On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:06:17 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote in message
:

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

Not hardly. In fact this kind of anti-cyclist bigotry is so common
and so unvarying in its content that I have a stock response:

url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Bloody_cyclists

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

--- "Just zis Guy, you know?" said:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:06:17 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote in message

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

Not hardly. In fact this kind of anti-cyclist bigotry is so
common and so unvarying in its content

And the fact that this alleged bigotry *is* so common, doesn't clue you
in to the fact that just maybe it isn't bigotry after all , but good old
fashioned common sense?


that I have a stock response:


url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/...nts/Bloody_cyc
lists


Strange how the so-called bigotry makes more sense than your response
too

Ningi wrote:


Well, my experience of cycling from Waterloo to Bank several times a
week is that at least 75% of cyclists go straight through red lights. If
the same numbers applied to cars, then 75% of the time, a car arriving
at a red light should jump it. This isn't even remotely the case. I
can't actually remember when I last saw a car jump a red, whereas I find
it a rarity when I see a cyclist, other than me, who stopped for one.


That would accord with my experience with cars. Lights go red, three
cars carry on, fourth car stops, rest have to stop behind it. With
cyclists and the same percentage you would see 10 cyclists approach, 3
cross on red, fourth stops, next three cycle past stopped cyclist to
cross on red etc. So with a 75% disobedience rate for both you would
see three out of all the cars approaching the red light carry on but 75%
of all cyclists.

Tony

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

Silas Denyer wrote:
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?

Best wishes, Silas


Just get the police to do their job. You pay for them with your taxes.
Troll.

Tony Raven wrote in message ...

FWIW you might like to know that triage is sorting patients according to
their need for or likely benefit from immediate treatment. In the
disaster/battlefield scenario it is about maximising the number of
survivors. I would say either interpretation would leave cyclists sat in
the waiting room for a long time before they received attention.

To add to Tonys comment It is triage because casualties are divided
into three groups.
Those so seriously injured they are likely to die anyway - no
treatment.
Those with relatively minor injuries likely to survive anyway - no
treatment.
Those with potentially fatal but treatable injuries - treated
immediately.
Only after those casualties in the 3rd category were dealt with
would the 1st and second groups be treated.
Iain

--- 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

Solar Penguin opined the following...
And the fact that this alleged bigotry *is* so common, doesn't clue you
in to the fact that just maybe it isn't bigotry after all , but good old
fashioned common sense?

Yup. Just like the good ol' fashioned common sense that said that wimmen
coont be educated, and that dem black folks was fit ony fuh scrubbin'
floors.

Funny old world isn't it?

Jon

Solar Penguin opined the following...
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.

Quitter! You could take your chances shooting the lion and stroke the
cat. Given a situation where you stand a possible chance of surviving
versus blowing your brains out, you'd choose the latter. Good to know.
That's one faulty genetic line eliminated. NEXT! ;-)

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

And given the choice of dealing with fatalities caused by cyclists and
fatalities caused by motor cars with a budget that can deal with the
latter using an existing framework, but which cannot conceivably cover
the costs of the former for little benefit, what exactly is the third
option?

Jon