Pillock on Bike malliciously mows down blind pensioner, escapes practically laughing

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Steve Firth wrote:

> As trolls go Chapman, you're pathetic.

Indeed. I lack both your practice and your talent for trolling.

> And you have proved that you have no valid point to make against
> compulsory insurance for cyclists.

Apart from the obvious ones, such as deterrent of a desirable physical
activity, high cost of enforcement, cost of monitoring being higher than
cost of insurance, level of danger being orders of magnitude lower than for
motor vehicles, other solutions to the problem being available and the fact
that any regulatory framework would have to be insanely complex to take
account of the different types and ages of riders.

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?]

Steve Firth wrote:

>> unecessary bureaucracy

> So we should scrap all bureaucracy relating to motor vehicles should
> we?

Why are cars insured by law? Because car drivers kill thousands and injure
tens of thousands every year. There were around five million motor
insurance claims a year last time I looked.

See that over in the far distance? That's reality, that is, and if you run
you'll get there in only a few decades.

The fact that a cyclist once scratched your precious penis extension is not
sufficient reason for the regulations you propose.

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?]

Steve Firth wrote:

>>> Guy, it's not me who classifies one entire group of road users as
>>> virtually infallible, whiter then white.

>> Or me. Must be Firth, then.

> No, but your feeble attempt to put words into my nouth is noted, you
> discredited ********.

You are Bill Zaumen and I claim my five pounds.

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?]

Steve Firth wrote:

>>> But of course cyclists are usually both uninsured and are
>>> unregistered and simply refuse to give details or give false
>>> details.

>> There you go again. "Usually," you say. What data do you have to
>> back that up

> Name a registered cyclist.

Ah, so you are using one word in the mmiddle fo the sentence to represent
its entire meaning, are you?

In your case the uninsured unregistered cyclist still gave a name and
address, didn't he? Which makes the registration point, er, pointless.

And of course if you're going to have compulsory registration for bikes,
there is a much more pressing need for compulsory registration for
pedestrians, since they are far more likely to be the authors of their own
demise. But somehow I can't see you being in favour of identity cards.

If not pedestrians then certainly kids on scooters, which are not much
different from bikes after all. And obviously old biddies with shopping
trollies, I've lost at least three socks to shopping trolley accidents over
the years. And those electric mobility scooters, for certain sure. And
rollerblades, bladers are a bloody nightmare.

You apparently want to single out one group for special treatment because
one of them scratched your penis extension. Please don't be too surprised
when there is no great rush to join your holy crusade.

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?]

Steve Firth wrote:

> Could you just do a small experiment for me?
> Sniff the air.
> Does it smell of the seaside or the farmyard?

Right now? It smells of trollshit, because I'm reading a post from you.

> Because I'd like to know if your head is in the sand, or up your ****.

Hmmm. Who has their head in the sand? Someone who lists the good and
sufficient reasons why bikes are not subject to compulsory insurance, or
someone who resolutely refuses to acknowledge the vast disparity in risk
posed by the two modes of transport?

Remember, when walking on the pavement you are around two hundred times more
likely to be killed by a motor vehicle than by a cyclist - and that is
despite the constant hammering on about numpties riding on footways, and the
oft-repeated assertion that drivers absolutely never drive on the footway.

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

 

[JNugent]

Jon Senior wrote:

> JNugent [email protected] opined the following...

>> Rubbish.
>> The person most at risk from a badly-maintained motor vehicle is its
>> driver, who is at risk all the time it is operated.

> You poor deluded fool. The people most at risk from a badly-maintained
> motor vehicle are those around it. Faulty brakes or a lack of tread
> will likely lead to whiplash for driver (At worst) but could easily
> result in the death of a pedestrian or cyclist.

More nonsense.

Any particular third party, whether street-going pedestrian,
other-vehicle-occupant or occupant of an at-risk building) will only have
the vehicle in their vicinity fleetingly, or, far more likely of course, not
at all. The driver is on the spot all the time (and any passengers "enjoy"
the risks only whilst they are in the moving vehicle or otherwise as they
would as a third party of the types listed above, which are very very small
in the case of any particular unsound vehicle).

None of that should be taken as an endorsement of the use of unlicensed,
uninsured or mechanically-unsafe motor vehicles (far from it) - merely as a
more correct appraisal of those to whom the risks accrue.

