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

[Martin Newstead \(MSeries\)]

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?
>
> Best wishes, Silas


Just get the police to do their job. You pay for them with your taxes.
Troll.

 

[iarocu]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> FWIW you might like to know that triage is sorting patients according to
> their need for or likely benefit from immediate treatment. In the
> disaster/battlefield scenario it is about maximising the number of
> survivors. I would say either interpretation would leave cyclists sat in
> the waiting room for a long time before they received attention.

To add to Tonys comment It is triage because casualties are divided
into three groups.
Those so seriously injured they are likely to die anyway - no
treatment.
Those with relatively minor injuries likely to survive anyway - no
treatment.
Those with potentially fatal but treatable injuries - treated
immediately.
Only after those casualties in the 3rd category were dealt with
would the 1st and second groups be treated.
Iain

 

[Solar Penguin]

--- Tony Raven said:
>
> Its either/or because the amount of resources, financial or human,
>
> 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?

If I only had one bullet I hope I wouldn't waste it on either of them.
Instead, I *HOPE* I'd have the moral courage to admit that my enemies
had me surrounded and shoot my own brains out before either one had the
chance to harm me.

Sorry, but I just don't believe in "Either/Or" situations. Given a
choice of only two options, I'll *ALWAYS* take the third.

 

[Tony Raven]

Solar Penguin wrote:
>
> If I only had one bullet I hope I wouldn't waste it on either of them.
> Instead, I *HOPE* I'd have the moral courage to admit that my enemies
> had me surrounded and shoot my own brains out before either one had the
> chance to harm me.
>
> Sorry, but I just don't believe in "Either/Or" situations. Given a
> choice of only two options, I'll *ALWAYS* take the third.
>

Amazing. You'd rather use it commit suicide than kill the only thing
that really threatens you. You're right this "debate" is not worth
having. Time for http://www.ebaumsworld.com/penguinswing.html

Tony

 

[Jon Senior]

Solar Penguin [email protected] opined the following...
> 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?

Yup. Just like the good ol' fashioned common sense that said that wimmen
coont be educated, and that dem black folks was fit ony fuh scrubbin'
floors.

Funny old world isn't it?

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Solar Penguin [email protected] opined the following...
> If I only had one bullet I hope I wouldn't waste it on either of them.
> Instead, I *HOPE* I'd have the moral courage to admit that my enemies
> had me surrounded and shoot my own brains out before either one had the
> chance to harm me.

Quitter! You could take your chances shooting the lion and stroke the
cat. Given a situation where you stand a possible chance of surviving
versus blowing your brains out, you'd choose the latter. Good to know.
That's one faulty genetic line eliminated. NEXT! ;-)

> Sorry, but I just don't believe in "Either/Or" situations. Given a
> choice of only two options, I'll *ALWAYS* take the third.

And given the choice of dealing with fatalities caused by cyclists and
fatalities caused by motor cars with a budget that can deal with the
latter using an existing framework, but which cannot conceivably cover
the costs of the former for little benefit, what exactly is the third
option?

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

Tony Raven [email protected] opined the following...
> Time for http://www.ebaumsworld.com/penguinswing.html

Damn. I need to get a keyboard cover! ;-)

Jon

 

[Adrian]

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

> Can we indicate where we specified 11 a day was sober pedestrians?

You seemed to suggest it was 11 peds per day.

> Society clearly thinks 11 fatalities a day is acceptable.

I'm not sure I agree with that inference.

 

[Adrian]

[Not Responding] ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

>>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.

Did I say otherwise?

Has it not occurred to you that maybe some of those ****** peds might have
walked into the road without looking? And that they therefore may have been
partly to blame for their demise?

I know I've done that in the past - and that it would have been my own
bloody stupid fault if I'd got flattened as a result.

 

[Adrian]

Ian Smith ([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.

Dodge an object 6ft wide.
Dodge an object 1ft wide.

Which is easier?

> Is this line of questioning going anywhere?

Ooops, just noticed the cross-post.

It's obviously all the fault of drivers. Bastards, all of 'em.

