Cycling through Swaffham ... a long shot, but....

[JoshM]

Do you throw bricks at speeding drivers from motorway bridges?

To be fair I took the OP to mean that had they been run off the road it would have been because of their actions. They had put themselves in a position where they were likely (according to the OP) to be run off the road therefore, if they had, they would have had to own the consequences of their actions. Slightly different to saying they should be intentionally run off the road as punishment for their bad riding.

A better analogy would be the driver who spins off the road after taking a corner too fast since both the driver and the cyclists in the op deserve the owning of the consequences of their actions, rather than the handing out of punishment by another for their perceived bad behaviour

 

[glenn forger]

in that case speeding drivers deserve a brick through the windscreen. See where this reasoning leads us?

 

[midlife]

I was in Swaffam in 1979, someone in the local pub tried to beat me up with a pool cue.

Never been back since so wasn't me

Shaun

 

[JoshM]

in that case speeding drivers deserve a brick through the windscreen. See where this reasoning leads us?

Well no, because the speeding driver who spins out hasn't been 'punished' by anyone, just felt the consequences of their own actions, which all of us do anyway. Let's face it almost all our decisions have consequences, and we deserve to feel the natural consequences of those actions, both positive and negative. The driver who has a brick thrown at their windscreen has been 'punished' by so,else who has decided they are out of order.

Can't you see the difference?

 

[glenn forger]

the speeding driver is placing people at risk. They deserve a brick through the window. That is why a speeding driver who kills someone is in trouble with the law, they will get punished. But most soeeding drivers get no punishment. That is where the brick comes in.

 

[JoshM]

the speeding driver is placing people at risk. They deserve a brick through the window. That is why a speeding driver who kills someone is in trouble with the law, they will get punished. But most soeeding drivers get no punishment. That is where the brick comes in.

I think you're (perhaps deliberately) missing the point.

One involves no vililgante action, one does. The op wasn't suggesting that the bad riding would have given the driver a green light to deliberately hit them, but rather that if an accident had happened then they'd have been at fault. To use your analogy the brick through the window is the equivalent of deliberately hitting the cyclist. The speeding driver spinning out the equivalent of being accidently hit as a result of your one action.

 

[glenn forger]

Nope, cos the collision would have been deserved. A speeding driver deserves a brick through the window, a silly cyclist deserves to be run off the road. Both equally stupid.

 

[JoshM]

Nope, cos the collision would have been deserved. A speeding driver deserves a brick through the window, a silly cyclist deserves to be run off the road. Both equally stupid.

So you believe that bad cyclying gives a driver the right to deliberately hit you? Never made a mistake?

 

[glenn forger]

When i called it "stupid" it made you think i endorse it?

 

[JoshM]

Nope, cos the collision would have been deserved. A speeding driver deserves a brick through the window, a silly cyclist deserves to be run off the road. Both equally stupid.

When i called it "stupid" it made you think i endorse it?

Well when you said they deserved it like the speeding driver deserves a brick through the windscreen then arent i meant to come to that conclusion? Unless you're somehow suggesting that bricks accidently hit cars all the time..

 

[glenn forger]

They deserve it, using the stupid argument that i described as stupid because it is a stupid argument. I reckon the word stupid confused you.

 

[Hill Wimp]

I reckon it's time this thread was closed.

 

[JoshM]

They deserve it, using the stupid argument that i described as stupid because it is a stupid argument. I reckon the word stupid confused you.

Well I'm certainly not sure what your point is?

 

[Dogtrousers]

the speeding driver is placing people at risk. They deserve a brick through the window. That is why a speeding driver who kills someone is in trouble with the law, they will get punished. But most soeeding drivers get no punishment. That is where the brick comes in.

What? I thought the brick came in through the window.

 

[mjr]

Yes, but if it was a cafe for cyclists, never mind.

The Pedlars Halls in both Swaffham and King's Lynn welcome pedallers. I prefer the imaginatively-named "Coffee Shop" in Swaffham and Archers in King's Lynn lately, though. Both have cycle parks you can see from them. (edit: as does Swaffham's Pedlar's Hall, to be fair, although that's a small one.)

Or even spelled?

Are you the wrong side of the isogloss, Drago? Spelt, snuck and frit are all ferpectly pine.