Search results for:

On Saturday had a lovely ride with my mum (who was in staying with me for the weekend) and my sister (who doesn't cycle in London). I lent my mum my geared bike and we got a borisbike for my sister and rode from camden down and round soho and then back. Lovely ride, apart from the sporadic showers. Nice getting the family out too.

I don't think that at all. But to me the balance is in favour of the law. How many things can you do which you find immoral yet are totally legal. I would guess not many?

Ah, we agree on this then. yes, morality is usually on the side of the law (but not always), so lets not assume they are both the same. Therefore driving past a school at 60 is always morally despicable (but running into the 90 y/o benefit thief is not).

Next week for shits and giggles I will be arguing we should not rlj.

I think we should argue that racism is Christian

nope try again...

if I pull a skid to stop but the skid carries me over the stop line, so i just continue going. clearly the intention to stop was there!

The RLJ thread is hilarious today though, well done Iz

it's fucking keeping me from writing this agenda, that's what it's doing.

Pop Quiz kids...

When are you allowed to go through Red Light. ??? Pefectly legal...

(and no not a member of the Emergency services, or royal family)

when riding brakless?

post

Just my point really - the law only dictates what is permissible and what is not. Right and wrong are independent of this. In your scenario, anyone running over the sweet old lady is a cunt, regardless of the colour of the lights or the vehicle they were in. unless she is a fucking benefit fraudster.

Interesting. You appear to believe in a moral standard that exisits for all time. A very Christian viewpoint but one which is not supported evidentially, even if one looks at Christian history. Morals are subjective. Legislation objective. In cases such as racism, legislation has helped to change popular morality.

The point I was trying to make was that morals and morality are completely independent from legislation, even though they usually tend to agree. Therefore, what is allowed by legislation is not necessarily correct morally, which I feel was what kerley was arguing for.

Aren't you supposed to be working now too??? ;)

supposedly

Excuse me Ruben, there shall be no reasonable and thought out arguments in this thread. Just cunts and not cunts.

Oh ok. In that case:

*Not everyone who RLJ's is a cunt.
Not everyone who is a cunt RLJ's.
*

Yes I would drive at 60 in that case as the law would only be changed to 60 if it made sense to do so.

So using DJ's example - racism was all fine and dandy in the past since the law had not been changed to make it illegal therefore there was no sense in racism being illegal?
Your argument presupposes that those in charge of legislation will always make a decision that is correct and makes sense. While this is often true (most laws actually do make sense) it is not true all of the time. If you use the letter of the law as your moral compass (as you seem to advocate) then you WILL find yourself in a situation where the law permits action which is neither sensible nor 'morally correct' (I use this term loosely - moral correctness is very much subjective). If you want to follow the letter of the law simply because it is the letter of the law - that is fine. However, don't be surprised that some people follow the law because it falls in line with their moral values - and that they will break it when it does not.

Of course the law decides what actions are good or bad as it goes hand in hand with the punishment/penalty. You only punish for doing something which is seen as bad don't you so the fact it is bad has already been decided.

Two situations. In the first, a cyclist arrives at a pedestrian crossing signalled by traffic lights. The lights are red but apart from the cyclist, both the roads and pavements are completely deserted. After looking around to check, the cyclist jumps the red light. This is illegal - therefore what the cyclist has done is bad.

In the second, a car speedily approaches a busy crossroads and pedestrian intersection. The lights turn amber for the car, and pedestrians start to cross before the man turns green. The car is rather close to the intersection, so rather than slow down and stop for the amber he speeds up in hopes of making it across, beeping and tooting his horn to get people crossing out of the way - and narrowly misses hitting them. This is not illegal (as far as I am aware? please correct)

• therefore what the motorist has done is good.
  
  

I don't condone breaking the law - mostly it is there for good reason. However, if you read the above two situations and don't think there is anything wrong with them, then you are clearly rather screwed up. Whatever you may say, you cannot classify someone's actions as bad or good just because the law says those actions are permitted or not. Just because DJ jumps red lights does not mean he is any less 'good' than the truck driving granny who has stopped at every single red light she encountered for the past 80 years.

If you are using the road then the laws of the road apply. What if I decide that it is okay to drive everywhere at 60, is that okay? If not then who are you to say, I know let's let the law decide!

So according to you, if the law was changed to actually allow everyone to drive around everywhere at 60mph, then you would do so because 'it is ok'. I'm sure the mothers of the kids you run over going past a school at 60 would disagree on how 'right' that is.

The law dictates what actions are permitted and what actions are disallowed through penalty or punishment - that is all. It does not determine which actions are good and which are bad.

It is not for you or others to determine which laws are right and wrong I'm afraid.

Surely SOMEONE has to determine which laws are right and wrong? And who is to say that they are right?

I want beer and pizza already. And sadly think I might not be able to make it again this week due to work commitments (ie, work cocktail party). Why are mondays so awful?

I thought it was poor positioning of bikes at junctions coupled with unsatisfactory detection systems on lorries and buses along with improperly designed traffic systems which allow too large vehicles to navigate roads and junctions which are generally too small. I might be wrong though, so please do correct me.

his real ones are much bigger

no cure for what he has

sharing accounts like the lovers that you clearly are

spill more stuff on lap. claim a pret delivery guy knocked into you in the lobby. at least that way you don't come off as a spacker

I did this. Took it to lbs for final truing. my wheels are ace.

Im guessing his shop Route Canal, Ill give him a shout. Would be a massive help if you could pick em up for me.

pm me details and i'll see what I can do

Can anyone do me a massive favour? James (pistoffski) has some threaded carbon forks that Ive said Ill have. Problem is he wants em picked up as sonn as possible and Im away til next monday. Could anyone go get them for me? I will of course reward you handsomely with beer/man love*

*Not applicable to women

where/when? might be able to make myself useful

appearance up the hill will heavily depend on how wet i get between clapham and camden.

nein - still working on catching up with sleep. nearly dozed off while sitting across from my boss :/

awesome ride, thanks Oliver for organizing, des for being backstop, dropout for taking us over the hills and everyone for cheerful banter all the way down. knee feels horrible - i think the roll down from ditchling to brighton is what did it - otherwise think I've recovered (could do with more sleeping though)

ok, anyone sharing numbers before leaving? mine is oh78ohseven1fiveseven 3sixfive just in case