On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 06:42:55PM +0100, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 30/07/2013 13:11, David Cantrell wrote:
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?

They should ride with awareness of their surroundings, consideration for
other road users, and stick to the rules of the road.

It's a sorry state of affairs when, on my walk from home to the station
(which is all on suburban roads, with one road crossing) I have to spend
more time looking out for cyclists than for all motorised vehicles put
together. That's despite there being orders of magnitude more motorised
vehicles, moving faster, and which, were one to run into me, would hurt a
lot more. The reason I have to be more careful about cyclists is that a
far larger proportion of cyclists are inconsiderate oblivious arseholes.

--
David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig

Only some sort of ghastly dehumanised moron would want to get
rid of Routemasters
-- Ken Livingstone, four years before he got rid of 'em