What ever you do, dont ride today if you live in Surrey!!!
Comments
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:
Where the hell do you live, to find a society that promotes such behaviour?MrChuck wrote:If you're piloting a ton of metal through busy streets with so little care that you collide with people at junctions then that's antisocial IMO. In the bigger picture a culture which promotes or at least condones this is also antisocial IMO.
Actually I did think about editing out 'promotes' as soon as I'd said it! Maybe it's a bit much. But I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that people are encouraged to think of the streets as a carefree domain for cars, and it's not a huge jump from there to what I said before.0 -
bails87 wrote:I'm not sure what your point is.
Those things lead to deaths and injuries, trying to reduce them is a good thing.
They are symptoms not causes.
The basic thing missing from the avg person's driving, particularly those who could/need to improve, is a conscious driving plan. This is excluding dangerous drivers as per the above examples, because 95% of drivers are not actively engaging in dangerous driving, they are just disengaged from the process. They either blindly follow the car in front setting their speed according to the speed limit not the conditions or they have their mind on other things.
Developing a driving plan which is based on learning to properly observe the road, identify hazards and create a plan of what they intend to do about them, with a sprinkling of "what if" on top is pretty much chapter 1 of any advanced driving course. Cyclists could benefit too. I regularly motorbike in to london and the number of cyclists taking stupid risks is really high. Passing lorries on the inside, overtaking buses between lines of cars, without any escape route.
People don't see cyclists because they are not looking for them, they are not looking for them because they are not thinking about what might be there. Its pretty much the same for motorbikes. Drivers will often see a gap in a queue of cars and pull out thinking that if one car is stopped all traffic is stopped, without considering that a cycle or motorbike can get through without any problem. That is until they go flying over the bonnet of the car which hast just pulled in to their path.
PS there is no evidence that speeding causes accidents. Driving above the 85th percentile for the road, increases the risks, as does driving below it, but to say speeding causes accidents would be to say its dangerous to drive a car without a speedo. Clearly it isn't because you don't need a speed limit to know how fast or slow you should drive.0 -
I'm sorry but it is a huge jump and leap of the imagination fro that to claiming that people condone such behaviour. If you jump a red light or knock someone over, there will not, ever, be an army of other motorists supporting you.MrChuck wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:
Where the hell do you live, to find a society that promotes such behaviour?MrChuck wrote:If you're piloting a ton of metal through busy streets with so little care that you collide with people at junctions then that's antisocial IMO. In the bigger picture a culture which promotes or at least condones this is also antisocial IMO.
Actually I did think about editing out 'promotes' as soon as I'd said it! Maybe it's a bit much. But I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that people are encouraged to think of the streets as a carefree domain for cars, and it's not a huge jump from there to what I said before.0 -
To be 'anti social', you have to purposefully set out to distrupt the social order.
I doubt theres many drivers out there who are purposefully aiming to cause destruction. At the end of the day driver fault comes down to lack of attention or inability to drive correctly through knowledge or physical means, thats not purposefully aiming to cause distruption its just lack of concentration etc.
The government like to label everything as anti social, it seems to be the in phrase/word.
They should look up the definition in a dictionary.0 -
Briggo wrote:The government like to label everything as anti social, it seems to be the in phrase/word.
They should look up the definition in a dictionary.
Or maybe the meanings of words change.
I read an interesting thing about how New Labour basically invented "anti-social behaviour" as a thing to 'fix' to make themselves look good. Unfortunately "anti-social" is so vague to the man on the street that everything began to be called anti-social behaviour and it made it look like things were getting worse when in actual fact we were just calling a big group of things that had always existed a new name.
diy: So how is telling drivers not to tailgate and speed, or as you put it " blindly follow the car in front", a bad thing?
As for blindly setting their car to the speed limit, HA! I will buy a dozen hats and eat them all on the day that I see "95%" of drivers sticking to the limit!
And personally, I think not paying attention while driving is dangerous. How is steering upwards of a ton of metal at high speed around other people while not paying attention not dangerous?0 -
Why the hell do you have to turn a funn thread about a stupid report into a political onslaught. Go and play in the corner by yourselves for a bit you sad, sad, miseryguts.0
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:
I'm sorry but it is a huge jump and leap of the imagination fro that to claiming that people condone such behaviour. If you jump a red light or knock someone overMrChuck wrote:yeehaamcgee wrote:
Where the hell do you live, to find a society that promotes such behaviour?MrChuck wrote:If you're piloting a ton of metal through busy streets with so little care that you collide with people at junctions then that's antisocial IMO. In the bigger picture a culture which promotes or at least condones this is also antisocial IMO.
Actually I did think about editing out 'promotes' as soon as I'd said it! Maybe it's a bit much. But I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that people are encouraged to think of the streets as a carefree domain for cars, and it's not a huge jump from there to what I said before.
, there will not, ever, be an army of other motorists supporting you.
