Jason McIntyre killed



Quoting Jeff York <[email protected]>:
>This is not the place.


For the endless cager self-justification? Quite. As I said; for once,
spindrift was on the money.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Monday, January.
 
Quoting Jeff York <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>In this context, not at all. Cyclist-ped collisions kill one person a
>>year; motorists kill thousands.

>Who said anything about cyclists?


Well, I did, for one.

.... hey, haven't you flounced out of this thread once?

>almost on a par with Spindrift's... For example "to kill people as a
>result of errors..." - doctors make accidental mistakes and kill
>people in quite large numbers.


In this context? On the roads? I'm not convinced. Maybe your GP's a bit
different.

>>Missing the point - thick or just deliberately obtuse? They are choosing
>>to do something that imposes a higher level of danger.

>Neither. I'm making real-life judgements about the abilities of normal
>human beings.


I knew we'd be onto how motorists killing people is inevitable and the
victims should just suck it up, somehow...

>>In this very subthread.

>PPOR.


SPQR?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Monday, January.
 
"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Jeff York" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> <snipped rubbish>
>>
>> This is not the place. May I suggest that you also look up "respect"
>> in the dictionary.

>
>Indeed it isn't the place for you. It's uk.rec.cycling. You're not
>interested in cycling. You're the one showing the least resepct.


I've ridden a bike for over 50 years, as a matter of fact.

Interestingly, unlike it would appear the majority of you "lycra
nazis" I've never been knocked off it, never had an altercation with
another road user, never ridden on a pavement (since I was about 8
anyway), never jumped a red light... Could be that I look where I'm
going and treat my extreme vulnerability with a degree of
circumspection rather than "knowing my rights".

But what do I know... I'm "just a motorist" and therefore evil.
 
David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting Jeff York <[email protected]>:
>>This is not the place.

>
>For the endless cager self-justification? Quite. As I said; for once,
>spindrift was on the money.


"Cager"... Look sonny, I've probably been riding a bike since before
you were born. And from comments that you've posted, probably a lot
more safely.
 
David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

>Quoting Jeff York <[email protected]>:
>>David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>In this context, not at all. Cyclist-ped collisions kill one person a
>>>year; motorists kill thousands.

>>Who said anything about cyclists?

>
>Well, I did, for one.


So, you're arguing with yourself..? Not a very encouraging sign.

>... hey, haven't you flounced out of this thread once?


Have I? Or are you "doing a spindrift" and "making it all up"?

>>almost on a par with Spindrift's... For example "to kill people as a
>>result of errors..." - doctors make accidental mistakes and kill
>>people in quite large numbers.

>
>In this context? On the roads? I'm not convinced. Maybe your GP's a bit
>different.


You snipped "But to kill people as a result of errors is generally the
exclusive province of motorists." - a tad ingenuous. You didn't say
anything about "roads", just "errors" - which is the fatuous point to
which I was responding.

>>>Missing the point - thick or just deliberately obtuse? They are choosing
>>>to do something that imposes a higher level of danger.

>>Neither. I'm making real-life judgements about the abilities of normal
>>human beings.

>
>I knew we'd be onto how motorists killing people is inevitable and the
>victims should just suck it up, somehow...


You're almost as good a spinny at inventing new meanings for
straightforward phrases.
 
"Jeff York" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Quoting Jeff York <[email protected]>:
>>>This is not the place.

>>
>>For the endless cager self-justification? Quite. As I said; for once,
>>spindrift was on the money.

>
> "Cager"... Look sonny, I've probably been riding a bike since before
> you were born. And from comments that you've posted, probably a lot
> more safely.


You've said you're pro-motorist. You've not described your cycling at all.

Tell us more about bits of your life which are on-topic for this NG - what
sort of riding do you do, and how much?

(me - mostly road riding, several thousand miles/year, at least half on
major A-roads. Not quick enough to be a racer, but not pootly either. Also
ride tandems on and off-road - maybe a thousand miles/year for those :-( )

clive
 
"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Jeff York" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Quoting Jeff York <[email protected]>:
>>>>This is not the place.
>>>
>>>For the endless cager self-justification? Quite. As I said; for once,
>>>spindrift was on the money.

