-
Yeah, we don't know he's actually malicious. It's easy to assume malice on the part of drivers when often they probably are just not thinking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
Also applies to silly forum arguments...
-
Dave, have you actually met Michael in person?
I have, and I can assure you that he is nothing like what you seem to assume.
It is in any case very bad form to jump from a small point like that to such personal insults.
The worst thing we can do on the streets is to assume that there's some sort of class war going on and adopt stereotypes of people just because we happen to encounter them while they're using a mode of transport that is different from ours.
Some drivers may only be using a car on that day and perhaps the only time that week or month. Many others are simply victims of a motor dependence from which they can't escape. As a user of a vastly superior mode of transport, you can afford to give them some consideration in view of this regrettable victimhood.
Yes, this driver was driving carelessly, and yes, he could have killed someone. However, instead of speculating over the appropriate level of blame for his actions, let's just be glad that he didn't actually kill anyone. Whatever the exact facts are of what happened, it was certainly a very unusual thing to happen.
Oliver I don't think that was Dave's point. He's trying to say, (and rightly so IMO) that the larger and more dangerous the vehicle, the greater responsibility the driver has to show care and pay attention. this applies regardless of how often the driver gets behind the wheel.
I think it is possible to demarcate behaviour and consequence, and recognise that people hold responsibility for both.
-
Dave, seriously fucking grow up, you're the type of people who actually create a 'us vs. them' situation when there isn't one.
Dave, you really need to get over your hatred for motorised vehicle.
I bet if someone drove over an ASL (quite by accident), you'd yell at them as if they've killed someone.
if there's a cyclists there then she just waited behind them, simple.
we're all human after all, even pilot in big jumbo jet.
Of course you're not against cars, you just see them as weapon, not transport.
ed all you're doing here is projecting an argument on to someone so that you can argue against them.
And the idea that a jumbo jet pilot or a HGV driver has no more responsiblity in controlling his vehicle than a pedestrian or cyclist is frankly laughable nonsense.
-
Oliver I don't think that was Dave's point. He's trying to say, (and rightly so IMO) that the larger and more dangerous the vehicle, the greater responsibility the driver has to show care and pay attention. this applies regardless of how often the driver gets behind the wheel.
I know it probably comes across that i'm just hunting for an argument, I promise i'm not, but I think that's a very dangerous attitude to take, saying you have less responsiblitiy because you're on a bike, just remember, a cyclist can cause an accident on the road as anyone else, sure, they don't kill people directly very often, but that's not to say they don't cause accidents too, anyway, back to my point, if you're on the road, you should be paying 100% attention, which is why I think this "##### should pay greater attention" is a dangerous train of thought, it makes others think they can get away with paying less attention, we all share the same road, we should all share the same responsibilities.
-
According to the Standard story, the lorry door was 'shut' with a coathanger:
It would be unbelievable to me if I hadn't come across stuff like this before.
-
I finally found the right forum for me and shock horror, the story was there too! Those bloody motorists were all blaming the cyclists just as you'd expect them to!
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=19968
Oh, wait, no that can't be right, they're... blaming the driver? Who'd've thought that people on a car forum would have sense eh? Not me that's for sure!
(We need a sarcasm smiley for this site)
-
From the horse's (Boris') mouth:
"If that had been a Cycling Super Highway the driver would have been aware there would be cyclists and it wasn't safe to be catapulting cars about."
....errr...I guess so?! Whereas on those normal "car catapulting ok" roads it's a free for all. Ten points for a beemer.
Down the page here - http://tinyurl.com/raeost
-
Only just caught up with this. Seems I missed some arguing, and some inanity from ed. Fred's in there, nicely, ditto Oliver. And a Python clip. And redheads. This has all the hallmarks of a 5star thread. And Boris is in it!
Just waiting for a chimp, Ma3k's shirvelled person, and something very poigniant from hippy.
I love all you cnuts. -
Oliver I don't think that was Dave's point. He's trying to say, (and rightly so IMO) that the larger and more dangerous the vehicle, the greater responsibility the driver has to show care and pay attention. this applies regardless of how often the driver gets behind the wheel.
I think it is possible to demarcate behaviour and consequence, and recognise that people hold responsibility for both.
Yes, quite right, fred. Sorry, Dave, I did mean to add something like that but forgot (too tired last night). Given the greater potential for harm, it is certainly not the same situation for a cyclist and the operator of a motorised vehicle. Of course, all have the same responsibility to operate their vehicle safely, but the potential consequences are vastly different.
And I'm not just talking about consequences in the event of a collision, but also about things like close overtaking or speeding.
The problem is that if potential consequences were taken into account, the responsibility attached to driving would become crushing. In fact, it has been suggested that if drivers were fully aware of it, many would not drive.
I can't help thinking, though, that 'responsibility' isn't the right word to capture both notions--standard of behaviour and responsibility for consequences, and that may be partly responsible for it being such a contentious point.
I know it probably comes across that i'm just hunting for an argument, I promise i'm not, but I think that's a very dangerous attitude to take, saying you have less responsiblitiy because you're on a bike, just remember, a cyclist can cause an accident on the road as anyone else, sure, they don't kill people directly very often, but that's not to say they don't cause accidents too, anyway, back to my point, if you're on the road, you should be paying 100% attention, which is why I think this "##### should pay greater attention" is a dangerous train of thought, it makes others think they can get away with paying less attention, we all share the same road, we should all share the same responsibilities.
I agree with some of that, Michael, but what I keep saying is that we shouldn't have to have a traffic environment in which people aren't allowed to make mistakes. No-one is ever going to be able to pay 100% attention. The myth that the street environment is 100% unforgiving is a 'Road Safety' myth, a product of a position that refuses to reduce road danger at source.
People are required to be equally responsible because they are people; but they are not equally responsible considering what tools they use. Yes, everybody has the same duty of care in principle (i.e., irrespective of potential to do harm) to avoid harm through their use of such transportation tools (indeed also as a pedestrian, which need not involve any more sophisticated transportation tools than feet or shoes) but in practice (in view of the actual harmful consequences) it is extremely unfair to place the same burden on cyclists and pedestrians as on people using motorised vehicles.
-
I finally found the right forum for me and shock horror, the story was there too! Those bloody motorists were all blaming the cyclists just as you'd expect them to!
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=19968
Oh, wait, no that can't be right, they're... blaming the driver? Who'd've thought that people on a car forum would have sense eh? Not me that's for sure!
(We need a sarcasm smiley for this site)
There does seem to be a majority against speed humps, though. (Fairly cursory, scrappy comments.)
gbj_tester
mmccarthy
Seeds
freddo
Oliver Schick
jonlubi
Skülly-
Post a reply
About
Boris Johnson's Narrow Escape
Posted by
@photoben
Nope...... I see them as very useful forms of transport when needed.