J
Jon Senior
Guest
Silas Denyer [email protected] opined the following...
> As an example, Rollerblades were, ISTR, banned in the Royal Parks
> because a pedestrian was killed by being hit by a 'blader on a
> "pavement". The pedestrian had no choice in the matter (as opposed to
> the choice of not walking in the road with cars).
And where would you put the rollerblader? In the road?
> Pedestrians should have the right to cross at crossings without fear
> of being hit - by *anything*. The earlier "1ft vs 6ft" argument, for
> instance, was spurious in this regard.
You are correct that a pedestrian should be able to cross the road at a
crossing without fear. To presume that this fear comes from a fear of
bikes shows a lack of understanding of reality. Given that you are far
more likely to be killed by a car than a bicycle, being more afraid of
the bikes is a little strange.
> I have been hit (as a pedestrian) by a cyclist (breaking the law),
> whose head (down, not looking, helmetted) struck me in the face. It
> took me a good long time to recover from that. It was not trivial
> (except when compared to death) and was caused entirely by the cyclist
> "only doing what everyone does" (his words). That is my point - break
> down the apparent scale of the offence and soon nobody knows what is
> "wrong" or "unacceptable" or even "undesirable" any longer.
Indeed. Note the number of drivers who routinely exceed speed limits.
> No, the analogy was simply non-analagous. Consider this one instead:
I beg to differ, but that comes down to your perception of threat from
cyclists (Which, it would appear, is tainted by personal experience as
apposed to objective observation).
> You have to defend Smallium from attack by a mixed bag of opponents
> from a single direction. Some have assault rifles, others have
> sharpened fruit. You keep out the riflemen but let through the less
> lethal (but not non-lethal) fruit carriers, and accept a number of
> civilian casualties from fruit.
>
> Soon the riflemen realise that disguising their weapons as fruit is a
> good way to go, whilst your guards become used to letting some enemies
> in. What do you think happens next?
If this is analogous to the original problem then presumably you are
aware of some way in which a car could be disguised as a bike while
retaining its inherent ability to cause damage.
> OK, but:
>
> (a) if every red light has a camera, and most motorists don't want to
> be caught by them, and casualties continue to decrease, suddenly
> cyclists look like a big problem.
1st problem. Not every red light has a camera. A very small proportion
of them are now equipped with cameras and since traffic lights appear to
breed faster than cameras I don't see this changing.
2nd problem. Given the ratios, the cameras would have to be close to
100% effective against the problem of car drivers jumping reds in order
to bring the KSI ratio down to a level where cyclists became a problem.
In that world, the cyclists would no longer see car drivers jumping red
lights and wouldn't assume it was OK.
> (b) how long will people respect the rule of law if it is flouted by
> everybody else, including the police (see my original post)?
The police _always_ flout the rule of law... it's a perk of the job!
Jon
> As an example, Rollerblades were, ISTR, banned in the Royal Parks
> because a pedestrian was killed by being hit by a 'blader on a
> "pavement". The pedestrian had no choice in the matter (as opposed to
> the choice of not walking in the road with cars).
And where would you put the rollerblader? In the road?
> Pedestrians should have the right to cross at crossings without fear
> of being hit - by *anything*. The earlier "1ft vs 6ft" argument, for
> instance, was spurious in this regard.
You are correct that a pedestrian should be able to cross the road at a
crossing without fear. To presume that this fear comes from a fear of
bikes shows a lack of understanding of reality. Given that you are far
more likely to be killed by a car than a bicycle, being more afraid of
the bikes is a little strange.
> I have been hit (as a pedestrian) by a cyclist (breaking the law),
> whose head (down, not looking, helmetted) struck me in the face. It
> took me a good long time to recover from that. It was not trivial
> (except when compared to death) and was caused entirely by the cyclist
> "only doing what everyone does" (his words). That is my point - break
> down the apparent scale of the offence and soon nobody knows what is
> "wrong" or "unacceptable" or even "undesirable" any longer.
Indeed. Note the number of drivers who routinely exceed speed limits.
> No, the analogy was simply non-analagous. Consider this one instead:
I beg to differ, but that comes down to your perception of threat from
cyclists (Which, it would appear, is tainted by personal experience as
apposed to objective observation).
> You have to defend Smallium from attack by a mixed bag of opponents
> from a single direction. Some have assault rifles, others have
> sharpened fruit. You keep out the riflemen but let through the less
> lethal (but not non-lethal) fruit carriers, and accept a number of
> civilian casualties from fruit.
>
> Soon the riflemen realise that disguising their weapons as fruit is a
> good way to go, whilst your guards become used to letting some enemies
> in. What do you think happens next?
If this is analogous to the original problem then presumably you are
aware of some way in which a car could be disguised as a bike while
retaining its inherent ability to cause damage.
> OK, but:
>
> (a) if every red light has a camera, and most motorists don't want to
> be caught by them, and casualties continue to decrease, suddenly
> cyclists look like a big problem.
1st problem. Not every red light has a camera. A very small proportion
of them are now equipped with cameras and since traffic lights appear to
breed faster than cameras I don't see this changing.
2nd problem. Given the ratios, the cameras would have to be close to
100% effective against the problem of car drivers jumping reds in order
to bring the KSI ratio down to a level where cyclists became a problem.
In that world, the cyclists would no longer see car drivers jumping red
lights and wouldn't assume it was OK.
> (b) how long will people respect the rule of law if it is flouted by
> everybody else, including the police (see my original post)?
The police _always_ flout the rule of law... it's a perk of the job!
Jon