>>
>> "Cager"... Look sonny, I've probably been riding a bike since before
>> you were born. And from comments that you've posted, probably a lot
>> more safely.

>
>You've said you're pro-motorist. You've not described your cycling at all.
>
>Tell us more about bits of your life which are on-topic for this NG - what
>sort of riding do you do, and how much?
>
>(me - mostly road riding, several thousand miles/year, at least half on
>major A-roads. Not quick enough to be a racer, but not pootly either. Also
>ride tandems on and off-road - maybe a thousand miles/year for those :-( )


Virtually 100% road, though there are a few bridleway/cyclepaths
around where I live - which is in the Severn Valley and consequently
going almost anywhere apart from up/downstream starts with a steep
climb... :) At least the paths have a gentler gradient than the
roads!! I'm getting on a bit and my health isn't too wonderful, so
I'm fairly restricted on how much I can ride nowadays. To add to the
"fun" I've also been diagnosed with Meniere's Syndrome, which can
severely effect one's balance! Not the most conducive to staying on at
times.

In keeping with my antique status I ride a fairly antique bicycle - a
1960s Carlton Clubman, complete with Simplex gears, which miraculously
still work beautifully! I remember a few years ago at the end of one
of the British Heart Foundation rides standing in a carpark in Oxford
with some bloke who'd just turned up on one of those all-kevlar "Chris
Boardman" efforts, about 5 grandsworth, who was waxing rhapsodic about
the old Carlton, "Is that a *genuine* Carlton Clubman? Look at that
lugwork, you don't see anything like that anymore, Simplex gears!!..."
I thought he was going to offer me a swap! :)

Up until tow or three years ago I used to do a couple of thousand
miles a year, but now it's probably less than 25% of that - and it
shows in my fitness, or lack thereof.

My wife hankers after a tandem - she used to ride one with a boyfriend
when she was a teenager - but she's none-too-fit either so I reckon
we'd be a menace on one!
 
Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:

> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snipped rubbish>
>
> This is not the place. May I suggest that you also look up "respect"
> in the dictionary.


We don't need to. I'm sorry to say that it appears you do.

Thanks.

Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:

> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Quoting Jeff York <[email protected]>:
> >>David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>But to kill people as a result of errors is generally the exclusive
> >>>province of motorists.
> >>Absolute rubbish!

> >
> >In this context, not at all. Cyclist-ped collisions kill one person a
> >year; motorists kill thousands.

>
> Who said anything about cyclists? Your reading comprehension is
> almost on a par with Spindrift's... For example "to kill people as a
> result of errors..." - doctors make accidental mistakes and kill
> people in quite large numbers. Accidents on stairs and in the home
> generally kill rather a lot too...


What part of 'in the context of transport' was too hard for you to
infer? Please, show us some respect by thinking before you reply.

Thanks,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
 
On 17 Jan 2008 08:34:16 +0000 (GMT), [email protected] (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Tom Crispin wrote:
>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:24:20 +0000, Tom Crispin
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>The cyclist killed in Greenwich Park last year was killed head on by a
>>>motorist on the wrong side of the road. Initial rumour suggested the
>>>4x4 driver was overtaking, but now it seems more likely that the
>>>driver was pulling over to use the park toilets on the other side of
>>>the road.
>>>
>>>The inquest is next Wednesday.

>>
>>I've just heard that it's cancelled. The driver is being charged with
>>causing death by dangerous driving, which suggests that he may have
>>been overtaking, not pulling over to use the toilets as he claimed.

>
>Is hitting someone while you are on the wrong side of the road not
>equally likely to be dangerous driving whether you were overtaking
>or pulling over to use the toilets? (I suppose an overtaking car
>is more likely to be going faster, but we know he was going fast
>enough to kill the cyclist he hit whatever his reason for being there
>was.)


You make a good point.

Pulling over to use the toilets and not noticing a cyclist while
slowing somehow does not seem as serious as accelerating hard while
overtaking and not noticing a cyclist.

But both actions are equally dangerous if the motorist hasn't looked
properly before making the manoeuvre.

>Similarly, if the driver who hit Jason was on the wrong side of the road
>after not looking properly (and we'll need to wait for the enquiry or
>better reports to know whether he was), does it matter whether he was
>overtaking or turning into the council depot?
 
"Jeff York" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Jeff York" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Quoting Jeff York <[email protected]>:
>>>>>This is not the place.
>>>>
>>>>For the endless cager self-justification? Quite. As I said; for once,
>>>>spindrift was on the money.
>>>
>>> "Cager"... Look sonny, I've probably been riding a bike since before
>>> you were born. And from comments that you've posted, probably a lot
>>> more safely.

>>
>>You've said you're pro-motorist. You've not described your cycling at all.
>>
>>Tell us more about bits of your life which are on-topic for this NG - what
>>sort of riding do you do, and how much?
>>
>>(me - mostly road riding, several thousand miles/year, at least half on
>>major A-roads. Not quick enough to be a racer, but not pootly either. Also
>>ride tandems on and off-road - maybe a thousand miles/year for those :-( )

>
> Virtually 100% road, though there are a few bridleway/cyclepaths
> around where I live - which is in the Severn Valley and consequently
> going almost anywhere apart from up/downstream starts with a steep
> climb... :) At least the paths have a gentler gradient than the
> roads!! I'm getting on a bit and my health isn't too wonderful, so
> I'm fairly restricted on how much I can ride nowadays. To add to the
> "fun" I've also been diagnosed with Meniere's Syndrome, which can
> severely effect one's balance! Not the most conducive to staying on at
> times.
>
> In keeping with my antique status I ride a fairly antique bicycle - a
> 1960s Carlton Clubman, complete with Simplex gears, which miraculously
> still work beautifully! I remember a few years ago at the end of one
> of the British Heart Foundation rides standing in a carpark in Oxford
> with some bloke who'd just turned up on one of those all-kevlar "Chris
> Boardman" efforts, about 5 grandsworth, who was waxing rhapsodic about
> the old Carlton, "Is that a *genuine* Carlton Clubman? Look at that
> lugwork, you don't see anything like that anymore, Simplex gears!!..."
> I thought he was going to offer me a swap! :)
>
> Up until tow or three years ago I used to do a couple of thousand
> miles a year, but now it's probably less than 25% of that - and it
> shows in my fitness, or lack thereof.
>
> My wife hankers after a tandem - she used to ride one with a boyfriend
> when she was a teenager - but she's none-too-fit either so I reckon
> we'd be a menace on one!


Do it! They're great. If you're not fit, you'll just be slow - rather the
opposite of being a menace.

Tandem trikes of the upright variety are reported to be even more amusing -
may be a solution if you can't balance.

clive
 
"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>>Is hitting someone while you are on the wrong side of the road not
>>equally likely to be dangerous driving whether you were overtaking
>>or pulling over to use the toilets? (I suppose an overtaking car
>>is more likely to be going faster, but we know he was going fast
>>enough to kill the cyclist he hit whatever his reason for being there
>>was.)

>
> You make a good point.
>
> Pulling over to use the toilets and not noticing a cyclist while
> slowing somehow does not seem as serious as accelerating hard while
> overtaking and not noticing a cyclist.
>
> But both actions are equally dangerous if the motorist hasn't looked
> properly before making the manoeuvre.
>
>>Similarly, if the driver who hit Jason was on the wrong side of the road
>>after not looking properly (and we'll need to wait for the enquiry or
>>better reports to know whether he was), does it matter whether he was
>>overtaking or turning into the council depot?


Surely there are real differences:

In one, there is possibly a momentary lack of proper observation.

In the other, there is a sequence of events as the vehicle ahead is seen,
overtaking action taken, turning manouevre initiated.

The first is not excusable but the latter is more culpable.

pk
 
[email protected] (Ekul Namsob) wrote:

>Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Quoting Jeff York <[email protected]>:
>> >>David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>But to kill people as a result of errors is generally the exclusive
>> >>>province of motorists.
>> >>Absolute rubbish!
>> >
>> >In this context, not at all. Cyclist-ped collisions kill one person a
>> >year; motorists kill thousands.

>>
>> Who said anything about cyclists? Your reading comprehension is
>> almost on a par with Spindrift's... For example "to kill people as a
>> result of errors..." - doctors make accidental mistakes and kill
>> people in quite large numbers. Accidents on stairs and in the home
>> generally kill rather a lot too...

>
>What part of 'in the context of transport' was too hard for you to
>infer? Please, show us some respect by thinking before you reply.


The original statement was context-free. It stated baldly, that "...
to kill people as a result of errors is generally the exclusive
province of motorists.". I merely pointed out that "errors" are not
the exclusive province of motorists, they are, if scripture is to be
believed, "standard operating procedure" for humans.
 
"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Jeff York" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"Jeff York" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Quoting Jeff York <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>This is not the place.
>>>>>
>>>>>For the endless cager self-justification? Quite. As I said; for once,
>>>>>spindrift was on the money.
>>>>
>>>> "Cager"... Look sonny, I've probably been riding a bike since before
>>>> you were born. And from comments that you've posted, probably a lot
>>>> more safely.
>>>
>>>You've said you're pro-motorist. You've not described your cycling at all.
>>>
>>>Tell us more about bits of your life which are on-topic for this NG - what
>>>sort of riding do you do, and how much?
>>>
>>>(me - mostly road riding, several thousand miles/year, at least half on
>>>major A-roads. Not quick enough to be a racer, but not pootly either. Also
>>>ride tandems on and off-road - maybe a thousand miles/year for those :-( )

>>
>> Virtually 100% road, though there are a few bridleway/cyclepaths
>> around where I live - which is in the Severn Valley and consequently
>> going almost anywhere apart from up/downstream starts with a steep
>> climb... :) At least the paths have a gentler gradient than the
>> roads!! I'm getting on a bit and my health isn't too wonderful, so
>> I'm fairly restricted on how much I can ride nowadays. To add to the
>> "fun" I've also been diagnosed with Meniere's Syndrome, which can
>> severely effect one's balance! Not the most conducive to staying on at
>> times.
>>
>> In keeping with my antique status I ride a fairly antique bicycle - a
>> 1960s Carlton Clubman, complete with Simplex gears, which miraculously
>> still work beautifully! I remember a few years ago at the end of one
>> of the British Heart Foundation rides standing in a carpark in Oxford
>> with some bloke who'd just turned up on one of those all-kevlar "Chris
>> Boardman" efforts, about 5 grandsworth, who was waxing rhapsodic about
>> the old Carlton, "Is that a *genuine* Carlton Clubman? Look at that
>> lugwork, you don't see anything like that anymore, Simplex gears!!..."
>> I thought he was going to offer me a swap! :)
>>
>> Up until tow or three years ago I used to do a couple of thousand
>> miles a year, but now it's probably less than 25% of that - and it
>> shows in my fitness, or lack thereof.
>>
>> My wife hankers after a tandem - she used to ride one with a boyfriend
>> when she was a teenager - but she's none-too-fit either so I reckon
>> we'd be a menace on one!

>
>Do it! They're great. If you're not fit, you'll just be slow - rather the
>opposite of being a menace.


I was thinking more of falling off rather than lack of velocity.

>Tandem trikes of the upright variety are reported to be even more amusing -
>may be a solution if you can't balance.


There's a chap about half a mile from here who builds custom bikes,
trikes, tandems, trandems whatever... It might be worth investigating.
Problem is, to be honest, I find trikes distinctly comical... I don't
know why - other than the association with when I was very little and
rode kiddie ones.. :)
 
"Jeff York" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>>Do it! They're great. If you're not fit, you'll just be slow - rather the
>>opposite of being a menace.

>
> I was thinking more of falling off rather than lack of velocity.
>
>>Tandem trikes of the upright variety are reported to be even more
>>amusing -
>>may be a solution if you can't balance.

