Cause of 'Accidents'



Status
Not open for further replies.
In article <[email protected]>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>(Get him to) Define common sense.
>
> Bad move - he's UKIP.

Erm - we may know that's middle-class for BNP, but that in itself carries the respectability of the
wallet which no editor of a local rag can afford to snub.

--
Axis of Evil: Whose economy needs ever more wars? Arms Exports $bn: USA 14.2, UK 5.1, vs France 1.5,
Germany 0.8 (The Economist, July 2002)
 
In article <[email protected]>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of
"Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Cyclists have a duty to obey traffic laws

Yes.

> as well.

As well as what?

> Your argument is basically "I'm a cyclist, cyclists don't kill many people, so I can ignore the
> law and get away with it". This isn't far removed from a possible Paul Smith-ism "I'm a speeder, I
> haven't killed anyone, so I can ignore the law and get away with it". That's bollocks.

Even is we accept your paraphrasing of his argument, it is utterly different from the other. The key
is the difference between the collective and individual pronouns after the first comma.

--
Axis of Evil: Whose economy needs ever more wars? Arms Exports $bn: USA 14.2, UK 5.1, vs France 1.5,
Germany 0.8 (The Economist, July 2002)
 
John B wrote:
> An ex-UKIP councillor in our local rag is claiming that "over 90% of accidents involving cars and
> cyclists are caused by the cyclist failing to observe common sense".

He's an idiot. Have him killed, or at least publicly humiliated. Bring back the stocks.

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
Frank° wrote:

> Of these 500 "cyclists hitting other cyclists incidents", What proportion do you think he was the
> one being hit?

If he shows up any near the 'stow, it'll be 100%. Can we ask him to wear a tall pointed hat while
he's cycling, so we know whom to punch?

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
Dave Larrington wrote:
> John B wrote:
>
>>An ex-UKIP councillor in our local rag is claiming that "over 90% of accidents involving cars and
>>cyclists are caused by the cyclist failing to observe common sense".
>
> He's an idiot.

One only needs read as far as "UKIP" to realise that...

Of course, "common sense" probably includes knowing that cycling is inherently dangerous. I mean,
it's obvious, isn't it! ;-/

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> > > Both cyclists and motorists need stricter enforcement - but I think they're closer to the mark
> > > with motorists.

> > Yep, they really should be stopping those cyclists killing 3500 people a year because they can't
> > be bothered concentrating.

> Your argument is basically "I'm a cyclist, cyclists don't kill many people, so I can ignore the
> law and get away with it". This isn't far removed from a possible Paul Smith-ism "I'm a speeder, I
> haven't killed anyone, so I can ignore the law and get away with it". That's bollocks.

Ambrose can speak for himself, of course, but I can't see how you came to this conclusion from his
message. I thought he was agreeing with you that "they are closer to the mark with motorists" -
which is fair comment.

Me, I advocate safe and legal cycling and safe and legal driving. There are those[1] who assert that
safe and legal driving is not possible - I aim to prove them wrong by experiment :)

[1] Shhh! You know who!
 
In news:[email protected], Dave Larrington <[email protected]> typed:
> John B wrote:
>> An ex-UKIP councillor in our local rag is claiming that "over 90% of accidents involving cars and
>> cyclists are caused by the cyclist failing to observe common sense".
>
> He's an idiot. Have him killed, or at least publicly humiliated. Bring back the stocks.

I imagine that would be his policy, too.
 
In news:[email protected], John B <[email protected]> typed:
>
> So not only a cyclist, but a mechanic who can spot a dodgy bike at 100 paces too.
>

To be fair they are fairly easy to spot. All sorts of odd noises emanating from the bike, sound of
wheels rubbing other bits, visibly out of true wheels, tyres almost flat, brake pads miles away from
the rim. I've listened to and followed a fair few I would be pretty confident could be classed as
not roadworthy

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer
 
In news:[email protected], Nathaniel Porter
<[email protected]> typed:
> "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In news:[email protected], Nathaniel Porter
>> <[email protected]> typed:
>>> Whilst I think this counciller is taking the ****, I think it is true that bad cyclists aren't
>>> hauled up anywhere near like they should be.
>>>
>>> Both cyclists and motorists need stricter enforcement - but I think they're closer to the mark
>>> with motorists.
>>
>> Yep, they really should be stopping those cyclists killing 3500 people a year because they can't
>> be bothered concentrating.
>>
>
> Cyclists have a duty to obey traffic laws as well.

Yes.

