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

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.

Thought experiment:

A badly defended country (Smallium) is under attack from two sides. The
neighbour to the East (Biggus) is categorised as a Superpower and has
highly advanced technology. He is making vast headway into the civilian
population of Smallium. The neighbour to the West (Tribus) has an
aggressive populace armed with particularly sharp mangoes. As a large
neighbour to both Biggus and Tribus you can stop either of them. Your
mandate is to defend Smallium. What do you do?

Jon

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:06:37 +0100, Jon Senior
jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk wrote:

A badly defended country (Smallium) is under attack from two sides. The
neighbour to the East (Biggus) is categorised as a Superpower and has
highly advanced technology. He is making vast headway into the civilian
population of Smallium. The neighbour to the West (Tribus) has an
aggressive populace armed with particularly sharp mangoes. As a large
neighbour to both Biggus and Tribus you can stop either of them. Your
mandate is to defend Smallium. What do you do?

Annex with Biggus. Buy a car?

[Not Responding] lid opined the
following...
Annex with Biggus. Buy a car?

OK. So I got a bit carried away there. And the reality is that unless
you have the muscle to do it, you say "yessir-what-ever-you-want-sir" to
Biggus while telling the world that you have everyone's best interests
at heart.

Jon

Jon Senior wrote:

Thought experiment:

A badly defended country (Smallium) is under attack from two sides. The
neighbour to the East (Biggus) is categorised as a Superpower and has
highly advanced technology. He is making vast headway into the civilian
population of Smallium. The neighbour to the West (Tribus) has an
aggressive populace armed with particularly sharp mangoes. As a large
neighbour to both Biggus and Tribus you can stop either of them. Your
mandate is to defend Smallium. What do you do?


Feed the mangos to the trolls?

Tony

--- Jon Senior said:

Thought experiment:

A badly defended country (Smallium) is under attack from two sides.
The
neighbour to the East (Biggus) is categorised as a Superpower and has
highly advanced technology. He is making vast headway into the
civilian
population of Smallium. The neighbour to the West (Tribus) has an
aggressive populace armed with particularly sharp mangoes. As a large
neighbour to both Biggus and Tribus you can stop either of them. Your
mandate is to defend Smallium. What do you do?


Hmmm... I don't accept the premise of this thought experiment because I
don't accept that this is an "Either/Or" situation. (E.g. How do we
know that Biggus and Tribus aren't already allied against Smallium?)
And anyway, pedestrians would be in the position of Tribus, not
Smallium -- we've got the least to defend ourselves with out of any of
the three groups! Heck at least cyclists are armed with bikes.
Pedestrians don't even get a blunt mango to harm other road users with!

Solar Penguin opined the following...
Hmmm... I don't accept the premise of this thought experiment because I
don't accept that this is an "Either/Or" situation. (E.g. How do we
know that Biggus and Tribus aren't already allied against Smallium?)
And anyway, pedestrians would be in the position of Tribus, not
Smallium -- we've got the least to defend ourselves with out of any of
the three groups! Heck at least cyclists are armed with bikes.
Pedestrians don't even get a blunt mango to harm other road users with!

Actually, the last time I hit a pedestrian (The only time in fact) I
came off far worse. He got knocked sideways and was up (and apologising)
by them time I had come to a halt. The problem with bikes is that the
person attached to it usually has to lose more speed before coming to a
standstill and has more chance of ending up tangled in the wreckage.

The analogy was daft, but by extension, so is the bizarre premise that
we should deal with the problem that is easier to solve rather than the
one which is the biggest threat.

A (possibly) better one; You have a high-power rifle. Running towards
you are a hungry looking lion and a small domestic cat. Given enough
time and some bad luck on your part the small cat could kill you. The
lion definately will. Which one do you try and shoot?

Let's face it. It's not going to be the cat is it? Yet you advocate
shooting the cat, because it'll die with the first shot even though the
lion poses a Plucks figure from air 3000 times greater threat to you.

Is there anyone on u.r.c. who condones cycling on pavements and through
red lights? Probably not. Is there anyone there who honestly believes
that effective action against such offenders would have any noticeable
effect on the KSI stats for our roads? Probably not. Given the choice
(Assume that it is unavoidable) of being hit by a cyclist (~95kg @
15mph) or a car (~1500kg @ 30mph) which would you choose? Can you not
see why we might find such trolling patently ridiculous or do you need
more time to think about it?

Jon

--- Jon Senior said:

A (possibly) better one; You have a high-power rifle. Running towards
you are a hungry looking lion and a small domestic cat. Given enough
time and some bad luck on your part the small cat could kill you. The
lion definately will. Which one do you try and shoot?


Once again, why is this an "Either/Or" situation? Why can't I use the
cat as bait to trap the lion, killing them both at once? Two birds with
one stone, that sort of thing.

This is the question that I've been asking since my very first post in
this thread. And it's the one question that the cyclists have been
refusing to answer each time I ask it.

If I don't get an answer this time, I'm just gonna killfile this whole
thread, because there's no point even trying to discuss things sensibly
with people who aren't even prepared to answer a simple question.

Solar Penguin wrote:

Once again, why is this an "Either/Or" situation? Why can't I use the
cat as bait to trap the lion, killing them both at once? Two birds with
one stone, that sort of thing.

Its either/or because the amount of resources, financial or human,
available to devote to the problem is limited. If there were infinite
resources it would not be an either/or situation but both. As it is
choices have to be made as to which one is the most effective deployment
of the resources you have.

In the lion/cat example its a question of only having one bullet. If
you had a whole magazine full it would be easy. You shoot both, lion
first. With one bullet, unless you can find some fancy way of enticing
the lion to eat the cat before it eats you or you can get the cat to
stand in front of the lion so you can get both with one shot, how would
you use your one bullet?

This is the question that I've been asking since my very first post in
this thread. And it's the one question that the cyclists have been
refusing to answer each time I ask it.

Does that answer it?


If I don't get an answer this time, I'm just gonna killfile this whole
thread, because there's no point even trying to discuss things sensibly
with people who aren't even prepared to answer a simple question.


Tony

--- Tony Raven said:

Its either/or because the amount of resources, financial or human,

In the lion/cat example its a question of only having one bullet. If
you had a whole magazine full it would be easy. You shoot both, lion
first. With one bullet, unless you can find some fancy way of
enticing
the lion to eat the cat before it eats you or you can get the cat to
stand in front of the lion so you can get both with one shot, how
would
you use your one bullet?

If I only had one bullet I hope I wouldn't waste it on either of them.
Instead, I *HOPE* I'd have the moral courage to admit that my enemies
had me surrounded and shoot my own brains out before either one had the
chance to harm me.

Sorry, but I just don't believe in "Either/Or" situations. Given a
choice of only two options, I'll *ALWAYS* take the third.

Solar Penguin wrote:

If I only had one bullet I hope I wouldn't waste it on either of them.
Instead, I *HOPE* I'd have the moral courage to admit that my enemies
had me surrounded and shoot my own brains out before either one had the
chance to harm me.

Sorry, but I just don't believe in "Either/Or" situations. Given a
choice of only two options, I'll *ALWAYS* take the third.


Amazing. You'd rather use it commit suicide than kill the only thing
that really threatens you. You're right this "debate" is not worth
having. Time for http://www.ebaumsworld.com/penguinswing.html

Tony