Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wasn't missing your point rahrahrah, I was just

> not really agreeing with it.

>

> More people may die / get injured playing football

> than cycling, but why do they die / get injured?

> In a lot of cases it will be because of the

> unpredictable actions of another player.


Well sure, but in lot of cases it will be the unpredictable actions of another road user which lead to injuries on a bike. I just think that there is a general perception (misconception imo) that cycling is some kind of high danger activity. I don't believe the statistics bare this out and the perception dissuades people from getting on their bike / doing what they want to do. We shouldn't live in fear, especially when the fears are out of all proportion with the reality.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> God I wish I was more motivated to work today. I'm

> involving myself in this nonsense for something to

> pass the time.


The forum would struggle if we were all motivated, productive employees :-)

If the term "child leash" causes upset then my apology. I will refer to it as child harness.


The highway code did not specify that cycling with dog is illegal.




Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wish you'd stop calling iot a child leash,

> that's just language designed to wind people up

> (even if you did find a profuct with that title).

> And whilst I understand the point you are making,

> I don't think it's comparable (child walking /

> running on pavement compared to child passenger on

> bike).

>

>

>

> I guess the most apt comparrison could be seat

> belts in cars. You may have never been involved in

> a crash. Every time you get in your car you

> PROBABLY won't have an accident, and yet you belt

> up. I know this is the law, but even bofore that,

> most people did it anyway, because despite the

> fact that it probably wouldn't be needed, people

> just felt it more sensible to play it safe.

>

> But again for me it was the whole dog thing. I've

> never seen that on the roads, and if it is legal

> I'd be quite surprised.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I just think that there is a general

> perception (misconception imo) that cycling is

> some kind of high danger activity. I don't believe

> the statistics bare this out and it dissuades

> people from getting on their bike.



But maybe this is exactly why the stats do look so good. It's entirely possible that is there wasn't some healthy fear attached then every fucker woukd jump on a bike and we'd end up with carnage.


Obviously I have absolutely nowhere evidence to back that up, but it's possible.

Well, this is the whole question isn't it. Unpack the term "common sense", then it opens up the whole question of the applicability of "a" common sense as perceived by a particular individual to a specific situation.



edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But common sense would dictate that it's a very

> stupid thing to do.

>

> Cyclist Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> >

> > The highway code did not specify that cycling

> with

> > dog is illegal.

> >

No it isn't the whole question.


It's just more argumentative rambling that makes no grammatical or semantic sense.


Fyi - Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge things, which is shared by ("common to") nearly all people, and can be reasonably expected of nearly all people without any need for debate.

Quite.


robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No it isn't the whole question.

>

> It's just more argumentative rambling that makes

> no grammatical or semantic sense.

>

> Fyi - Common sense is a basic ability to perceive,

> understand, and judge things, which is shared by

> ("common to") nearly all people, and can be

> reasonably expected of nearly all people without

> any need for debate.

You would find that most dictionaries including Oxford define common sense as a judgement rather than "a basic ability".


edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Quite.

>

> robbin Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > No it isn't the whole question.

> >

> > It's just more argumentative rambling that

> makes

> > no grammatical or semantic sense.

> >

> > Fyi - Common sense is a basic ability to

> perceive,

> > understand, and judge things, which is shared

> by

> > ("common to") nearly all people, and can be

> > reasonably expected of nearly all people

> without

> > any need for debate.

If common sense is an "ability", then that implies anyone who does not share that common sense has a shortcoming in his/her natural ability. In the "ability" definition, anyone who does not share what some perceived as "common sense" risked being defined to be lacking in his or her natural ability. Not many people would appreciate that insinuation.


On the other hand, it is much more appropriate to see common sense as a "judgement" because it then admits the possibility of multiple common sense. Whose common sense we are talking about and which common sense in the particular situation we are talking about exactly ?


I don't think I have been talking nonsense at all. I have instead observed the fairly acute reaction from commentators when their version of common sense is challenged.




robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And your point?!

>

> I'm glad you looked it up - now you see what

> nonsense you were spouting.

surely you understand "basic ability to judge" and "judgement" have two very different meanings.


robbin Wrote:

----------------------------------------------------

>

> Fyi - Common sense is a basic ability to perceive,

> understand, and judge things, which is shared by

> ("common to") nearly all people, and can be

> reasonably expected of nearly all people without

> any need for debate.

Cyclist - I suggest if you are going to tangle with the meaning of words, you start by opening up your dictionary and looking up the meaning of "pavement" and "pedestrian", as you also seem not to have got to grips with those words (a pavement being something people walk along - and a pedestrian is someone who walks along it).

yes you are right. I mean "pavement". Great pick up Robbin. Thanks. Now perhaps you could consider your common sense to give your child the safety harness while on the pavement. It is safer than without and only costs a few quids, as you put it. Quite a few people harness their child while walking on lordship lane, particularly in the weekend. Don't let your common sense fall behind their common sense !


My child and dogs are living happily without your wishes of "good luck" or the sort. You go your way, I go my way. And that's the way it should be unless your ego dictates otherwise.


robbin Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Cyclist - I suggest if you are going to tangle

> with the meaning of words, you start by opening up

> your dictionary and looking up the meaning of

> "pavement" and "pedestrian", as you also seem not

> to have got to grips with those words (a pavement

> being something people walk along - and a

> pedestrian is someone who walks along it).

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • OOOOooooOOOooohhhHHHHHH 👜 👜 👜 
    • That's actually why the Sherlock Holmes stories were so popular. There was so little crime people found it exciting to imagine robberies and murders happening in London.
    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...