Cyclist Jumping Red Lights...

[Blah Blah]

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Having literally just been repeatedly called a

> '@#$%& four eyed c*nt' by a cyclist for asking

> politely why they were going through a red light

> right towards me,as i was crossing my goodwill to

> them is reduced right now. No excuse for that kind

> of behaviour.

So you have an obsesion with this and again you are asking people to believe your account at face value.

[Blah Blah]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why are you posting here? Yes sadly some cyclists

> jump red lights. This is a societal thing unless

> we want to live in a police state. Write to your

> MP, the Met Police, your Borough, the Times,

> rather than on this site. Then when you've got a

> response you can discuss that.

>

> Today I saw a motorist forward of an advanced stop

> line, a pedestrian cross the road whilst looking

> at their smart phone, and a car across the

> pedestrian crossings whilst the lights were red.

> Just a normal day, nothing to see here people,

> move on.

Because their outrage isn't satisfied unless they have pages of agreement from people who accept everything at face value. It reminds of that 5 year old cycling on the pavemnt thread.

[jimlad48]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> jimlad48 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Having literally just been repeatedly called a

> > '@#$%& four eyed c*nt' by a cyclist for asking

> > politely why they were going through a red

> light

> > right towards me,as i was crossing my goodwill

> to

> > them is reduced right now. No excuse for that

> kind

> > of behaviour.

>

> So you have an obsesion with this and again you

> are asking people to believe your account at face

> value.

My goodness, you really are quite an unpleasant individual aren't you?

[Mark]

Seconding what DuncanW said.

An individual does something wrong,and because they're part of an identifiable "tribe" then they whole lot gets branded wrong-doers which then creates a bigger divide between them and us.

It happens to politicians, drivers, the forum ("typical EDF slagging off a victim..."), cyclists, yoof, races, football supporters, the police, local shops etc. all tarred with the same brush.

Been happening for years but it's good that people recognise it for what it is. I hope.

[malumbu]

Spot on. Thanks Mark and Duncan. Voice of reason. I could go on about drivers and mobile phones, but then I'd open myself up to the same criticism that I have made of others. "Do you mind not using your mobile phone whilst driving" you can guess the response. More interesting is the whole nudge and encouraging better behaviour and role models.

[Sue]

> jimlad48 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Having literally just been repeatedly called a

> > '@#$%& four eyed c*nt' by a cyclist for asking

> > politely why they were going through a red

> light

> > right towards me,as i was crossing my goodwill

> to

> > them is reduced right now. No excuse for that

> kind

> > of behaviour.

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> So you have an obsesion with this and again you

> are asking people to believe your account at face

> value.

Are you suggesting jimlad48 is lying?

And two posts about poor behaviour by cyclists which he experienced on two consecutive days hardly amount to an obsession.

And you then say "Because their outrage isn't satisfied unless they have pages of agreement from people who accept everything at face value."

Again suggesting jimlad48 is lying, and also suggesting that he has posted on here solely in order to get "pages of agreement" from people.

What evidence do you have for any of this, exactly?

[Blah Blah]

All I have pointed to is that people exaggerate when they feel disproportionately outraged. Anyone who feels the need to pull up every cyclist they see doing sometihng wrong is not looking at things with sensible persepctive imo. That they then feel the need to post on a forum about it is also something most people would not do either (and I would say the same about the other threads that fullfil this criteria as well). It is just my opinion though.

[malumbu]

Hmmm, got a bit of grief as I suspected. But comments about selfish cyclists really wind me up. Most of us are chuffin heroes doing our bit for the environment, and probably very nice people too. Not being sarcastic or patronising, rather making a point about "do something about it" rather than post. Even if you had started a petition or asked how best to get some action, as I did suggest, then that would have been more valuable. Otherwise it just comes out as reading the Daily Mail.

Anyway he who is without sin etc, I've no doubt been just as guilty of ranting to get something off my chest on here, and will get my just deserts next time I start a similar thread. See us cyclists are in deed genuinely nice people as I climb down off my moral high ground.