> Your argument is basically "I'm a cyclist, cyclists don't kill many people, so I can ignore the
> law and get away with it".

No. I don't ignore the law, and I don't let friends and acquaintances get away with ignoring
it, either.

> Obviously there must be priorities, but enforcement of traffic laws needs to increase for all road
> users, especially those road users where enforcement is near non-existant.

My main issue with with your saying that the law enforcement agencies are nearer the mark with
motorists, when the benchmark of amount of injury caused to society, which is what the law is aimed
to reduce, is so much higher through them. And also, just because there's popular complaint about
enforcement of law against motor vehicles doesn't mean it's at unreasonably high levels.

Maybe I should have put it clearer first time.

Ambrose
 
On Wed, 14 May 2003 12:30:04 +0100, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:

>brake pads miles away from the rim.

Brake pads ? Luxury !

I see an awful lot of bikes locally with either brake cables flapping in the breeze, or calipers
missing altogether (and it's usually calipers). No wonder some people don't enjoy cycling, if they
have to do it on such sheds.
 
"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In news:[email protected], Nathaniel Porter
> <[email protected]> typed:
> > "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> In news:[email protected], Nathaniel Porter
> >> <[email protected]> typed:
> >>> Whilst I think this counciller is taking the ****, I think it is true that bad cyclists aren't
> >>> hauled up anywhere near like they should be.
> >>>
> >>> Both cyclists and motorists need stricter enforcement - but I think they're closer to the mark
> >>> with motorists.
> >>
> >> Yep, they really should be stopping those cyclists killing 3500 people a year because they
> >> can't be bothered concentrating.
> >>
> >
> > Cyclists have a duty to obey traffic laws as well.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Your argument is basically "I'm a cyclist, cyclists don't kill many people, so I can ignore the
> > law and get away with it".
>
> No. I don't ignore the law, and I don't let friends and acquaintances get away with ignoring
> it, either.
>
> > Obviously there must be priorities, but enforcement of traffic laws needs to increase for all
> > road users, especially those road users where enforcement is near non-existant.
>
> My main issue with with your saying that the law enforcement agencies are nearer the mark with
> motorists, when the benchmark of amount of injury caused to society, which is what the law is
> aimed to reduce, is so much higher through them. And also, just because there's popular complaint
about
> enforcement of law against motor vehicles doesn't mean it's at
unreasonably
> high levels.
>

I appreciate that, and that enforcement of motor vehicles will always be more of a priority.
It's just enforcing traffic laws for other road users needs to be more of a priority than it
currently is IMO.

>
> Maybe I should have put it clearer first time.
>

Agreed. Also, maybe I shouldn't have drunk half a bottle of ouzo before posting to usenet ;-)
 
"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> > An ex-UKIP councillor in our local rag is claiming that "over 90% of accidents involving cars
> > and cyclists are caused by the cyclist failing to observe common sense".

> He's an idiot. Have him killed, or at least publicly humiliated. Bring back the stocks.

What could possibly be more humiliating than being outed as a member of the UKIP?
 
"Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Agreed. Also, maybe I shouldn't have drunk half a bottle of ouzo before posting to usenet ;-)

Its often the best way to read Usenet. Especially when someone cross posts to uk.tosspot -- and then
no-one can resist replying :(
 
Nathaniel Porter <[email protected]> said:
>
> "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

*snip*

>> And also, just because there's popular complaint about enforcement of law against motor vehicles
>> doesn't mean it's at unreasonably high levels.
>
> I appreciate that, and that enforcement of motor vehicles will always be more of a priority.
> It's just enforcing traffic laws for other road users needs to be more of a priority than it
> currently is IMO.

A little incident I witnessed on my way to work illustrates the need for this I think:

Today a water main in the middle of Durham collapsed, leading to a police roadblock on Church Street
at the crossroads by the New Inn, for those of you who know Durham. I was waiting in the right hand
turn lane at the lights, watching the policeman on the blockade directing traffic.

Two other cyclists passed me, rode onto the pedestrian crossing, onto the central island, across
another pedestrian crossing and finally onto the pavement, disappearing into the Science Site. The
policeman stared right through them.

Regards,

-david
 
Nathaniel Porter <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>Yep, they really should be stopping those cyclists killing 3500 people a year because they can't
>>be bothered concentrating.
>Cyclists have a duty to obey traffic laws as well. No only that, many cyclists are or will
>become motorists. People should be required to obey traffic laws for the portection of
>themselves and others -

Why for the protection of themselves? Our society permits me to smoke, to eat fatty food, to go
mountain climbing without ropes, to go hillwalking in winter in swimming trunks - why should it
prevent me from endangering my own life when on a bicycle?