>> ...in which case there is no disadvantage accruing to anyone from
>> making it compulsory, since apparently everyone already has it
>> (allegedly).

> Other than the aforementioned paperwork and associated costs for an
> unnecessary bureaucracy.

What bureaucracy?

No bureaucracy checks my car insurance, except once a year for the road tax
to be renewed.

What extra bureaucracy would there be for insured cyclists?

> You can read right?

*I* can.

I wonder whether *you* can.

> You have read the rest of
> this thread where this has been mentioned again and again? Do you have
> trouble understanding it? Is there anything we can do to help?

Apart from you improving your standards of language comprehension and
ceasing to introduce irrelevant strawmen (such as your non-existent
"bureaucracy"), I very much doubt that there is any hep you can offer me.

But thanks anyway.

>> I didn't see it.

>> But I did hear about a blind pensioner mown down by an untraceable
>> lout on a bike.

> OK. Challenge. Count the number of times this year that the national
> press reports incidents of cyclists causing injury or death to anyone.
> At the same time keep a tally of the number of car drivers doing the
> same.

Irrelevant.

I didn't hear about the (fictitious?) motor accident.

I *did* hear (from a cited news item) about the cycing lout.

> Then count the number of significant figures for each column and
> you'll have some idea of the difference in magnitude of each problem.

And?

I still didn't hear about your motoring case and I still did hear about the
lout-on-a-bike.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.764 / Virus Database: 511 - Release Date: 15/09/04

 

[JNugent]

David Martin wrote:

> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> The person most at risk from a badly-maintained motor vehicle is its
>> driver, who is at risk all the time it is operated.

> Risk = Hazard x Exposure
> The occupant obviously has the greater exposure but is the hazard
> posed to those outside sufficiently great to make their small
> exposure result in much greater risk?
> Your argument doesn't address risk, only exposure to hazard.

At least we are thinking in the same direction, whereas some others seem
unable to grasp your point at all.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.764 / Virus Database: 511 - Release Date: 15/09/04

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Jon Senior wrote:

>> Same sort of arrogant stupidity that sees them ride onto a pavement
>> and around inconvenient red lights or across pedestrian crossings.

> Sorry. Are we still talking about drivers here?

Yes, saw a WVM doing just that this morning.

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?]

Jon Senior wrote:

> Trou de cul! Tu veux se faire enculer avec un gode!

Tee-hee

A fitting epitaph to a thread which has clearly exhausted whatever
usefulness it might have had. Into the trollbox with it...

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

 

[JNugent]

Jon Senior wrote:

> JNugent [email protected] opined the following...

>> Plus a ban from cycling for accruing two such fines within four
>> years (six penalty points a throw), you mean?

> You've forgotten the proportionality again! ITYM to say "Plus a ban
> from cycling for accruing two hundred such fines within four years
> (0.06 penalty points a throw)"

That would, of course, represent a negation of proportionality, as it would
(under your no doubt mischievously-suggested system) mean that no cyclist
could ever be banned - a position which in itself would be unproductive of
any sane public policy on the issue.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.764 / Virus Database: 511 - Release Date: 15/09/04

 

[David Martin]

On 16/9/04 9:33 am, in article [email protected], "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> David Martin wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> The person most at risk from a badly-maintained motor vehicle is its
>>> driver, who is at risk all the time it is operated.
>
>> Risk = Hazard x Exposure
>> The occupant obviously has the greater exposure but is the hazard
>> posed to those outside sufficiently great to make their small
>> exposure result in much greater risk?
>> Your argument doesn't address risk, only exposure to hazard.
>
> At least we are thinking in the same direction, whereas some others seem
> unable to grasp your point at all.

Car runs into a wall at 30mph. Risk to occupants (assuming belted and air
bags) very low.

Car runs into a pedestrian at 30mph, 50% chance of fatality.

In the event of a crash the car has to hit something. The case you are
trying to make is that teh risk to an individual pedestrian compared to teh
driver of teh car is minimal. With that I would agree.
But that is nto the whole story. The measure should be: What is the risk of
an injury to any occupant of a car compared to the risk to any non-occupant?

