Criminals on TV

[Clive George]

"NM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...

> However you want to dress it up they are breaking the law and being
> inconsiderate and obnoxious to others, why they are doing it is
> irrelevent, there is no excuse.

If you want to stop people doing things, finding out why they're doing them
and removing that reason is massively more effective than just telling them
to stop.

So "why they are doing it" is completely relevant.

clive

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:24:52 GMT, ®i©ardo <[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>> Not particularly. Cyclists live longer and enjoy fitness levels
>> equivalent to a non-cyclist ten years younger. Ever seen someone in
>> the terminal stages of cor9onary heart disease? It's one of the
>> most common forms of death these days.

>One can drive a car and, go nowhere near a bicycle and still be
>extremely fit. You really do talk some twaddle.

Of course you can, but on cyclists live two years longer than
average and in later life have health and fitness levels equivalent
to non-cyclist ten years younger. Sure, you *could* get the same
benefits by spending half an hour a day in the gym instead of riding
to work, but I think most cycle commuters find that it would take
longer and cost more to drive to work and then make up the exercise
deficit elsewhere. That's one of the great pluses of cycling: you
get fit in time that you would otherwise waste getting frustrated in
a car on the way to work.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:24:44 -0700, Sir Jeremy
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>Right, so no cyclist has died of CVD. You really are stupid.

And of course I never said that. But heart disease kills one in
five, and regular cycling is one of the best ways of preventing
heart disease. Everyone dies of something eventually, it's just
that cyclists do it later.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:17:37 +0100, JNugent
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>> I was thninking that on a bicycle or motor bike you wear wet weather
>> clothing and don't take it off till you get inside. In a car you can
>> wear what (or as little) as you like.

>That's one of the attractions of driving and one of the
>dis-attractions of cycling, or travelling by PT.

Or not. Some of us actually enjoy the changing seasons. Although
spring has got a bit old by now, and I'm looking forward to summer
starting.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

 

[Brimstone]

NM wrote:

> However you want to dress it up they are breaking the law and being
> inconsiderate and obnoxious to others, why they are doing it is
> irrelevent, there is no excuse.

Good of you to talk about car drivers in such a candid fashion.

 

[Brimstone]

Clive George wrote:
> "NM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>
>> However you want to dress it up they are breaking the law and being
>> inconsiderate and obnoxious to others, why they are doing it is
>> irrelevent, there is no excuse.
>
> If you want to stop people doing things, finding out why they're
> doing them and removing that reason is massively more effective than
> just telling them to stop.
>
> So "why they are doing it" is completely relevant.

Hear hear.

 

[Brimstone]

NM wrote:
> There are other ways to keep fit without getting wet and looking ike a
> dork on a recumbent, there is life outside cycling.

Like sitting in a traffic queue waiting for the level crossing to open while
the "dork" goes past do you mean?

 

[Clive.]

In message <[email protected]>, Clive George
<[email protected]> writes
>If you want to stop people doing things, finding out why they're doing
>them and removing that reason is massively more effective than just
>telling them to stop.
>
>So "why they are doing it" is completely relevant.
I suspect a on the spot £60 fine says otherwise.
--
Clive.

 

[Tony Raven]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:24:52 GMT, ®i©ardo <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>One can drive a car and, go nowhere near a bicycle and still be
>>extremely fit. You really do talk some twaddle.
>
> Sure, you *could* get the same
> benefits by spending half an hour a day in the gym instead of riding
> to work, but I think most cycle commuters find that it would take
> longer and cost more to drive to work and then make up the exercise
> deficit elsewhere.

*Could* being the operative word. Gyms have a churn rate of about 30% per
annum meaning most people stick it for about 3 years before giving up.
Having tried a gym I know why.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[NM]

Brimstone wrote:
> NM wrote:
>> There are other ways to keep fit without getting wet and looking ike a
>> dork on a recumbent, there is life outside cycling.
>
> Like sitting in a traffic queue waiting for the level crossing to open while
> the "dork" goes past do you mean?
>
>
Of course not, the dork is only going to get to the front of the queue
where he will still wait, probably getting wet, whilst I sit in airco
comfort listing to my own choice of entertainemt, then when the crossing
eventually opens he will get away first but as his body has had, in the
waiting time, sufficient time to cool significantly he will be feeling
cold and stiff, shortly I will glide past him, and during the entire
process he will look like a dork on recumbent (AKA Masochist).

 

[Tony Raven]

NM <[email protected]> wrote in
news[email protected]:

> Brimstone wrote:
>> NM wrote:
>>> There are other ways to keep fit without getting wet and looking ike
>>> a dork on a recumbent, there is life outside cycling.
>>
>> Like sitting in a traffic queue waiting for the level crossing to
>> open while the "dork" goes past do you mean?
>>
>>
> Of course not, the dork is only going to get to the front of the queue
> where he will still wait, probably getting wet, whilst I sit in airco
> comfort listing to my own choice of entertainemt, then when the
> crossing eventually opens he will get away first but as his body has
> had, in the waiting time, sufficient time to cool significantly he
> will be feeling cold and stiff, shortly I will glide past him, and
> during the entire process he will look like a dork on recumbent (AKA
> Masochist).
>

Maybe. My commutes now generally involve long periods of overtaking slow
moving queues of cars most of the way. When I used to commute into
Cambridge regularly cars would pass me at the start of my ride only to be
passed by me ten miles later while they sat in the queues on the outskirts
of Cambridge. In London these days I always arrive earlier at meetings
than colleagues taking the tube or taxi from the train station (and they
don't even have the problem of finding a parking space). For those
advantages I don't really care what drivers, stuck in their queues, think
about me.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[JNugent]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:12:34 +0100, JNugent
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>
>>>Yes. They know it's bloody difficult to obtain a conviction where
>>>someone causes death by driving badly. It always has been, or at
>>>least always since I became interested about thirty years ago.

>>Do you think that's because juries know something you don't want to admit?

> What juries know is something most of us are perfectly happy to
> admit: cars are dangerous, and many drivers apply insufficient care
> quite often. The problem of getting a jury of twelve motorists to
> hold another motorist criminally liable for such negligence is a
> matter of record.

In that case you'll have evidence backing up your assertion.

Not just a single case or cause celebré, but good evidence that what
you claim is established, recurring, "normal", fact.

 

[JNugent]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 10:00:41 GMT,
> [email protected] (Ekul Namsob) said in
> <1i3pi4m.876gzd1mtnkwxN%[email protected]>:
>
>
>>Surely it doesn't take a genius to realise that twats who cycle at you
>>on the pavement do so precisely because they are inconsiderate and
>>couldn't care less about the language they use.
>
>
> More likely it's because they've been frightened off the road by the
> motor traffic, or deluded into it by the council's tin of Magic
> White Paint.

So it's not their fault, it's (always) someone else's?

 

[JNugent]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:03:58 +0100, "Clive."
> <[email protected]> said in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>
>>>Except that they aren't, because as has been pointed out already
>>>they are more likely than average to be house owners, car owners and
>>>high-rate taxpayers. Do try to keep up at the back there.
>
>
>>What sort of wild stupid assertion is this? Whilst anyone rides their
>>bike they are paying no fuel duties or any other kind, VED is payable by
>>anyone owning a motorised vehicle whether they chose to use it or not.
>
>
> And we don't get a rebate on VED when we leave the car at home and
> take the bike.

Neither do the very considerable number of railway (and coach)
commuters in the south east of England.

So what?

 

[JNugent]

Clive George wrote:
> "NM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>
>> However you want to dress it up they are breaking the law and being
>> inconsiderate and obnoxious to others, why they are doing it is
>> irrelevent, there is no excuse.
>
>
> If you want to stop people doing things, finding out why they're doing
> them and removing that reason is massively more effective than just
> telling them to stop.
>
> So "why they are doing it" is completely relevant.

It's odd, then, that we don't take that attitude to drink driving. Or
to driving without insurance. Or to armed robbery. Or to rape.

 

[JNugent]

Brimstone wrote:
> NM wrote:
>
>
>>However you want to dress it up they are breaking the law and being
>>inconsiderate and obnoxious to others, why they are doing it is
>>irrelevent, there is no excuse.
>
>
> Good of you to talk about car drivers in such a candid fashion.

That's Brim's entry in the "Primary School Playground Taunt Of The
Month" competition.

 

[Clive George]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George wrote:
>> "NM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news[email protected]...
>>
>>> However you want to dress it up they are breaking the law and being
>>> inconsiderate and obnoxious to others, why they are doing it is
>>> irrelevent, there is no excuse.
>>
>> If you want to stop people doing things, finding out why they're doing
>> them and removing that reason is massively more effective than just
>> telling them to stop.
>>
>> So "why they are doing it" is completely relevant.
>
> It's odd, then, that we don't take that attitude to drink driving. Or to
> driving without insurance. Or to armed robbery. Or to rape.

Why do you say that? Would it be because you're not reading what I wrote?

And yes, I believe in looking at why people are doing these things for all
the cases you mention.

clive

 

[JNugent]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]>:

>>>Which explains why LGV and PCV drivers have a more intensive test.
>>>Oh, wait....

>>Nothing to do with a "higher duty of care" (which is the same as that
>>of any other driver).

> Seems to me that things like operators licensing, safety checks,
> tachograph regulations and so on imply a higher duty of care, or at
> least that *someone* thinks that more danger should bring with it
> more regulation and more care.

Does it?

You're wrong. All drivers have the same duty of care to other
road-users (and, indeed to a wider group of people).

I would add that cyclists have the same duty of care, but:

(a) you've already guessed that, but
(b) you won't admit it.

 

[JNugent]

Clive George wrote:
> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Clive George wrote:
>>
>>> "NM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> However you want to dress it up they are breaking the law and being
>>>> inconsiderate and obnoxious to others, why they are doing it is
>>>> irrelevent, there is no excuse.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want to stop people doing things, finding out why they're
>>> doing them and removing that reason is massively more effective than
>>> just telling them to stop.
>>>
>>> So "why they are doing it" is completely relevant.
>>
>>
>> It's odd, then, that we don't take that attitude to drink driving. Or
>> to driving without insurance. Or to armed robbery. Or to rape.

> Why do you say that? Would it be because you're not reading what I wrote?

> And yes, I believe in looking at why people are doing these things for
> all the cases you mention.

Instead of punishing them or as well as?

If it's "as well as", why do you not take that stance wrt the
obnoxious cyclists referred to by the PP?

 

[Tony Raven]

JNugent <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:12:34 +0100, JNugent
>> <[email protected]> said in
>> <[email protected]>:
>
>> What juries know is something most of us are perfectly happy to
>> admit: cars are dangerous, and many drivers apply insufficient care
>> quite often. The problem of getting a jury of twelve motorists to
>> hold another motorist criminally liable for such negligence is a
>> matter of record.
>
> In that case you'll have evidence backing up your assertion.
>
> Not just a single case or cause celebré, but good evidence that what
> you claim is established, recurring, "normal", fact.
>

"The view has been expressed by several of the police, prosecutors and
judges interviewed that there is a great deal of jury sympathy towards
motorists, and that this, in some cases, resulted in not guilty verdicts,
even where the 'experts' all agreed that the driving was dangerous."
DfT: Dangerous Driving and the Law.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell