Go Flip!!!

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 24 Dec 2006 13:50:13 +1100

giantvaude said:

.....but in those instances that they are used negligently or carelessly,
then I agree with you, they are weapons.

I dunno...

What's the reason to call them so? To get people to wake up and
realise that they are in control of something dangerous?

I'm not sure it will work. It can work, if done well, but if the word
is just thrown about then people will dismiss the thrower as
overblown.

I don't think attitudes can be changed without understanding why they
are there in the first place, and without understanding how people who
have them think. And once you have that, you have to change the
thinking. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion
still". No one, when demonised, suddenly falls to their knees and
says "you are right, I was wrong, I'll be good!". (not unless they
think you are stupid....)

If people don't think of cars as weapons now, will calling them so
change minds? Or brand the caller a fool?

I think it could work, if done well. But it would have to be done
carefully or it is just more bleating from cyclists who everyone knows
are weirdos. lawbreaking, red light running, pedestrian harassing,
traffic fouling weirdos.

I don't think yelling "weapon!!!!" is going to solve that problem.

Zebee

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 24 Dec 2006 13:57:37 +1100

giantvaude said:

You 1st paragraph makes sense, but the last one.......If you use your
car to kill someone, you have just used it as a weapon. You do not have
to change its shape or design, or the purpose for which it was created.
It is still a car, but it has also become a weapon. Like bikes,
lamingtons and paper airplanes, doesn't matter what you call them, if
they are used to kill/injure, they are weapons.

Tell me... If you are carrying a ladder, slip, knock someone down,
they hit their head on the kerb and die, was the ladder a weapon?

Zebee

--
Frank
[email hidden]
Drop DACKS to reply
"Euan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Zebee Johnstone said:

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 23 Dec 2006 23:49:12 GMT

Euan said:

The intended use doesn't matter, if it can be used against an opponent
then it's a weapon. Anything else is just [censored].

Then everything on earth is a weapon,

Now you're getting it.

Quoted message said:

A car is a car. If it is used as a weapon, in other words to attack
someone, then it's a weapon. Till then it's a car.

None of which I disagree with, just correcting that a car cannot be a
weapon, which some seem to be suggesting.
--
Cheers
Euan

Euan also wrote:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=weapon

Quoted message said:

1. any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat,

fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.

Quoted message said:

2. anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim: the deadly

weapon of satire.

Quoted message said:

3. Zoology. any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws,

horns, teeth, or stings.

Quoted message said:

-verb (used with object)
4. to supply or equip with a weapon or weapons: to weapon aircraft with

heat-seeking missiles.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that a car can't be a weapon. I've
written that it can be USED as a weapon, but it's still a car.

In reference to the dictionary cite (must be true - it's on the web!)
(1) Yep - that's a weapon.
(2) Note 'used'. Things can be used as weapons. The cited sentence conflates
a metaphor with the noun - satire is not a deadly weapon. The sentence
metaphorically equates the damage that can be caused by satire in terms of
causing a fatality. Satire doesn't kill adversaries (although it can be used
to get other people to kill people)
(3) Yep - some are weapons (e.g. stings) but others (e.g. claws) are
(presumably designed by someone/thing - don't want a deity debate!) as
multi-use items so can be correctly described as weapons or in terms of
their other uses. If a bear's calw can be used as a key-ring you wouldn't
describe the bear as "400lb, brown, sharp teeth and with 20 key-rings on
it's paws and feet" would you? (I think they have four toes!)
(4) Again, that's the correct use of weapon.

It can be legitimately said that, for example, someone deliberately driving
a car at another person commits an assault with a deadly weapon. If that
idea is unpacked, though, it's clear that it means that the person committed
an assault and used a car as an object to cause harm. It makes the car a car
that has been used as a weapon. It does not mean the car was constructed as
an object intended to cause harm, which is what a weapon is.

As Zebee pointed out, the vast majority of cars are not used to cause harm.
Some cause harm without the driver intending that harm - through
inattention, misjudgement, etc. That means the car is just a car, albeit one
in which the driver caused harm. If I accidentally shoot someone while
cleaning my gun (no I haven't got one), it doesn't make my gun any less a
weapon. I simply used my weapon to cause unintended harm, but it's still a
weapon.

I agree that a means needs to be found to make drivers much more consciously
and continually aware of the potential damage they can cause with their
vehicles. I don't think calling a car a weapon is that means. I repeat: the
ordinary driver will simply dismiss the argument as irrelevent to them
because they don't have the intent to cause harm, so their car is not a
weapon to them; and it's the ordinary driver making a mistake that causes
the most harm.

nuff - it's Christmess. Got stuff to do and drink and eat 🙂

Have a goodun!

me

--
Frank
[email hidden]
Drop DACKS to reply
"giantvaude" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Plodder said:

--
Frank
[email hidden]
Drop DACKS to reply
"giantvaude" <[email hidden]> wrote
in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Plodder Wrote:
> --
> Frank
> [email hidden]
> Drop DACKS to reply
> "vaudegiant" <[email hidden]>

wrote

Quoted message said:

> in
> message news:[email hidden]...
> >

SNIPPED

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Split.....ting a bit more :-P
Any inert object can be used for a purpose other than it's design. In
first
the case above, the gun remains a weapon, but is USED as a walking
stick. It
doesn't become a walking stick unless something else occurs - melting
it
down and reusing the materials to make a walking stick, rendering the
gun
incapable of shooting a bullet, then modifying it to be a walking
stick,
etc. The gun needs to be fundamentally altered to become not-a-gun. I
could
use a gun to bang in nails; that doesn't make the gun a hammer. It
makes the
gun a gun that's used to bang in nails. It's still a gun.