[Loz]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Most of us are chuffin heroes doing our bit for

> the environment, and probably very nice people

> too.

Forgive me if this was satire, but cyclists do very little for the environment. Most cyclists would not be driving instead, so the effect on the environment is negligible, if anything.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

cyclists do

> very little for the environment. Most cyclists

> would not be driving instead, so the effect on the

> environment is negligible, if anything.

Do you have any evidence for this lofty assertion beyond your oft-demonstrated dislike of cyclists? Anecdotally, of the eleven friends I know who cycle to work, three have always cycled, four are former public transport commuters and four used to drive. Factually, in the year 2000, motorists outnumbered cyclists in Zone 1 at rush hour by a ratio of 11:1. By 2014, the ratio had dropped to 1.7:1. Are you going to claim that this has nothing to do with commuters switching cars for bikes? Your claim is utterly risible and clearly based on nothing but your desire to denigrate cycling at every opportunity.

[malumbu]

Some facts. Around 40,000 people die each year due to poor air quality. The main source of the toxic pollution is diesel vehicles. Cars disproportionately so. Car occupancy is falling, ie we don't like to share our space with others. Most of us drive erratically and many routinely speed, accelerate/brake harshly. Wouldn't it be a better place if we didn't need traffic calming.

I need road transport to deliver commodities and goods. Build housing and infrastructure. But don't see it as a right to harm others in selfish/wasteful use of the tin boxes. Now that is my moral high ground. What is your moral high ground Loz? (I've had my speeding points, and not born a tree hugger)

[DaveR]

Can I suggest an embargo (maybe just temporary) on referring to 'cyclists' collectively, as if they are a homogenous group who have some kind of mutual responsibility for the behaviour of all within the group? I am perfectly happy for the same approach to 'drivers' or 'motorists'*, who are similarly a large group of diverse individuals.

I'm happy to say that I don't claim any virtue because I happen to go to work on a bike, I see idiotic behaviour by plenty of cyclists, and frequently, and I'm not universally supportive of pro-cycling initiatives by any means - some are rubbish, for all sorts of reasons. The most I would possibly claim is that a bike is inherently less likely to kill a person in a collision than a car, that more cycling is likely to lead to less air pollution, and that consequently I'm generally in favour of an urban transport strategy for London that sees encouraging cycling (as well as walking) as a generally good thing.

NB - I note that Loz is an amateur environmental scientist in his spare time - I vaguely recall that he is also an amateur statistician, at least when it comes to proving bad things about bikes. Maybe stick to the day job?

*except for the guys who drive the red Royal Mail vans. What is it with them? Is there a psycho test you have to do before they give you the keys?

[Sue]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> All I have pointed to is that people exaggerate

> when they feel disproportionately outraged.

You think he "exaggerated" when he said he saw somebody encouraging two children to ride through a red light?

And you think his outrage at that was "disproportionate"?

ETA: What would your response have been if one or both of the children had been hit by a car?

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > cyclists do very little for the environment. Most cyclists

> > would not be driving instead, so the effect on the

> > environment is negligible, if anything.

>

> Do you have any evidence for this lofty assertion

> beyond your oft-demonstrated dislike of cyclists?

> Anecdotally, of the eleven friends I know who

> cycle to work, three have always cycled, four are

> former public transport commuters and four used to

> drive. Factually, in the year 2000, motorists

> outnumbered cyclists in Zone 1 at rush hour by a

> ratio of 11:1. By 2014, the ratio had dropped to

> 1.7:1. Are you going to claim that this has

> nothing to do with commuters switching cars for

> bikes? Your claim is utterly risible and clearly

> based on nothing but your desire to denigrate

> cycling at every opportunity.

Except you forget (quite conveniently) I am a cyclist. So I don't hate cyclists, but I do rather object to anyone overstating a case, as maklumbu did.

But good try Mr Rendell the Angry Car Hater.

