One slapped wrist coming up.

[Jim Ley]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:31:45 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:26:21 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) said in
><[email protected]>:
>
>>>I beg to differ. The death was caused when a driver lost control of a
>>>car and mounted the pavement.
>>So no cyclst involved, how is it relevant to cycling?
>
>A question neatly answered elsewhere in the paragraph you bisected:

No, that was not an answer to the question, any more than a report
about a car bomb in iraq would highlight that you were more at risk
from car bombs than cycling. The risk to a pedestrian from a car and
a bike on a pavement are independant of each other, there's no
relationship, so nothing about the risks from a car has any relevance
to the risk on a bike.

>Nobody is forcing you to follow this thread.

No, but endless off-topic anti-driver rants make it extremely
difficult to see the interesting posts. You know, the ones that are
relevant to cycling.

Jim.

 

[[email protected]]

Jim Ley wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:31:45 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:26:21 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) said in
> ><[email protected]>:
> >
> >>>I beg to differ. The death was caused when a driver lost control of a
> >>>car and mounted the pavement.
> >>So no cyclst involved, how is it relevant to cycling?
> >
> >A question neatly answered elsewhere in the paragraph you bisected:
>
> No, that was not an answer to the question, any more than a report
> about a car bomb in iraq would highlight that you were more at risk
> from car bombs than cycling. The risk to a pedestrian from a car and
> a bike on a pavement are independant of each other, there's no
> relationship, so nothing about the risks from a car has any relevance
> to the risk on a bike.
>
> >Nobody is forcing you to follow this thread.
>
> No, but endless off-topic anti-driver rants make it extremely
> difficult to see the interesting posts. You know, the ones that are
> relevant to cycling.

"Discussion of UK cycling issues" is apparently what this group is
about. Discussion of the issue of what is a cycling issue is relevant,
I guess. Personally, I quickly glaze over when technical stuff is
discussed, but it too is a cycling issue, and one can always switch
channels. Or something.

 

[Never Mind]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:06:43 +0000, wafflycat wrote:

> You don't know of anyone killed or injured whilst cycling? Let's see. My
> husband was injured victim of hit-and-run in 04. Recently acquaintance
> Zak Carr was killed... I could go on. That's not to say that cycling is
> inherantly dangerous, but it is *stupid* to ignore the reality that when
> cycling we *are* vulnerable road users and if hit by a terminally
> unobervant twit in a motor vehicle,or in my husband's case, by a driver
> who deliberatley aimed at him and crossed the carriageway to do so, then
> injury or death is a probable outcome when hit by a tonne or more of
> metal. Yes, the benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks, but this is
> no excuse for ignoring risks or wanting to stop discussion of the risks
> in a cycling newsgroup.


[snipped you going on]

State the bleedin' obvious (well, you are female!) Any cyclist vs car
incident is likely to be in favour of the car driver (physically, not
morally or legally)

Since no cyclists were involved in the reported accident, this thread is
deffo Off-Topic.

 

[wafflycat]

"Never Mind" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:06:43 +0000, wafflycat wrote:
>
>> You don't know of anyone killed or injured whilst cycling? Let's see. My
>> husband was injured victim of hit-and-run in 04. Recently acquaintance
>> Zak Carr was killed... I could go on. That's not to say that cycling is
>> inherantly dangerous, but it is *stupid* to ignore the reality that when
>> cycling we *are* vulnerable road users and if hit by a terminally
>> unobervant twit in a motor vehicle,or in my husband's case, by a driver
>> who deliberatley aimed at him and crossed the carriageway to do so, then
>> injury or death is a probable outcome when hit by a tonne or more of
>> metal. Yes, the benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks, but this is
>> no excuse for ignoring risks or wanting to stop discussion of the risks
>> in a cycling newsgroup.
>
>
> [snipped you going on]
>
> State the bleedin' obvious (well, you are female!) Any cyclist vs car
> incident is likely to be in favour of the car driver (physically, not
> morally or legally)
>
> Since no cyclists were involved in the reported accident, this thread is
> deffo Off-Topic.
>

I was answering a specific question, being...

