For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of cyclists by motorists this is just one example. I can find plenty more if anyone is still in doubt.
"Police are hunting for the driver of a Silver Toyota Aygo after a cyclist was assaulted and his bike run over in New Romney last Tuesday. The incident at the Parade, in Greatstone, New Romney, left the cyclist receiving treatment for cuts and bruising in Hospital.
Police say a 28-year-old local man was riding a bicycle along the footpath between 6.35pm and 7pm when he was approached by a man, who chased him for a short while. The cyclist kept going and the man stopped, but shortly afterwards he pulled up alongside the cyclist in his car, and rammed him. The cyclist fell off his bike, but remounted and crossed to the other side of the road.
The motorist then drove directly at him, knocked him off the bike and then ran over it before driving off.
Police are appealing for anyone with information or who might know the driver of the car involved in the incident, described as a silver Toyota Aygo, to contact them. The driver is described as white, aged 20, 5ft 9in tall, of slim build, with short black hair.
Kent Police can be contacted on 01303 289180, alternatively, call Kent Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111."
Doug wrote: > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of > cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally against.
You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking responses (like this one) from people who see you as the problem. You never offer real, workable solutions you only bemoan, wail and gnash your teeth so rather than helping improve the situation for yourself and others, you actually hinder and fuel it.
On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Doug wrote: > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of > > cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
> You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your twisting > of facts to support your agenda that people rally against.
> You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the problem. You > never offer real, workable solutions you only bemoan, wail and gnash > your teeth so rather than helping improve the situation for yourself > and others, you actually hinder and fuel it.
> Please, go away.
Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and is as follows.
For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers and never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists should not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use pavements provided for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a driver and collides with them the cyclist should be prepared to accept sole responsibility and blame. Also, a cyclist should be wearing a crash helmet and reflective vest and be riding a bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted with mandatory reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame after colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
-- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Doug wrote: > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Doug wrote: > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of > > > cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
> > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your > > twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally against.
> > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking > > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the problem. > > You never offer real, workable solutions you only bemoan, wail and > > gnash your teeth so rather than helping improve the situation for > > yourself and others, you actually hinder and fuel it.
> > Please, go away.
> Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and is > as follows.
> For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers and > never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists should > not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use pavements provided > for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a driver and collides with > them the cyclist should be prepared to accept sole responsibility and > blame. Also, a cyclist should be wearing a crash helmet and reflective > vest and be riding a bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted > with mandatory reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame > after colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should > receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
Where and when did I say that?
I'm a cyclist too, by the way. Your main problem is you're too polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think _everyone_ is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs without siding one way or the other.
> For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of > cyclists by motorists this is just one example. I can find plenty more > if anyone is still in doubt.
> "Police are hunting for the driver of a Silver Toyota Aygo after a > cyclist was assaulted and his bike run over in New Romney last > Tuesday. The incident at the Parade, in Greatstone, New Romney, left > the cyclist receiving treatment for cuts and bruising in Hospital.
> Police say a 28-year-old local man was riding a bicycle along the > footpath between 6.35pm and 7pm when he was approached by a man, who > chased him for a short while. The cyclist kept going and the man > stopped, but shortly afterwards he pulled up alongside the cyclist in > his car, and rammed him. The cyclist fell off his bike, but remounted > and crossed to the other side of the road.
> The motorist then drove directly at him, knocked him off the bike and > then ran over it before driving off.
> Police are appealing for anyone with information or who might know the > driver of the car involved in the incident, described as a silver > Toyota Aygo, to contact them. The driver is described as white, aged > 20, 5ft 9in tall, of slim build, with short black hair.
> Kent Police can be contacted on 01303 289180, alternatively, call Kent > Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111."
> -- > UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net > One man's democracy is another man's regime.
Police get tough on pavement cyclists
Almost 200 cyclists have been caught riding their bicycles on the city's pavements or cycling without lights after police launched a crackdown following complaints from angry families.
Norfolk police's West Centre community policing team launch a crackdown in the Earlham Road area because people said the problem was getting so bad.
The issue was raised at a meeting of the Safer Neighbourhood Action Panel last month and since then police patrols have snared 186 cyclists who were riding on pavements or without lights, with five hit with £30 fines after they were spotted doing it again despite warnings.
Posters have also been put up in nearby shops to educate cyclists and warnings have been printed in University of East Anglia publications.
West Centre Inspector Nigel Richards said: We have stopped nearly 200 cyclists who have committed offences, both cycling on the pavements and riding without lights at dusk.
