Jon Senior jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk wrote in message .. .
Solar Penguin opined the following...
Hmmm... I don't accept the premise of this thought experiment because I
don't accept that this is an "Either/Or" situation. (E.g. How do we
know that Biggus and Tribus aren't already allied against Smallium?)
And anyway, pedestrians would be in the position of Tribus, not
Smallium -- we've got the least to defend ourselves with out of any of
the three groups! Heck at least cyclists are armed with bikes.
Pedestrians don't even get a blunt mango to harm other road users with!
Actually, the last time I hit a pedestrian (The only time in fact) I
came off far worse. He got knocked sideways and was up (and apologising)
by them time I had come to a halt. The problem with bikes is that the
person attached to it usually has to lose more speed before coming to a
standstill and has more chance of ending up tangled in the wreckage.
As an example, Rollerblades were, ISTR, banned in the Royal Parks
because a pedestrian was killed by being hit by a 'blader on a
"pavement". The pedestrian had no choice in the matter (as opposed to
the choice of not walking in the road with cars).
Pedestrians should have the right to cross at crossings without fear
of being hit - by *anything*. The earlier "1ft vs 6ft" argument, for
instance, was spurious in this regard.
I have been hit (as a pedestrian) by a cyclist (breaking the law),
whose head (down, not looking, helmetted) struck me in the face. It
took me a good long time to recover from that. It was not trivial
(except when compared to death) and was caused entirely by the cyclist
"only doing what everyone does" (his words). That is my point - break
down the apparent scale of the offence and soon nobody knows what is
"wrong" or "unacceptable" or even "undesirable" any longer.
The analogy was daft, but by extension, so is the bizarre premise that
we should deal with the problem that is easier to solve rather than the
one which is the biggest threat.
No, the analogy was simply non-analagous. Consider this one instead:
You have to defend Smallium from attack by a mixed bag of opponents
from a single direction. Some have assault rifles, others have
sharpened fruit. You keep out the riflemen but let through the less
lethal (but not non-lethal) fruit carriers, and accept a number of
civilian casualties from fruit.
Soon the riflemen realise that disguising their weapons as fruit is a
good way to go, whilst your guards become used to letting some enemies
in. What do you think happens next?
A (possibly) better one; You have a high-power rifle. Running towards
you are a hungry looking lion and a small domestic cat. Given enough
time and some bad luck on your part the small cat could kill you. The
lion definately will. Which one do you try and shoot?
Let's face it. It's not going to be the cat is it? Yet you advocate
shooting the cat, because it'll die with the first shot even though the
lion poses a Plucks figure from air 3000 times greater threat to you.
Is there anyone on u.r.c. who condones cycling on pavements and through
red lights? Probably not. Is there anyone there who honestly believes
that effective action against such offenders would have any noticeable
effect on the KSI stats for our roads? Probably not. Given the choice
(Assume that it is unavoidable) of being hit by a cyclist (~95kg @
15mph) or a car (~1500kg @ 30mph) which would you choose? Can you not
see why we might find such trolling patently ridiculous or do you need
more time to think about it?
OK, but:
(a) if every red light has a camera, and most motorists don't want to
be caught by them, and casualties continue to decrease, suddenly
cyclists look like a big problem.
(b) how long will people respect the rule of law if it is flouted by
everybody else, including the police (see my original post)?
Silas