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

    • Nothing to do with the tories overspending whatsoever eh! Blame the last 10/11 years of blatant mismanagement, incompetence and willful deceit on the poor bastards that were left with the fall out of a complete car crash tory government.   One PM after another falling on their sword. Open corruption and piss taking throughout covid and a legacy of huge debt and destruction yet in your view it will be labour's 4 years in power that bankrupts us in 2029.  Another one that must think people are blind and stupid.  Rejoice rejoice. It's a pity he and his fellow clowns were completely annihilated at the ballot box. I mean they were doing so well after all 🙃🙃
    • Where did I say he did a good job? Yup and Corbyn was very close to Len McCluskey and funded by Unite wasn't he...they're all as bad as each other... Labour have to purge their party of the far-left - they're a disaster. Allan Johnson summed it up so well on election night in 2019....  
    • Thank you for the detailed advise @trinidad It is definitely damage we are concerned about. I don’t think Evri would agree to pay the bill to fix our gate or letter box if they were to be damaged as a result of their delivery drivers helper. Our doorbell can be heard from outside when rung so we don’t quite believe the aggressive simultaneous door/letter box banging is necessary. It can be quite a shock it is done very aggressively.  I’ll definitely action the steps you’ve kindly provided along with a phone call tomorrow. I do sympathise with the role drivers have and how busy they are, which is why we tried communicating directly with her but sadly we haven’t succeeded 
    • What outcome would you like? Disciplinary action? Not to have the driver back? Retraining? I know there is alot of pressure on drivers to deliver within a set day. if he slams the gate, is it evidence he is causing damage, or is the noise a irritant to yourself? You could put a sign up or buy a signing asking to close the gate gentle???? can you hear the door bell from the door? he might be ringing, not hearing and therefore knocking. In trhe notes section of the be livery page, there is a note section, although there is not 100 per cent these notes would be read as these drivers are constantly rushing.  I did a google search for you, i found this and you can try the envri website Contact Us | Evri   To complain to Evri, you can follow these steps: Contact Customer Service: Call Evri's customer service at 0330 808 5456 for assistance with your complaint.    1 Write a Letter: Address your complaint to Capitol House, 1 Capitol Close, Morley, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS27 0WH.    1 Use the Official Website: Visit the Evri complaints page on their official website for detailed instructions on how to submit a complaint.    2 Email or Call for Specific Issues: For issues like missing or damaged parcels, you can email or call 0800 988 8888, which is free to call.    1 These methods will help you effectively communicate your concerns to Evri.   My driver is called anthony, he is brilliant to be honest. I cant fault him.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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