We have spoken to numerous cyclists and educated them as many are aware of the law or where the cycle path ends. However if this warning is ignored then we take a more robust approach and issue a on the spot fine of £30.
Footpaths are there for the safety of pedestrians and not cyclists. If cyclists do not feel safe riding on busy roads then they should walk with their bicycle on footpaths.
Cameron Spencer, 44, from Earlham Road, spent more than three weeks off work and on painkillers after he was knocked down by a cyclist riding on the pavement.
Mr Spencer said: I walked out of my gate and just felt an impact. I felt a shooting pain down one leg, I had no recognition of the bike until it hit me.
I was on the floor and the guy came off his bike, I was in excruciating pain. But he didn't seem very bothered and just disappeared.
I am very, very angry about it. For three weeks I was in a great deal of pain.
Mr Spencer, who said he was hit by a cyclist a second time while recovering, said the injury had been a contributory factor in his decision to close his shop The Period House Store in Upper St Giles Street.
webreader <websiterea...@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > The issue was raised at a meeting of the Safer Neighbourhood Action > Panel last month and since then police patrols have snared 186 > cyclists who were riding on pavements or without lights, with five hit > with £30 fines after they were spotted doing it again despite > warnings.
It's rather odd that that should be possible, given how often we're told that cyclists would need to be registered and licenced in order to enforce footway cycling laws.
Just goes to show that the current law *can* be enforced when the police actually want to make an effort, eh?
> receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
There is actually a great deal of truth in this. Cyclists cannot use the roads on equal terms as drivers because they are so vulnerable and drivers are not, particularly at lower driving speeds. Consequently drivers become careless. Cyclists therefore need to ride defensively so as to minimise the chances of collision, even if it would not have been their fault anyway.
Doug wrote: > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of > cyclists by motorists this is just one example. I can find plenty more > if anyone is still in doubt.
> "Police are hunting for the driver of a Silver Toyota Aygo after a > cyclist was assaulted and his bike run over in New Romney last > Tuesday. The incident at the Parade, in Greatstone, New Romney, left > the cyclist receiving treatment for cuts and bruising in Hospital.
> Police say a 28-year-old local man was riding a bicycle along the > footpath between 6.35pm and 7pm when he was approached by a man, who > chased him for a short while. The cyclist kept going and the man > stopped, but shortly afterwards he pulled up alongside the cyclist in > his car, and rammed him. The cyclist fell off his bike, but remounted > and crossed to the other side of the road.
> The motorist then drove directly at him, knocked him off the bike and > then ran over it before driving off.
> Police are appealing for anyone with information or who might know the > driver of the car involved in the incident, described as a silver > Toyota Aygo, to contact them. The driver is described as white, aged > 20, 5ft 9in tall, of slim build, with short black hair.
> Kent Police can be contacted on 01303 289180, alternatively, call Kent > Crimestoppers, anonymously, on 0800 555 111."
Don't ride a bike along a pedestrian-only route. It annoys people no end, and occasionally, one of them will take real exception to your anti-social behaviour, perhaps even taking it to extremes.
d...@telent.net wrote: > webreader <websiterea...@yahoo.co.uk> writes: >> The issue was raised at a meeting of the Safer Neighbourhood Action >> Panel last month and since then police patrols have snared 186 >> cyclists who were riding on pavements or without lights, with five hit >> with £30 fines after they were spotted doing it again despite >> warnings. > It's rather odd that that should be possible, given how often we're told > that cyclists would need to be registered and licenced in order to > enforce footway cycling laws. > Just goes to show that the current law *can* be enforced when the police > actually want to make an effort, eh?
Why should a law (very reasonably) requiring lights to be displayed at night actually *need* to be enforced all that much?
To directly answer your point, enforcement isn't impossible without registration, but at a cost in police resources greater than would be necessary with registration.
On Nov 4, 12:28 pm, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
> Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and is > as follows.
[snip]
No, Doug, the workable solution is this: you shut the fuck up and leave it to people like Roger Geffen who are capable of campaigning on behalf of cyclists without pissing off everybody with whom they come into contact. -- Guy
mileburner wrote: > Doug wrote: > For their own safety cyclists should >> receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers. > There is actually a great deal of truth in this. Cyclists cannot use the > roads on equal terms as drivers because they are so vulnerable and drivers > are not, particularly at lower driving speeds.
You mean their bodies are not vulnerable. Their vehicles certainly are - and damage can be very costly. No, it's not the same thing, but neither is it trivial.
> Consequently drivers become careless.
Only if they don't care about vehicle damage. That cannot be a very large proportion of drivers.
