On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 03:30:23 +0100, Clive Coleman
wrote in message
:

O.K. This argument has gone far enough, and to be honest it's all
about point scoring and no facts are allowed to intervene.

You think? I don't care about point scoring, actually, but I do care
about Daily Mail-style scapegoating of cyclists, because that actually
affects my safety as I travel. YMMV.

If a
cyclist has to brake hard at any obstruction be it traffic lights, road
works what ever he is prepared and it's his own fault if he's not.

Interestingly, a cyclist was held to be at fault when he hit a
pedestrian who stepped out into the road into his path having "looked"
and seen no "traffic". I invite you to consider the likelihood of a
driver being successfully prosecuted for driving without due care (the
equivalent offence) under the same circumstances.

bus driver on the other hand has to take into account maybe up to 70
other persons who are not expecting sudden braking, especially whilst on
their feet walking for the door. If you are a cyclist with half a
brain then you would know why I would hit you rather that injure my load
who may be children or O.A.P.s. Give it a seconds thought, or more
accurately take a PCV test then come back and argue your case if you
think you still have one.

This argument is about the inherent absurdity of raising cyclist
behaviour as an excuse for the behaviour of other road users.

I rarely have a problem with buses, because I ride in a way which
takes account of their special circumstances. I have seen a driver
run into the back of a bus which did the completely unpredictable
(i.e. stopping at a a bus stop), so I suppose I can see where you are
coming from :-)

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

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:21:23 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote in
message :

What I actually said:

Alternatively, who can I complain to about all the ****s on bikes who
think that red lights - particularly those at pedestrian crossing -
somehow don't count for them? Especially annoying are the ones who
think they're entitled to shout abuse at the pedestrians they have to
swerve round them because they're already half way across the road.
Funny, that, isn't it? Pedestrians having the temerity to cross a
road when the lights are in their favour, just because to
knobend-in-lycra is too impatient to obey the red and wait a few
seconds.

Now, where is, "the false idea that cyc;ists are uniquely lawless," or
any, "justification fro dangerous behaviour by bus drivers"?

If you look up there a bit, in the text you've quoted, you are
apparently saying that the lawless behaviour of cyclists is a valid
response to a query regarding the correct destination of a complaint
about bus driver behaviour.

[remainder of overly-defensive and prejudiced drivel snipped]

Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening" (c) Bill Zaumen.

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

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Interestingly, a cyclist was held to be at fault when he hit a
pedestrian who stepped out into the road into his path having "looked"
and seen no "traffic".

Do you have a reference for this, please?

R

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 26 Oct
2004:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:21:23 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote in
message :

What I actually said:

Alternatively, who can I complain to about all the ****s on bikes who
think that red lights - particularly those at pedestrian crossing -
somehow don't count for them? Especially annoying are the ones who
think they're entitled to shout abuse at the pedestrians they have to
swerve round them because they're already half way across the road.
Funny, that, isn't it? Pedestrians having the temerity to cross a
road when the lights are in their favour, just because to
knobend-in-lycra is too impatient to obey the red and wait a few
seconds.

Now, where is, "the false idea that cyc;ists are uniquely lawless," or
any, "justification fro dangerous behaviour by bus drivers"?

If you look up there a bit, in the text you've quoted, you are
apparently saying that the lawless behaviour of cyclists is a valid
response to a query regarding the correct destination of a complaint
about bus driver behaviour.

Sorry, but I have to intervene here, as this is ********! Surely Nick
was just introducing a red herring into the original thread, something
we all do from time to time. Or, perhaps "red herring" is a little
harsh - a thought prompted by the original subject of the thread, but
only related to it insofar as it involved another type of occasionally
irritating/dangerous road user.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 26 September 2004

In message , at 09:00:08 on Tue, 26 Oct
2004, Arthur Clune remarked:
The trouble with RIPA is that the bad stuff (the gagging orders etc) is
very, very bad.

So you like crooks being able to tip off their comrades? Very good.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
The trouble with RIPA is that the bad stuff (the gagging orders etc) is
very, very bad.


So you like crooks being able to tip off their comrades? Very good.

If they're a crook, they're going to tip off their comrades regardless.

In message , at 12:59:44 on Tue, 26 Oct
2004, Richard remarked:
So you like crooks being able to tip off their comrades? Very good.

If they're a crook, they're going to tip off their comrades regardless.

So cancel the law banning armed robbery, as people do it anyway.
--
Roland Perry

In uk.rec.cycling Roland Perry wrote:

: So you like crooks being able to tip off their comrades? Very good.

And you think they won't anyway?

The trouble will all this sort of stuff is that it's always a trade off
between the risks to the innocent and being able to convict the guilty.
I think RIPA (and a lot of more recent developments) draw the line in
the wrong place.

Why defend "the free world" if it's not free anymore?

Arthur


--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
"Blogs are neither necessary nor sufficient for evil to triumph.
They're just what we call an enabling technology" - Danny O'Brien

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:59:44 on Tue, 26 Oct
2004, Richard remarked:

So you like crooks being able to tip off their comrades? Very good.


If they're a crook, they're going to tip off their comrades regardless.


So cancel the law banning armed robbery, as people do it anyway.

Oh, look, apples and oranges and straw men. "If you're doing nothing
wrong..." can't be far off.

(Parts of) RIPA are overly restrictive. The effect on criminals will
be minimal; the effect on the general public will be widespread repression.

A more accurate statement/analogy would be,

"As people committ armed robbery despite there being a law against it,
we're going to ban everyone from entering post offices and banks."

p.s. laws don't get cancelled, they get repealed.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 06:50:02 +0100 someone who may be Roland Perry
wrote this:-

The Home Office came up with a way of oppressing people, called RIP
and pushed it through the Westminster rogues gallery. If some bod
decides to impose a gaging order then a victim of this "law" cannot
tell their lover, religious advisor or anyone else that their
communications are being read by some official.

I fear you are conflating the powers to intercept communications, and
that to demand a key if they turn out to be encrypted.

Not in this case:-)

My wording of "communications are being read by some official" is
not precise, but referred to some official reading encrypted
communications, by whatever means.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.