>Your argument is basically "I'm a cyclist, cyclists don't kill many people, so I can ignore the law
>and get away with it".

This is a complete misrepresentation, albeit one which typifies your posting style. What it actually
says is that police time is better spent on dangerous vehicles.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
 
Nathaniel Porter <[email protected]> wrote:
>I appreciate that, and that enforcement of motor vehicles will always be more of a priority.
>It's just enforcing traffic laws for other road users needs to be more of a priority than it
>currently is IMO.

Since police time is a limited resource, do you want to achieve this through actually reducing
enforcement of the law where motorists are concerned? By raising taxes? By letting some other law go
unenforced?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
 
"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:iMp*[email protected]...
> Nathaniel Porter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >I appreciate that, and that enforcement of motor vehicles will always be more of a priority. It's
> >just enforcing traffic laws for other road users needs to be more of a priority than it currently
> >is IMO.
>
> Since police time is a limited resource, do you want to achieve this through actually reducing
> enforcement of the law where motorists are concerned? By raising taxes? By letting some other law
> go unenforced?
> --

Less beaurocracy would be a start, less "losing" of money, banning no-win no-fee solicitors et al to
halt the loss of money to lawyers, ending situations where the government has to pay a middle man to
do a job (i.e. PPP - any profit made by the private company is money the state is wasting), sack
spin doctors and actually be honest, don't waste money on rebrandiong departments for no good
reason, don't fight other peoples wars etc. could reclaim alot of money. But I think taxes would
still have to go up.

Some people seem to think that the state is cash strapped. To me it seems like the money is being
wasted on winning elections, rather than doing whats best for the nation.
 
"David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:2np*[email protected]...
> Nathaniel Porter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in
> >>Yep, they really should be stopping those cyclists killing 3500 people a year because they can't
> >>be bothered concentrating.
> >Cyclists have a duty to obey traffic laws as well. No only that, many cyclists are or will become
> >motorists. People should be required to obey traffic laws for the portection of themselves and
> >others -
>
> Why for the protection of themselves? Our society permits me to smoke, to eat fatty food, to go
> mountain climbing without ropes, to go hillwalking in winter in swimming trunks - why should it
> prevent me from endangering my own life when on a bicycle?
>

Fair enough, but when you break traffic laws you don't get to choose whether or not you only
hurt yourself.

> >Your argument is basically "I'm a cyclist, cyclists don't kill many
people,
> >so I can ignore the law and get away with it".
>
> This is a complete misrepresentation, albeit one which typifies your posting style. What it
> actually says is that police time is better spent on dangerous vehicles.
>

Police time is better spent on dangerous drivers/riders/people. Do you honestly think someone who
runs a red light on a bike is any less likely to do so in a car?
 
"Nathaniel Porter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Damerell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:iMp*[email protected]...
> > Nathaniel Porter <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >I appreciate that, and that enforcement of motor vehicles will always
be
> > >more of a priority. It's just enforcing traffic laws for other road
users
> > >needs to be more of a priority than it currently is IMO.
> >
> > Since police time is a limited resource, do you want to achieve this through actually reducing
> > enforcement of the law where motorists are concerned? By raising taxes? By letting some other
> > law go unenforced?
> > --
>
> Less beaurocracy would be a start, less "losing" of money, banning no-win no-fee solicitors et al
> to halt the loss of money to lawyers, ending situations where the government has to pay a middle
> man to do a job (i.e. PPP - any profit made by the private company is money the state is
wasting),
> sack spin doctors and actually be honest, don't waste money on rebrandiong departments for no good
> reason, don't fight other peoples wars etc. could reclaim alot of money. But I think taxes would
> still have to go up.
>
> Some people seem to think that the state is cash strapped. To me it seems like the money is being
> wasted on winning elections, rather than doing
whats
> best for the nation.
>

Another example of money wasting - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3026109.stm

That, and a thought. Police officers charged with enforcing traffic law for cyclists, pedestrians et
al. wouldn't just do that. They'd patrol the street. Not only would they nab the odd pavement
cyclist, blind pedestrian, and even the odd illegal car parker, but they'd also be of use as a
deterrant to other criminals.

Having police on the street would make the public more trustworthy of the police, as well as
reducing crime, in addition to making the roads safer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads