On 30/07/2013 13:11, David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 06:42:34PM +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote:

The cyclists aren't usually causing a safety risk to other road users.

They mostly cause safety risks to themselves*, but also cause safety
risks to pedestrians. I remember with great fondness the time that the
Critical Mass thugs breezed through a red light and tried to run over me
and my blind mother as we were crossing the road.

The only good Critical Masser is one that is in a cell.

* for the ****wits in the audience, safety failures hardly ever have a
single cause. Yes, drivers also cause those risks, but IME of actual
and near accidents, yer average cyclist who is involved in an accident
is more at fault, and even if they aren't at fault, they're still the
ones who, when **** goes wrong, suffer the most. Therefore it behooves
them to do the most to mitigate the risk.

But how far should they go - should they drive instead? Or ride on the
pavement, which lowers the risk of _serious_ injuries to someone, at the
increased(?) risk of _minor_ injuries - as well as being illegal and
massively antisocial?

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK