Jesus.
"Why move to canada or holland for cycling when you say it is all a red herring anyhow and building cyle paths is a red herring."
LEARN TO READ.
I said that building cycle paths was a red herring in respect of turning Britain into some sort of Lazytown fitness utopia. It would be an excellent thing for existing cyclists, drivers and pedestrians alike but it would not "be of immense benefit to the nation" in the ways suggested by the fantasist who posted that particular sprinkling of moondust.
Jesus II.
"It is a sad attitude to be so negative about cycling in a safe and proper way and not breaking the law - the building of more cycle paths would create this enviroment. Yet you are against this."
LEARN TO READ.
Not once have I criticised cyclists who cycle "in a safe and proper way and not breaking the law". I criticise, and will continue to criticise, cretins who are over the age of 11 and ride bicycles on pavements with no specified cyclist right of way. And I am especially against them when they try to justify it with a load of old cock. Nor am I against the building of more cycle paths. I am against people designating their own cycle paths arbitrarily, without any legal right to do so, and without warning the existing users of that space, ie pedestrians.
Jesus III.
"Pedestrians though are fine - is that because you are one?"
Yes, I am one. More importantly, I am a law-abiding one. One of the many things I do not do is decide that I am special and different and walk down the middle of the road because the pavement is congested. And most pedestrians are the same. If you know any that aren't, then I am with you in criticising them.
Jesus IV.
"They [boy racers] are not representative of the vast majority of people who cycle, drive, walk everywhere. To assume so is reductionist and makes your whole argument fallacious."
LEARN TO READ.
Nowhere do I make any such assumption or even hint at it. It is essential in a mature society, especially one sharing a very small space as is Britain's case, that all road users - cyclists, drivers, pedestrians - obey the law. It is clear that most of them do. It is also essential that those who do not obey the law should be castigated and/or punished by society in the interests of that majority. My argument is that the minority of cyclists who do think they are above the law should not be exempt from this. Perhaps it is a sad modern paradox, but the fact remains that "I was scared" may form part of a legitimate defence in a murder trial, but not in the case of a fat self-important puffy red-faced prick in lycra cycling along pavements in London. Get on the road, or get off the bike.
Therefore, as I do not make any such assumption, it is not "reductionist" and does not make my argument "fallacious".
Jesus V.
"In Canada, pedestrians also have the right of way anywhere. You hit a pedestrian with your car and its your fault even if they were jay-walking. The same applies to cars hitting cyclists. The logic being that you are more likely to pay attention while inside 1 tonne of metal doing 30 m/p/h if you are personally responsible for the safety of others."
That is one of the silliest bloody laws I have ever heard. "The logic" you mention is not any sort of logic and is, besides, demonstrably untrue in its practical applications, or else HGV, bus and coach drivers would be the safest drivers on the road. Now, again, I am not tarring all these people with the same brush, but they have accidents just like ordinary drivers, and at least some of the time it is their fault.
If something is your fault it is your fault, whether you are in a car, on a bike, on foot or on a space hopper. Obviously you will normally come off worse if you are outside the big bit of metal than if you are inside the big bit of metal - but genuine "logic" would therefore dictate that YOU, as the potential loser in the exchange, should be the more vigilant party.
Jesus VI.
No one's said it yet, but some buffoon probably will, so to pre-empt them - yes, I am aware that children are a special case in this and agree that, as far as is reasonable, they should be exempt from much of this, in just the same way that they are exempt or partially exempt from many other laws until they reach the age of reason.
Sorry for the rant. It is wearying enough arguing with bleaters who want society to lift the burden of responsibility from their frail, tired little shoulders and give them the emotional equivalent of a great big hug in a mug. It's worse when they don't bother to read what you've actually said.
Or is it nearer the truth to say that the two quoted posters deliberately misconstrued what I said because it made me easier to argue with and discredit than if you stuck to my actual - and clearly stated - views? Oh, for shame!