--- Ian Smith said:


You avoiding commenting on why you're so hung up about bicycles
but accept teh 3000 times worse motor vehicles record, I see.


No, I'm equally distrustful of *ALL* private, non-pedestrian road users.
I try not make too many distinctions between them. It all cancels out
in the end. (E.g. You maybe be right. Cars may be 3000 times deadlier
than bikes, but that also makes them at least 3000 times harder to
solve. Swings and roundabouts.)

On Sat, Solar Penguin wrote:

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.

"Rearranging deckchairs on the Titannic"?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

--- Ian Smith said:
On Sat, Solar Penguin wrote:

Anyway what is the right word? ... Whatever it's called,
that's what I was thinking of.

"Rearranging deckchairs on the Titannic"?


LOL!!! Touché!

Solar Penguin wrote:

Ok, maybe that was the wrong word. If it was, then sorry for any
confusion.

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.


Whatever it is why do you think solving the problem of the 200 deaths a
year an impossible waste of time to be put to one side while and the one
death a year isn't and deserves attention? The former source of death
already has easily readable license plates attached to the vehicle, an
operator licensing system and a partial automatic enforcement system
that is catching 10,000 of them a month jumping red lights and a further
5,500 a month speeding in London. Yet still ~200 pedestrians a year are
killed on the pavement and many times that on the road.

Do you really think applying all that to cyclists is going to impact the
~1 death a year on the pavement and is it the most effective way to
achieve that level of saving of pedestrian lives?

Tony

Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
Ian Walker typed


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


Mine is.

Please do not feed the trolls!


Yebbut, what else am I going to do to pass the afternoon, go and fix the
license plates on my bike?

Tony ;-)

In article ,
(Silas Denyer) writes:

When I enquired why that was, I was told (quite seriously) that
bicycles were actually faster than motorbikes across the centre of
town now

Nothing new.

I worked in central London 20 years ago, and had both forms of bike.
The bicycle was faster then too - and that's riding 100% legally.
It's faster simply because it fits through smaller spaces in the
congestion caused by cars and other larger vehicles.

Whilst walking near Old Street a while ago I was almost run off the
pavement by some patrolling Police cyclists riding along the pavement

Hehe. Thanks for yet another reminder I'm glad to be well out of London.

lives of pedestrians (yes, lives - cyclist hitting pedestrian can and
does result in death). Who wants to join my petition?

Hmmm, what's the ratio again? About 1 killed by a cyclist to 10000
killed by cars (in round numbers), isn't it? Oh, and around quarter of
a million indirect deaths due to breathing fumes (c.f. the lesser but
more-discussed problem of passive smoking). Smothering cyclists in red
tape *will* drive some of them into cars, causing *more* pedestrian deaths.

--
Nick Kew

Solar Penguin wrote:

Cars may be 3000 times deadlier
than bikes, but that also makes them at least 3000 times harder to
solve. Swings and roundabouts.)


I think those cold Antarctic winds are getting to your penguin brain.
Your statement is a non-sequitur. There is no correlation between the
risk something poses and the difficulty of reducing that risk.

Tony

--- Tony Raven said:

Whatever it is why do you think solving the problem of the 200
deaths a year an impossible waste of time to be put to one side
while and the one death a year isn't and deserves attention?

I don't. Read, my original post: Why do *YOU* think it's an "Either/Or"
system?

You're the one who brought up the "Either/Or" approach, and the question
of priorities between your "Either" and your "Or", which is all so far
removed from my viewpoint that I don't even know the right words to ask
you to explain more about it.

I'm strongly in favour of harsher penalties and restrictions for
motorists just as I am for cyclists. I've argued points against cars in
the "Dumb traffic lights" thread -- and ****ed off a few motorists doing
so. But this thread is about bikes, so I'm arguing against bikes here.

Now, how about you actually answering my questions, for a change. Why
do you see it as "Either/Or"? And why do you see a need to one
particular system of priorities when there's no need to divide it up
into artificial priorities in the first place?

It's the battle of the birds. The Penguin vs. the Raven.

Seconds out, round two...

--- Tony Raven said:


I think those cold Antarctic winds are getting to your penguin brain.


You're determined to keep snipping out or ignoring my most important
point in each message, just so you can do some cheap one-upmanship point
scoring. Good to see the old art of Usenet debating is still alive and
well. (Or are you just a troll? If so, you're a very clumsy one!)

Anyway, like I was saying. I try not to draw any artificial
distinctions between a pedestrian who just happens to have been killed
by a car and a pedestrian who just happens to have been killed by a
bike. I don't see this as an "Either/Or" option. I don't think there's
any need to only legislate to save one and not the other.

So, let's have tougher restrictions and penalties for both motorists
*AND* cyclists. The best of both worlds. Well... What's wrong with
that?

Solar Penguin wrote:

But this thread is about bikes, so I'm arguing against bikes here.


Actually its mainly about a troll who posted and fled.

Tony