Re: Cyclist terrorist

[Ekul Namsob]

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> Ekul Namsob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Marc Brett <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:53:57 -0700, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >So he's the only victim then?
> > > >
> > > > Not at all. We taxpayers have had to pay for his prosecution and his
> > > > incarceration. Bloody waste of money -- he should be shot and his
> > > > family forced to pay for the bullet.
> > >
> > > Umm hm, so once again the view of the drooling lycra brigade is that
> > > someone who hurt no one, should be executed but that a cyclist who
> > > killed an innocent victim should get a slap on the wrist be and told not
> > > to do it again?
> >
> > No. This particular one would like to see them all dealt with rather
> > severely but would stop short of execution.
>
> Are you capable of articulating why someone who harmed no one whould
> face more severe penalties than someone who killed?

Yes. I won't however as I don't believe that should be the case nor have
I ever suggested as much. The killer should get a far longer prison
sentence.

Disclaimer: I only drool when particularly knackered but I do frequently
wear lycra.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 18:51:07 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It is quite fair to compare the risk of being killed by a cyclist with
>> the risk of being killed by a motorist, if only to alleviate the
>> perception of danger from cyclists.
>
>Not really, not when such a comparison is used to evade the truth that
>pavement cyclists are not just an inconvenience but a real danger to
>pedestrians.

But the point is that drivers are far more of a danger to pedestrians.
The fear pedestrains have of cyclists is mostly a perceived danger.

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 18:51:07 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:43:51 GMT, "Ian D Henden" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Even some of the road cyclists don't seem to bother with lights at
>> >night which again puzzles me as you can pick up a reasonable set of
>> >lights suitable for urban riding at night for about £10. All you have
>> >to do is fit them and switch them on.
>>
>> £10 for lights. Here are some which give you change from £3.
>>
>> www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=13676
>
>So why is that the *majority* of bicycles ridden at night do not have
>lights?

Unknown. There's rarely a justifiable excuse.

 

[Steve Firth]

Ekul Namsob <[email protected]> wrote:

> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Ekul Namsob <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Marc Brett <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:53:57 -0700, Sir Jeremy <[email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >So he's the only victim then?
> > > > >
> > > > > Not at all. We taxpayers have had to pay for his prosecution and his
> > > > > incarceration. Bloody waste of money -- he should be shot and his
> > > > > family forced to pay for the bullet.
> > > >
> > > > Umm hm, so once again the view of the drooling lycra brigade is that
> > > > someone who hurt no one, should be executed but that a cyclist who
> > > > killed an innocent victim should get a slap on the wrist be and told not
> > > > to do it again?
> > >
> > > No. This particular one would like to see them all dealt with rather
> > > severely but would stop short of execution.
> >
> > Are you capable of articulating why someone who harmed no one whould
> > face more severe penalties than someone who killed?
>
> Yes. I won't however as I don't believe that should be the case nor have
> I ever suggested as much. The killer should get a far longer prison
> sentence.

And yet the 172moph driver received a more severe penalty, including
jail. Whereas those hwho kill on the pavement as cyclists, on the road
as motorists walk free with fines or in the case of the motorists, bans.

> Disclaimer: I only drool when particularly knackered but I do frequently
> wear lycra.

Umm hmm, never understood it myself. Some people must like smelling.

 

[JNugent]

Tom Crispin wrote:

> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote:
>>Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>It is quite fair to compare the risk of being killed by a cyclist with
>>>the risk of being killed by a motorist, if only to alleviate the
>>>perception of danger from cyclists.

>>Not really, not when such a comparison is used to evade the truth that
>>pavement cyclists are not just an inconvenience but a real danger to
>>pedestrians.

> But the point is that drivers are far more of a danger to pedestrians.
> The fear pedestrains have of cyclists is mostly a perceived danger.

That's more or less the definition of fear: "perceived danger".

Danger which is not perceived causes no fear.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <1i5mmyc.99ranw1g6jtssN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth
('%steve%@malloc.co.uk') wrote:

> Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It is quite fair to compare the risk of being killed by a cyclist with
>> the risk of being killed by a motorist, if only to alleviate the
>> perception of danger from cyclists.
>
> Not really, not when such a comparison is used to evade the truth that
> pavement cyclists are not just an inconvenience but a real danger to
> pedestrians.

If you go around saying 'cyclists shouldn't be on the pavement', the
cycling lobby - that is, organisations of cyclists who influence policy
makers - will agree with you. Cycling on the pavement is a nuisance and an
inconvenience for everyone.

