"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..
On 21 Oct 2004 04:42:46 -0700, (Nick
Cooper 625) wrote:
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...."
Alternatively, you could try not launching pointless attacks on
cyclists in the first place.
Obviously we're back to your 11th Commandment again: "Thous shalt not
criticise cyclists."
Second, I am not aware of *anybody* on urc who advocates cyclists
being excused from wrongdoing.
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.
So instead we should, to use your own analogy, focus on that one
medical condition, vilifying it and using derogatory language, and not
even acknowledging the fact that it is a tiny problem, portraying it
as if it /the/ major threat to life and limb. Brilliant.
That chip on you shoulder is obviously weighing you down again.
That will work especially well if the medical condition in question
turns out to be something which extends life, but which, when combined
with one of the conditions we are determinedly ignoring, ends up with
death.
On second thoughts, it seems that your analogy falls apart as soon we
start to bring in reality.
I get the impression that isn't a place you visit very often.
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....
Yeah, right. A moment's rational thought will reveal that the problem
is not cyclists, it is lawless and careless vehicle use.
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.
Read it again. These are deaths /on the footway/. You have asserted
that large numbers of cyclists ride on the footway for much of their
journey, do you believe that the average annual passenger mileage of
cars on the footway is as high as it is for bicycles?
I asserted no such thing, I couldn't give a **** about the latter.
An order of magnitude lower? Two orders of magnitude? We are
constantly being told that no driver sets out to accomplish all or aany
significant part of his journey on the footway, yet at least some
cyclists appear to do just that. At some ages they are positively
encouraged to do so. In some locations adult cyclists are berated for
not doing so.
Ditto.
And yet, despite the fact that it appears vastly more bicyclist miles
are ridden on the pavement than motorist miles, the risk /on the
pavement/ from motor traffic is over two orders of magnitude higher.
On the face of it that says to me that focusing on pavement cycling
alone in this way is absurd.
However, since I wasn't....
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?
That is different from the question of pavement cycling.
The "question" you have largely invented here....
There are two main reasons why cyclists go through red lights: first,
because they can get away with it, and second, because the energy required
to restart after coming to a halt is equivalent to extending your journey
by up to 200 metres.
Well, tough ****ing ****. Do you see car drivers coming up with the
same excuse? "I don't stop for red lights, because the action of
bringing the vehicle back upto speed is like spending another X amount
on petrol." Do you realise what a total idiot you sound like?
They can get away with it because, in the main, they do not conflict
with other traffic when doing so. If they did, they would die, and
they know that. It is quite difficult to weave through a stream of
crossing pedestrians in somethign 6ft wide and 15ft long, much easier
to do so on something 18" wide and 5ft long - especially when it is
very manoeuvrable.
Which is not an excuse, any more than the fact that we know why
drivers jump lights is an excuse.
So now we look at the fatality figures on pedestrian crossings, which
are about equal to those for footways (crossing the road is dangerous,
even when you have priority). Of these fatalities, how many are
caused by cyclists? And the answer is, once again, somewhere below a
quarter of 1% - and once again this is despite your assertion that
cyclists do this all the time, and drivers only rarely. So once
again, any rational measure of risk leaves tackling cyclists well down
on the "if we get around to it" pile.
Again we come back to your weird "worst first" set of priorities....
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.
As previously posted, there are bolards on the pavement at a set of
lights near my home precisely to prevent drivers from doing this.
You started a cyclist-baiting crosspost. Prior behaviour is
irrelevant.
No, I made an observation in light of an existing cross-post.
Yes, I see that my newsreader has expired the earlier posts. But you
did bring up the issue of cyclists.
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
Absolutely not. Nor are they uniquely (or even especially) worthy of
reproach. That is my point.
Pointless more like it.