Institutionalised law-breaking using bikes - anarchy is near at hand



H

Helen Deborah Vecht

Guest
Ian Walker <[email protected]>typed

> Is anybody else's Troll-o-Meter twitching, or is it just me?


Mine is.

Please do not feed the trolls!

What is institutionalised about cyclists, praydotell? The CTC, whose
members generally do not break the law, maybe...

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.
 
S

Solar Penguin

Guest
--- Ian Smith said:

>
> You avoiding commenting on why you're so hung up about bicycles
> but accept teh 3000 times worse motor vehicles record, I see.
>


No, I'm equally distrustful of *ALL* private, non-pedestrian road users.
I try not make too many distinctions between them. It all cancels out
in the end. (E.g. You maybe be right. Cars may be 3000 times deadlier
than bikes, but that also makes them at least 3000 times harder to
solve. Swings and roundabouts.)
 
I

Ian Smith

Guest
On Sat, Solar Penguin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Anyway what is the right word? Where you start by solving the problems
> that you *are* able to solve instead of wasting your time trying to
> solve the ones that can't be solved until later? Whatever it's called,
> that's what I was thinking of.


"Rearranging deckchairs on the Titannic"?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
S

Solar Penguin

Guest
--- Ian Smith said:
> On Sat, Solar Penguin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Anyway what is the right word? ... Whatever it's called,
> > that's what I was thinking of.

>
> "Rearranging deckchairs on the Titannic"?
>


LOL!!! Touché!
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Solar Penguin wrote:
>
> Ok, maybe that was the wrong word. If it was, then sorry for any
> confusion.
>
> Anyway what is the right word? Where you start by solving the problems
> that you *are* able to solve instead of wasting your time trying to
> solve the ones that can't be solved until later? Whatever it's called,
> that's what I was thinking of.
>


Whatever it is why do you think solving the problem of the 200 deaths a
year an impossible waste of time to be put to one side while and the one
death a year isn't and deserves attention? The former source of death
already has easily readable license plates attached to the vehicle, an
operator licensing system and a partial automatic enforcement system
that is catching 10,000 of them a month jumping red lights and a further
5,500 a month speeding in London. Yet still ~200 pedestrians a year are
killed on the pavement and many times that on the road.

Do you really think applying all that to cyclists is going to impact the
~1 death a year on the pavement and is it the most effective way to
achieve that level of saving of pedestrian lives?

Tony
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> Ian Walker <[email protected]>typed
>
>
>>Is anybody else's Troll-o-Meter twitching, or is it just me?

>
>
> Mine is.
>
> Please do not feed the trolls!
>


Yebbut, what else am I going to do to pass the afternoon, go and fix the
license plates on my bike?

Tony ;-)
 
N

Nick Kew

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Silas Denyer) writes:

> When I enquired why that was, I was told (quite seriously) that
> bicycles were actually faster than motorbikes across the centre of
> town now


Nothing new.

I worked in central London 20 years ago, and had both forms of bike.
The bicycle was faster then too - and that's riding 100% legally.
It's faster simply because it fits through smaller spaces in the
congestion caused by cars and other larger vehicles.

> Whilst walking near Old Street a while ago I was almost run off the
> pavement by some patrolling Police cyclists riding along the pavement


Hehe. Thanks for yet another reminder I'm glad to be well out of London.

> lives of pedestrians (yes, lives - cyclist hitting pedestrian can and
> does result in death). Who wants to join my petition?


Hmmm, what's the ratio again? About 1 killed by a cyclist to 10000
killed by cars (in round numbers), isn't it? Oh, and around quarter of
a million indirect deaths due to breathing fumes (c.f. the lesser but
more-discussed problem of passive smoking). Smothering cyclists in red
tape *will* drive some of them into cars, causing *more* pedestrian deaths.

--
Nick Kew
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Solar Penguin wrote:
>
> Cars may be 3000 times deadlier
> than bikes, but that also makes them at least 3000 times harder to
> solve. Swings and roundabouts.)
>


I think those cold Antarctic winds are getting to your penguin brain.
Your statement is a non-sequitur. There is no correlation between the
risk something poses and the difficulty of reducing that risk.

Tony
 
S

Solar Penguin

Guest
--- Tony Raven said:
>
> Whatever it is why do you think solving the problem of the 200
> deaths a year an impossible waste of time to be put to one side
> while and the one death a year isn't and deserves attention?


I don't. Read, my original post: Why do *YOU* think it's an "Either/Or"
system?

You're the one who brought up the "Either/Or" approach, and the question
of priorities between your "Either" and your "Or", which is all so far
removed from my viewpoint that I don't even know the right words to ask
you to explain more about it.

I'm strongly in favour of harsher penalties and restrictions for
motorists just as I am for cyclists. I've argued points against cars in
the "Dumb traffic lights" thread -- and ****** off a few motorists doing
so. But this thread is about bikes, so I'm arguing against bikes here.

Now, how about you actually answering my questions, for a change. Why
do you see it as "Either/Or"? And why do you see a need to one
particular system of priorities when there's no need to divide it up
into artificial priorities in the first place?
 
S

Solar Penguin

Guest
It's the battle of the birds. The Penguin vs. the Raven.

Seconds out, round two...

--- Tony Raven said:

>
> I think those cold Antarctic winds are getting to your penguin brain.