Similarly, I can drive my car down the pedestrian mall, mowing down
people
deliberately and causing great harm. That doesn't make my car a weapon.
It's
still a car.

me...

You 1st paragraph makes sense, but the last one.......If you use your
car to kill someone, you have just used it as a weapon. You do not have
to change its shape or design, or the purpose for which it was created.
It is still a car, but it has also become a weapon. Like bikes,
lamingtons and paper airplanes, doesn't matter what you call them, if
they are used to kill/injure, they are weapons.

Pat

--
giantvaude

At the risk of sounding repetitive, you wrote, "If you use your car to kill
someone, you have just used it as a weapon." I emphasise the part "USED IT
AS a weapon" Simile, not direct description...

me

Zebee Johnstone said:

If people don't think of cars as weapons now, will calling them so
change minds? Or brand the caller a fool?

I think it could work, if done well. But it would have to be done
carefully or it is just more bleating from cyclists who everyone knows
are weirdos. lawbreaking, red light running, pedestrian harassing,
traffic fouling weirdos.

I don't think yelling "weapon!!!!" is going to solve that problem.

I'm with Zebee on this.

Theo

On 2006-12-21, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

rooman said:

Bleve said:

I want to be treated as an equal, I don't need or want to be above the
law. When I ride on the road, I want the same rights, and the same
responsibilities, as every other road user.

Fortunately, your idea won't float, because it doesn't deserve to.double bunk

Carl, you have the confidence to do that...and good for you, and so do
many others, but the equality isnt there...your body is not equal in
mass as a 4WD it will crumble and mash up when hit by a driver who
considers might is right...you wont be around to say..oops maybe he
should have been told he had a primary liability for me as I am the
vulnerable road user here.

You can make the same argument that truck drivers should be
automatically at fault if they hit a car, that bike riders should be at
fault if they hit a pedestrian etc,

They *are* automatically at fault if they hit a pedestrian on a shared
path. Fsck, they're deemed at fault if they hit a dog.

Quoted message said:

but it's just as invalid. The 'might is right' argument is
fundamentally broken and so is its opposite of 'weak is right'. Go
read John Forester if you want a detailed position on this. If you
like, I can lend you my copy. It's not the psycopaths you have to
worry about (you can't do anything about them anyway), it's normal
drivers doing normal driving and making normal mistakes, and
*riders* doing dumb things in traffic.

Quoted message said:

The European situation is in place , it works.

I beleive it's Seattle where cars stop at the hint of a pedestrian
wanting to cross the road at any point (not near a crossing). They
get successfully sued otherwise. I think that's brilliant.

Why can it work in Seattle and the Netherlands, but not here, Carl?

--
TimC
They skip the teaching of "8" and "G" in the public schools as part of
the "No Child Leaves Behinded" program. Too spendy.
-- Whosetitanelbow in ARK

TimC said:

On 2006-12-21, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

rooman said:

Bleve Wrote:
> I want to be treated as an equal, I don't need or want to be above the
> law. When I ride on the road, I want the same rights, and the same
> responsibilities, as every other road user.
>
> Fortunately, your idea won't float, because it doesn't deserve to.double bunk

Carl, you have the confidence to do that...and good for you, and so do
many others, but the equality isnt there...your body is not equal in
mass as a 4WD it will crumble and mash up when hit by a driver who
considers might is right...you wont be around to say..oops maybe he
should have been told he had a primary liability for me as I am the
vulnerable road user here.

You can make the same argument that truck drivers should be
automatically at fault if they hit a car, that bike riders should be at
fault if they hit a pedestrian etc,

They *are* automatically at fault if they hit a pedestrian on a shared
path. Fsck, they're deemed at fault if they hit a dog.

That may be the case, but it doesn't seem to make riders ride any more
carefully on shared paths - not that I've observed anyway.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but it's just as invalid. The 'might is right' argument is
fundamentally broken and so is its opposite of 'weak is right'. Go
read John Forester if you want a detailed position on this. If you
like, I can lend you my copy. It's not the psycopaths you have to
worry about (you can't do anything about them anyway), it's normal
drivers doing normal driving and making normal mistakes, and
*riders* doing dumb things in traffic.

Quoted message said:

The European situation is in place , it works.

I beleive it's Seattle where cars stop at the hint of a pedestrian
wanting to cross the road at any point (not near a crossing). They
get successfully sued otherwise. I think that's brilliant.

Why can it work in Seattle and the Netherlands, but not here, Carl?

I can't speak for places I don't know about, and maybe it does work,
but something working doesn't make it right*. It just means it works
(or, it's *part* of something that works, which I think is more
likely).

IMO, it's ethically wrong to automatically assume blame based on
vehicle type (or anything else, for that matter ....)

* the thought experiment is left to your leisure

In article
<[email hidden]>,

TimC said:

I beleive it's Seattle where cars stop at the hint of a pedestrian
wanting to cross the road at any point (not near a crossing). They
get successfully sued otherwise.

Makes you wonder why they've bothered spending so many millions of
dollars on traffic calming works.

Quoted message said:

I think that's brilliant.

I think it's a simplification to the point of nonsense.

--
Shane Stanley