LadyDeliah

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyDeliah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The current regulation and enforcement of > driving > > safety is inadequate. How many people would > fail > > their test if they had to resit it every 3 or 5 > > years? > > Well from the sounds of it you'd fail your cycling > proficiency test! So that sounds a bit > hypocritical. I doubt it, I passed my driving test in 1997, I've been cycling on roads since I was a kid, been cycling in London for almost 30 years, did cycling proficiency lessons in school as a kid and again with my kids when each of them got old enough to start cycling on the road. Even if this weren't the case, cycling poses minimal risk to other road users, unlike driving. How much additional training have you taken since you passed your test Jeremy?

Lol, google it.

The current regulation and enforcement of driving safety is inadequate. How many people would fail their test if they had to resit it every 3 or 5 years?

I think it's important to remember that motorists kill and maim not only cyclists, but huge amounts of pedestrians and other motorists, so I submit my point still stands, that if you take a potentially lethal piece of machinery into public space, the onus is on you to do so with a very high standard of care, regardless of the safety precautions taken or not taken by others. Motorists should not be allowed to push the responsibility for road safety into others when it is them in charge of such a dangerous machine. As I said above, that is the starting point, many of the 'sensible precautions' and defensive cycling would become less nessesary if the cause of the problem, I.e. The driving of Dangerous motorised vehicles were to be properly addressed.

Otta, I have lights, or are you saying you wouldn't see them either? Kind of nullifies your point if so and just to ease your fear, I've never hit a cyclist in almost 30 years of cycling in London. Lots of near misses, during the day, when people step off the road into my path. Actually that's not correct, I forgot about an accident I had in Waterloo, when some idiot ran out into the road from the front of a stationary bus. I went flying sideways and banged my head on a black cab and despite having a helmet was concussed. I also dented the cab door and gashed my arm pretty badly. Lying in the road on a busy road was also pretty dangerous and I'm lucky nothing ran me over. Have to stop trying to type on my phone without my glasses, arrgh the typos are driving me nuts!

I don't have lights and a helmet cam to make me a better cyclist, I am a good cyclist without these things, hyper aware of my environment and able to act defensively. Just as I take precautions against rape and other attack by, for instance, keeping physically for and practicing various martial arts most of my adult life but should people who don't, be blamed if they are unable to fight off an attacker? I wear these things because many motorists do not show the requisite level of care towards more vulnerable road users. This is why I am of the opinion that the level of skill and care required of drivers should be increased significantly and enforced rigourously. Far more people die on the roads than in airline accidents, yet the standards expected of airling pilots is extremely high and they are forced to undergo regular fitness and competence tests. The same should be the case for drivers. And no there is no duty of care not to endanger yourself. Clearly it's sensible not to, but try telling that to testosterone fuelled teenage boys.

When I cycle or drive at night, London is so well lit that I can see anything on the road for at least 100 meters. If you can't see, or can't stop in time when you do see, someone on the road who is not illuminated in those conditions, you should not be allowed to drive.

northlondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lady Delilah ! I'm shocked !!! Lol, just keeping it real bro.

aquarius moon Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would you cycle in the dark without lights though > LadyD? > > Would responsible car drivers drive without > lights? > > If it's all about respecting each other's right to > the road, surely it's all about helping each other > out too, by making yourself as conspicuous as > possible to other road users. As a rule I don't cycle without lights, but if my USB charged back light has run out of juice then yes, but rarely. Any time I've been hit by a car or van driver though has been in broad daylight. Responsible car drivers are in charge of a lethal machine and have an obligation not to kill or maim people with that machine. Using their headlights is part of that. No it's not all about respecting each other's right to use the road, although that is part of what I'm trying to get across. The main point I've been trying to make is that dealing with the thing that causes the danger, I.e. The motorised vehicles and their drivers, should be the starting point in dealing with road safety, not the precautions others have to take to mitigate the danger posed to them.

I'm comparing the dynamics of dominant groups of people in relation to those with less power/voice and how that power sets the agenda. If we are going to find a solution to the problem of cyclist and pedestrian deaths, we need to open our minds to a different dynamic in the motorist/cyclist/pedestrian debate. Another interesting similarity in the male/motorist dominance example, is the way that men and motorists fiercely resist/ed any changes in the discourse. Those in a position of privilege don't give it up, they have to be forced to behave more equitably.

I think there needs to be a huge shift in perceptions of what is acceptable in relation to motorists and I see some movement already. In the 80's men had more financial, social and political power than women and their view of the world had dominated western society for centuries. Women who wore short skirts, flirted with a guy, accepted drinks or lifts from them were considered to be at fault if they got raped. How could it be the men's fault, the women should know better than to put themselves in danger? There has been a shift in most people's consciousness away from blaming the victims of rape and an expectation the perpetrator be held to account properly for his actions. We still get told to 'take precautions' etc but the starting point should always be with the perpetrator, not the victim. Similarly with motoring, the needs of the motorist have come to dominate infrastructure planning for the past century. The supremacy of the needs and rights of the motorist have not been challenged in any significant way until recently. Alongside their dominance is the same victim blaming and lack of accountability that existed when the dominance of men over women was absolute. When rethinking our relationship with the motor vehicle, the starting point in road safety has to be with that which causes the harm. The motorist has to be held accountable for any lapses in concentration that result in harm to anyone. The standard expected before someone should be entitled to take these lethal machines out into our public spaces should be very high. The same standard we expect of anyone else responsible for the lives of others. Sensible precautions are not the starting point and their need diminishes the more we address the actual cause of the danger in the first place.

