Hypothetical law change? Lorry on bike: lorry's fault. Bike on ped: bike's fault

This is a very poor argument indeed.
Must Try Harder.

I'm going to pick apart the usual stupidity of your posts because I'm bored
1.ed in no way suggests that mobiles are the sole cause.
2.
yup this comment makes perfect sense, because it has been proven that if you don't pay attention whilst you do anything- you do worse at it.
(in case this isn't clear- I'm laughing at the ridiculous tautology in the statement)

things that distract you- make you pay less attention, by their very definition.
Mobile phones distract you. The act of carrying a conversation, let alone holding a rectangular object to your skull, has been shown to be able to distract a driver enough to significantly slow down reaction speed.

Lynx - you are either the master wind up artist, very bored, or just very poor at making a point. I'm going to allow you to try and make a cogent reply, and await it with baited breath.
Furthermore, of the menaces on the road of London today, mobile phones are high on my list. Not looking is inevitable, but a mobile phone usage means that even with a definite look the driver may not register you are there.

I'm sorry lynx, normally I don't like it when people pick on you, but recently I have come to the conclusion that it is fair.

The point that I trying to make is nothing will alter some people delusion of the 'i'm in a metal box nothing can hurt me crumple zone, air bang brake assist' this the attitude that needs to change. Never had a cabby uturn on you for a fair on the opposite side of the road?

Great britian is not the rest of europe and driving styles and attitudes are very different.

The point that I trying to make is nothing will alter some people delusion of the 'i'm in a metal box nothing can hurt me crumple zone, air bang brake assist' this the attitude that needs to change.

*I don't think this when I drive- maybe you might, but generalisations are not useful either.
*
wait that's a generalisation. FUCK I hate Karl Popper.
umm- basically all swans are white. because I say so.
I'll edit:
Of the people who drive on here- I wonder who thinks this. Ed make a valid point- the cost to a person in a crash is monetary as well as pyschological or physical.

Never had a cabby uturn on you for a fair on the opposite side of the road?

Ever been surprised that they have to do it to make a living?
I don't think you ride enough to question other people's riding in london if the answer is yes.
poor rhetoric won't get your point any credit here.

Great britian is not the rest of europe and driving styles and attitudes are very different.

before I say 'wrong' what point is this trying to prove?

The point that I trying to make is nothing will alter some people delusion of the 'i'm in a metal box nothing can hurt me crumple zone, air bang brake assist' this the attitude that needs to change.

it will if it going to cost them their hard-earned money and/or their license.

people only change if it will affect them, like 'money'.

I'm OK with the OP's proposed law change. In every close call I've had with a pedestrian, the ped has been crossing recklessly. I don't run them down on marked crossing strips.

it will if it going to cost them their hard-earned money and/or their license.

people only change if it will affect them, like 'money'.

There are already laws in place for this. The fact that the law can't be arsed to investigate and prosecute is more of an issue.

The proposed change would need to make sure that all road users have some form of third party liability insurance, you know, just incase the cyclist/ped were proved to be at fault.

*I don't think this when I drive- maybe you might, but generalisations are not useful either.
*
wait that's a generalisation. FUCK I hate Karl Popper.
umm- basically all swans are white. because I say so.
I'll edit:
Of the people who drive on here- I wonder who thinks this. Ed make a valid point- the cost to a person in a crash is monetary as well as pyschological or physical.

Popped out for dinner/lunch snack, back now. Did I mention how I drive? I mentioned a generalisation I feel from cycling, riding and driving round the country.

Ever been surprised that they have to do it to make a living?
I don't think you ride enough to question other people's riding in london if the answer is yes.
poor rhetoric won't get your point any credit here.

before I say 'wrong' what point is this trying to prove?

The point I've been trying to make, and I feel like is being missed, is that paying attention to what is going on around you if you don't pay attention does it matter if your on the phone, drunk, wondering if you can afford that new sexy merino wool rapha top?

Having lived europe I get the feeling that having a culture where cycling, scooter and driving go hand in hand growing up that the drivers are more aware of cyclists and motorcyclists.

if you don't pay attention does it matter if your on the phone, drunk, wondering if you can afford that new sexy merino wool rapha top?

yes of course it bloody does, even if you don't pay attention, being on the phone will *worsen* your concentration!

so you're pointing out that people don't pay attention whilst driving.
Like ed did, and you insuated that mobile phone use was less serious than other distractors (I again refer you to my wikipedia link), like the HGV thread has suggested at times, like rants about drivers which appear daily on this forum?

Essentially lynx- you are repeating an oft-repeated complaint on this forum that pretty much everyone already knows and should adjust their cycling to best deal with it.
Ride safe: Assume everyone is an idiot.

ciao.
x

yes of course it bloody does, even if you don't pay attention, being on the phone will *worsen* your concentration!

If you are not paying attention, how can anything worsen it?

