Kill a cyclist, get community punishment

When and how did I try to exclude you? How delusional are you?

You respond to say you are ignoring me but won't actually respond to any points made.

Oh, but he won't respond to points I have raised.

If he wasn't pissed he wouldn't have lost control ...

MG's point is that the KE is proportional to the square of the velocity.

But yes, a vehicle with more mass will also have more KE, but in direct proportion.

Yes, but since not all of the KE will be transferred to the person, conservation of momentum is the more relevant issue.

EDIT: Actually I suspect that the vehicle design is probably very relevant as well.

lucas in reply to @MultiGrooves
I do remember my A-level physics, however you are assuming that the driver won't be decelerating and that 100% of all the energy will be transferred (it won't).

If you're in the middle of a reading/writing/ sending text messages?

I don't do non-elastic systems.

Yes, but that doesn't mean there is some massive conspiracy happening in a jury.

You think juries make their decisions based solely on facts, with their personal sympathies playing no part? I don't think there needs to be a conspiracy...I think someone up thread suggested the notion of a jury of burglars working a robbery trial...

https://www.lfgss.com/comments/12921629/

There we are.

Such wit.

Doing a school bikeability course in Bermondsey and the locals throughout the week were the shit side of humanity. One driver I got into a conversation with was adamant him driving whilst on the phone was not a problem. Nothing you could say would change his mind....Until I asked how he'd feel I did the same and it resulted in his child being knocked down. On the third time of asking the simple question, he finally shut up and finally said, "I really wouldn't like that."

Hopefully this exposes my stance to that wall that people put up to defend the indefensible. Whilst these ridiculous decisions keep happening, I'll keep hoping it happens to those that have the power to make change.

This is part of human nature, Lucas. How can you not conceivably see how this mindset couldn't be applied to member of a jury? One of my early points in the "Is it time to start calling out bad cyclists" thread was that none of us know whom we're dealing with on the street. How do you know when you decide to blast through a red light or a zebra crossing, you're not intimidating a potential member of the jury involved in a cyclist fatality? Or maybe a Judge or magistrate? These aren't robots. The idea that creatures as fallible as humans could be totally objective laughable.

And you think that comment excluded you?

You carried on responding for a long time after that.

There appears to be no logic or reason at all to your posting.

Yes it was a way of excluding me, you were in effect saying "Luke is like these other cunts so don't listen to anything had to say" and I responded in kind by deliberately ignoring anything you presented and you didn't like it.

Not very nice thing to do is it?

The idea that creatures as fallible as humans could be totally objective laughable.

That is why there are several people and they must come to a consensus, it supposed to eliminate any individual's bias.

Oh boohoo.

Your attitude and utter refusal to engage with the facts is the problem. You have cited no factual evidence that speeding or parking badly are not an issue.

Instead you resort to petulant insults.

No, this is where he solicits other forum members to post pics of themselves dancing around in their headphones looking like prize belms.

I don't actually give a shit. The point I was making is that if you have that sort of attitude with drivers that have never been cyclists you aren't likely to win them over.

The easiest way was to be a dick until I got your attention. Probably a bit too meta for ya.

That is why there are several people and they must come to a consensus

Like the consensus on current driving laws and speed limits?

Haha. I had forgotten about that, he made me laugh which is all I really care about.

lucas in reply to @MultiGrooves
The idea that creatures as fallible as humans could be totally objective laughable.
That is why there are several people and they must come to a consensus, it supposed to eliminate any individual's bias.

IF driving is normalised to the majority of them what kind of bias do you expect to see? When media outlets constantly dropping the moronic "WAR ON MOTORISTS" headlines once every 3/4 months, you think this doesn't affect jurors? Even if they themselves don't drive, they'll have people close to them that do drive. How many understand that their driving habit is is not covered by V.E.D (just wait for the puzzled faces..."It's road tax!"). How many understand they're being subsidised by everyone else?

Stopping distance is a big factor.

20mph is 12 meters / 40 feet. 30 mph is 23m / 75 feet and so on. Makes a massive difference if the person in front hits the brakes, someone steps out onto the road, you didn't see that cyclist in your "blind spot"

Don't you think that guardian articles saying that alludes to them basically being biased in the manner you describe won't reinforce that such rhetoric as "The war on motorists"?

Extreme opinions on either side of the debate will always polarize it, when in reality I think that most people are decent people and will make the right decision given the right facts. I suspect the low percentages of convictions is because there "must be no reasonable doubt".

Probably a bit too meta for ya.

Do you even understand the word meta or are you trying to sound clever yet further demonstrating your ignorance?

The point you were trying to make and got called out on is that driving fast and parking dangerously is not a problem. Nothing in that indicated a concept that is an extraction from another concept.

Let me spell it out for you:

1. You said "luke is a cunt like these other fools"
   
2. I wound you up until it was you who was saying "why are you aren't listening to me".
   
3. I told you why.
   
4. You got upset and started throwing more accusations at me
   
5. I then said "you don't like it when someone does something similar".
   
6. This somehow makes me ignorant.
   
   

I basically trolled you into making my point for me.

You can't see how a similar attitude will alienate anyone that might be sympathetic to your position.

It was other people who called you a cunt but you engaged with them. I tried to rationally engage with you and your response was to call me a cunt...

In the meantime you have refused to deal with any of the evidence regarding the danger of speeding.

Extreme opinions on either side of the debate will always polarize it, when in reality I think that most people are decent people and will make the right decision given the right facts. I suspect the low percentages of convictions is because there "must be no reasonable doubt".

What extreme opinion are you talking about? The problem is that juries a repeatedly returning verdicts that fly in the face of the law because the (i) the law does not make appropriate punishments available and so, (ii) the jury sympathises with the defendent, despite it being obvious that they have done something wrong. Essentially we are seeing Jury Nullification on a massive scale, whereby "a jury nullifies by acquitting a defendant, even though the members of the jury may believe that the defendant did the illegal act, yet they don't believe he or she should be punished for it." This is partly because the jury sympathises with the driver but also because they treat the trial as a test of the driver's character. The logic goes something like:

• The accused was doing something that I, myself, do i.e. speeding
  
• I'm not a bad guy
  
• Therefore the accused probably isn't a bad guy
  
• Therefore he probably didn't mean to hurt anyone
  
• Therefore he shouldn't be punished for being unlucky
  
  

The problem (in addition to my earlier points on our failure to reason soundly with regard to probability, which you didn't reply to) is that this fundamentally isn't an issue of character; it's an issue of competence. The driver has shown themselves to be incompetent and shoudl be banned from driving for a substantial period even if it does cause them massive hardship, because their hardship is less important than the safety of others.

This is an excellent explanation of the issue from Beyond the Kerb.