This morning's commute and other commuting stories

or assaulting pedestrians

or sticking pedestrians in cyclists spokes.

I don't break the law, ever, so I can criticise whoever I want, AND I DO

Sorry. You're obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and I'm always unsure as to how to approach a heated debate with someone who's cripplingly stupid. It's frustrating.

Anyway, off home..

At 3.44? Mate, when I was at school I'd be out that fucking place at 3.30 on the DOT

At 3.44? Mate, when I was at school I'd be out that fucking place at 3.30 on the DOT

I know! Got caught posting to this forum, didn't I? Got an hour's detention. Once teacher saw how I'd kicked the living shit out of ignorant fuckers with no knowledge of or ability to discuss logic or law, she reduced it to 10 minutes.

This.

Plus, there's the humungous hypocrisy of the cyclists who run a red light, and then bitch when someone in a car does the same.

'But, the potential for harm is greater with cars!!' they whine.

Spare me. It's about the law. We can't criticise others for breaking it, if we do exactly the same.

However we wouldn't have contra-flow cycle lanes up one way roads if it wasn't for people breaking the rules. So sometimes it can be beneficial. Sometimes.

Might be a fun commute on the way home with all those angry cabbies protesting against progress and a free market

^^ happy shopper jeez.

I had a commute today. The sun shone, the cars bar one or two gave me enough room, no other cyclists messed with me, apart from giving me a little nod and a wink.

I gotta say it was a good day.

Much better than sticking sticks in someone's wheels, as endorsed above.

I just got home. Took me a bit longer this way - 13.4 mph average, but I pushed up Greenwich Park, since I'm a wuss.

Might be a fun commute on the way home with all those angry cabbies protesting against progress and a free market

Cheapside was basically gridlocked. Headed down onto Cannon Street and then King William Street.

Good thread. Would read again. Puzzled why someone who just joined would be so shouty.

I'm quite an opinionated cunt.

But I'm never wrong.

Well.. I was once. 3 September 1974, I thought my sister-in-law was having a son. Turned out it was a daughter.

You sound very familiar, lfklsdjkjf;lsd, I suspect you're scared of arm-wrestling.

I'll pick you up on one thing.

Practically you are right.

Intellectually you are wrong - one can make an entirely rational judgement that motor vehicles that can kill at the click of a finger need to obey the law 100%, 100% of the time, whereas peds and cyclists who invariably do very little harm in collisions can break the law so long as they do it in a considerate way without harming or even scaring others.

Some laws are more important or serious than others, and you'd really have to be a stupid moron car driver not to realise that it is an entirely different thing when a cyclist slowly and carefully jumps a red risking only his own life, and what drivers do in killing machines.

Edit - not accusing you of stupidity. Plenty of people are hence, practically, you are right.

If you ever study law, you will learn that (grossly oversimplifying) there are two kinds of offence: conduct offences, and result offences. Result offences are relatively easy to define, being predicated on there being a result which stems from the defendant's behaviour. Examples of this - easy: criminal damage.

Conduct offences are different. You are guilty of the offence as soon as you do the deed (actus reus), with the intention to do the deed (mens rea). The result is irrelevant. Speeding is such an offence. Skelp it up the M25 at 125 mph, and you are getting nicked, and convicted. It matters not that you didn't knock anyone down. It matters not that you didn't crash. You were speeding, you intended to speed .. banged to rights.

Going through a red light is a conduct offence. Once the actus reus and mens rea are present, the offence is complete. That you didn't knock someone over, or hit another vehicle, is irrelevant.

That's the legal position, and demonstrates that in law, there is no difference between a car driver running a red light and you doing it on your bike. The only reason car drivers get sanctioned more often is because they have plastic rectangular plaques front and back, and it's easier to trace them.

There is also the principle. How can any of us, with a straight face, whinge about cars etc. who jump red lights, when some of us do the same? 'It's not as bad 'cos we don't cause damage?'

Fine. Let people speed on empty motorways, then. After all, they're very unlikely to cause damage.

From ROSPA

What are the most common causes of road accidents?
On August 17th 1896, Bridget Driscoll was knocked down and killed by a car in London. The first fatal road accident in Britain, involving the driver and passengers of a motor car, occurred on 23 February 1899. While attempting to turn a corner at over 25mph the car's wheels collapsed. The occupants were thrown out and the driver and front seat passenger killed. Newspapers hoped that this terrible accident would convince drivers to take greater care and keep their speed down.

Today, Great Britain has one of the best road safety records in Europe and the world. Despite massive increases in traffic over the last few decades, the number of people killed on our roads has fallen from around 5,500 per year in the mid 1980s to 1,754 in 2012. However, this still means that around five people die on Britain's roads every day.

Sadly, driver error remains the most common cause of road accidents.

Speeding
Around 400 people a year are killed in crashes in which someone exceeds the speed limit or drives too fast for the conditions.

Drink Driving
Around 280 people die a year in crashes in which someone was over the legal drink drive limit.

Seat Belt Wearing
Around 300 lives each year could be saved if everyone always wore their seat belt.

Careless Driving
Around 300 deaths a year involve someone being "careless, reckless or in a hurry", and a further 125 involve "aggressive driving".

At-work
Around one third of fatal and serious road crashes involve someone who was at work.

Inexperience
More than 400 people are killed in crashes involving young car drivers aged 17 to 24 years, every year, including over 150 young drivers, 90 passengers and more than 170 other road users.

Failed to Look Properly
40% of road crashes involve someone who 'failed to look properly'.

Loss of Control
One third of fatal crashes involved 'loss of control' of a vehicle.

Failed to Judge Other Person's Path/Speed
One in five crashes involve a road user failing to judge another person's path or speed.

Free Flow Vehicle Speed
Statistics: Great Britain 2013

https://t.co/fdnwrukYrq (pdf)

From ROSPA

What are the most common causes of road accidents?

SNIP

Interesting. I'm guessing that there's some point to that, and it's probably something like, 'cyclists jumping red lights don't kill or injure anyone'?

It is, therefore, wholly irrelevant.

Thanks anyway.

You sound very familiar, lfklsdjkjf;lsd, I suspect you're scared of arm-wrestling.

Wot, with this right arm??

Well, with either. Do carry on.

I know! Got caught posting to this forum, didn't I? Got an hour's detention. Once teacher saw how I'd kicked the living shit out of ignorant fuckers with no knowledge of or ability to discuss logic or law, she reduced it to 10 minutes.

What the fuck are you telling me for?

Hang on, I hate red light jumpers! Confused. Can someone just tell me who's side I'm supposed to be on?

Red!

Hang on, I hate red light jumpers! Confused. Can someone just tell me who's side I'm supposed to be on?

Mine. You can't go wrong. :)

Which is why people shouldn't be driving and the Robocars thread is over there ->

I just want all the drivers to love me, that's all I aks

then you need to get everyone everywhere to stop doing things that other people dont like them doing. E V E R Y O N E.

Except jeez, no matter what you say he'll be opposed.

He's the thumb that proves we are evolved.