> Cyclists therefore need to ride defensively so as to minimise the > chances of collision, even if it would not have been their fault anyway.
Good advice for anyone using the roads (with the appropriate adjustments). If someone runs out into the road in front of me, I brake, even though it's my "right of way". Similarly at green lights; if someone comes the other way, I do my best to stop and avoid a collision. It's what most people do. Their lack of "vulnerability" doesn't come into it.
>>> receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
>> There is actually a great deal of truth in this. Cyclists cannot use the >> roads on equal terms as drivers because they are so vulnerable and >> drivers are not, particularly at lower driving speeds.
> You mean their bodies are not vulnerable. Their vehicles certainly are - > and damage can be very costly. No, it's not the same thing, but neither is > it trivial.
Comparitively speaking, a scratched or dented bonnet is fairly trivial compared to a broken bone (IMO).
>> Consequently drivers become careless.
> Only if they don't care about vehicle damage. That cannot be a very large > proportion of drivers.
The pain of vehicle damage is actually very slight in comparison to the pain of bodily injury. I would also suggest that there is a large proportion who do not care about dents and scratches on their cars (I am one of them) I do however car about the physical well being of myself and others.
>> Cyclists therefore need to ride defensively so as to minimise the chances >> of collision, even if it would not have been their fault anyway.
> Good advice for anyone using the roads (with the appropriate adjustments). > If someone runs out into the road in front of me, I brake, even though > it's my "right of way". Similarly at green lights; if someone comes the > other way, I do my best to stop and avoid a collision. It's what most > people do. Their lack of "vulnerability" doesn't come into it.
The vulnerability heightens the awareness of the danger. A small knock or bump really does not matter that much to most drivers, it is just part of motoring. A small knock or bump, even at low speed, can put a cyclist in hospital, make them suffer a lot of pain, and make them have several months off work.
But what is also so utterly bizarre, is that I can drive through my local town at say 20 - 25 mph and suffer no violations of rights of way. Other drivers yield, pedestrians stay out of the way and I can cruise through without much worry about a car pulling out from the left (they rarely if ever do) or pulling in front from the right (they do this even less so) or even have anyone try to overtake. But, if I take the same route on a bike, and I travel at the same speed, and take the same road position I will have them pulling out from the left, crossing my path from the right, overtaking and cutting in and generally put me at risk.
Drivers will respect bigger vehicles, but the smaller the vehicle, the less threat they pose to them and the less courtesy and respect they are given.
This is why cyclists need to ride as if every driver is a total jerk.
> Doug wrote: > > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Doug wrote: > > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of > > > > cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
> > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your > > > twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally against.
> > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking > > > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the problem. > > > You never offer real, workable solutions you only bemoan, wail and > > > gnash your teeth so rather than helping improve the situation for > > > yourself and others, you actually hinder and fuel it.
> > > Please, go away.
> > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and is > > as follows.
> > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers and > > never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists should > > not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use pavements provided > > for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a driver and collides with > > them the cyclist should be prepared to accept sole responsibility and > > blame. Also, a cyclist should be wearing a crash helmet and reflective > > vest and be riding a bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted > > with mandatory reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame > > after colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should > > receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
> Where and when did I say that?
> I'm a cyclist too, by the way. Your main problem is you're too > polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think > _everyone_ is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided > opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
> Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport > available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs > without siding one way or the other.
I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do it.
-- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net A driving licence is a licence to kill.
> On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Doug wrote: > > > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Doug wrote: > > > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of > > > > > cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
> > > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your > > > > twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally against.
> > > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking > > > > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the problem. > > > > You never offer real, workable solutions you only bemoan, wail and > > > > gnash your teeth so rather than helping improve the situation for > > > > yourself and others, you actually hinder and fuel it.
> > > > Please, go away.
> > > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and is > > > as follows.
> > > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers and > > > never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists should > > > not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use pavements provided > > > for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a driver and collides with > > > them the cyclist should be prepared to accept sole responsibility and > > > blame. Also, a cyclist should be wearing a crash helmet and reflective > > > vest and be riding a bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted > > > with mandatory reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame > > > after colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should > > > receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
> > Where and when did I say that?
> > I'm a cyclist too, by the way. Your main problem is you're too > > polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think > > _everyone_ is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided > > opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
> > Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport > > available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs > > without siding one way or the other.
> I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle > culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them > and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do > it.
> -- > UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net > A driving licence is a licence to kill.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
...oops - your paranoia is showing yet again Doug
Why can't you accept that someone may use several forms of transport? When you were driving your old Landie about didn't you also own a pushbike - or were you then the very person that you're so paranoid about nowadays - some sort of driver with a pathological hatred reserved especially for cyclists....
> On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Doug wrote: > > > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Doug wrote: > > > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of > > > > > cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
> > > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your > > > > twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally against.
> > > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking > > > > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the problem. > > > > You never offer real, workable solutions you only bemoan, wail and > > > > gnash your teeth so rather than helping improve the situation for > > > > yourself and others, you actually hinder and fuel it.
> > > > Please, go away.
> > > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and is > > > as follows.
> > > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers and > > > never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists should > > > not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use pavements provided > > > for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a driver and collides with > > > them the cyclist should be prepared to accept sole responsibility and > > > blame. Also, a cyclist should be wearing a crash helmet and reflective > > > vest and be riding a bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted > > > with mandatory reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame > > > after colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should > > > receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
> > Where and when did I say that?
> > I'm a cyclist too, by the way. Your main problem is you're too > > polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think > > _everyone_ is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided > > opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
> > Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport > > available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs > > without siding one way or the other.
> I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle > culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them > and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do > it.
> -- > UK Radical Campaignswww.zing.icom43.net > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
Daftinitian of 'closet motorist' ' a cyclist who id also a motorist'
> > > Doug wrote: > > > > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Doug wrote: > > > > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of > > > > > > cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
> > > > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your > > > > > twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally against.
> > > > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking > > > > > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the problem. > > > > > You never offer real, workable solutions you only bemoan, wail and > > > > > gnash your teeth so rather than helping improve the situation for > > > > > yourself and others, you actually hinder and fuel it.
> > > > > Please, go away.
> > > > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and is > > > > as follows.
> > > > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers and > > > > never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists should > > > > not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use pavements provided > > > > for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a driver and collides with > > > > them the cyclist should be prepared to accept sole responsibility and > > > > blame. Also, a cyclist should be wearing a crash helmet and reflective > > > > vest and be riding a bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted > > > > with mandatory reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame > > > > after colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should > > > > receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
> > > Where and when did I say that?
> > > I'm a cyclist too, by the way. Your main problem is you're too > > > polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think > > > _everyone_ is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided > > > opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
> > > Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport > > > available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs > > > without siding one way or the other.
> > I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
> > Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle > > culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them > > and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do > > it.
> Daftinitian of 'closet motorist' ' a cyclist who id also a motorist'
No a closet motorist prefers to be regarded as a cyclist though spends little time actually cycling and is highly critical of cyclists while being very defensive of motorists. Seems familiar on this newsgroup?
-- UK Radical Campaigns www.zing.icom43.net All public road users are equal but some are more equal than others.
> > > > Doug wrote: > > > > > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Doug wrote: > > > > > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate > > > > > > > ramming of cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
> > > > > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's > > > > > > your twisting of facts to support your agenda that people > > > > > > rally against.
> > > > > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in > > > > > > provoking responses (like this one) from people who see you > > > > > > as the problem. You never offer real, workable solutions > > > > > > you only bemoan, wail and gnash your teeth so rather than > > > > > > helping improve the situation for yourself and others, you > > > > > > actually hinder and fuel it.
> > > > > > Please, go away.
> > > > > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one > > > > > and is as follows.
> > > > > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to > > > > > drivers and never obstruct them in any way. For their own > > > > > safety cyclists should not use roads but instead cycle paths > > > > > and share use pavements provided for them. If a cyclist gets > > > > > in the way of a driver and collides with them the cyclist > > > > > should be prepared to accept sole responsibility and blame. > > > > > Also, a cyclist should be wearing a crash helmet and > > > > > reflective vest and be riding a bicycle which is perfect > > > > > working order and fitted with mandatory reflectors etc if > > > > > they wish to minimise their blame after colliding with a > > > > > driver. For their own safety cyclists should receive special > > > > > training to minimise colliding with drivers.
> > > > Where and when did I say that?
> > > > I'm a cyclist too, by the way. Your main problem is you're too > > > > polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think > > > > everyone is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided > > > > opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
> > > > Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport > > > > available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs > > > > without siding one way or the other.
> > > I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
> > > Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the > > > bicycle culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to > > > stick up for them and you can't expect closet motorists on this > > > newsgroup to want to do it.
> > Daftinitian of 'closet motorist' ' a cyclist who id also a motorist'
> No a closet motorist prefers to be regarded as a cyclist though spends > little time actually cycling and is highly critical of cyclists while > being very defensive of motorists. Seems familiar on this newsgroup?