In that case your risk difference looks nowhere near as good. If you [1] are
driving (as most are) on a short trip around town, you are exposed to
pedestrians rather a lot of the time. Given the hazard is significantly
greater for those outside the vehicle (by several orders of magnitude), you
have to have a corresponding difference of several orders of magnitude in
exposure to be at greater risk inside the car.

When there are other cars on the road and one might crash into them, the
risks are also high.

So to measure this properly we need to know:

What is the risk of crashing into a: a stationary object?
b: another motor vehicle?
c: a 'vulnerable road user'?

We can discount the 'other motor vehicle ' from the analysis as the risk of
injury can be considered broadly equal on both sides (assume the uninsured
is as likely to be injured as the insured they crash into)

If there is a two order difference in hazard between the vulnerable road
user and the stationary object crash, then there must be a corresponding
difference in exposure to make the uninsured at greater risk of injury.

Now quote figures that support your contention that there is greater risk,
as you now have an empirical model of exposure to work with.

...d

[1] Not meaning you but placing you as the uninsured driver of an untaxed,
un MOT'd vehicle

 

[David Martin]

On 16/9/04 11:12 am, in article 1gk7cre.o67htw12y1xu3N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk,
"Steve Firth" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
>
>> Let's try again to get some sense of proportion into you. Compare the
>> likelihood of an underage driver (In a vehicle designed for adults)
>> losing control and the amount of damage thus caused, with the same child
>> riding a bike.
>
> A child on a bicycle who cycles off the pavement and under the wheels of
> a lorry is how much less dead than one who steals a car and drives head
> on into the same lorry?

Stupid example. You are not looking at the amount of damage caused to
others.

Take this instead: A child steals a bike and runs into a group of people at
a bus stop. A few cuts and bruises maybe.
A child steals a car and runs into a group of people at a bus stop. A far
more serious consequence.

Which should get the more severe penalty?

I suppose in FirthWorld (tm) it would be the pedestrians at the bus stop for
daring to get in the way of a car..

>> Why exactly do you think that the former is regulated
>> heavily against, but there is nothing against the latter?
>
> Because people have bizarre ideas about risks, causality and
> responsibility. We have a society in which the vulnerable are regarded
> as blameless, which is a stupidity of amusing proportions.

We have a society in which those with the greatest capacity to cause harm
and/or in a position of trust with regard to potentially harmful acts are
more strongly regulated than those that aren't. Where is the flaw in that?

I see little example of the vulnerable being blameless, more that those with
the greater hazard are held to a higher standard, so as to reduce risk to
below a socially acceptable level. But you find tossers in all forms of
transport.

> I for one am tired of being run into by careless cyclists and it is time
> that pavement cycling in particular and the lawlessness and lack of
> responsibility in general of cyclists was stopped.

I'd agree with you on part one of that but I do not see a general
lawlessness or lack of responsibility of cyclists that in anyway is more
remarkable than that of the rest of the road using public.
Yes cyclists should be regulated more strongly than pedestrians. Yes
motorised vehicles should be regulated far more strongly than cyclists.

Personally I blame the lack of cycle training in schools over the last ten
to fifteen years. Not only would it improve cyclists behaviour and
understanding but would also improve the behaviour of other road users.


I also think that you have an extremely narrow view, probably blinkered by
the huge chips on each shoulder..

...d

 

[njf>badger]

Adrian wrote:

> They are. It's called an ANPR van - cameras trained on the road read the
> number plates of all cars going past, and report any lack of
> insurance/registration to the operators, who then set the group of waiting
> traffic police after them.
>
> The drawback is that there's one very expensive van and six or eight
> traffic police units tied up in it, so they're not exactly everywhere.
> Unfortunately.
>
> They don't cover MOT, though, as MOTs aren't nationally computerised yet.

YET, its comming, and garages don't have an option, one computer per
test bay, with a maximum through put of ONE vehicle per hour. Two
testers with a lift bay and brake test bay can do 2 an hour easily, and
retests between (bulb replacements and the like), but those will also
require an hour time slot so the productivity will go down, and the
prices up....Anyway back to the plot, MOT details will be online within
a year, and the spread of surveillence systems including ANPR is
growning rapidly, petrol stations that feed central police systems,
motorway bridge cameras as well as ANPR vans and ANPR equiped patrol cars.

 

[David Martin]

On 16/9/04 12:02 pm, in article 1gk7fs0.17zbtwnk7h3j1N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk,
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Stupid example. You are not looking at the amount of damage caused to
>> others.
>
> Strawman.
>
> Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

No, you raised the strawman. The discussion was on regulating cyclists
because they scratched your car (or some such).

All your example showed was that in an X and artic fight, X will lose. Fine,
but not really relevant to whether X should or should not be regulated.

You are moving the goalposts, and raising a straw man. I merely pointed out
why your argument was not relevant to the question being asked.

...d

 

[Jon Senior]

In article <1gk7cx2.1ke8tseb1fpe8N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, usenet-
[email protected] says...
> Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
>
> > Threat? No. Waste of public money? Yes.
>
> Drivel, the requirement to insure one's bicycle involves no expenditure
> of public money. Be honest, it's the expenditure of private money i.e.
> yours that you object to.

Not really. The cost to me would be either £0 (Already insured on
contents policy) or a possible maximum of £20 (Plucking a conservative
figure out of the air). Both of these I (And pretty much everyone else)
could afford.

Now for the general costs. A database has to be maintained of all
bicycles in the UK with associated licence numbers (And a system of
numbers has to be developed). Whenever a bike is sold, the CCLA[1] {TM}
will have to be notified of the contact details of its new owner and
their database updated. The database will have to tie in to existing
police databases for vehicles and into the individual insurance
companies to ensure accuracy. Alternatively, the insurance companies
will all have to link to the CCLA database which will increase their
overheads, a cost which will then be passed on to all insurance.

People must be employed to create, manage and regulate this database.
Where exactly do you suppose the money to do this will come from? How do
you propose that the system of licensing and insurance will be
monitored? If the only insurance check is in the event of an incident,
then given the infrequency of said incidents, most cyclists would simply
not bother with the insurance since it would never be called into
question.

So again. Threat? No. Waste of public money? Yes. It could provide
little or no benefit to society, but would waste a vast amount of
resources. While this is common behaviour for government, I see no
reason to encourage it.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

In article <1gk7d2x.r3yojihdoakN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, usenet-
[email protected] says...
> You continue to **** about with followups without mentioning the fact
> despite being warned several times.
>
> Still, it's confirmation of the arrogance of the cycling fraternity.

I've managed to resist the temptation to outright insult you so far,
preferring to apply reason in the vain hope that repetition of facts in
increasingly simple language might one day allow knowledge to permeate
past your ego. Sadly this does not appear to be the case...

You sir, are a nob!

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

In article <1gk7d5o.1olwybn117fimtN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, usenet-
[email protected] says...
> Presumably that's in the region Brampton to Peterborough?

It is indeed.

> If so, I'd like to know by whom the average speed of 80mph was observed
> and at what time of day. Because I have access to the instantaneous
> speed readouts in that region and 80mph averages don't happen when HGVs
> are on the road.

By myself. At a variety of times of day including "rush hour" when it is
remarkably empty. The observation was made by driving at a consistent
80mph and observing the number of vehicles overtaken and comparing it to
the number of vehicles overtaking me. I was overtaken far more
frequently than I overtook and at a far greater proportion of speed. It
is a ball park figure, but I and others have observed it time and again.

Where do you get the speed readouts from? I'm only interested because I
don't recall there being any cameras on that road.

> In short, I consider that you are making the figure up, unless you can
> provide a reference for the source of the measurement.

See above.

> You also forgot to mention that that section of the A1(M) is the safest
> stretch of motorway in the country. So safe that motorway patrols are no
> longer done routinely. Nor that the nearby A14 is, despite the presence
> of speed cameras every few km and with average speeds below 60mph, one
> of the most dangerous.

I don't deny it. But your assertion was that the majority of drivers do
not routinely speed. I disputed this and offered evidence to the
contrary.

> But I suppose that wouldn't suit your agenda.

Or it could be that the traffic density on the A14 is so great that even
the most daft drivers are incapable of reaching a speed greater than
60mph. I learnt to drive in that area and my instructor once remarked
that if I could cope with the A14, then there wasn't a motorway in the
country that would phase me. So far he's been right!