You're determined to keep snipping out or ignoring my most important
point in each message, just so you can do some cheap one-upmanship point
scoring. Good to see the old art of Usenet debating is still alive and
well. (Or are you just a troll? If so, you're a very clumsy one!)

Anyway, like I was saying. I try not to draw any artificial
distinctions between a pedestrian who just happens to have been killed
by a car and a pedestrian who just happens to have been killed by a
bike. I don't see this as an "Either/Or" option. I don't think there's
any need to only legislate to save one and not the other.

So, let's have tougher restrictions and penalties for both motorists
*AND* cyclists. The best of both worlds. Well... What's wrong with
that?
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Solar Penguin wrote:

> But this thread is about bikes, so I'm arguing against bikes here.
>


Actually its mainly about a troll who posted and fled.

Tony
 
M

micky

Guest
Solar Penguin wrote:
> --- Tony Raven said:
>
>>
>> Well one assumes your priority would start with the biggest threat.

>
> Never heard of "triage"? The priority is to start with the threat
> that's most easily dealt with and once that's out of the way, you'll
> have more freedom to deal with the more complicated threats.




jeez how many knobs can we get in the one thread


micky


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.777 / Virus Database: 524 - Release Date: 14/10/2004
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
Solar Penguin [email protected] opined the following...
> So, let's have tougher restrictions and penalties for both motorists
> *AND* cyclists. The best of both worlds. Well... What's wrong with
> that?


But you seem to advocate ignoring the major problem (Deaths caused by
motorised vehicles) in favour of tackling the minor (Deaths caused by
bicyles). This is not "tougher restrictions and penalties for both
motorists *AND* cyclists", this is jumping on the easy target because
we're afraid of the larger one.

Thought experiment:

A badly defended country (Smallium) is under attack from two sides. The
neighbour to the East (Biggus) is categorised as a Superpower and has
highly advanced technology. He is making vast headway into the civilian
population of Smallium. The neighbour to the West (Tribus) has an
aggressive populace armed with particularly sharp mangoes. As a large
neighbour to both Biggus and Tribus you can stop either of them. Your
mandate is to defend Smallium. What do you do?

Jon
 
M

Marc

Guest
On 16 Oct 2004 05:58:53 -0700, Silas Denyer wrote:

> Personally I think the only solution is compulsory registration of
> bicycles, with clearly-displayed plates, or perhaps compulsory
> registration of the riders (plate on the back of a mandatory
> reflective jacket, perhaps). This isn't trivial law-breaking - this is
> anarchy in which business, the police, and the general public are
> wholesale ignoring the law of the land, and frequently endangering the
> lives of pedestrians (yes, lives - cyclist hitting pedestrian can and
> does result in death). Who wants to join my petition?


Don't feed the trolls!
 
N

[Not Responding]

Guest
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:06:37 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:

>A badly defended country (Smallium) is under attack from two sides. The
>neighbour to the East (Biggus) is categorised as a Superpower and has
>highly advanced technology. He is making vast headway into the civilian
>population of Smallium. The neighbour to the West (Tribus) has an
>aggressive populace armed with particularly sharp mangoes. As a large
>neighbour to both Biggus and Tribus you can stop either of them. Your
>mandate is to defend Smallium. What do you do?


Annex with Biggus. Buy a car?
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
[Not Responding] [email protected]lid opined the
following...
> Annex with Biggus. Buy a car?


OK. So I got a bit carried away there. And the reality is that unless
you have the muscle to do it, you say "yessir-what-ever-you-want-sir" to
Biggus while telling the world that you have everyone's best interests
at heart.

Jon
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Jon Senior wrote:
>
> Thought experiment:
>
> A badly defended country (Smallium) is under attack from two sides. The
> neighbour to the East (Biggus) is categorised as a Superpower and has
> highly advanced technology. He is making vast headway into the civilian
> population of Smallium. The neighbour to the West (Tribus) has an
> aggressive populace armed with particularly sharp mangoes. As a large
> neighbour to both Biggus and Tribus you can stop either of them. Your
> mandate is to defend Smallium. What do you do?
>


Feed the mangos to the trolls?

Tony
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
micky wrote:
>
> jeez how many knobs can we get in the one thread
>
>
> micky
>


Welcome

Tony ;-)
 
M

Mark Thompson

Guest
> Cars may be 3000 times deadlier
> than bikes, but that also makes them at least 3000 times harder to
> solve.


Eh? No.
 
J

Julesh

Guest
Solar Penguin wrote:
> --- Tony Raven said:
>
>
>>Well one assumes your priority would start with the biggest threat.

>
>
> Never heard of "triage"? The priority is to start with the threat
> that's most easily dealt with and once that's out of the way, you'll
> have more freedom to deal with the more complicated threats.
>
>
>
>

Surely the biggest, most dangerous, and easiest to solve problem is that
of cars and vans passing lights on red - something that now appears
commonplace in London. As these are already equipped with number plates
a low-tech solution for stopping this would be to station Community
Support Officers at intersections and getting them to note down the
registration numbers of anyone seen doing this so they can be prosecuted.

If the fines for this could be ringfenced and used to provide traffic
light cameras this would probably only need to done for a short period.
Once the majority of junctions (and traffic light controlled pedestrian
crossings) were controlled in this way we should we well on the way to
stampting out that particular crime.


JulesH