Well, you'll likely get a slap on the wrist and maybe a few points on your licencse, which certainly isn't condeming it. All the helmets stuff about at the moment seems to me to be predicated on the idea that cyclists need to buckle up, not that drivers need to take more care.
I guess I'm equating not condemning with condoning, but I do think society implicitly condones these things because it certainly doesn't seem too bothered about doing anything about them.0 -
MrChuck, not being one thing does not make it another. "not condemning something" is not the same as "endorsing it". It's not an either or. And driving dangerously IS condemned. Like I said, there is no group that will cheer you on for it, it's something that's looked down upon.
Urging cyclists to be careful does NOT mean "drivers, carry on as you were", it just makes sense. There are bad drivers, there are accidents, why the fu** would you not wan to encourage cyclists to be careful as well?
Society does NOT condone running cyclists, or pedestrians over. Take the blinkers on, the world is a far better place than your delusions would make it appear to you.
bloody hell, the stupid, it burns :roll:0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:Why the hell do you have to turn a funn thread about a stupid report into a political onslaught. Go and play in the corner by yourselves for a bit you sad, sad, miseryguts.
Is that aimed at me? :?
Edit: Ah, it's aimed at all of us! Still..... :?0 -
It's aimed at several of you, who are all too ready to pile on with your political doctrines at any given opportunity. Lighten the hell up and enjoy life once in a while.0
-
There you go again.bails87 wrote:You don't seem to like me mentioning New Labour, are you Tony Blair?
I can't be bothered with anyone bringing any political nonsense here, since it always falls into "the government sucks/rules... blah blah blah", with both sides making complete d*cks of themselves.
Just like you did, with your supposed political insult(?) just then. I have no idea what it is supposed to imply, or the connotations thereof. All I see is...
"My political party is better than yours, are you annoyed?"
(when in reality, I couldn't be described to have ANY political preferences, or affiliations)0 -
"Martin, who holds the world record for carrot chopping, says on his website that..."
:?0 -
bails87 wrote:
As for blindly setting their car to the speed limit, HA! I will buy a dozen hats and eat them all on the day that I see "95%" of drivers sticking to the limit!
you misquoted me.
"I said blindly follow the car in front setting their speed according to the speed limit"
That is to say driving according to the speed limit not the conditions. That does not mean driving within the speed limit it means looking at the speed limit to determine how fast to drive. i.e. driving at 70 because its a 60, 50, 'cos its a 40, 40 cos its a 30. But importantly not based on the distance they can see is clear that would allow them to stop in if they needed to.And personally, I think not paying attention while driving is dangerous. How is steering upwards of a ton of metal at high speed around other people while not paying attention not dangerous?
Because there are degrees of safe and dangerous, its not one thing or the other its a sliding scale. Its all well defined.
Why don't you have a read of the CPS charging standard:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/pros ... y.html#_25diy: So how is telling drivers not to tailgate and speed, or as you put it " blindly follow the car in front", a bad thing?
Because its like telling a newbie not to go over the handlebars on a drop. Its a symptom of the problem not the cause. Tailgating and inappropriate speed are symptoms of someone who has not developed a driving plan.0 -
yeehaamcgee wrote:MrChuck, not being one thing does not make it another. "not condemning something" is not the same as "endorsing it". It's not an either or. And driving dangerously IS condemned. Like I said, there is no group that will cheer you on for it, it's something that's looked down upon.
Urging cyclists to be careful does NOT mean "drivers, carry on as you were", it just makes sense. There are bad drivers, there are accidents, why the fu** would you not wan to encourage cyclists to be careful as well?
Society does NOT condone running cyclists, or pedestrians over.
I think it's pretty clear from my post that I'm aware that 'not condemning' is not necessarily the same as 'condoning'. To put it another way, there's a rather large cost to the way that people behave in their cars that society by and large finds it convenient to accept rather than make any serious effort to address. Feel free to disagree about the size of the semantic gap between that and condoning it, I agree that they're not the same but I think the broader point stands. I don't believe I've claimed that drivers are cheering each other on, or that it doesn't make sense to encourage cyclists to be careful.Take the blinkers on, the world is a far better place than your delusions would make it appear to you.
bloody hell, the stupid, it burns :roll:
Get over yourself.0 -
A lot of people drive like idiots because a lot of people are idiots.
Add to this uncoordinated, stupid, half blind, stupid, easily distracted, stupid, stupid, selfish and did I mention stupid, and the roads are a bit dangerous.
Short of banning all the stupid people so I have the roads to myself, they will stay dangerous.
Simple as.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
I have a great idea - get a person with a red flag to walk in front of each car. Apart from a few squashed people with red flags, no more accidents.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
Google "vision zero" and see what really stupid people come up with as the answer to road safety.0
-
yeehaamcgee wrote:
What?MrChuck wrote:there's a rather large cost to the way that people behave in their cars that society by and large finds it convenient to accept rather than make any serious effort to address.
You're like a blocked toilet.
'Like a blocked toilet?' That's your response?
Well done.0
