"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:13:11 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:
I daresay if you looked properly you would see a fair few comments by
me about motor vehicle drivers. However, I see just as many cyclists
behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers, so I don't see why
they should be excused comment.
First, "not around here" - remember this is x-posted to
uk.rec.cycling, whihc is where I live.
Yes, well obviously every time I comment on bad drivers I think, "Oh,
I must remember to crosspost to urc, just so they know I don't just
have a go at cyclists...."
Second, I am not aware of *anybody* on urc who advocates cyclists
being excused from wrongdoing. We might be able to advance possible
reasons why they do it (e.g. riding on the pavement because of fear of
traffic and councils' blurring of the boundaries with their cans of
paint), what we take exception to is bald statements that cyclists are
lawless, when the clear evidence is that /all/ vehicular road users
are lawless, and a good many non-vehicular ones as well.
That's not a reason not to comment on the lawlessness of some
cyclists. By your line of reasoning, we shouldn't talk about X
medical condition being debilitating, because Y condition is _far_
worse.
Why is that, I wonder?
Because you have a self-selecting chip on your shoulder?
Or not. We get a lot of cross-posts around here from people who
clearly walk and drive but never cycle, who then berate cyclists for
their behaviour without acknowledging the poor behaviour of other road
users.
So every time someone makes an adverse comment about a cyclists
behaviour, they should include an apologetic, "but, of course,
car/van/lorry/bus drivers as as bad/worse"? Yeah, right....
One of the key contributors to road danger, in my view, is the
pernicious idea that all the danger is caused by the behaviour of the
nebulous "them" and that the things we do must necessarily be safe
because they have not yet ended in catastrophe.
Most pedestrians' representatives seem to have no trouble
distinguishing between the scale of risk posed by cars and bicycles,
and devote their efforts to controlling motor danger. We already know
that you are about 200 times more likely to be killed /on the footway/
by a motor driver than by a cyclist, after all.
Yes, I'm sure that's a huge consolation to any pedestrian who gets hit
by a reckless cyclist. Of course, cars do not routinely deliberate
travel on pavements, but many cyclists certainly do.
So explain, then, how car drivers, even though they almost never
venture on the footway, still manage to kill 200 times as many
pedestrians on the footway as do cyclists?
I don't know, but I would be inclined to ask how many cars there are
on the roads compared to bicycles, because otherwise your statement is
meaningless. Many more people are killed on the roads than in light
aircraft accidents in the UK every year, but that means nothing unless
you know the differences in usage.
It suggests to me that the risk from cyclists is rather small, and
would be better tackled by addressing the source of most danger, which
is also conicidentally responsible for encouraging the cyclists onto
the footway in the first place.
So what "danger" causes cyclists to ride through reds at Pelican
crossings, when there isn't a motor vehicle within twenty metres of
them? What "dangers" causes them to swerve onto the pavement at
junctions to bypass red lights and make a left-hand turn? I see
these happening all the time, but can't even remotely say the same of
drivers.
If you can prove that I have never made an adverse comment about motor
vehicle drivers, you might have a point, but since you can't, you're
just coming up with the same self-selecting ******** again.
You started a cyclist-baiting crosspost. Prior behaviour is
irrelevant.
No, I made an observation in light of an existing cross-post. Lacking
the sense of telepathy your pompous attitude of superiority suggests
you possess, I had no way of knowing if the originator of the thread -
and whose post I was responding to - was posting primarily via urc or
utl.
It is a strange and inconsistent view you have.
No, it's a strange an inconsistent defensive attitude you have.
On the contrary, my attitude is wholly consistent: all road users
should control their vehicles according to the law and the Highway
Code. I believe that if everybody drove and rode according to the HC
the roads would be much safer.
Please jsutify the use of illegal cyclist behaviour to excuse illegal
and potentially lethal bus driver behaviour.
And where am I supposed to have done that, smartarse?
Up through the thread history, that is how you started the whole
thing.
Really? I can't see any statement by me that "excuse illegal
and potentially lethal bus driver behaviour."
Ah, so you are making the pedantic point that you were merely singling
out cyclists from the much greater causes of risk, for some reason
known only to yourself. A difference which makes no difference in my
view, but I will concede the point if you like.
Again we seem to come back to this idea you have that cyclist are
beyond reproach - except, it seems, amongst _other_ cyclists - just
because drivers are worse. Where's the logic in that? Should be not
condemn human rights abuses perpetrated by the United States because
there are other countries that are worse?
So you feel it's perfectly acceptable to use the behaviour of crap
cyclists to excuse that of crap drivers, but not vice-versa?
Fascinating.
Since I haven't, then obviously not. Admit it - you don't even know
what you're talkign about, do you?
Indeed I do, having spent a lot of time researching the matter.
Nice set of reasearch blinkers you have, obviously.
The blinkers are to be found on those who use only one type of
vehicle, a group which does not include me.
Well, since I don't operate any type of vehicle, I can be truly
objective, then.