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



S

Solar Penguin

Guest
--- Jon Senior said:
>
> 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?
>


Hmmm... I don't accept the premise of this thought experiment because I
don't accept that this is an "Either/Or" situation. (E.g. How do we
know that Biggus and Tribus aren't already allied against Smallium?)
And anyway, pedestrians would be in the position of Tribus, not
Smallium -- we've got the least to defend ourselves with out of any of
the three groups! Heck at least cyclists are armed with bikes.
Pedestrians don't even get a blunt mango to harm other road users with!
 
S

Solar Penguin

Guest
--- Tony Raven said:

>
> Actually its mainly about a troll who posted and fled.
>


Strange how that alleged troll made more sense than all the pro-bike
responses put together.
 
A

Adrian

Guest
Solar Penguin ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

> 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.


No, you were right with "Triage".

Where you varied slightly was in the definition - if there's three people
lying on trolleys, one with a cut finger, one with a minor heart attack and
one with half their guts on the floor, the heart attack would be first,
followed by the cut finger, as the third's probably toast anyway.

Haven't you ever watched "M*A*S*H"?
 
A

Adrian

Guest
Ian Smith ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

>> And how many would you consider acceptable? How many pedestrians per
>> annum do you think are expendable?


> Well, society believes about 11 per day, since it doesn't cause any
> outcry.


Can we at least get the numbers right?

11 x 365 = roughly the total number of road deaths.
Try 774 ped deaths last year - of which around 60% were over the legal
blood-alcohol level for driving.

In other words - around 11 sober pedestrians killed on the roads *per
fortnight*...
 
A

Adrian

Guest
davek ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

> How many pedestrians die annually from being hit by cyclists? How many
> die from being hit by cars?


How wide is a car? How wide is a bicycle? How easy are they for a
pedestrian to avoid, relatively?
 
D

David Martin

Guest
On 16/10/04 6:06 pm, in article [email protected], "Solar
Penguin" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> --- Tony Raven said:
>
>>
>> Actually its mainly about a troll who posted and fled.
>>

>
> Strange how that alleged troll made more sense than all the pro-bike
> responses put together.


Hardly.

No one has condoned jumping red lights on a bike. There are situations where
it is legal to pass a light on red but it is clearly not 'jumped'. What has
been done is to show that the original poster was overreacting to the
perceived problem and the proposed draconian action against cyclists would
actually lead to more harm than good.

So, who will fund the proposed bicycle license? What counts as a bicycle? A
frame? with wheels? Where would you put such a license plate so it can be
read?

Especially at the top end, bikes are more a fluid collection of parts than a
static assembly.

At the low end, any cost of licensing could almost double the cost of the
bike.

And what good would it do? You don't know who was riding any particular
bike, even less so than you do with a car (and it is hard enough getting
anything done even when there has been injury and witnesses).


So in response to the original poster, there is the UseNet 'there, there!',
cup of tea and sympathy. We don't so that sort of thing and don't condone it
either but your proposed 'solution' is ill thought out, unworkable and
disproportionate.

...d
 
T

Tom Anderson

Guest
On 16 Oct 2004, Silas Denyer wrote:

> I think [...]


Damn! The subject made me think this thread was going to be about Critical
Mass ...

tom

--
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me. -- Hunter S. Thompson.
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
Solar Penguin [email protected] opined the following...
> Hmmm... I don't accept the premise of this thought experiment because I
> don't accept that this is an "Either/Or" situation. (E.g. How do we
> know that Biggus and Tribus aren't already allied against Smallium?)
> And anyway, pedestrians would be in the position of Tribus, not
> Smallium -- we've got the least to defend ourselves with out of any of
> the three groups! Heck at least cyclists are armed with bikes.
> Pedestrians don't even get a blunt mango to harm other road users with!


Actually, the last time I hit a pedestrian (The only time in fact) I
came off far worse. He got knocked sideways and was up (and apologising)
by them time I had come to a halt. The problem with bikes is that the
person attached to it usually has to lose more speed before coming to a
standstill and has more chance of ending up tangled in the wreckage.

The analogy was daft, but by extension, so is the bizarre premise that
we should deal with the problem that is easier to solve rather than the
one which is the biggest threat.