>
> There's a chap about half a mile from here who builds custom bikes,
> trikes, tandems, trandems whatever... It might be worth investigating.
> Problem is, to be honest, I find trikes distinctly comical... I don't
> know why - other than the association with when I was very little and
> rode kiddie ones.. :)


There's always recumbent trikes - we had a Greenspeed tandem trike briefly,
and the universal reaction to it was "wow, cool" and a desire to have a go.
Huge street-cred. Having the two wheels at the front probably stops people
thinking of kiddie trikes. And they're dead easy to ride - the upright ones
do present more of a problem.

clive
 
On 2008-01-16, PK <[email protected]> wrote:
> Conversely, on most car/cycle/foot journeys (I live in London) I see
> cyclists taking absurd risks.


I drive far more miles than I cycle. However, never, ever once while
driving have I felt that I've been put in danger by a cyclist.

However, even with our uncongested roads, most days that I ride, at
least once a week I feel put in danger by someone driving; usually
close, agressive, fast overtaking in the face of oncoming traffic.

While driving, I have never been hit by a cyclist. While cycling, I've
been hit twice by cars (both times on straight roads, in broad daylight,
with excellent visibility; the drivers either weren't looking or weren't
paying attention).

The thing is, while 99% of drivers are careful and considerate around
other road users, if just 1% of drivers act agressively or carelessly,
in busy parts of Britain, a commuter cyclist is likely to have half a
dozen "scary moments" even in a modest commute simply because they will
see several hundred cars being driven. Even if 0.1% of drivers act
inconsiderately, in most places in Britain this means at least one scary
moment per day for a cycle commuter.

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
 
On 2008-01-16, Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
>>..Why should they not be held to a higher standard
>>than pedestrians and cyclists?

>
> Because they are not a "higher standard" of human being.


I am a private pilot. I am only a higher human being by the virtue of
having a couple of thousand feet between me and terra firma.

Light aircraft generally pose far less hazard to non participants than
motor vehicles - it is exceedingly rare for a non participant to be
hurt in a light aircraft accident.

However, if I so much as graze the edge of airspace I'm not cleared to
be in - even if it causes no danger whatsoever - I can expect to be
grounded and at least have to take some mandatory retraining. If it's
egregious, I can expect criminal prosecution with fines of in excess of
five thousand pounds even if no one was put in danger. I have a friend
who in a non instrument equipped aircraft, through misjudgement, got
trapped on top of a cloud layer and required ATC help to penetrate it
and land safety. He put no one except himself in danger, yet was
required to undergo additional training as a result of this incident.

If drivers kill due to a misjudgement, why shouldn't they at least face
mandatory retesting and retraining? They pose a public hazard, after
all.

At least here in the Isle of Man, drunk drivers go to jail and have to
retake their test.
--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
 
On 2008-01-17, Jeff York <[email protected]> wrote:
> The original statement was context-free. It stated baldly, that "...
> to kill people as a result of errors is generally the exclusive
> province of motorists.".


*boggle*

It's in a cycling newsgroup, in a thread about the relative risks posed
by different road users. If that's context free then I'm Mary Poppins.
All I can see is a certain participant with a surname similar to a place
in Yorkshire typing at 2400 BPS (backpedals per second).

--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
 
Quoting Jeff York <[email protected]>:
>The original statement was context-free.


Apparently the context was obvious to non-thickies.

>province of motorists.". I merely pointed out that "errors" are not
>the exclusive province of motorists, they are, if scripture is to be
>believed, "standard operating procedure" for humans.


Which does not excuse, as you are trying to, putting yourself in the
position where your errors are likely to kill people for your own
convenience; or the fact that the error rate can be reduced by paying
attention to what you are doing and not, say, drinking two cans of lager
before starting.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Tuesday, January.
 
Quoting Jeff York <[email protected]>:
>David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>For the endless cager self-justification? Quite. As I said; for once,
>>spindrift was on the money.

>"Cager"... Look sonny, I've probably been riding a bike since before
>you were born.


How curious that you have never felt the urge to mention it until now.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Distortion Field!
Today is Tuesday, January.
 

Similar threads

D
Replies
1
Views
356
B
R
Replies
1
Views
676
T