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> > You've forgotten the proportionality again! ITYM to say "Plus a ban
> > from cycling for accruing two hundred such fines within four years
> > (0.06 penalty points a throw)"
>
> That would, of course, represent a negation of proportionality, as it would
> (under your no doubt mischievously-suggested system) mean that no cyclist
> could ever be banned - a position which in itself would be unproductive of
> any sane public policy on the issue.

You really do struggle don't you?

"The fine for driving without insurance is roughly £150 compared to
(what?) £750. I expect you will agree to a proportional fine for riding
without insurance? So that will be £1.25 then."

I actually allowed for a fine of £1.50 to make the maths easier. Thus
£1.50 = £150 / 100, so the 6 penalty points on the licence would be
subject to the same proportion. ergo, 6 / 100 = 0.6 penalty points per
incident.

That wasn't too hard now was it?

Or are you now taking issue with the proportions? You didn't seem to
object earlier when you had the chance.

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> More nonsense.

Follows?

> Any particular third party, whether street-going pedestrian,
> other-vehicle-occupant or occupant of an at-risk building) will only have
> the vehicle in their vicinity fleetingly, or, far more likely of course, not
> at all. The driver is on the spot all the time (and any passengers "enjoy"
> the risks only whilst they are in the moving vehicle or otherwise as they
> would as a third party of the types listed above, which are very very small
> in the case of any particular unsound vehicle).

Yes... more nonsense did follow. "Any particular third party" may well
be at a low risk, but since the risk is moving (It's a vehicle... they
do that!) the number of "particular third parties" that are exposed to
the risk is high. Given the stats on KSI by motor vehicles, the
suggestion would be that the risk is higher to the third parties, than
to the occupant, who after all is inside the cage and has access to
additional safety equipment such as seatbelts or airbags.

> None of that should be taken as an endorsement of the use of unlicensed,
> uninsured or mechanically-unsafe motor vehicles (far from it) - merely as a
> more correct appraisal of those to whom the risks accrue.

A good stance to take but your appraisal was incorrect. Please try again
later.

> What bureaucracy?

See the answers to Steve Firth's posts elsewhere in this thread, I have
neither the time nor the energy to repeat myself for your benefit.

> No bureaucracy checks my car insurance, except once a year for the road tax
> to be renewed.
>
> What extra bureaucracy would there be for insured cyclists?
>
> > You can read right?
>
> *I* can.

But you don't seem to have read the rest of the thread. Either that or
you didn't understand it.

> I wonder whether *you* can.

> Apart from you improving your standards of language comprehension and
> ceasing to introduce irrelevant strawmen (such as your non-existent
> "bureaucracy"), I very much doubt that there is any hep you can offer me.

See above and posts passim for clear explanations of bureaucracy. But I
do agree that you are probably beyond help.

> > OK. Challenge. Count the number of times this year that the national
> > press reports incidents of cyclists causing injury or death to anyone.
> > At the same time keep a tally of the number of car drivers doing the
> > same.
>
> Irrelevant.

Not really.

> I didn't hear about the (fictitious?) motor accident.

"The"? Try 3500 deaths per year.

> I *did* hear (from a cited news item) about the cycing lout.

The. One. The ratio doesn't stand in your favour. And if you are really
unaware of the number of deaths caused by motor vehicles every year, you
might want to try picking up a different paper. The Enquirer probably
isn't as good a source of information as its title suggests!

Jon

 

[David Martin]

On 16/9/04 1:59 pm, in article 1gk7kxg.14081pn1uce456N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk,
"Steve Firth" <[email protected]> wrote:

> David Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You are moving the goalposts, and raising a straw man.
>
> I am doing neither it is you who believes (apparently) that the end
> result of every accident is a vehicle careering into a bus queue or
> crowded shopping street.

Yes you are.

There is little point in considering accidents that have no effect. They are
uninformative.

There is little point in considering accidents that have the same effect in
the comparison. They too are uninformative.

The point is to establish the points at which there is a differential
between the outcomes of the crashes. That I have done. That is what you have
deliberately not done and claimed there is no differential becasue that
supports your case to make the responsibilities of those with little damage
potential made equal to those with major damage potential.

It is a basic tenet of research, to look for differences where there are
differences to be found.

You deliberately turned the original question around to look at the effect
on the perpetrator instead of the victim.

...d