Hahah ... can you read?
If you think I'm a closet motorist using your definition of the phrase then you're way wrong.
Doug wrote: > On 4 Nov, 12:33, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Doug wrote: > > > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Doug wrote: > > > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate > > > > > ramming of cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
> > > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your > > > > twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally > > > > against.
> > > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking > > > > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the > > > > problem. You never offer real, workable solutions you only > > > > bemoan, wail and gnash your teeth so rather than helping > > > > improve the situation for yourself and others, you actually > > > > hinder and fuel it.
> > > > Please, go away.
> > > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and > > > is as follows.
> > > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers > > > and never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists > > > should not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use > > > pavements provided for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a > > > driver and collides with them the cyclist should be prepared to > > > accept sole responsibility and blame. Also, a cyclist should be > > > wearing a crash helmet and reflective vest and be riding a > > > bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted with mandatory > > > reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame after > > > colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should > > > receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
> > Where and when did I say that?
> > I'm a cyclist too, by the way. Your main problem is you're too > > polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think > > everyone is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided > > opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
> > Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport > > available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs > > without siding one way or the other.
> I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
How so? Does that mean that when I'm a cyclist on the roads I shouldn't be amenable to cars needs? By that same definition when I'm a car driver I also shouldn't be amenable to cyclists needs, which seems to be what you deplore ... so which is it to be? You have strange views.
> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle > culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them > and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do > it.
Bullshit. This is a cycling newsgroup, OK, it's been trolled a lot, but your views are not expressive of most/many/almost any other cyclists, indeed many of them completely disagree with you, hence you saying they're actually motorists!
Problem is you are unique. That, in your case, is not a good thing.
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:26:44 -0000, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote: > I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
> Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle > culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them > and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do > it.
Therefore it behoves us cyclists to carefully state our position without causing offense, or being dismissed as looney pyscholists. This is an area where you could improve, I feel.
> --
your sig separator needs a space at the end.
(newline dash dash space newline)
> UK Radical Campaigns > www.zing.icom43.net > A driving licence is a licence to kill.
> > > > Doug wrote: > > > > > On 4 Nov, 12:06, "Paul - xxx" <notcheckede...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Doug wrote: > > > > > > > For those here in completed denial about the deliberate ramming of > > > > > > > cyclists by motorists this is just one example.
> > > > > > You fucking moron .. no-one's " in completed denial" it's your > > > > > > twisting of facts to support your agenda that people rally against.
> > > > > > You're an antagonistic fuckwit who seems to delight in provoking > > > > > > responses (like this one) from people who see you as the problem. > > > > > > You never offer real, workable solutions you only bemoan, wail and > > > > > > gnash your teeth so rather than helping improve the situation for > > > > > > yourself and others, you actually hinder and fuel it.
> > > > > > Please, go away.
> > > > > Yes I know your workable solution, which is a very common one and is > > > > > as follows.
> > > > > For their own safety cyclists should always give way to drivers and > > > > > never obstruct them in any way. For their own safety cyclists should > > > > > not use roads but instead cycle paths and share use pavements provided > > > > > for them. If a cyclist gets in the way of a driver and collides with > > > > > them the cyclist should be prepared to accept sole responsibility and > > > > > blame. Also, a cyclist should be wearing a crash helmet and reflective > > > > > vest and be riding a bicycle which is perfect working order and fitted > > > > > with mandatory reflectors etc if they wish to minimise their blame > > > > > after colliding with a driver. For their own safety cyclists should > > > > > receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers.
> > > > Where and when did I say that?
> > > > I'm a cyclist too, by the way. Your main problem is you're too > > > > polarised, you see things from only your perspective and think > > > > _everyone_ is also polarised with a completely biased, one-sided > > > > opinion or viewpoint, when this simply isn't the case.
> > > > Some of us have more than one (or indeed two) modes of transport > > > > available to us and try to be amenable to other road users needs > > > > without siding one way or the other.
> > > I think that is called 'trying to sit on the fence'.
> > > Problem is, the car culture is very large and dominant and the bicycle > > > culture is very small and dominated. Somebody has to stick up for them > > > and you can't expect closet motorists on this newsgroup to want to do > > > it.
> > Daftinitian of 'closet motorist' ' a cyclist who id also a motorist'
> No a closet motorist prefers to be regarded as a cyclist though spends > little time actually cycling and is highly critical of cyclists while > being very defensive of motorists. Seems familiar on this newsgroup?
