Canadian_watcher wrote:compared2what? wrote: Canadian_watcher wrote:
Yes, exactly - pedestrians have their own infrastructure. (Gawd, isn't there another word I could use, that one is getting dull)
I like it. Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure! Here's the thing, though: They don't.
If you've been following along you'll know that I know that already. It's kind of my whole point.
I apologize. The words "Yes, exactly -- pedestrians have their own infrastructure" led me to believe that your point was that they did.
compared2what? wrote:
.....Nationwide, pedestrians account for nearly 12 percent of total traffic deaths. But state departments of transportation have largely ignored pedestrian safety from a budgetary perspective, allocating only about 1.5 percent of available federal funds to projects that retrofit dangerous roads or create safe alternatives.
More at
link.
Canadian_watcher wrote:Granted, they still dart out into traffic, causing a hazard (to whom? mostly to themselves, right? but a hazard it is, nonetheless.)
When I was 23, I was hit by a taxi that ran a light pretty much going full-speed. I did not dart into traffic. ...
I suppose you're saying that even though they've tried to make such infrastructure for pedestrians they have failed. I personally have never even heard any suggestion of this. No anecdotal evidence whatsoever to this effect.
That wasn't what I was saying. (Please see flashing text with red highlight.) And it would have been a specious argument with very little relevance and no foundation in reality if I had been. So I'm not surprised that anecdotal evidence for it isn't exactly thick on the ground.
Pedestrian non-safety due to any number of factors (including inadequate infrastructure, infrastructure, ooga-chaka, ooga, ooga) is actually a pretty significant problem in most urban-industrialized countries. It's just not a very sexy one.
So you are saying that because pedestrian safety is still an issue that this fact somehow negates my opinion that bicycles on city streets are equally as dangerous?
No. I was still laboring under the misapprehension that when you said pedestrians had their own infrastructure you meant that they did.
Or are you just playing semantics, stating once more that I mis-worded my statement earlier: I should have said, city streets are too much of a hazard for bikers, and many bikers die as a result of riding on city streets. Now it is restated. i'll single it out for clarity:
CLARIFICATION OF EARLIER STATEMENT(S):
1..Bikers on city streets are a major fucking hazard should be changed to: CITY STREETS ARE a MAJOR FUCKING HAZARD FOR BIKERS.
and
2. .. especially in the winter, and ought to be banned... should be changed to: BIKING IN THE WINTER ON CITY STREETS WHEN THERE IS SNOW AND ARE SNOWBANKS IS A PRACTICE THAT OUGHT TO BE BANNED.
What, exactly, constitutes a hazard is not actually a semantic distinction, as I understand the term. And again, forgive me if I misunderstood your position. I didn't intend to. I was just taking you at your word. I appreciate the clarification.
compared2what? wrote: ... Over 17,000 cyclists were injured/killed last year in Britain. And those are only the reported cases. That's outrageous. How many people were killed by guns in Britain last year? Does that make bikes more dangerous than guns, or what? Depends how you look at it.
No. It really doesn't, unless you know what killed/injured them. I mean, for one thing, they all might have been shot.
Now I get to play dumb, and divert instead of addressing any point you have. Watch: It really doesn't? I guess that all depends on what that IT indicates. It doesn't depend on how you look at it? Id say that most everything does depend on how you look at it. Like, just about everything I can possibly think of will have a different meaning and a different vibe to different people depending on how they look at it. But perhaps you meant the other IT. I'll never know, unless you want to waste a half a page explaining it to me and trying to re-create your original response in what is now a more hostile environment for conversation...
I wasn't being hostile. I was disagreeing with you. I meant what your dumb-playing response supposes, except that I meant it specifically in reference to the question that I was clearly, obviously and explicitly addressing, ie --
Q: Does the number of cyclist deaths/injuries in Britain make bikes more dangerous than guns, depending on how you look at it?
A: No. It doesn't. Because no matter how you look at it, you still don't know what killed them.
compared2what? wrote:If over 17,000 people were killed/injured by bikes rather than while on bikes, you'd have a point.
semantics.
???
No. Determining what factors and circumstances led to their deaths/injuries is a real, material distinction. Crucial, even.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people - right?
I wouldn't say so. I understood you to be saying the equivalent, though: Cars, heedlessness, inadequate infrastructure due to lack of lobbyist clout, etc. don't kill cyclists, bicycles kill cyclists. Or something to that effect. But that's been clarified now. So bygones.
compared2what? wrote:I believe that they are throwing the "you hate mother earth!!!!' argument out pretty heavily and for no good reason, which in my opinion equates to we should all be trying to rid ourselves of personal automobiles and if you don't support that unquestioningly you are a worthy target of slander.
I'm still not seeing that.
well we all know that nothing is true unless
you see it, so it mustn't be happening.
I sure don't know that. And I've certainly never claimed it. I disagree, in short.
I was actually hoping you'd show me what I was missing. And now I'm asking you to, I guess. Because as I indicated earlier, if I saw it, I'd object.
