spindrift Posted July 7, 2010 Author Share Posted July 7, 2010 This particular cyclist made himself even more vulnerable by choosing a recumbent bike over a normal one. I do not accept that mobile users are more dangerous than drunk drivers, I would have thought there were many more mobile users on the road compared to drunk drivers but the drunk driver related deaths appears to be higher. So, a child makes themselves more vulnerable by being a child? A pensioner makes themselves more vulnerable by being unable to cross the road quickly? Disgusting victim-blaming, the danger is caused by the middle-aged thug in the van who breaks the law, jumps a red light, then runs back to assault the cyclist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrence Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Explain what? Explain how 11 deaths from using a mobile 400 from drunk drivers means that using a mobile is more dangerous that drunk driving? It appears your study says one thing, the figures say the opposite? How do you rationalise that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Wildcat, is that your first attempt at a joke... ever? First post without a link ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ sheffield Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 So, a child makes themselves more vulnerable by being a child? A pensioner makes themselves more vulnerable by being unable to cross the road quickly? Disgusting victim-blaming, the danger is caused by the middle-aged thug in the van who breaks the law, jumps a red light, then runs back to assault the cyclist. I'm not blaming the victim, I'm just pointing a few things out thats all. I stated early on in this thread that the driver is a pillock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted July 7, 2010 Author Share Posted July 7, 2010 Explain how 11 deaths from using a mobile 400 from drunk drivers means that using a mobile is more dangerous that drunk driving? It appears your study says one thing, the figures say the opposite? How do you rationalise that? You think driving whilst using a mobile is perfectly safe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydotcom Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 I have no idea. Maybe if you re-phrased your question? Drunk driving (that you defend) is illegal. Driving whilst using a mobile is illegal. Why are you defending drunk drivers and drivers on mobiles? you keep saying this but not backing up your point ... I'm saying if alcohol doesn't effect you like the law states it does then why should it still be illegal for you to drive while under the influence of alcohol. I also stated i understood it would be almost impossible to inforce such a rule but in an ideal world..... Why are you saying i am a "reckless, stupid idiot" saying im "very much part of the problem of reckless, stupid, drunk drivers on our roads, wrecking families and killing people" and a "reckless, stupid, sociopathic idiot" ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrence Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 You think driving whilst using a mobile is perfectly safe? I wrote no such thing. Your logic is very flawed this evening. You are using the Fox News style of debate! You are unable to answer the question so you attack the questionner. Can you answer my question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted July 7, 2010 Author Share Posted July 7, 2010 you keep saying this but not backing up your point ... I'm saying if alcohol doesn't effect you like the law states it does then why should it still be illegal for you to drive while under the influence of alcohol. I also stated i understood it would be almost impossible to inforce such a rule but in an ideal world..... Why are you saying i am a "reckless, stupid idiot" saying im "very much part of the problem of reckless, stupid, drunk drivers on our roads, wrecking families and killing people" and a reckless, stupid, sociopathic idiot" ????? Because, quite obviously, you are defending drunk drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spindrift Posted July 7, 2010 Author Share Posted July 7, 2010 I wrote no such thing. Your logic is very flawed this evening. You are using the Fox News style of debate! You are unable to answer the question so you attack the questionner. Can you answer my question? Just so I'm clear, you agree that using a mobile whilst driving is illegal? It's a straightforward question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydotcom Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Because, quite obviously, you are defending drunk drivers. where???????????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.