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

    • Reeves says she's in charge and no no's Rayners plan, what happens now?
    • So top of Lane. Local Sainsbury, middle Co Op and M and S and bottom Tesco Express…..now everyone should be happy except those that want a Waitrose as well…0h and  don’t forget M and S near ED Station….
    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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