Because it removed your concentration *further away* while driving a vehicle.

as the picture show, I'm not going to says it again.

so you're pointing out that people don't pay attention whilst driving.
Like ed did, and you insuated that mobile phone use was less serious than other distractors (I again refer you to my wikipedia link), like the HGV thread has suggested at times, like rants about drivers which appear daily on this forum?

Essentially lynx- you are repeating an oft-repeated complaint on this forum that pretty much everyone already knows.

There is no need to insinuate it, you can drive a vehicle and have a conversation on the mobile, as long as its not in your hands. What I will repeat is that if you are not paying attention, such as mind else where for what ever reason such as a sick parent or child, other distractions don't have any effect.

You're doing my head in, it's half five and the sun about to go down, I'm off for a ride.

I suggest you should do the same in your van.

Dear lynx,
You haven't read my link.
Here it is again:
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety[/ame]
Rgds.
Henry

If you are trying to say it is legal to do so, then you are correct- well done.
your entire post is incomprehensible to me:

There is no need to insinuate it, you can drive a vehicle and have a conversation on the mobile, as long as its not in your hands. What I will repeat is that if you are not paying attention, such as mind else where for what ever reason such as a sick parent or child d other distractions have any effect.

No sentences here make sense- I've been trying to read it for a little while.
but I will try and argue with what I think is your point:
Distractions are not singular whilst on the road, they are cumulative (they add up). So if you get in a car and are distracted to begin with- any more distractions en route will increase your distraction level.
mobile phone use, or even conversations of any kind (I AGAIN refer you to my link) are significant distractors, with ALL categories for reaction speed and driving decision making being statistically significantly lower than even an intoxicated person- a hallmark and a current focus of dangerous driving campaigns.

You're doing my head in, it's half five and the sun about to go down, I'm off for a ride.

I suggest you should do the same in your van.

Good luck with riding as that high horse on a bike must make life difficult.

I would love to go for a ride, but I took my bike apart to clean it.
I thought it was going to rain after my morning ride.
sigh.

It will be discriminating against the majority to protect the minority, which isn't right.

Read this sentence again, and check that it doesn't make you sound like a cunt.

Drivers insurance premiums will go up if this comes into effect.. meanwhile we don't have to pay for insurance or road tax, or be licensed. Not fair on motorists.

That's assuming that both modes of transport are equally socially desirable, equally at risk from other road users and equally dangerous to other road users.

And I can't believe that you've been on this forum as long as you have and you're bringing up "road tax". UTFS.

lynx, why are you **insulating **that it's okay for you to talk on the phone while driving your van?

so you're pointing out that people don't pay attention whilst driving.
Like ed did, and you** insuated** that mobile phone use was less serious than other distractors
x

There is no need to insinuate it, you can drive a vehicle and have a conversation on the mobile, as long as its not in your hands. What I will repeat is that if you are not paying attention, such as mind else where for what ever reason such as a sick parent or child, other distractions don't have any effect.

What can we infer? I mean in fur? I mean infant?

Dear lynx,
You haven't read my link.
Here it is again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety
Rgds.
Henry

If you are trying to say it is legal to do so, then you are correct- well done.
your entire post is incomprehensible to me:

No sentences here make sense- I've been trying to read it for a little while.
but I will try and argue with what I think is your point:
Distractions are not singular whilst on the road, they are cumulative (they add up). So if you get in a car and are distracted to begin with- any more distractions en route will increase your distraction level.
mobile phone use, or even conversations of any kind (I AGAIN refer you to my link) are significant distractors, with ALL categories for reaction speed and driving decision making being statistically significantly lower than even an intoxicated person- a hallmark and a current focus of dangerous driving campaigns.

So how many times will you post that link, and make the point that if its so bad why don't the government ban it?

If you are not paying attention/distracted at what point does the distraction become total? Proof being I'm watching tele and messing around on the internet.

PS cleaning a bike, pah.

What can we infer? I mean in fur? I mean infant?

Bad spellers of the world untie.

^What's Joe got to do with all this?

;)

Driving a car puts more people at risk, it is only fair that drivers take more responsibility. I have asked French drivers what they thought of their law and they all said that it is very fair.

I am not sure why it is such a big deal here. Drivers seem to be so against it that It sounds as if they have regular accidents with cyclists and peds, which is a worry!

The OP stated "In a bike on ped accident there would be a presumption of fault on the part of the bike"

Which no one here has agreed with, which sounds as if they have regular accidents with peds, which is indeed a worry.

YouTube- TAC Safety TV Ad - Don't Drive While Distracted #1

Very good ad.

The OP stated "In a bike on ped accident there would be a presumption of fault on the part of the bike"

Which no one here has agreed with, which sounds as if they have regular accidents with peds, which is indeed a worry.

If a cyclist collides with a ped they both could be badly injured or worse (which is not true in a car).