On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:36:28 GMT, [email hidden] (Steven)
Quoted message said:A load of old toss.
I can't even be bothered to read all this [censored], Guy.
Ah, the sign of reasoned argument everywhere.
Quoted message said:You're so far off the rails it's impossible to discuss the matter logically.
So you say. If by logically you mean by reference to swearwords and
SHOUTING then I've no doubt you're right.
Quoted message said:I told you I've no axe to gring concerning modern dynamo systems. They may be
safe, I really don't know. At the moment, I really don't care. And yet you're
still banging on about it.
Clearly you are absolutely determined not to see that there are two
strands to this argument.
Quoted message said:As to the incident with the little girl on the bike, you are so desperate to
deny the part played by the inadequate dynamo lighting system that you are
blinding yourself to all logic and reason.
As I said, you are accusing the girl (or rather, her parents) of
making a negligent choice. With reference to the state of the art and
the state of knowledge at the time, I dispute that.
Perhaps, instead of resorting to proof by assertion, you can cite some
actual data which shows that the system you denounce as lethally
dangerous was actually responsible for any meaningful number of
deaths? That users of this system were more likely to die than users
of other systems?
Or was it the case that a conscious choice was made which balanced
risks at some points of a journey with other risks at other points of
the journey?
Quoted message said:You seem quite incapable of grasping the fact that is obvious to just about any
rational person, that there are many contributing factors to an accident.
Oh, I have no problem with that. I have a problem with your statement
"a policeman came to give us a talk on bike safety, and told us never
to use dynamo lamps as they were dangerous. He related the story of a
girl who'd been killed because she was using dynamo lights."
Where are the other contributing factors in that statement? You said
she had been killed "because she was using dynamo lights". Actually
the cause was a negligent driver.
You'd get the same argument if you said a girl was raped "because she
was wearing a short skirt".
But since you "can't even be bothered" to read what I wrote I guess
you'll not recognise that.
Quoted message said:One of the main contributing factors to the accident mentioned was the fact that
the dynamo system involved was *completly useless* when the cycle was not in
motion.
So you say. But there is no indication that the battery systems of
the time would have made any difference, given that the incident as
described shows the driver coming from the side.
Quoted message said:Go ahead and bang on and on about how it was soley the driver's fault. You just
look more and more like a sad, self deluding fanatic.
So you say. And in truth I am a fanatic. I am fanatically opposed to
blaming cyclists when negligent drivers kill them, especially on the
grounds of safety choices they have made based on the best information
available at the time.
That something "sounds very dangerous" does not mean it is, and even
if it were to increase the risk, that will *never* excuse a driver who
is simply not looking where he is going. It's right up there with
"aggressive" street furniture and "dangerous" trees in the litany of
cager evasions.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
