Nuxx:S50fl.59216$ey5.36300@newsfe18.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!news2.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!cyclone01.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf01.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe18.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: _  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:05:02 +0000 References:          <6KSdncLMItRxwuHUnZ2dnUVZ8rkLAAAA@bt.com> <8pvon4tn6mbfo5f808gpchahpr781cli25@4ax.com> <192pn41vhil630es3mabhb5iv25lc7bc9q@4ax.com> Lines: 41 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <192pn41vhil630es3mabhb5iv25lc7bc9q@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.21.204.127 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe18.ams2 1232899570 82.21.204.127 (Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:06:10 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:06:10 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 3284 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:683969

judithtaylorsmith3@privacy.net wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:06:14 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" >  wrote: > >> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:49:47 +0000, Tony Dragon >>  said in >> <6KSdncLMItRxwuHUnZ2dnUVZ8rkLAAAA@bt.com>: >> >>> So you agree with cyclist's breaking the law, glad we have established that. >> Nope. I agree with removing the prime incentive for them to do so, >> which also as it turns out is the major source of risk to >> pedestrians (on or off the footway) and cyclists alike. You >> probably didn't notice but I did point out that in many places >> cycling on the footway is now perfectly legal, due to the >> application of Magic White Paint (TM). >> >> Note that in many places there are no footways, pedestrians are >> forced to use the carriageway. > > I doubt "many places"  - but they do have every right to be in the > carriageway. > > >> It is long past time that people stopped making excuses for motor >> danger. >> >> Guy > > Any chance of an answer yet: > > Do you think that as a pedestrian you are more likely to be hit by a > bike being intentionally ridden along the path than you are by a car > being intentionally driven along the path? > No, he cant answer that, because if he did so he's stuck between two rocks - either he says the car's more likely, in which case everyone points and laughs (well, those without their own anticar agenda, anyway) or he says the bike's more likely and ruins his argument. As with many other questions put to him, then, he's forced to stick his fingers in his ears and sing "I cant hear you hahahaha". Poor sod, we should pity him really...