Nuxx:Aadb9397-c249-4e68-8cc3-44be01a54c96@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: "Acting to avoid more deaths of cyclists" Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:32:43 -0800 (PST) References: <4532521b-6796-442c-9359-73e5478b7713@x11g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> <00d0b714-34cf-4ddf-96d8-64b83dddd144@d2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> <3b271e14-e4d5-487d-b269-d59b014ee335@l18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> Lines: 42 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1297956763 24136 127.0.0.1 (17 Feb 2011 15:32:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:32:43 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5.8; U; en) Presto/2.7.62 Version/11.01,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3181 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:799435

On Feb 17, 11:50=A0am, Doug  wrote: > On Feb 17, 9:55=A0am, Nuxx Bar  wrote:> On F= eb 17, 7:42=A0am, > > If it were literally a straight choice between entering a lorry's > > blind spot and disobeying the Highway Code in some way, which would > > you do? > > Given that HGVs are not properly equipped to give safe all round > vision, I try to avoid them as much as possible, thus remaining alive > long enough to question the widespread use of vulnerable victim > blaming as an excuse for killer drivers, no doubt for insurance > purposes. > > What about my question above? Do you have anything to contribute on > the matter?

No need to be like that :-P You haven't answered my question anyway....

> How about pavement cycling and running red lights to > improve personal safety?

In all honesty I do think pavement cycling is the safest option in some circumstances (but mostly on roads which you'd be wise to avoid cycling anywhere near). I doubt jumping a red light as a cyclist is safer than not doing so in all but the most unlikely situations, but OK, let's face it, it's safe a lot of the time, if not necessarily a good thing for the wider picture.

Since I'm being honest about when I think it's safe for cyclists to break the law, perhaps you and others could follow suit and stop pretending to think speeding is so much more dangerous than it actually is, simply because you want an excuse to prosecute people for driving safely? No, thought not. So why should I and others be upfront with you? When is the silly "71 on a motorway is SOOOOO dangerous" charade going to stop?

> A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Really? So if you've got a driving licence then you're allowed to kill people without any comeback? I had no idea. I'm going for a drive.