Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- From: Mark Goodge <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:56:36 +0100
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:38:44 +0100, Douglas Steel put finger to
keyboard and typed:
The frontal aspect also that means a cyclist is far less likely to hit
a pedestrian.
It's certainly less likely to be spotted before it runs the red.
Perhaps, but the accident statistics show that very few pedestrians
are injured by cyclists, still too many, but lets keep things in
perspective.
I'm sure you're right, but I think you're missing the point a bit. The
original claim from the originator of this thread is that *all*
offences by motorists, no matter how trivial, are all equally bad and
reprehensible.
Now, I happen to think that this is wrong. But, if we assume just for
a moment that it is true, that all offences are equally serious and
should be considered equally unacceptable, then it must follow that
the same applies to other groups of road users, such as cyclists.
Which is why others in this thread have been quick to point out that
routine lawbreaking by cyclists is probably even more prevalent than
among motorists.
As it happens, I think that's daft, too. It's pretty clear, both from
the statistics and common sense, that cyclists are responsible for far
fewer deaths and serious injuries than drivers. A cyclist jumping a
red light may be irritating, but he's usually no danger to anyone
other than himself when he does it - unlike a driver, who can
potentially kill. The only significant case when a cyclist's
lawbreaking is likely to cause injury to others is when the offence is
riding on the pavement. But even then, it rarely results in injury
despite being extremely common.
But, if we accept that the majority of offences committed by cyclists
are, though illegal, mostly trivial in nature, then by inference we
are accepting a distinction between serious and trivial offences. And,
once that distinction has been made, there's no reason not to apply it
back to motorists and accept that they, too, can commit offences which
are, though illegal, mostly trivial in nature. So the 13.5 million
motoring offences in the title of this thread is misleading, because
it includes a vast number of offences in which the offender poses
absolutely no danger at all to anyone else.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.FridayFun.net - jokes, lyrics and ringtones
Listen: http://www.goodge.co.uk/files/dweeb.mp3 - you'll love it!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- From: Brimstone
- Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- References:
- Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- From: Nick Finnigan
- Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- From: iiiiDougiiii
- Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- From: Ian
- Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- From: StephenC
- Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- From: Brimstone
- Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- From: Adrian
- Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- From: Douglas Steel
- Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- From: Adrian
- Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- From: Douglas Steel
- Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- From: Adrian
- Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- From: Douglas Steel
- Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- Prev by Date: Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- Next by Date: Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- Previous by thread: Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- Next by thread: Re: 13.5 million motoring offences!
- Index(es):