>
>> Apart from "I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured
>> by cyclists" what personal experience have I related to you?
>
> You just purported to suggest that your driving, walking and cycling
> more than I somehow makes you an authority, as though that lends
> greater weight to your arguments. As I said, were it the case it
> would still have absolutely no bearing on the matter.

Of course it does. It can't possibly have occurred to you that
pedestrians wander about in front of bicycles but don't in front of
motor vehicles.

Other stuff snipped because it is getting boring.

[Ophelia]

"TMS320" wrote in message news:plhq50$sfk$1...@dont-email.me...

==

LOL PKB

[Incubus]

On 2018-08-21, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21/08/18 12:22, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2018-08-21, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 20/08/18 10:27, Incubus wrote:
>>>> On 2018-08-18, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> When pedestrians wander aimlessly out in front of a cyclist on the
>>> road, which they don't do to drivers, it is completely relevant in
>>> the context of pedestrian attitudes to cyclists.
>>
>> In actual fact, some pedestrians do walk out in front of cars and
>> they are very foolish to do so. Yet what has this to do with the
>> consideration of a law on death by dangerous cycling?
>
> Mistakes apart, they don't as a general rule.

And what has this to do with the consideration of a law concerning death by

dangerous cycling?

>>>>> 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 'premuse' nothing. I merely told you where I stand.
>>
>> And what has where you stand got to do with the consideration of a
>> law on death by dangerous cycling?
>
> I told you that I am replying to your whingeing. A it happens, I haven't
> given any opinion on the creation of such a law.

It seems to me that you are rather engaging in 'whinging' and are operating
under the false assumption that projecting such onto me will serve to discredit
me.

>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Apart from "I don't have any scary tales of nearly being injured
>>> by cyclists" what personal experience have I related to you?
>>
>> You just purported to suggest that your driving, walking and cycling
>> more than I somehow makes you an authority, as though that lends
>> greater weight to your arguments. As I said, were it the case it
>> would still have absolutely no bearing on the matter.
>
> Of course it does. It can't possibly have occurred to you that
> pedestrians wander about in front of bicycles but don't in front of
> motor vehicles.

Pedestrians do wander in front of other vehicles but even if they do so far
less in front of motor vehicles than they do in front of bicycles, it still has
no bearing on the legality of cyclists' conduct and whether there need be a law
to deal with death by dangerous cycling.

> Other stuff snipped because it is getting boring.

One may draw whatever conclusions from that as would serve to give a more
likely explanation.

[TMS320]

On 22/08/18 10:12, Incubus wrote:
> On 2018-08-21, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 21/08/18 12:22, Incubus wrote:

>>> In actual fact, some pedestrians do walk out in front of cars and
>>> they are very foolish to do so. Yet what has this to do with the
>>> consideration of a law on death by dangerous cycling?
>>
>> Mistakes apart, they don't as a general rule.
>
> And what has this to do with the consideration of a law concerning death by
> dangerous cycling?

I told you a long time ago.

[Incubus]

Then I am sure you will happily oblige in quoting the opinion you gave.

[TMS320]

Sigh. Because they do in front of cyclists.

By coincidence, today, I came across a sign on a shared path. It said
"Pedestrians - do not take up the full width".

[Incubus]

On 2018-08-23, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/08/18 10:41, Incubus wrote:
>> On 2018-08-22, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 22/08/18 10:12, Incubus wrote:
>>>> On 2018-08-21, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 21/08/18 12:22, Incubus wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> In actual fact, some pedestrians do walk out in front of cars and
>>>>>> they are very foolish to do so. Yet what has this to do with the
>>>>>> consideration of a law on death by dangerous cycling?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mistakes apart, they don't as a general rule.
>>>>
>>>> And what has this to do with the consideration of a law concerning death by
>>>> dangerous cycling?
>>>
>>> I told you a long time ago.
>>
>> Then I am sure you will happily oblige in quoting the opinion you gave.
>
> Sigh. Because they do in front of cyclists.

Once more: what has that to do with causing death by dangerous cycling? There
is no law under consideration for failing to stop for a pedestrian on a road or
cycle path, nor any law giving right of way to pedestrians on the road or cycle
path, nor any law transferring the entirety of the responsibilty for pedestrian
safety to cyclists. It would be a law concerning dangerous cycling, which so
far as I am aware is not intended to include as the mens rea failing to swerve
or brake at the last moment before impact.