"> Of course there is, but death and injury on the roads are a part of what
> cyclists face.

When?"

But of course, you being a unobservant male, managed to avoid noting that. I
do hope you are more observant of what's going on around you when you cycle
or drive a car. You could be positively dangerous in charge of a car with
that low level of skill... ;-)

Cheers, helen s

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:37:52 GMT, [email protected] (Jim Ley) said in
<[email protected]>:

>>A question neatly answered elsewhere in the paragraph you bisected:
>No, that was not an answer to the question, any more than a report
>about a car bomb in iraq would highlight that you were more at risk
>from car bombs than cycling.

Has anybody castigated cyclists for planting car bombs? No? They've
castigated us for causing danger to pedestrians, though, haven't they?

>>Nobody is forcing you to follow this thread.
>No, but endless off-topic anti-driver rants make it extremely
>difficult to see the interesting posts. You know, the ones that are
>relevant to cycling.

Right click, choose Ignore Thread. Job done. You might also want to
consider the fact that the OP (and most contributors, including me)
are also drivers.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

 

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:44:13 GMT someone who may be "Wally"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Even when I started a thread about what type of lights to get, I
>ended up getting shouted down

How is someone "shouted down" in a newsgroup?

>for thinking that the local cycling network is
>safer than the roads.

The roads are the major part of the local cycling network, not
separate from it.

>We don't *all* use the roads when we cycle,

Very few buildings have a cycle path leading directly to the
entrances.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Wally]

David Hansen wrote:

> Excellent, personal abuse. Usually the resort of someone with no
> better arguments.

So, what is it? Pedantry, or pointless point scoring against someone who
doesn't want to know? What is the *purpose* of you opening your trap to me?
What do you hope will be the outcome of this 'conversation'?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

 

[Zog The Undeniable]

wafflycat wrote:

> On BBC news this morning, it was also described as an 'accident' and in
> the same breath it went on to say how two people got out of the vehicle
> and ran-off. Cue my blood boiling.....

Because leaving the scene is punished less harshly than driving under
the influence?

 

[wafflycat]

"Zog The Undeniable" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:43a5ae21.0@entanet...
> wafflycat wrote:
>
>> On BBC news this morning, it was also described as an 'accident' and in
>> the same breath it went on to say how two people got out of the vehicle
>> and ran-off. Cue my blood boiling.....
>
> Because leaving the scene is punished less harshly than driving under the
> influence?

Possibly because they are the Spawn of Stan...

 

[David Hansen]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:35:37 GMT someone who may be "Wally"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>What do you hope will be the outcome of this 'conversation'?

You might come up with a convincing explanation of how someone can
be "shouted down" in a newsgroup. So far you haven't managed this
and have instead resorted to personal abuse. people can draw their
own conclusions about the veracity of your original assertion from
this.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Never Mind]

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:07:00 +0000, wafflycat wrote:


>>
> I was answering a specific question, being...
>
> "> Of course there is, but death and injury on the roads are a part of
> what
>> cyclists face.
>
> When?"
>
> But of course, you being a unobservant male, managed to avoid noting
> that. I do hope you are more observant of what's going on around you
> when you cycle or drive a car. You could be positively dangerous in
> charge of a car with that low level of skill... ;-)
>
> Cheers, helen s

The question (Presumably "When?") was a response to your previous (equally
OT) post. ALL road users face death & injury.

The OP has no cycling content whatever.

 

[Wally]

David Hansen wrote:

>> What do you hope will be the outcome of this 'conversation'?

> You might come up with a convincing explanation of how someone can
> be "shouted down" in a newsgroup. So far you haven't managed this
> and have instead resorted to personal abuse. people can draw their
> own conclusions about the veracity of your original assertion from
> this.

Oh, the irony.