If you go around saying 'cycling on the pavement is dangerous', that's
clearly silly. In extreme instances, it can be dangerous, as this
particular case shows - but this particular case is as unusual as that
knob-head who got caught driving at 170mph. People oughtn't to cycle on
the pavement, not because it is routinely dangerous to pedestrians, but
because it is routinely anti-social and a nuisance. Just as breaking the
speed limit isn't always dangerous, but it's still anti-social and a
nuisance, and one ought not to do it.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; First they came for the asylum seekers,
;; and I did not speak out because I was not an asylum seeker.
;; Then they came for the gypsies,
;; and I did not speak out because I was not a gypsy...
;; Pastor Martin Niemöller, translated by Michael Howard.

 

[Steve Firth]

Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 18:51:07 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>
> >Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> It is quite fair to compare the risk of being killed by a cyclist with
> >> the risk of being killed by a motorist, if only to alleviate the
> >> perception of danger from cyclists.
> >
> >Not really, not when such a comparison is used to evade the truth that
> >pavement cyclists are not just an inconvenience but a real danger to
> >pedestrians.
>
> But the point is that drivers are far more of a danger to pedestrians.

One can play all sorts of silly games with figures. However the truth
seems to be that drivers are more of a danger to themselves.

> The fear pedestrains have of cyclists is mostly a perceived danger.

And that perception is correct, not only are pavement cyclists
inconvenient, they are a danger. Are you claiming that they are not a
danger? Are you claiming that because bullets, cancer, cigarettes
[insert any other spurious comparison] kill more people than cyclists
that we shouldn't bother ourselves about illegal and dangerous pavement
riders?

OK, I can play that game. Cigarettes kill more pedestrians than cars, so
we don't need to enforce traffic law. Happy?

 

[Clive George]

"Sir Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

<some ****>

Oh, do stop crying you silly little boy.

 

[Steve Firth]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> If you go around saying 'cycling on the pavement is dangerous', that's
> clearly silly. [snip]

Not at all, it's dangerous. The fact that you don't perceive it to be
dangerous says a lot about you.

> this particular case is as unusual as that knob-head who got caught
> driving at 170mph [snip]

That's untrue. There have been multiple cases of death caused by people
riding bicycles on pavements (links provided over and over again in
uk.t) the 172mph driver is unique in over 100 years of motoring.

And of course it's amusing that the cyclists are getting all hot under
the collar about a 172mph driver who harmed no one, not a single person.
But those same people keep trying to diminish the importance of a
two-wheeled killer.

> Just as breaking the speed limit isn't always dangerous, but it's still
> anti-social and a nuisance, and one ought not to do it.

Go on, explain to me the anti-social and nuisance aspects of exceeding
the speed limit, in isolation from other driving offences such as
reckless, careless or dangerous driving.

 

[Marc Brett]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 18:10:27 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:54:14 +0100, JNugent
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Why?
>>
>> I note you snip my comment about cyclists probably contributing more
>> to vehicle excise duty than non cyclists.
>
>I note you're another knobhead on a bike.

How old are you?

 

[Brimstone]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 18:10:27 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:54:14 +0100, JNugent
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> I note you snip my comment about cyclists probably contributing more
>>> to vehicle excise duty than non cyclists.
>>
>> I note you're another knobhead on a bike.
>
> How old are you?

Physically or mentally?

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 7 Oct, 19:28, Tom Crispin <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 18:51:07 +0100, %[email protected] (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>
> >Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> It is quite fair to compare the risk of being killed by a cyclist with
> >> the risk of being killed by a motorist, if only to alleviate the
> >> perception of danger from cyclists.
>
> >Not really, not when such a comparison is used to evade the truth that
> >pavement cyclists are not just an inconvenience but a real danger to
> >pedestrians.
>
> But the point is that drivers are far more of a danger to pedestrians.
> The fear pedestrains have of cyclists is mostly a perceived danger.


so its ok to cycle on the footpath then?