Let's take it from a different angle to help you get the point I'm trying to make. Why do cyclists need to light themselves up like Christmas trees? What is the reason it's dangerous for kids day or night to cycle on the roads? Why do I have to cycle defensively every time I commute to work in my bike? Because motor vehicles are lethally dangerous. With anything else that is a danger to others, e.g. Dangerous dogs, we expect the person who is responsible for that danger to take the appropriate action to prevent that thing from endangering the public. It's not an excuse for an owner of a dog that savages someone who visits their home to say well they knew I had a dog and they weren't wearing protective clothing.

There should be a much higher standard expected of drivers for them to be allowed to take a life endangering machine out in public. Driving shouldn't be seen as a right and if anyone cannot show that they are positively not a danger driving their lethal machinery in public, they should not be allowed on the road. I drive and cycle (no longer own a car and use zipcar when I need to), but I have a moral obligation to be aware of my surroundings at all times when driving and if I hit a cyclist, a kid running out into the road, a drunk adult stepping into the road and maim or kill them, I'd be totally responsible because I'm the one in charge of a machine I know is capable of killing. It would also be likely I was driving too quickly if someone died after a collision with my vehicle. Again, totally my fault. I have control of the accelerator, not them. Drivers need to learn to share the roads and start taking responsibly for their actions. Roads are not theirs. They belong to all of us and we have a right not to be killed or maimed when using them.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And by "problem" I mean the degree of culpability > in causing death > > Not wearing lights is culpable but not actually > cause of death > Bad driving is culpable but is the cause of death Yep, there needs to be a change of mindset where motorists are forced to accept the responsibility for their actions when their lethal piece of metal kills/maims/injures others. And my post above was actually in response to apbremer.

So it's the cyclists' fault for using a legal means of transport and being surrounded by lethal machines driven by people who often fail in their duty of care to other road users by maiming and killing them?

'Sit on my face' sometimes works on some of the women I know, but only if the guy is hot snyway. 'Are you into squirters?' tends to work for me when I'm out hunting, not sure this is a line though, more investigative enquiries.

My main beef is with the top 1% anyway. The corporate heads who've made a killing from the decreased overheads as a result of things like workfare, reduced labour costs overall due to employment instabity and an increase in unemployed people willing to accept anything just to get a job. Many have hoovered up businesses that have gone bust and when they bother to actually pay tax, regular corporation tax is only 20% with tax on dividends only 10%. The number of millionaires has dramatically increased too, so I still think that there is all-in-this-together shite. Sources are from all over the past and tucked away in the back of my head, but I'll post any I come accords (which I do fairly frequently).

LM, yes I'd only been looking at office and small shop leases. As for the upward only rent increase ours is pegged to the RPI and is twice in the 10 yrs. I have a commercial property lawyer organising all the terms and negotiating the lease and I think he's been pretty good so far. It's a long term commitment and the wrong lease can cause a lot of problems for a business, so I think it makes sense to pay for a decent lawyer at the outset.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LadyDeliah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's not getting harder for everyone, the top > 10% > > have seen an average increase of 12% on already > > unequal income. > > > > > http://news.sky.com/story/1019820/executive-pay-uk > > > s-top-bosses-see-12-percent-rise > > From the BBC > > The household at the 90th percentile (that's the > one for which only 10% of households have a higher > income) has seen its income fall by about ?60 a > week. At the other end of the spectrum, the > household at the 10th percentile has seen a ?2 per > week increase.... Source please quids.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He's saying you're thick as shit and you can't > spell. Now @#$%& off. Lol, I concur :-)

Ok here's an idea. How about I come and take your house, cos I had a vision last night telling me it's my gift from God, I force you and your family to live in the garden shed and when you throw a brick at me, I blow the shit out of your shed with weapons given to me rich friends in positions of power. I then take your neighbours house, and a few more down the street and jam them in your broken down shed, around which I've constructed a massive wall to stop you escaping, funded again by my rich friends. If you try to get the police to give you your houses back, my rich friends shut them up and I bomb the shit out if your shed, so you know who is boss. And so it goes on. Everytime you try to get justice, or fight for your property back, I kill your friends and family. And I keep stealing other people's houses and incarcerating their occupants in your shed until I have realised my vision of East Dulwich being my God given holy land.

I liked Adeventure Bar on the few occasions I went. Got to get pissed in a lively bar, where everyone else was as pissed, if not more and forget I'm nearly 50 :-)

The thing re break clauses, our new office will be a 10 year lease with 2 break clauses within that time. Most long term leases have at least 1 break clause at a set interval.

Uncleglen, you were/are a teacher? Scary thought. Not sure I'd let you loose on the minds of my children!

My mum is Liverpudlian from Catholic Irish stock and my dad is from Bermondsey going back generations. To my mum, praise is to be discouraged at all costs to prevent the deadly sin of pride and spending more than half a minute in the mirror means you've become a vain harlot (and she'd actually been an athiest since she was a kid)! I was stunned some years ago, to find out my mum had been bragging about something or other I'd done because she could never actually say it to me. My dad on the other hand, although not effusive, would let me know if he thought I'd done something good or not. I personally think there is a big difference between the Northern and Southern mentalities in relation to praise and being tough on your kids to prevent 'spoiling' them. My dissertation at Uni was on the nature of oppression and I found it interesting that countries that had experienced slavery and brutal colonisation often had a lasting legacy of violence, including in their child rearing. The North was also brutally oppressed during the time of the weavers and other organisations' uprisings, during the industrial revolution, ditto Ireland for centuries. Massive generalisations and clearly with movement of populations nationally and globally, any lasting effects from our different histories will be less apparent, but I do think it's still evident.