On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 14:12:57 -0000, "mileburner"
 wrote:

<snip>


>Cyclists do not need to carry the moral responsibility, so as to refuse to 
>take any safety measures whatsoever, for fear that others will be deterred 
>from cycling as they might perceive cycling as dangerous.



Spot on - and that is why wearing a helmet, wearing hi-viz, and
obeying the law are more likely to improve an individual's safety (and
the safety of other road users)  than any other matter.


-- 
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured:  Pedal Cyclists : 527    Pedestrians 371
All casualties:  Pedal Cyclists : 3494    Pedestrians : 1631

"Judith M Smith"  wrote in message 
news:mulue5d1loh2qp6iottuf124c4qrc4ku3t@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 14:12:57 -0000, "mileburner"
>  wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>Cyclists do not need to carry the moral responsibility, so as to refuse to
>>take any safety measures whatsoever, for fear that others will be deterred
>>from cycling as they might perceive cycling as dangerous.
>
> Spot on - and that is why wearing a helmet, wearing hi-viz, and
> obeying the law are more likely to improve an individual's safety (and
> the safety of other road users)  than any other matter.

Those safety measures also include riding in a manner which is predictable, 
in a position which makes the cyclist most visible, and does not encourage 
drivers to overtake without enough safety margin.

This is not a case of trying to educate drivers (as some cyclists deem to be 
necessary) but merely protecting ourselves from poor driving techniques.

The Luggage wrote:
> On Nov 2, 10:09 pm, Judith M Smith  wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 14:12:57 -0000, "mileburner"
>>
>>  wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Cyclists do not need to carry the moral responsibility, so as to
>>> refuse to take any safety measures whatsoever, for fear that others
>>> will be deterred from cycling as they might perceive cycling as
>>> dangerous.
>>
>> Spot on - and that is why wearing a helmet, wearing hi-viz, and
>> obeying the law are more likely to improve an individual's safety
>> (and the safety of other road users) than any other matter.
>
> I don't suppose you have any references to back up any of those
> assertions, do you?

Please don't goad. Judith had just got to the point of being fairly 
reasonable.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:57:49 -0000, "mileburner"
 wrote:

>Please don't goad. Judith had just got to the point of being fairly 
>reasonable. 

What, in the sense of voicing blind prejudice without actually calling
everyone in sight a fuckwit, you mean?
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message 
news:90p0f5pl3sca7h8amk3v0g6chngj0ctauv@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 15:57:49 -0000, "mileburner"
>  wrote:
>
>>Please don't goad. Judith had just got to the point of being fairly
>>reasonable.
>
> What, in the sense of voicing blind prejudice without actually calling
> everyone in sight a fuckwit, you mean?

Pretty much yes, but it is a start...