When you were busy driving and overturning your 14 mpg Land Rover, did you also cycle (*)?
mileburner wrote: > "JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >> mileburner wrote: >>> Doug wrote: >>> For their own safety cyclists should >>>> receive special training to minimise colliding with drivers. >>> There is actually a great deal of truth in this. Cyclists cannot use the >>> roads on equal terms as drivers because they are so vulnerable and >>> drivers are not, particularly at lower driving speeds. >> You mean their bodies are not vulnerable. Their vehicles certainly are - >> and damage can be very costly. No, it's not the same thing, but neither is >> it trivial. > Comparitively speaking, a scratched or dented bonnet is fairly trivial > compared to a broken bone (IMO).
I had already addressed the issue of non-comparability between injury and property damage. Having made that specific point, there was no need for you to do so. You added nothing to the discussion. Do you always try to unlatch open doors?
The *cost* of vehicle repairs is certainly not trivial. It can easily cost £1000 to repair dents and scratches to one side of a car.
That is not to be compared to injury (as I had already remarked), but that does not mean that repair costs are insignificant or that drivers don't try to avoid accidents. It is crass to pretend or suggest otherwise.
Here's the space for your next attempt at a riposte to an argument that doesn't exist (adjust length to suit):
<------------------------------->
>>> Consequently drivers become careless. >> Only if they don't care about vehicle damage. That cannot be a very large >> proportion of drivers. > The pain of vehicle damage is actually very slight in comparison to the pain > of bodily injury.
See above.
No-one's arguing to the contrary.
That doesn't mean that drivers welcome, or don't try to avoid, damage to their vehicles.
Next point, please.
> I would also suggest that there is a large proportion who > do not care about dents and scratches on their cars (I am one of them) I do > however car about the physical well being of myself and others.
If that is true, you are in a minority. A small one. Most drivers - most people - are concerned to avoid damage to their property.
>>> Cyclists therefore need to ride defensively so as to minimise the chances >>> of collision, even if it would not have been their fault anyway. >> Good advice for anyone using the roads (with the appropriate adjustments). >> If someone runs out into the road in front of me, I brake, even though >> it's my "right of way". Similarly at green lights; if someone comes the >> other way, I do my best to stop and avoid a collision. It's what most >> people do. Their lack of "vulnerability" doesn't come into it. > The vulnerability heightens the awareness of the danger. A small knock or > bump really does not matter that much to most drivers, it is just part of > motoring.
Rubbish.
It costs money to get damage repaired. It can affect the cost of insurance and the whole affordability of motoring. If you are so rich that this means nothing to you, please do not assume that everyone else is so privileged.
> A small knock or bump, even at low speed, can put a cyclist in > hospital, make them suffer a lot of pain, and make them have several months > off work.
See above.
No-one's arguing to the contrary.
That doesn't mean that drivers welcome, or don't try to avoid, damage to their vehicles.
Next point, please.
> But what is also so utterly bizarre, is that I can drive through my local > town at say 20 - 25 mph and suffer no violations of rights of way. Other > drivers yield, pedestrians stay out of the way and I can cruise through > without much worry about a car pulling out from the left (they rarely if > ever do) or pulling in front from the right (they do this even less so) or > even have anyone try to overtake. But, if I take the same route on a bike, > and I travel at the same speed, and take the same road position I will have > them pulling out from the left, crossing my path from the right, overtaking > and cutting in and generally put me at risk.
That was a rather better point.
> Drivers will respect bigger vehicles, but the smaller the vehicle, the less > threat they pose to them and the less courtesy and respect they are given.
That has the ring of truth to it. I suggest that it isn't quite as simple as that, but that should not be taken as meaning that I don't recognise the force of what you are sying.
I rather suspect that the reason for not wanting to be behind a bike is similar to the reasons many would have for not wanting to be behind a bus, or a larger commercial vehicle.
> This is why cyclists need to ride as if every driver is a total jerk.
Well, that's your view.
Why not just co-operate to let potentially faster vehicles get past you?
>> Comparitively speaking, a scratched or dented bonnet is fairly trivial >> compared to a broken bone (IMO).
> I had already addressed the issue of non-comparability between injury and > property damage. Having made that specific point, there was no need for > you to do so. You added nothing to the discussion. Do you always try to > unlatch open doors?
> The *cost* of vehicle repairs is certainly not trivial. It can easily cost > £1000 to repair dents and scratches to one side of a car.
> That is not to be compared to injury (as I had already remarked), but that > does not mean that repair costs are insignificant or that drivers don't > try to avoid accidents. It is crass to pretend or suggest otherwise.
