On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:13:11 GMT,
(Nick Cooper) wrote:


I daresay if you looked properly you would see a fair few comments by
me about motor vehicle drivers. However, I see just as many cyclists
behaving like aresholes as car/van/lorry drivers, so I don't see why
they should be excused comment.

First, "not around here" - remember this is x-posted to
uk.rec.cycling, whihc is where I live.

Second, I am not aware of *anybody* on urc who advocates cyclists
being excused from wrongdoing. We might be able to advance possible
reasons why they do it (e.g. riding on the pavement because of fear of
traffic and councils' blurring of the boundaries with their cans of
paint), what we take exception to is bald statements that cyclists are
lawless, when the clear evidence is that /all/ vehicular road users
are lawless, and a good many non-vehicular ones as well.

Why is that, I wonder?
Because you have a self-selecting chip on your shoulder?

Or not. We get a lot of cross-posts around here from people who
clearly walk and drive but never cycle, who then berate cyclists for
their behaviour without acknowledging the poor behaviour of other road
users.

One of the key contributors to road danger, in my view, is the
pernicious idea that all the danger is caused by the behaviour of the
nebulous "them" and that the things we do must necessarily be safe
because they have not yet ended in catastrophe.

Most pedestrians' representatives seem to have no trouble
distinguishing between the scale of risk posed by cars and bicycles,
and devote their efforts to controlling motor danger. We already know
that you are about 200 times more likely to be killed /on the footway/
by a motor driver than by a cyclist, after all.

Yes, I'm sure that's a huge consolation to any pedestrian who gets hit
by a reckless cyclist. Of course, cars do not routinely deliberate
travel on pavements, but many cyclists certainly do.

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?

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.

If you can prove that I have never made an adverse comment about motor
vehicle drivers, you might have a point, but since you can't, you're
just coming up with the same self-selecting ******** again.

You started a cyclist-baiting crosspost. Prior behaviour is
irrelevant.

It is a strange and inconsistent view you have.
No, it's a strange an inconsistent defensive attitude you have.

On the contrary, my attitude is wholly consistent: all road users
should control their vehicles according to the law and the Highway
Code. I believe that if everybody drove and rode according to the HC
the roads would be much safer.

Please jsutify the use of illegal cyclist behaviour to excuse illegal
and potentially lethal bus driver behaviour.
And where am I supposed to have done that, smartarse?
Up through the thread history, that is how you started the whole
thing.
Really? I can't see any statement by me that "excuse illegal
and potentially lethal bus driver behaviour."

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.

So you feel it's perfectly acceptable to use the behaviour of crap
cyclists to excuse that of crap drivers, but not vice-versa?
Fascinating.
Since I haven't, then obviously not. Admit it - you don't even know
what you're talkign about, do you?
Indeed I do, having spent a lot of time researching the matter.
Nice set of reasearch blinkers you have, obviously.

The blinkers are to be found on those who use only one type of
vehicle, a group which does not include me.

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

In article ,
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
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'm curious, now.

How many cycles are there? How many cars? Perhaps vechical-hours
would be a better measure - do you have any estimates for that?

--
You dont have to be illiterate to use the Internet, but it help's.

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:20:32 +0000 (UTC), Mike Bristow
wrote:

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'm curious, now.
How many cycles are there? How many cars? Perhaps vechical-hours
would be a better measure - do you have any estimates for that?

There is no measure available that I am aware of for the number of
hours spent (or miles covered) riding or driving on the footway. The
only data we have is anecdotal, viz:

- all cyclists ride only on the footway, except when they drop onto
the road in order to ride through a red light

- no motorist ever drives on the footway, all those cars parked on the
footway are carefully lifted there by their drivers

And yet, amazingly, there are orders of magnitude more people killed
on the footway by motor drivers than by cyclists. Baffling, innit?

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 Thu, 21 Oct 2004 07:20:32 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Mike
Bristow wrote this:-

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'm curious, now.

How many cycles are there? How many cars? Perhaps vechical-hours
would be a better measure - do you have any estimates for that?

It is irrelevant. From the point of view of a pedestrian what
matters is how likely they are to be killed by a cyclist or killed
by a motorist. That is the relative risk they are concerned with and
the raw numbers demonstrate it.



--
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.

In article ,
David Hansen wrote:
It is irrelevant. From the point of view of a pedestrian what
matters is how likely they are to be killed by a cyclist or killed
by a motorist.

Debatable[1], but irrelevant. My curiousity still has not been sated!

Does anyone know - roughly - how many cyclists there are? Or the
relative number of journeys each mode makes?

[1] The pedestrian may want to make adjustments to their own behaviour
when they see vehicles approaching them. And others may wish to
make a cost/benifit analysis for measures to reduce the number -
the benefits are larger if you target cars (by the factor of 200
you cite); but the costs are likely also larger (because there are
- probably - more cars to fit bubble wrap to. Or whatever).

--
You dont have to be illiterate to use the Internet, but it help's.

In message , David Hansen
writes
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.
Could you explain this a bit more please? I can't find a reference to
PGP keys in the act you cite.
--
Clive.

In message , at 13:11:43 on Mon,
25 Oct 2004, Clive Coleman remarked:
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
Could you explain this a bit more please? I can't find a reference to
PGP keys in the act you cite.

There's a gagging clause in Pt3 of the Act, about acquisition of keys in
general (not especially PGP). It's intended to prevent crooks tipping
one another off. That part of the Act is years away from being put into
force, anyway.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:11:43 +0100 someone who may be Clive Coleman
wrote this:-

I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Could you explain this a bit more please? I can't find a reference to
PGP keys in the act you cite.

As Roland said, it is more general.

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. However, it is
possible to revoke the key and this is (supposedly) not telling
one's lover, religious advisor and so on what is happening.

Therefore it is elementary to state that one will always explain a
revoked key to anyone who asks, unless the UK government is
preventing one from doing so with RIP.

As Roland said, this particular bit of RIP has yet to be turned on.
If the Home Office have any sense it never will be and they will let
it curl up before it is exterminated by a law that regulates
investigatory powers (something RIP singularly fails to do).

I doubt if my pointing out the Home Office's stupidity has had any
influence on them not turning on this part of RIP, which they were
very keen on at the time. However, it cannot have done any harm.



--
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.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In message , at 22:00:38 on
Mon, 25 Oct 2004, David Hansen
remarked:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:11:43 +0100 someone who may be Clive Coleman
wrote this:-

I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Could you explain this a bit more please? I can't find a reference to
PGP keys in the act you cite.

As Roland said, it is more general.

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.

In the former case, if your communications are being read, you won't
normally know, but if you find out there's no ban on telling the world.

However, if (when put in force) you are required to reveal a key that
might allow encryption of intercepted (or seized) keys, you can be
prosecuted for tipping off your friends.

However, it is possible to revoke the key and this is (supposedly) not
telling one's lover, religious advisor and so on what is happening.

This is a long-proposed work around, but until the Code of Practice for
that part of the Act appears, it's a little rash to assume it will work
as advertised.

--
Roland Perry

In message , at
06:50:02 on Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Roland Perry
remarked:
However, if (when put in force) you are required to reveal a key that
might allow encryption of intercepted (or seized) keys,

cough decryption of intercepted (or seized) material

you can be prosecuted for tipping off your friends.

--
Roland Perry