J
Jim Ley
Guest
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]> 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.