Oh please...
On one hand you are saying a financial cost and physical injury are non-comparable, and then on the other hand you are trying to claim that a drivers cost of collision is not trivial either. So which is it? Are you trying to compare or not? It looks like you are. You also seem to have overlooked the fact that in many cases it is not the person actually driving the car that will bear the cost. You have also overlooked the fact that their cost is not immediate, direct and apparent. You have also overlooked the fact that their cost would not be disabling and painful as it would be in the case of a cyclist.
>> I would also suggest that there is a large proportion who do not care >> about dents and scratches on their cars (I am one of them) I do however >> car about the physical well being of myself and others.
> If that is true, you are in a minority. A small one. Most drivers - most > people - are concerned to avoid damage to their property.
Of course they try to avoid damage to their vehicles. It might mean the inconvenience of having their car off the road for a week. It might mean they lose their no claim discount. It might mean they get into bother with their spouse, employer or the car owner. But it does not mean that they might be sucking soup through a straw for the rest of their lives. Car damage *is* trivial compared to physical injury so don't try to compare the two. Oh no, you weren't were you?
>> The vulnerability heightens the awareness of the danger. A small knock or >> bump really does not matter that much to most drivers, it is just part of >> motoring.
> Rubbish.
And your experience of cycling is exactly? Or are you one of those drivers who obsessively worries about your car getting dented or scratched. I know they exist (they may even be the majority) but that does not negate the fact that there are an awful lot of drivers who really do not care about the odd dent or scratch here and there.
> It costs money to get damage repaired. It can affect the cost of insurance > and the whole affordability of motoring. If you are so rich that this > means nothing to you, please do not assume that everyone else is so > privileged.
My insurers allow me to have 2 claims in any 3 years before I lose any of my NCD. Actually I could drive with comprehensive insurance and suffer no financial cost if I damage my car. I would not say that is privileged. If people can afford to drive about in cars costing 20 grand, they can quite easily afford a few hundred quid on repairs or but of extra insurance costs. The cost of a minor collision *really is* trivial in this respect.
> That doesn't mean that drivers welcome, or don't try to avoid, damage to > their vehicles.
<yawn>
> Why not just co-operate to let potentially faster vehicles get past you?
Perhaps it has something to do with there not being enough room to do so safely. Are we back to the Nugent 100mm again? Or is it 12 inches needed to safely pass a cyclist?
mileburner wrote: > "JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message > news:temdnRwqtN4VVm_XnZ2dnUVZ8oidnZ2d@pipex.net... >> mileburner wrote: >>> Comparitively speaking, a scratched or dented bonnet is fairly trivial >>> compared to a broken bone (IMO). >> I had already addressed the issue of non-comparability between injury and >> property damage. Having made that specific point, there was no need for >> you to do so. You added nothing to the discussion. Do you always try to >> unlatch open doors? >> The *cost* of vehicle repairs is certainly not trivial. It can easily cost >> £1000 to repair dents and scratches to one side of a car. >> That is not to be compared to injury (as I had already remarked), but that >> does not mean that repair costs are insignificant or that drivers don't >> try to avoid accidents. It is crass to pretend or suggest otherwise. > Oh please... > On one hand you are saying a financial cost and physical injury are > non-comparable, and then on the other hand you are trying to claim that a > drivers cost of collision is not trivial either. So which is it?
It's both, as any sensible person would recognise and admit in an instant.
> Are you trying to compare or not?
If by "compare" you mean "equate", certainly not. I was explicit about that.
But the fact that damage to property is not as life-shattering as physical injury does not mean that damage (or the cost of repairs) are insignificant or trivial.
> It looks like you are.
It looks as though I'm *not*, actually. Perhaps those with a warped agenda might see it differently.
> You also seem to have > overlooked the fact that in many cases it is not the person actually driving > the car that will bear the cost.
Irrelevant. No-one wants to have to take their company car, van, ambulance, lorry, etc, back to their boss and say "I've done it again". That would have consequences too.
> You have also overlooked the fact that > their cost is not immediate, direct and apparent. You have also overlooked > the fact that their cost would not be disabling and painful as it would be > in the case of a cyclist.
I haven't "overlooked" any of those things.
>>> I would also suggest that there is a large proportion who do not care >>> about dents and scratches on their cars (I am one of them) I do however >>> car about the physical well being of myself and others. >> If that is true, you are in a minority. A small one. Most drivers - most >> people - are concerned to avoid damage to their property. > Of course they try to avoid damage to their vehicles.
So what are you arguing about?
