Nuxx:B10fa20f-4f64-47b4-811d-4d0a6aa85b96@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Child Death In Redditch Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 11:18:09 -0700 (PDT) References:   <9d01da1a-4907-4a3b-a064-b8cc9f2f81e2@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <4ac2e807-74ea-4cf2-b37b-b3e169449d2a@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <8f8438f4-faa5-490e-9506-ccb842401fe5@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>  <72c0b107-498a-4239-b608-e5ee4ebbec17@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>   Lines: 76 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.105.129.172 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1217960290 11590 127.0.0.1 (5 Aug 2008 18:18:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:18:10 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=88.105.129.172; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.1) Gecko/2008070208 Firefox/3.0.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4734 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:660948

On Aug 5, 11:52=A0am, spindrift  wrote: > On Aug 5, 11:45=A0am, Ace  wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 02:54:58 -0700 (PDT), spindrift > > >  wrote: > > > you seem happy to accept that it was an > > >"accident" (your quotes), > > > Of course. Unless you're trying to say it was a deliberate act, then > > it can only have been an accident. > > > >I said exactly the opposite, read my post again, we know far too > > >little to attribute blame. Please don't misrepresent what I've said. > > > Well if I've done so it was solely from what you wrote, so you clearly > > didn't make your point very well ;-) > > > >" yet you seem to believe that errors of judgement on the part of any > > >motor vehicle user are unnacceptable. " > > > >When have I ever made any such point? What are you talking about? Are > > >you mixing me up with someone else? > > > No, I was simply extrapolating from your post, where you implied that > > an "accident" is somehow different from an error on the part of a > > motorist, i.e. this bit: > > > >> > Most RTAs are caused not by > > >> >"accident" but by driver error, be it speeding, drunk, drugged, > > >> >distracted, whatever. > > > If you're happy with the idea that all of these are equally accidents, > > then what exactly were you trying to say? > > > -- > > Ace in Alsace > > I said we know too little to apportion blame > How do you get drunk accidently? > > If a driver chooses to increase the risk to others by speeding (higher > speeds make accidents more likely and more serious)

Let's all go everywhere at 1mph then shall we? After all, higher speed increases the risk.

Would you like drivers to go everywhere at 1mph? If not, why not? Surely that would be safer?

> then the resulting > collision is not an accident, it's a result of the driver's wilfull > choice. That's why "accident" was in parenthesis. We don't know yet, > but true accidents beyond anything the driver could have done are as > rare as hens' teeth.

I don't disagree with that, except for the ludicrous implication that if the driver happened to be above an arbitrary speed limit, it's suddenly his fault. If he was going too fast, that's a different matter, but that's completely different to speeding, and you know it.

Also, if speeding's so dangerous, and drivers can't be trusted to judge when to do it, how come only 5% of accidents involve a speeding vehicle, when drivers are speeding 50% of the time? Oh sorry, you don't like people broadcasting such awkward statistics, do you? Just look at your vendetta against Paul Smith just because he dared to "pollute" the national media with such annoying true facts.

> For instance, if drivers and cyclists adhere to the HC, there would be > virtually zero cyclists' deaths. Yet in most cycling fatalities the > driver is ar fault.

Evidence? And if you really think that, it's no surprise that you're anti-motorist, and you want cars off the road.