A (possibly) better one; You have a high-power rifle. Running towards
you are a hungry looking lion and a small domestic cat. Given enough
time and some bad luck on your part the small cat could kill you. The
lion definately will. Which one do you try and shoot?

Let's face it. It's not going to be the cat is it? Yet you advocate
shooting the cat, because it'll die with the first shot even though the
lion poses a <Plucks figure from air> 3000 times greater threat to you.

Is there anyone on u.r.c. who condones cycling on pavements and through
red lights? Probably not. Is there anyone there who honestly believes
that effective action against such offenders would have any noticeable
effect on the KSI stats for our roads? Probably not. Given the choice
(Assume that it is unavoidable) of being hit by a cyclist (~95kg @
15mph) or a car (~1500kg @ 30mph) which would you choose? Can you not
see why we might find such trolling patently ridiculous or do you need
more time to think about it?

Jon
 
S

Solar Penguin

Guest
--- Jon Senior said:

> A (possibly) better one; You have a high-power rifle. Running towards
> you are a hungry looking lion and a small domestic cat. Given enough
> time and some bad luck on your part the small cat could kill you. The
> lion definately will. Which one do you try and shoot?
>


Once again, why is this an "Either/Or" situation? Why can't I use the
cat as bait to trap the lion, killing them both at once? Two birds with
one stone, that sort of thing.

This is the question that I've been asking since my very first post in
this thread. And it's the one question that the cyclists have been
refusing to answer each time I ask it.

If I don't get an answer this time, I'm just gonna killfile this whole
thread, because there's no point even trying to discuss things sensibly
with people who aren't even prepared to answer a simple question.
 
N

[Not Responding]

Guest
On 16 Oct 2004 17:31:31 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ian Smith ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying :
>
>>> And how many would you consider acceptable? How many pedestrians per
>>> annum do you think are expendable?

>
>> Well, society believes about 11 per day, since it doesn't cause any
>> outcry.

>
>Can we at least get the numbers right?
>
>11 x 365 = roughly the total number of road deaths.
>Try 774 ped deaths last year - of which around 60% were over the legal
>blood-alcohol level for driving.
>
>In other words - around 11 sober pedestrians killed on the roads *per
>fortnight*...


What the hell has sobriety got to do with it? Fortunately this isn't
America or Saudi Arabia and you're perfectly within your rights to
walk home drunk as a lord and not get run over.
 
I

Ian Smith

Guest
On 16 Oct 2004 17:31:31 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying :
>
> >> And how many would you consider acceptable? How many pedestrians per
> >> annum do you think are expendable?

>
> > Well, society believes about 11 per day, since it doesn't cause any
> > outcry.

>
> Can we at least get the numbers right?


Can we indicate where we specified 11 a day was sober pedestrians?
Society clearly thinks 11 fatalities a day is acceptable.

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

Ian Smith

Guest
On 16 Oct 2004 17:32:42 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote:
> davek ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying :
>
> > How many pedestrians die annually from being hit by cyclists? How many
> > die from being hit by cars?

>
> How wide is a car? How wide is a bicycle?


Much more than one two-hundredth as wide.
Is this line of questioning going anywhere?

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

Ian Smith

Guest
On Sat, 16 Oct, Solar Penguin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Once again, why is this an "Either/Or" situation?
>
> This is the question that I've been asking since my very first post in
> this thread.


Let's see:

Message-ID: <[email protected]>
>> And how many would you consider acceptable? How many pedestrians
>> per annum do you think are expendable?


Must be something wrong with either my or your language skills,
because that's the total of your text from the oldest ancestor post by
you to this posting, and I'm really struggling to spot where you ask
why it has to be an 'either/or' situation.

> If I don't get an answer this time, I'm just gonna killfile this whole
> thread, because there's no point even trying to discuss things sensibly
> with people who aren't even prepared to answer a simple question.


Actually, I did answer the question you asked. Of course, I didn't
answer any question you didn't ask. Sorry.

tapioca
a viola without any strings
01606 593933

(that's answers to some other questions you didn't ask, in case they
help)

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

Ningi

Guest
Tony Raven wrote:
> ningi wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, cars don't jump red lights with anything like the frequency that
>> bikes do in London, so perhaps it does.
>>

>
> Only because the first driver who stops for the red light blocks all
> those behind him, who would if they could, from jumping the light. Even
> then and with very few traffic lights equipped with cameras, ~10,000
> motorists a months are being caught in London by red light cameras.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3723726.stm
>
>
> Tony


Well, my experience of cycling from Waterloo to Bank several times a
week is that at least 75% of cyclists go straight through red lights.
If the same numbers applied to cars, then 75% of the time, a car
arriving at a red light should jump it. This isn't even remotely the
case. I can't actually remember when I last saw a car jump a red,
whereas I find it a rarity when I see a cyclist, other than me, who
stopped for one.

Pete
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On 16 Oct 2004 05:58:53 -0700, [email protected] (Silas Denyer)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>I think there will shortly be a significant backlash against cyclists,
>from *all* sections of the community.


LOL! Been living in a hole the last few years, have you?

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 Washington University
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 15:28:53 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>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.


Er, "cop-out?" "victimisation?" "scapegoating?"

Every example I can think of from Pareto analysis down to ACPO
guidelines focuses on the highest risk and greatest potential for
lifesaving first. Cyclists are not even on the radar. Hence the
official Government guidance to Plod not even to use fixed penalty
notices unless the cyclist is behaving recklessly.

This is mainly a recognition that most pavement cycling is more a
response motorist behaviour than a deliberate and flagrant act of
lawlessness.

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 Washington University
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:06:17 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Strange how that alleged troll made more sense than all the pro-bike
>responses put together.


Not hardly. In fact this kind of anti-cyclist bigotry is so common
and so unvarying in its content that I have a stock response:

<url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Bloody_cyclists>

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 Washington University
 
S

Solar Penguin

Guest
--- "Just zis Guy, you know?" said:

> On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:06:17 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
> wrote in message
>
> >Strange how that alleged troll made more sense than all the
> >pro-bike responses put together.

>
> Not hardly. In fact this kind of anti-cyclist bigotry is so
> common and so unvarying in its content


And the fact that this alleged bigotry *is* so common, doesn't clue you
in to the fact that just maybe it isn't bigotry after all , but good old
fashioned common sense?


> that I have a stock response:
>
>

<url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Bloody_cyc
lists>


Strange how the so-called bigotry makes more sense than your response
too
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Ningi wrote:
>
>
> Well, my experience of cycling from Waterloo to Bank several times a
> week is that at least 75% of cyclists go straight through red lights. If
> the same numbers applied to cars, then 75% of the time, a car arriving
> at a red light should jump it. This isn't even remotely the case. I
> can't actually remember when I last saw a car jump a red, whereas I find
> it a rarity when I see a cyclist, other than me, who stopped for one.
>


That would accord with my experience with cars. Lights go red, three
cars carry on, fourth car stops, rest have to stop behind it. With
cyclists and the same percentage you would see 10 cyclists approach, 3
cross on red, fourth stops, next three cycle past stopped cyclist to
cross on red etc. So with a 75% disobedience rate for both you would
see three out of all the cars approaching the red light carry on but 75%
of all cyclists.

Tony
 
T

Tony Raven

Guest
Solar Penguin wrote:
>
> Once again, why is this an "Either/Or" situation? Why can't I use the
> cat as bait to trap the lion, killing them both at once? Two birds with
> one stone, that sort of thing.


Its either/or because the amount of resources, financial or human,
available to devote to the problem is limited. If there were infinite
resources it would not be an either/or situation but both. As it is
choices have to be made as to which one is the most effective deployment
of the resources you have.

In the lion/cat example its a question of only having one bullet. If
you had a whole magazine full it would be easy. You shoot both, lion
first. With one bullet, unless you can find some fancy way of enticing
the lion to eat the cat before it eats you or you can get the cat to
stand in front of the lion so you can get both with one shot, how would
you use your one bullet?
>
> This is the question that I've been asking since my very first post in
> this thread. And it's the one question that the cyclists have been
> refusing to answer each time I ask it.


Does that answer it?

>
> If I don't get an answer this time, I'm just gonna killfile this whole
> thread, because there's no point even trying to discuss things sensibly
> with people who aren't even prepared to answer a simple question.
>


Tony