> It might mean the > inconvenience of having their car off the road for a week. It might mean > they lose their no claim discount. It might mean they get into bother with > their spouse, employer or the car owner. But it does not mean that they > might be sucking soup through a straw for the rest of their lives.
No-one has said it does (though it would be wrong to dismiss the likelihood of injury to a vehicle occupant, which is a frequent occurrence which *yoiu* seem to have overlooked).
> Car > damage *is* trivial compared to physical injury so don't try to compare the > two. Oh no, you weren't were you?
Correct.
I wasn't.
At least, I wasn't trying to equate them (that's the correct word).
>>> The vulnerability heightens the awareness of the danger. A small knock or >>> bump really does not matter that much to most drivers, it is just part of >>> motoring. >> Rubbish. > And your experience of cycling is exactly?
...irrelevant when commenting on whether a crash and resultant vehicle damage is trivial to a driver.
Do *try* to keep up.
> Or are you one of those drivers > who obsessively worries about your car getting dented or scratched. I know > they exist (they may even be the majority) but that does not negate the fact > that there are an awful lot of drivers who really do not care about the odd > dent or scratch here and there.
I look after all of my property, not just my car.
>> It costs money to get damage repaired. It can affect the cost of insurance >> and the whole affordability of motoring. If you are so rich that this >> means nothing to you, please do not assume that everyone else is so >> privileged. > My insurers allow me to have 2 claims in any 3 years before I lose any of my > NCD. Actually I could drive with comprehensive insurance and suffer no > financial cost if I damage my car. I would not say that is privileged. If > people can afford to drive about in cars costing 20 grand, they can quite > easily afford a few hundred quid on repairs or but of extra insurance costs. > The cost of a minor collision *really is* trivial in this respect.
"In this respect" is a weasel phrase. The cost of vehicle damage repairs is not trivial except to very rich people like your good self.
>> That doesn't mean that drivers welcome, or don't try to avoid, damage to >> their vehicles. > <yawn> >> Why not just co-operate to let potentially faster vehicles get past you? > Perhaps it has something to do with there not being enough room to do so > safely. Are we back to the Nugent 100mm again? Or is it 12 inches needed to > safely pass a cyclist?
> >> Comparitively speaking, a scratched or dented bonnet is fairly trivial > >> compared to a broken bone (IMO).
> > I had already addressed the issue of non-comparability between injury and > > property damage. Having made that specific point, there was no need for > > you to do so. You added nothing to the discussion. Do you always try to > > unlatch open doors?
> > The *cost* of vehicle repairs is certainly not trivial. It can easily cost > > 1000 to repair dents and scratches to one side of a car.
> > That is not to be compared to injury (as I had already remarked), but that > > does not mean that repair costs are insignificant or that drivers don't > > try to avoid accidents. It is crass to pretend or suggest otherwise.
> Oh please...
> On one hand you are saying a financial cost and physical injury are > non-comparable, and then on the other hand you are trying to claim that a > drivers cost of collision is not trivial either. So which is it? Are you > trying to compare or not? It looks like you are. You also seem to have > overlooked the fact that in many cases it is not the person actually driving > the car that will bear the cost. You have also overlooked the fact that > their cost is not immediate, direct and apparent. You have also overlooked > the fact that their cost would not be disabling and painful as it would be > in the case of a cyclist.
This is one of the rare occasions where I find myself in full agreement with Mr Nugent. He has not equated the effect of a collision on a motorist with the effect on a cyclist. He is merely pointing out that most sensible people try to avoid damaging their property, and hence most sensible drivers try to avoid colliding with things. I know only too well the effect a collision has on a cyclist - I am still recovering from a serious accident earlier this year. That said, it would piss me off enormously to be left with a repair bill for my car as a result of me colliding with something. That is all he is saying.
>> On one hand you are saying a financial cost and physical injury are >> non-comparable, and then on the other hand you are trying to claim that a >> drivers cost of collision is not trivial either. So which is it?
> It's both, as any sensible person would recognise and admit in an instant.
"Trivial" is subjective and needs to be compared against something for it to have any meaning.
>>> Why not just co-operate to let potentially faster vehicles get past you?
>> Perhaps it has something to do with there not being enough room to do so >> safely. Are we back to the Nugent 100mm again? Or is it 12 inches needed >> to safely pass a cyclist?
> Oh dear... you've run out of argument again, eh?
Cyclists need space on the roads. Cyclists have a lot more to lose in the event of a crash. Cyclists would do well to ride in a manner which reduces the likelihood of collision.
I'm sure that Nugent can find an argument in there somewhere.
|
