glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
Is it me or are they a funny lot in the commuting section
- Thread starter bjellys
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I think the simplified reasons you give are a little disingenuous, perhaps it was the posts such as:
When it was pointed out that Cyclist do contibute, and that On average, cyclists pay MORE towards the roads. Not only do most cyclists own cars, but cyclists are over-represented by high earners. Cyclists subsidise your road use.
Your opinion was :
A little less trolling on both these threads would gain you a more reasoned response?
When it was pointed out that Cyclist do contibute, and that On average, cyclists pay MORE towards the roads. Not only do most cyclists own cars, but cyclists are over-represented by high earners. Cyclists subsidise your road use.
Your opinion was :
A little less trolling on both these threads would gain you a more reasoned response?
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
growingvegetables
Guru
- Location
- Leeds
With pleasure - you're wrong.
And not very bright with your arguments either - you appear to be suggesting that driving is only impaired after the consumption of "ten pints of lager and a few shots"?
OP
OP
bjellys
Well-Known Member
No No it's not just me it's the law that has decided that drink driving is more dangerous than using a mobile while driving just look at the penalties . If the government and the law say that there is a difference, well that is good enough for me. All the lame biased studies in the world won't convince me.
The point that is missed totally is that poor drivers exhibit a range of behaviours that are linked.
Problem mobile phone use has been linked with risk taking
Drivers who ignore the simple rules such as mobile phone use are the same ones who ignore seed limits, and take other risks. High risk taking such as tailgating, aggressive overtaking and inappropriate behaviour at junctions are other features of the pyschological profile of those who use mobile phones whilst driving
The question is how much anger you are willing to allow others to endanger you and other road users. Lets look at the problems..
If you really wish to hide your head in the sand and deny this "lame biased research" because it does not fit your agenda then please feel free to do so.
Also if you feel that the driver behind you is entitled to be less able to stop, less able to judge safe distances and less able to make judgements and react simply because they are too stupid or arrogant to wait a few minutes and take a call safely then it is up to you, but for anyone with a degree of common sense it is a little bizzarre
Problem mobile phone use has been linked with risk taking
Drivers who ignore the simple rules such as mobile phone use are the same ones who ignore seed limits, and take other risks. High risk taking such as tailgating, aggressive overtaking and inappropriate behaviour at junctions are other features of the pyschological profile of those who use mobile phones whilst driving
The question is how much anger you are willing to allow others to endanger you and other road users. Lets look at the problems..
Roger Vincent of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents......
"The problem is you actually get sucked into the telephone conversation, and the conversation starts to take precedence over the driving task," he told BBC News.
"The person on the end of the phone doesn't know the driving conditions around you. If someone's in the car talking to you they can stop talking if a dangerous situation arises.
"People just don't seem to understand how distracting these telephone conversations are."
The research said reaction times were, on average, 30% slower when talking on a mobile than when just over the legal limit, and nearly 50% slower than when driving
normally.
Drivers were also less able to maintain a constant speed and found it more difficult to keep a safe distance from the car in front.
In the tests at 70 miles per hour, the braking distance was 102ft (31m), which increased to 115ft (35m) with alcohol; 128ft (39m) with a hands-free phone and 148ft (45m) with a hand-held mobile.
If you really wish to hide your head in the sand and deny this "lame biased research" because it does not fit your agenda then please feel free to do so.
Also if you feel that the driver behind you is entitled to be less able to stop, less able to judge safe distances and less able to make judgements and react simply because they are too stupid or arrogant to wait a few minutes and take a call safely then it is up to you, but for anyone with a degree of common sense it is a little bizzarre
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
Berties
Fast and careful!
Let's see if we can get to a conclusion,commute riding can become a daily time trial,got to go faster increase my cadence do the hill split quicker and then you tend to blame drivers for their slowing of your time,any law that helps increase a drivers reaction time gets my vote,even hands free effects your reaction,just because you see people do it every day does not make it right,am not going to throw facts and figures in the pot,and am sure all riders break rules every day and take chances
Which is the problem....
The only way that the road system works is if people stick to the rules.
Next time you pass a junction, think about how you have just trusted a complete stranger to actually stop!
Next time you are cycling along, think about how you are trusting the person behind to be aware that you are there, will keep a safe distance and react accordingly to what you are doing.
Where it goes wrong is when people act outside this box, and fail to abide by the simple roles.
The only way that the road system works is if people stick to the rules.
Next time you pass a junction, think about how you have just trusted a complete stranger to actually stop!
Next time you are cycling along, think about how you are trusting the person behind to be aware that you are there, will keep a safe distance and react accordingly to what you are doing.
Where it goes wrong is when people act outside this box, and fail to abide by the simple roles.
gaz
Cycle Camera TV
- Location
- South Croydon
When did anyone compare mobile phone use to drinking 10 pints of larger and some shots?
In the thread which the OP is whining about, I think.
I do find it strange that they should feel they've lost the discussion in one part of CC, so they started the same discussion here as if they'd find more support here or they thought those who proved them inadequate previously wouldn't find them.
I do find it strange that they should feel they've lost the discussion in one part of CC, so they started the same discussion here as if they'd find more support here or they thought those who proved them inadequate previously wouldn't find them.
I was going to ignore this, but it has become apparent that the root of Bjelly's problem is a lack of understanding.
Lets make it simple....
It is illegal to carry a knife in your local pub
It is illegal to carry a shotgun in the same pub
Now the penalties are different with the latter being far more severe (4 years for a knife, and 6 years for the gun)
Now does that mean I should not report the lesser crime?
Does it make carrying the knife acceptable or justifiable?
Should we not report the knfie because the penalty is less?
Then lets move back tho the roads.
Should we not "grass up" careless driving, speeding,driving without insurance etc which all have lesser penalties than drink driving?
The claim that because the sentence is less we should accept the risks they have decided to to take with MY life, and allow these muppets to endanger ME and other road users by carrying out an illegal act is really one of the stupidest arguments I have seen here for a long time.
If someone decides to break the law and gets reported then it is a consequence of their own stupidity and arrogance - don't bleat when you get caught!
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRL_Limited
http://www.trl.co.uk/facilities/dri...studies/Dangers_of_Texting_Whilst_Driving.htm
http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/r...e?_benchmarking_the_impairment_to_alcohol.htm
so a car centric organisation such as the RAC ( thats Royal AUTOMOBILE Club for the young troll) commissions a study and gets a result showing is dangerous. How is that a biased study. biased study would come back with the results saying its fine to drive texting - which it isn't. . A biased study would be one commisioned by a mobile phone handset or network operator company that said it is safe.
Iassume that as you are still at school and have to do science as a core subject you understand the " fair testing" criteria. that is the tests will have been repeated many times to show the result isn't just a fluke.
I also assume you understand the meaning of the word independent.
TRL said:
Mugshot
Cracking a solo.
I post quite often in the commuting section and I'm hilarious, some others however are just blooming annoying and hardle worth a titter.
So in answer to your question, some of us are very funny, others not so much. If you'd put this thread into the commuting section I'm afraid you'd fall very firmly in the latter group
So in answer to your question, some of us are very funny, others not so much. If you'd put this thread into the commuting section I'm afraid you'd fall very firmly in the latter group
