Nuxx:2c4303ab-fac0-4fa3-acd2-61eebd407c1e@l13g2000vba.googlegroups.com

Path: number6.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!l13g2000vba.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <2c4303ab-fac0-4fa3-acd2-61eebd407c1e@l13g2000vba.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Those dreadful railings! Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 02:51:25 -0700 (PDT) References: <8c533a38-ede8-4175-b70a-62dfb920c47c@f19g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>    <7100a812-93af-4c1b-9079-3e6f98200a07@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 39 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.248.79 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1239443485 8009 127.0.0.1 (11 Apr 2009 09:51:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 09:51:25 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: l13g2000vba.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.248.79; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.8) Gecko/2009032609 Firefox/3.0.8 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3253 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:828773

On Apr 10, 6:48=A0pm, "Paul - xxx"  wrote: > squas...@gmail.com wrote: > > On 10 Apr, 12:55, "Paul - xxx"  wrote: > > > squas...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On 10 Apr, 09:04, "Graham Harrison" > > > >  wrote: > > > > > "Doug"  wrote > > > > > > I wonder how many cyclist deaths are directly attributable to > > > > > > these railings. > > > > > > I guess you are saying that if the railings had not been there > > > > > the cyclist would have been able to escape to the pavement. =A0 > > > > > Might it have been better if the cyclist had not been in a > > > > > position where the truck could crush her? > > > > > And where realistically would that be in such an artificial > > > > environment? > > > > She could have stayed behind the truck instead of 'undertaking' it > > > ... > > > As I said elsewhere :- > > where "she would have been on the inside of some other lorry. Or a > > bus." All turning. > > But she wasn't, she tried undertaking this lorry ... If she hadn't been > trying to undertake anything she'd (likely) have been OK. > > > In order to make things easier for motorised traffic, we have created > > extremely hostile environments. > > But the environment isn't inherently hostile if you follow 'rules' and > don't (as a cyclist) undertake long vehicles as they turn. =A0Or are you > saying cycling is hostile? =A0All traffic benefits from not having peds > walk out at junctions. =A0If a cyclist doesn't understand the dynamics of > large vehicles turning at sharp junctions then they should stay well > clear of them instead of trying to beat them round the corner

Careful, you're actually sounding reasonable.