You started this subthread by advancing the bad
behaviour of cyclists as some kind of defence or excuse for the bad
behaviour of bus drivers.

yawn No I didn't. Why should I? Stop doggedly sticking to you own
misassumption.

So your question which started this subthread was a non-sequitur was
it? Quite how raising the false idea that cyc;ists are uniquely
lawless works as a non-sequitur when it fails as a justification fro
dangerous behaviour by bus drivers escapes me just at the moment.

bus drivers [...] the comparison simply doesn't stand up.

Well, it's a comparison of your own making, so it's nothing to do with
me.

It is either a comparison of your own making, as per the start of this
subthread, or your first post here was a non-sequitur, as above.
Neither puts you in a particularly strong position.

I would make the observation, though, that a bus driver
disgregarding their training and behaving in a dangerous manner is no
less irrational than a cyclist disregarding all common sense and
nehaving in a dangerous manner.

Considerably more so, since the bus driver is personally at very
little risk. Which is probably why, despite widespread allegations of
complete lawlessness, the major danger posed by cyclists appears to be
to themselves, and even that apparently to a lesser extent than for
pedestrians, who are far more likely to be at fault in fatal and
serious injury crashes involving them.

Above you suggested - yet again -
that I portray cyclists as "/the/ major threat to life and limb" -
essentially that cyclists are _more_ of a threat. This is a total
fantasy of your own making.

Ah, so your singling them out was an /irrelevant/ non-sequitur. Well
that makes al the difference, doesn't it?

"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."

1% is meaningless when you can't quantify the number of motor vehicles
compared to the number of bicycles.

Are we not constantly told that the number of bicycles crossing red
lights outweighs by many multiples the number of motor vehicles so
doing? So surely if anything that makes the 1% look even less
significant.

Either way, in numerical terms, your complaint sounds like a man
concerned about splinters while walking the plank.

The range of excuses used by drivers (all road users, in fact) for
their illegal behaviour is legendary. To suggest that this is unique
to cyclists is absurd.

The absurdity, again, is of your own making.

Really? So it was a typo, when you said cyclists; you meant vehicle
users?

One thing I will say is that as a pedestrian I have reached the
experience-based conclusion that cyclists are far less predictable
than drivers.

Not disputed. Strange, really, when you consider that the majority of
road riders are also drivers. Anyone would think that road users were
ignorant or contemptuous of the rules of the road.

If I am using a Pelican crossing - whether waiting for
the traffic signal to go read, or actually on the crossing - I know
that in the vast majority cases approaching motor vehicles will and do
slow and stop. Cyclists, however, are far less prone to do so. In
fact, it is a regular sight for me to see both types approaching a
crossing that his already on red for them, and while the driver will
stop, the cyclist will not, regardless of how crowded the crossing may
be with pedestrians at the time.

And yet the fatalities caused by those cyclists are negligible. Which
just shows that they must /seem/ much more dangerous than they /are/.

This amply
illustrates the extent to which some cyclists think the law does not
apply to them.

Exhibit A: SafeSpeed, a site which is entirely dedicated to the idea
that the law does not apply to drivers. I know of no site advocating
reduced enforcement for cyclists. Once again your targeting mechanism
seems to be a few degrees off.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University