> By coincidence, today, I came across a sign on a shared path. It said
> "Pedestrians - do not take up the full width".

Some pedestrians are selfish. Does that absolve any cyclist who rides at speed
without functioning brakes or collides with a pedestrian when the pedestrian
has right or way or is walking on a footpath?

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

There's something in the pedesterian's guide to cycletracks that tells
them:

Wear headphones and act surprised that a bicycle is using a cyclepath.

If you hear a cycle bell ignore it; if it becomes annoyingly loud, jump
into the cyclist's path and say "I didn't hear you, you should ring your
bell!"

Always walk on the wrong side of the path.

If in a group, each member should dive to the opposite side of the path.

Dogs should be let off the lead when possible; if not, use a long lead
and ensure the dog stays at the opposite side to you.

Dog mess should be carefully retained in a black plastic bag which you
can then hang on a branch.

[Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein]

I felt the same way when reading, 'What utter rot'.

That's why after this response, I shall be 'bowing out' of the thread.
Whilst determination and 'pluckiness' can be admirable, it's somewhat
unseemly to keep arguing the toss when you have lost the argument. And
that you evidently don't think you have, is testament simply to your
overinflated ego and your refusal to recognise and accept that you have
lost.

>>>> '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.

>> No, it would be a simile and not an analogy.

> Wrong.

No I'm not.

> A simile is used for descriptive purposes.

'simile, _n_
A comparison of one thing with another, esp. as an ornament in
poetry or rhetoric....'
(_The OED_, retrieved 24 August 2018)

> The above is an analogy intended for purposes of comparison.

'analogy, _n_
Similarity, resemblance; an instance of this...

[...]

Correspondence between two things, or in the relationship between
two things and their respective attributes; parallelism,
equivalence, or an instance of this....'
(_The OED_, retrieved 24 August 2018)

Since it reads very much as if you went to school in Britain after the end
of the 'golden period' when English grammar was actually taught to
children, you should know that whilst it is by no means whatsoever a hard
and fast rule, a simile is often introduced by 'like'.

>> But it is neither, because it is a false dichotomy, i.e. an 'either or'
>> presented as the only two options.

> And as I said, the false dichotomy is not mine but rather that which has
> been presented as the main objection within this thread to a law on Death
> By Dangerous Cycling: that car drivers cause far more harm than cyclists,
> the implication being that cyclists should be left alone.

This is a statistical fact.

>>> 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.

>> *phew!*

>> Just as well no one has suggested this, then.

> In fact, they have.

No they haven't. What I - and, I believe, many others - have pointed out
is that the far right government in the UK, in hock to the Road Haulage
Association and to the automobile and petrolchemincal industries, has
deliberately dragged its feet on a 'road safety review' study that was
supposed to be published four years ago. One cyclist kills one pedestrian,
and the sky is falling.

Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein

'He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
enemy from oppression; for if he violates that duty he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself'
(Thomas Paine (1737 - 1809))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>

[Incubus]

I understand your need for a tactical withdrawal at this stage.

> Whilst determination and 'pluckiness' can be admirable, it's somewhat
> unseemly to keep arguing the toss when you have lost the argument. And
> that you evidently don't think you have, is testament simply to your
> overinflated ego and your refusal to recognise and accept that you have
> lost.

One could equally apply those words to you. However, I have long noticed that
those are typical sentiments that someone expresses in order that they may
claim to have won an argument without having the burden of formulating any
substantive response.

>>>>> '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.
>
>>> No, it would be a simile and not an analogy.
>
>> Wrong.
>
> No I'm not.

Oh yes you are.

>> A simile is used for descriptive purposes.
>
> 'simile, _n_
> A comparison of one thing with another, esp. as an ornament in
> poetry or rhetoric....'
> (_The OED_, retrieved 24 August 2018)

Ah, one of your selective pastes for the purposes of obfuscation.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simile

"...a figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by
like or as (as in cheeks like roses)"

>> The above is an analogy intended for purposes of comparison.
>
> 'analogy, _n_
> Similarity, resemblance; an instance of this...
>
> [...]
>
> Correspondence between two things, or in the relationship between
> two things and their respective attributes; parallelism,
> equivalence, or an instance of this....'
> (_The OED_, retrieved 24 August 2018)

Another selective paste.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy

"...a : a comparison of two otherwise unlike things based on resemblance of a particular aspect"

> Since it reads very much as if you went to school in Britain after the end
> of the 'golden period' when English grammar was actually taught to
> children,

This concerns word definitions and has nothing to do with grammar.

> you should know that whilst it is by no means whatsoever a hard
> and fast rule, a simile is often introduced by 'like'.

The 'as' or 'like' is of course for descriptive purposes. The fact that I used
the word 'like' does not render my usage a simile any more than saying 'It's
like you don't want to be here' is a simile.

>>> But it is neither, because it is a false dichotomy, i.e. an 'either or'
>>> presented as the only two options.
>
>> And as I said, the false dichotomy is not mine but rather that which has
>> been presented as the main objection within this thread to a law on Death
>> By Dangerous Cycling: that car drivers cause far more harm than cyclists,
>> the implication being that cyclists should be left alone.
>
> This is a statistical fact.

It might well be but it does not imply that cyclists should therefore be let
off for dangerous cycling that results in death.

>>>> 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.
>
>>> *phew!*
>
>>> Just as well no one has suggested this, then.
>
>> In fact, they have.
>
> No they haven't.

The problem is that TM has indicated directly that this was his suggestion so I
am afraid you are wrong once again.

> What I - and, I believe, many others - have pointed out
> is that the far right government in the UK,

That is a most amusing assertion.

> in hock to the Road Haulage
> Association and to the automobile and petrolchemincal industries, has
> deliberately dragged its feet on a 'road safety review' study that was
> supposed to be published four years ago.

I don't suppose you have proof of those assertions?

> One cyclist kills one pedestrian,
> and the sky is falling.

In actual fact, the sky isn't falling; there is a law under consideration.

[JNugent]

On 14/08/2018 14:56, TMS320 wrote:
> On 14/08/18 11:08, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 14/08/2018 10:17, TMS320 wrote:
>>> On 14/08/18 09:08, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 14/08/2018 07:19, tim... wrote:
>>>>> "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fta6ge...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you tell us why cyclists who kill by dangerous cycling
>>>>>> should not suffer any consequences?
>>>>>
>>>>> presumably they do just not via a targeted law
>>>>>
>>>>> And how often does this event happen? Almost never would appear to
>>>>> be the answer.
>>>>
>>>> Then it won't affect any cyclists, will it?  So, why are you so
>>>> against it?
>>>
>>> Perhaps the effort would be better spent on behaviour that leaves
>>> casualties, not on fiddling about with the words the courts can play
>>> with after the event?
>>
>> No, we just import the words from the corresponding motoring law, all
>> of which have undergone massive judicial scrutiny and have extremely
>> well-settled meanings.
>
> The law sometimes doesn't seem to understand its own purpose. Is it a)
> to give everybody a nice warm feeling or b) will it reduce casualties?
> If the answer is not b) then it has to be a).
>
>>>> What we really need of course is an adequate and up-to-date law to
>>>> deal with careless cycling in general, like motorists have to abide
>>>> by.  Not just 'wanton and furious' driving which is all cyclists can
>>>> be charged with currently, a hangover from Victorian laws relating
>>>> mainly to horse-drawn carriages.
>>>>
>>>> An offence of careless cycling would catch a lot more, I'm sure
>>>> you'd agree.
>>>
>>> Catch a lot more doing what?
>>
>> Cycling without due care and attention of course.
>
> How so?
>
>>>> And be hugely beneficial.
>>>
>>> To casualty reduction...?
>>
>> To accident reduction generally.
>
> The motoring law does not prevent; it describes how the perpetrator may
> be punished after someone dies.

Rubbish.

The law bans driving without due care and attention. If you think it
doesn't, it's doubly difficult to see why you "think" that a parallel
statute, proscribing cycling without due care and attention, would be a
disbenefit.

[JNugent]

On 17/08/2018 00:22, TMS320 wrote:
> On 16/08/18 22:54, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein wrote:

>> In uk.politics.misc TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 16/08/18 12:27, Incubus wrote:
>>>> On 2018-08-16, TMS320 <dr6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> 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.
>

> <...>
>
>> And meanwhile ... 2 people killed by cyclists, 1,698 killed by car
>> drivers.
>>
>> But cyclists are 'the menace'.
>>
>> The cognitive dissonance screams to the fucking heavens.
>
> It is notable that cyclists are always "speeding" - unless a driver is
> waiting to overtake.

15mph along a 50mph dual carriageway is slow.

15mph along a city centre footway is (far too) fast.

I hope you find this of assistance.