--- Tony Raven said:


Actually its mainly about a troll who posted and fled.


Strange how that alleged troll made more sense than all the pro-bike
responses put together.

Solar Penguin ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Anyway what is the right word? Where you start by solving the problems
that you *are* able to solve instead of wasting your time trying to
solve the ones that can't be solved until later? Whatever it's called,
that's what I was thinking of.

No, you were right with "Triage".

Where you varied slightly was in the definition - if there's three people
lying on trolleys, one with a cut finger, one with a minor heart attack and
one with half their guts on the floor, the heart attack would be first,
followed by the cut finger, as the third's probably toast anyway.

Haven't you ever watched "M*A*S*H"?

Ian Smith ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

And how many would you consider acceptable? How many pedestrians per
annum do you think are expendable?

Well, society believes about 11 per day, since it doesn't cause any
outcry.

Can we at least get the numbers right?

11 x 365 = roughly the total number of road deaths.
Try 774 ped deaths last year - of which around 60% were over the legal
blood-alcohol level for driving.

In other words - around 11 sober pedestrians killed on the roads *per
fortnight*...

davek ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

How many pedestrians die annually from being hit by cyclists? How many
die from being hit by cars?

How wide is a car? How wide is a bicycle? How easy are they for a
pedestrian to avoid, relatively?

Personally I think the only solution is compulsory registration of
bicycles, with clearly-displayed plates, or perhaps compulsory
registration of the riders (plate on the back of a mandatory
reflective jacket, perhaps). This isn't trivial law-breaking - this is
anarchy in which business, the police, and the general public are
wholesale ignoring the law of the land, and frequently endangering the
lives of pedestrians (yes, lives - cyclist hitting pedestrian can and
does result in death). Who wants to join my petition?


I couldn't agree more.

Cyclists are actually subject to all of the road traffic laws that motorised
traffic is subjected to: the ONLY reason they cannot be penalised is the
inability to trace them and enforce the law as it is against those of us with
registration plates.

Marc.

Silas Denyer wrote:
Personally I think the only solution is compulsory registration of
bicycles, with clearly-displayed plates

Cars have those and it doesn't stop their drivers jumping red lights or
driving on the pavement.

(yes, lives - cyclist hitting pedestrian can and
does result in death).

Yes but at least there is the POSSIBILITY of enforcement.

How many of us driving a car on a deserted junction late at night would not
inch forward and, for example, make a left-hand turn, if we had no way of being
caught?

How many pedestrians die annually from being hit by cyclists? How many
die from being hit by cars?

That is irrelevant. Cyclists should obey the law like anyone else. Period.

**** off.

d.


Charming.

Marc.

Not that I condone law breaking by cyclist or motorists but
would that be the ~1 pedestrain a year killed on pavements
by cyclists or the ~200 killed a year on pavements by motor
vehicles you would be worrying about?


What makes you think this is an "Either/Or" question? Shouldn't we be
concerned about *ALL* pedestrians killed by *ALL* vehicles, not
nitpicking about numbers?

Indeed.

Marc.

Personally I think the only solution is compulsory registration of
bicycles, with clearly-displayed plates, or perhaps compulsory
registration of the riders (plate on the back of a mandatory
reflective jacket, perhaps).

Is anybody else's Troll-o-Meter twitching, or is it just me?

Ian

Why is compulsory registration such an incredible idea?

They do it in Cambridge.

Or, are cyclists some sort of God-like morally superior beings that should not
be controlled in the same way as others who use vehicles on a road?

Marc.

On 16/10/04 6:06 pm, in article , "Solar
Penguin" wrote:


--- Tony Raven said:


Actually its mainly about a troll who posted and fled.


Strange how that alleged troll made more sense than all the pro-bike
responses put together.

Hardly.

No one has condoned jumping red lights on a bike. There are situations where
it is legal to pass a light on red but it is clearly not 'jumped'. What has
been done is to show that the original poster was overreacting to the
perceived problem and the proposed draconian action against cyclists would
actually lead to more harm than good.

So, who will fund the proposed bicycle license? What counts as a bicycle? A
frame? with wheels? Where would you put such a license plate so it can be
read?

Especially at the top end, bikes are more a fluid collection of parts than a
static assembly.

At the low end, any cost of licensing could almost double the cost of the
bike.

And what good would it do? You don't know who was riding any particular
bike, even less so than you do with a car (and it is hard enough getting
anything done even when there has been injury and witnesses).


So in response to the original poster, there is the UseNet 'there, there!',
cup of tea and sympathy. We don't so that sort of thing and don't condone it
either but your proposed 'solution' is ill thought out, unworkable and
disproportionate.

...d

But you seem to advocate ignoring the major problem (Deaths caused by
motorised vehicles) in favour of tackling the minor (Deaths caused by
bicyles). This is not "tougher restrictions and penalties for both
motorists *AND* cyclists", this is jumping on the easy target because
we're afraid of the larger one.


This is nonsense: cycling on pavements is not only dangerous but anti-social.

I suspect that more people have to jump back or whatever to avoid cycles on
pavements and have near-misses (where pedestrians ought to have right of way
and not be on constant cycle-patrol) than they do with cars on the road - where
only a moron would expect to have priority over fast-moving traffic.

People EXPECT fast-moving traffic on roads and take the appropriate
precautions. They do not (and should not) EXPECT to encounter fast-moving
traffic on pavements.

Marc.

(Barrister who has, over the years, both prosecuted and defended thousands of
road-users - never a cyclist that I can recall!)