S-Man
Kinkless Tetrode Admirer
I There are degrees of wrong in red light jumping,
That's not the impression I get from some PFM'ers. They would have me hung, drawn and driven over!
I There are degrees of wrong in red light jumping,
Whataboutism writ large there, though.
It’s neither vexatious nor moronic. The OP is about cyclists being treated the same as motorists, and that not being fair. You are apparently arguing that because some drivers behave very badly, that’s no justification for punishing cyclists who behave badly. It’s a non-sequitur and textbook whataboutism: ‘never mind X, what about Y’If you think that's whataboutery, you're either being vexatious or a moron. Which is it? I doubt it's the latter.
The OP is specifically about establishing a legal equivalence between pedal cycles and Porsche Macaus. I am pointing out that this is irrational to a level of complete stupidity.
cycles are equal to cars.
It’s neither vexatious nor moronic. The OP is about cyclists being treated the same as motorists, and that not being fair. You are apparently arguing that because some drivers behave very badly, that’s no justification for punishing cyclists who behave badly. It’s a non-sequitur and textbook whataboutism: ‘never mind X, what about Y’
So just to be clear if a pedestrian is killed by a cyclist you believe the punishment should be less than that of the same offence if perpetrated by someone driving a motor vehicle. The frequency of such an event is irrelevent to the question BTW.I agree, but it's a compete irrelevance.
In the last 12 months, 531 people were injured by cyclists. No one died.
In the same period, 19,243 cyclists were injured by motor vehicles and 112 of those were killed and 23,805 pedestrians were injured by motor vehicles and 470 of those killed.
We are talking about an occurrence that is so rare it barely merits a statistical blip and in the one case that always pops up, the victim was significantly culpable. This is complete hot air cynically deployed to victimise a group purely to deflect from the governments failings.
So just to be clear if a pedestrian is killed by a cyclist you believe the punishment should be less than that of the same offence if perpetrated by someone driving a motor vehicle. The frequency of such an event is irrelevent to the question BTW.
No, I am not. I am saying that the law is already there to ensure that they do got an equivalent punishment and that this is a cynical ploy to curry favour with core tory voters and stir up resentment towards an already victimised group.So just to be clear if a pedestrian is killed by a cyclist you believe the punishment should be less than that of the same offence if perpetrated by someone driving a motor vehicle. The frequency of such an event is irrelevent to the question BTW.
If you don't think the frequency is relevant, then I assume you think we should legislate for all sorts of specific and unlikely or infrequent modes of death or murder? Death by battering with a round of cheddar? Or a 2'x3' bit of marine ply?So just to be clear if a pedestrian is killed by a cyclist you believe the punishment should be less than that of the same offence if perpetrated by someone driving a motor vehicle. The frequency of such an event is irrelevent to the question BTW.
No, I am not. I am saying that the law is already there to ensure that they do got an equivalent punishment and that this is a cynical ploy to curry favour with core tory voters and stir up resentment towards an already victimised group.
In the index offence, the cyclist in question ran over a jaywalker and was doing under the speed limit. Do you think a driver would have got the same penalty under those circumstances?
Do you think we need a separate law for every single implement that could be used to kill someone?
Yes. The punishment should be less.So just to be clear if a pedestrian is killed by a cyclist you believe the punishment should be less than that of the same offence if perpetrated by someone driving a motor vehicle. The frequency of such an event is irrelevent to the question BTW.
Wow that's a strong statement, at least you have stated your viewpoint on this.Yes. The punishment should be less.
The severity of the punishment is meant to act as a deterrent as well as revenge.
A cyclist does not need a legal deterrent to avoid crashing into pedestrians, because the deterrent value is the cyclist's own self-preservation itself.
If I lightly clip a pedestrian's rucksack with my bars, there is a high chance that that will cause me to crash.
If I do crash, then I could get away with a light graze or I could have long term shoulder/arm fracture complications. Self-preservation.
This is just blue meat and you shouldn't be falling for it.
If I lightly clip a pedestrian's rucksack with my bars, there is a high chance that that will cause me to crash.
If I lightly clip a pedestrian's rucksack with my bars, there is a high chance that that will cause me to crash.
I'd do similar, except I'd pop a one-handed wheelie and give the middle finger to any cameras, just so I can become an internet sensation. Or end up on my arse...Well I will confess to cycing through a red light.
In the evening, the lights at the nearest crossroads to home are triggered by an inductive loop. A cyclist does not trigger this loop. There is often very little traffic and there could be a lengthy wait before the lights get tripped in my direcction. I usually stop, look around and wait in the hope it might change, then give up and ride through.
What would you do?