 

[®i©ardo]

Brian Robertson wrote:
> Sir Jeremy wrote:
>> On 7 Oct, 10:13, Brian Robertson <brian@[nospam].com> wrote:
>>> Marc Brett wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 15:00:20 -0700, Adam Lea <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Totally agree with you here. I see people cycling on the pavement
>>>>> frequently even when the road is deserted (e.g. 11pm at night) which
>>>>> puzzles me as I thought people cycled on the pavement for fear of
>>>>> traffic.
>>>> Maybe it's because of the cyclists' fear of traffic?
>>>> It's a standard speedophile excuse to claim that late at night, the
>>>> streets are empty, so of course it's toadally unfair to ticket anyone
>>>> for speeding -- stealth tax and all that.
>>>> So naturally, it's reasonable for potential victims to be
>>>> extra-cautious
>>>> on empty roads, late at night, when SafeSpeed morons are driving at
>>>> speeds "appropriate to conditions", as judged by their moronic selves.
>>> Did you see the debate on here about the moron who was jailed for
>>> driving at 172 m.p.h.? Apparently his speed was in no way proof that he
>>> was driving unsafely.
>>>
>>> Brian.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Remind us who got hurt?
>>
>
> His pride has certainly been hurt. Lost his job and gone to prison. Now
> that is SO funny.
>
> Sorry but I am not willing to enter into a serious debate with someone
> who is so obviously stupid. To suggest that you have to have an accident
> for your speed to have been dangerous is just the noncence of a raving
> imbicile.
>
> Brian.

Is a "noncence" a little nonce?

--
Moving things in still pictures!

 

[Tom Crispin]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 19:32:19 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>Some people must like smelling.

Would you like it if you could no longer smell?

Having to put up with smelling the noxious fumes of cars is all
worthwhile when the aroma of freshly baked bread hits my nasal
passage.

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

[email protected] (Ekul Namsob)typed


> Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:

> > On 7 Oct, 10:13, Brian Robertson <brian@[nospam].com> wrote:

> > > Did you see the debate on here about the moron who was jailed for
> > > driving at 172 m.p.h.? Apparently his speed was in no way proof that he
> > > was driving unsafely.


> > Remind us who got hurt?

> In this case, thankfully, just the driver.

In this case.

A 47-year-old woman cycling on the same stretch of road died in Kingston
Bagpuize yesterday :-((

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7032491.stm

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 7 Oct, 20:08, "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Sir Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> <some ****>
>
> Oh, do stop crying you silly little boy.

Thank you for your erudite contribution to the discussion.

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 7 Oct, 21:21, Helen Deborah Vecht <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] (Ekul Namsob)typed
>
> > Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 7 Oct, 10:13, Brian Robertson <brian@[nospam].com> wrote:
> > > > Did you see the debate on here about the moron who was jailed for
> > > > driving at 172 m.p.h.? Apparently his speed was in no way proof that he
> > > > was driving unsafely.
> > > Remind us who got hurt?
> > In this case, thankfully, just the driver.
>
> In this case.
>
> A 47-year-old woman cycling on the same stretch of road died in Kingston
> Bagpuize yesterday :-((
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7032491.stm
>
> --
> Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
> Edgware.


Killed by someone driving a Renault at rather less than 170 mph. The
Porsche driver killed no-one.
Your point is?

 

[Steve Firth]

Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 19:32:19 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>
> >Some people must like smelling.
>
> Would you like it if you could no longer smell?

I'd like it if the office cyclists no longer smelled. It would also be
good if they could lose the false odour of sanctity.

 

[Steve Firth]

Marc Brett <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 18:10:27 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>
> >Tom Crispin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:54:14 +0100, JNugent
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Why?
> >>
> >> I note you snip my comment about cyclists probably contributing more
> >> to vehicle excise duty than non cyclists.
> >
> >I note you're another knobhead on a bike.
>
> How old are you?

Aww bless your playground chums must miss you at the weekend.

 

[Steve Firth]

Helen Deborah Vecht <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (Ekul Namsob)typed
>
>
> > Sir Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On 7 Oct, 10:13, Brian Robertson <brian@[nospam].com> wrote:
>
> > > > Did you see the debate on here about the moron who was jailed for
> > > > driving at 172 m.p.h.? Apparently his speed was in no way proof that he
> > > > was driving unsafely.
>
>
> > > Remind us who got hurt?
>
> > In this case, thankfully, just the driver.
>
> In this case.
>
> A 47-year-old woman cycling on the same stretch of road died in Kingston
> Bagpuize yesterday :-((

Uhh humm. So no suggestion at present of either speeding or dangerous
driving on the part of the driver since he has not yet been arrested.

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7032491.stm

And do you think he was driving at 172mph? And if not, perhaps you can
explain the relevance of your posting this observation?