On Tue, 13 May 2008 13:03:16 +0100 someone who may be Ross
wrote this:-

How does a cyclist cause danger to a motorist?

I'm confused. Where did Chris claim the cyclist was causing danger to
the motorist?

My own read of his sentence was that the cyclist's actions were
causing danger to *the cyclist*.

That is certainly another way of reading the sentence. However, in
his reply Chris then went on to give an example of where he thought
a cyclist could have caused danger to a motorist (as well as the
cyclist themselves in that case).

However, while most things are possible there is a generalisation
which is true. Cyclists generally endanger themselves, while
motorists generally endanger others. Society recognises this in the
different treatment given to the two groups, though one can argue
about whether the treatments are different enough.

Blaming the victim for wearing the wrong sort of clothes, which is
what the helmet lobby do (despite their denials when confronted with
this), does nothing to improve the situation due to the
ineffectiveness of the clothing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7372906.stm
is but one example. The story is a toned down version of events, but
it is worth noting that the motorist wasn't even aware that someone
had been killed. There have been a similar crashes in London.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54