 

[JohnB]

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

I reckon he hit a cyclist and it scratched his p*n*s

John B

 

[Terry D]

Solar Penguin wrote:
> --- Ian Smith said:
>
>>On 16 Oct 2004 05:58:53 -0700, Silas Denyer
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> (yes, lives - cyclist hitting pedestrian can and
>>> does result in death).
>>
>>How many per annum on average?
>
>
> And how many would you consider acceptable? How many pedestrians per
> annum do you think are expendable?
>
>
>
>

Why should you restrict yourself to the number of expendable pedestrians?
Perhaps you should consider the bigger picture and look at the number of people
who die because they they do not walk or cycle regularly. This number dwarfs the
numbers killed by cyclists or motorists and is extremely easy to correct.

The following is a clip from the Cycling and Health page on the National Cycling
Strategy Website
(http://www.nationalcyclingstrategy.org.uk/assets/NCS_topics/cycling_and_health.pdf)

"Many people say that the risk of cycling
is one of the main barriers to more
people getting ‘on their bikes’. However,
the British Medical Association (BMA)
has concluded that the benefits of
cycling are likely to outweigh the loss of
life as a result of crashes.

In 2000, a total of 125 adults and
children were killed in the UK while
cycling. By contrast, 125,000 people
died in the same year
from coronary heart
disease (CHD) in the
UK, of which around
45,000 deaths were due
to lack of activity."

So, getting 45,000 people per year out of their cars and onto bikes would appear
to be A Very Good Thing, as far as I can see. Do we need to start a new petition?

--
Terry Duckmanton.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/terry.duckmanton
A website mostly dedicated to cycling
http://tduckmanton.bravejournal.com
A daily log of my cycling exploits

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:32:23 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>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?

I think Jon has answered that point perfectly, above. Common sense is
generally that phrase which is used in lieu of data by those peddling
outdated and oppressive views.

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

Given that you think it is more important to control the trivial risk
of pavement cycling than the massive risk of dangerous driving, even
though the facts show that you are around 200 times as likely to be
killed on the footway by a motor vehicle than by a cyclist, I think
you have a very strange view of what constitutes sense, common or
otherwise.

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

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:42:39 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

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

Do you have any idea what is the usual penalty applied to a driver
who, through negligence, kills a cyclist or pedestrian?

It is currently running at six points and a fine of around £200. If
you hit the twelve-point totting up limit, you'll probably be able to
persuade the court to let you drive home.

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

 

[Tony Raven]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> Given that you think it is more important to control the trivial risk
> of pavement cycling than the massive risk of dangerous driving, even
> though the facts show that you are around 200 times as likely to be
> killed on the footway by a motor vehicle than by a cyclist, I think
> you have a very strange view of what constitutes sense, common or
> otherwise.
>

As Einstein said, common sense is the collection of predjudices acquired
by the age of eighteen

Tony

 

[Martin Smith]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:50:25 GMT, ningi
<[email protected]> wrote:
> davek wrote:
>> Silas Denyer wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I think the only solution is compulsory registration of
>>> bicycles, with clearly-displayed plates
>>
>>
>> Cars have those and it doesn't stop their drivers jumping red lights or
>> driving on the pavement.
>
> Well, cars don't jump red lights with anything like the frequency that
> bikes do in London, so perhaps it does.
>
you obviously haven't been to South London recently
> Pete


--
Martin Smith

 

[David Splett]

"Silas Denyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Last week I had to drive (in a car) across London. I made a note of
> all cyclists I saw with red traffic lights against them, and their
> behaviour. Of 182 I encountered on my (fairly long and, as you'll
> gather, dull) drive, only 8 stopped at a red light against them - less
> than 5%.

Right. If you were really making such meticulous notes of cyclists, you
couldn't have been paying proper attention to your own driving.


> 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?

Not me. Get a life.

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 15:04:21 +0100 someone who may be "Solar
Penguin" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Never heard of "triage"?

I have.

>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.

Really.

Meanwhile the more complicated will probably have died.

Next contestant please.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:38:06 +0100 someone who may be "Solar
Penguin" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>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.

Yawn.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:32:23 +0100 someone who may be "Solar
Penguin" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>good old fashioned common sense?

"Common sense" is very common. However, that does not mean it is
sensible.

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

I note that your loud words do not amount to a reasoned criticism of
Guy's page. Had you a better response I suspect that you would have
made it.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---