Biggest Threats to Cyclists?

Johno100

brat wrote: »

But your answer indicates you're clearly struggling to recognise the difference in the concepts of 'committing' an offence and 'proving' an offence.

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around, does it make a sound?

brat

sithmaster wrote: »

I have seen so many cyclists on the roads and yes some are sensible, but most the ones I come across are not, riding on the wrong side of the road, go through red lights, ride at night with no lights. sadly a lot think the road laws don't apply to them and they can what every they please. so the biggest threat to a cyclist its themselves

You find it so easy to see the offending in other road user groups . It would be so nice for drivers to recognise the failings in their driving that really cause the danger to cyclists. Unfortunately some of the failings are so commonplace that many motorists don't even recognise they're committing them.

The main failings are

• driving too close behind,
• passing too closely,
• overtaking at inopportune times,
• overtaking at inopportune places,
• failing to observe,
• seeing then forgetting,
• failing to judge speed
• incorrect assumption of cyclist's path.

The vast majority of cyclists deaths and serious injuries are primarily caused by motorists; not driving dangerously, merely being unobservant or inattentive or just unaware that they are being inconsiderate.

Avoriaz

Johno100 wrote: »

Yes Mr/Mrs. Perfect

Would you prefer that I drove in a stupid and selfish manner?

brat

Johno100 wrote: »

If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around, does it make a sound?

Perhaps, perhaps not, but there's no disputing that the tree has come down.

You drive over a pedestrian intending to do her harm and kill her. No-one witnesses it, there's no forensics, and a case cannot be built against you.

Can it be proved that you did it? No

Did you do it? Of course.

Are you wrong to deny it? I'd be interested to know your thoughts.

Johno100

brat wrote: »

Are you wrong to deny it? I'd be interested to know your thoughts.

No absolutely nothing wrong in denying it, better luck next time to those trying to prove it.:T

brat

Johno100 wrote: »

No absolutely nothing wrong in denying it, better luck next time to those trying to prove it.:T

Interesting moral insight. Thanks.

Heycock

The police falsify records, lie on oath, make up the rules as they go along, abuse procedure to get a conviction.
So, when in Rome.....
Why should the little guy always play by the rules when those in power don't?

brat

Heycock wrote: »

The police falsify records, lie on oath, make up the rules as they go along, abuse procedure to get a conviction.
So, when in Rome.....
Why should the little guy always play by the rules when those in power don't?

I'd suggest that, like the police, he should play by the rules.
Temptation will often win the day, though, just depends on how much you stand to win/lose.

I know a few police officers who haven't played by the rules. Most of them in hindsight wish they had.

Heycock

brat wrote: »

I'd suggest that, like the police, he should play by the rules.
Temptation will often win the day, though, just depends on how much you stand to win/lose.

I know a few police officers who haven't played by the rules. Most of them in hindsight wish they had.

Probably only when they got caught out without being allowed to take retirement on sickness grounds which is what they usually do. Or not allowed to resign and join a neighbouring force before disciplinary hearings.

brat

Heycock wrote: »

Probably only when they got caught out without being allowed to take retirement on sickness grounds which is what they usually do. Or not allowed to resign and join a neighbouring force before disciplinary hearings.

Absolutely. So, are you comfortable aligning your (the little man's) morality alongside that of those whom you clearly abhor,