And you have used entirely irrelevant statistics - my assertion is that cyclists do little for the environment. Most will not be car drivers, so few car journeys will have been saved, so where exactly have do your figures have to do with any lowering of pollution levels? How many vehicle journeys have actually been saved? Just because there are more cyclists, it does not actually follow that there is a commensurate drop in vehicle journeys. If two people get off a bus at peak hour, the bus still runs.

But nice try at using a smolescreen of irrelevant statistics.

Anyway, malumbu made the original assertion. Perhaps he/she has better statistics to back the statement?

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And you have used entirely irrelevant statistics -

> my assertion is that cyclists do little for the

> environment. Most will not be car drivers, so few

> car journeys will have been saved, so where

> exactly have do your figures have to do with any

> lowering of pollution levels? How many vehicle

> journeys have actually been saved? Just because

> there are more cyclists, it does not actually

> follow that there is a commensurate drop in

> vehicle journeys. If two people get off a bus at

> peak hour, the bus still runs.

Loz, here's a tip to save your typing fingers: in answer to the question "Do you have any evidence for this lofty assertion beyond your oft-demonstrated dislike of cyclists?" you could have simply answered "no I haven't," which is what your post amounts to. The idea that more people using their bikes instead of cars for work, shopping and socializing won't reduce pollution is absurd.

I have no idea whether you ride a bike or not, it doesn't stop you jumping on every anti-cyclist bandwagon going on here - and supporting car use to the extent that anyone who supports reductions in car use and efforts to encourage cycling is immediately, and rather pathetically childishly, labelled "the Angry Car Hater." Try arguments, backed with figures, instead of insults, it would make for a more interesting debate. You're capable of it if you really try.

ETA "Most cyclists will not be car drivers" is utter nonsense - I only know one cyclist (of about thirty cyclist mates) who doesn't also own a car or occasionally rent one.

[Cardelia]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Some facts.

Not sure I'd class these as facts:

> Around 40,000 people die each year

> due to poor air quality.

*Estimated* to have died because of poor air quality. Unless you know for sure what every single one of those 40,000 people died from, you can't claim that number is a fact.

Besides, that's 40,000 people worldwide. Most of these people will die in heavily polluted countries like China and India, where emissions controls from industry outweigh those from transport. I don't want to sound harsh, but that figure is pretty meaningless when it comes to debating air quality within London.

> The main source of the

> toxic pollution is diesel vehicles. Cars

> disproportionately so.

No. Diesel cars collectively emit 5.3% of all NOx within Greater London and 2.4% in Central London. For PM10 the numbers are 0.48% and 1.08% respectively. Buses, vans, HGVs and taxis are all worse.

[rendelharris]

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> malumbu Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Some facts.

>

> Not sure I'd class these as facts:

>

> > Around 40,000 people die each year

> > due to poor air quality.

>

> *Estimated* to have died because of poor air

> quality. Unless you know for sure what every

> single one of those 40,000 people died from, you

> can't claim that number is a fact.

>

> Besides, that's 40,000 people worldwide.

No it isn't. An estimated nine million people die worldwide each year from pollution related illness. Approximately 50,000 die in the UK each year, of whom approximately 10,000 are in London. These aren't figures from some environmental lobby, by the way, but from The Lancet.

"Diesel cars collectively emit 5.3% of all NOx within Greater London and 2.4% in Central London." Try 11%:

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Driving%20Away%20from%20Diesel%20final%20report.pdf (Page 10)

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No it isn't. An estimated nine million people die

> worldwide each year from pollution related

> illness. Approximately 50,000 die in the UK each

> year, of whom approximately 10,000 are in London.

> These aren't figures from some environmental

> lobby, by the way, but from The Lancet.

>

> "Diesel cars collectively emit 5.3% of all NOx

> within Greater London and 2.4% in Central London."

> Try 11%:

>

> https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Driv

> ing%20Away%20from%20Diesel%20final%20report.pdf

> (Page 10)

Ok, if your figure is from the Lancet, why not reference the Lancet article which shows this? Because, from your own link (page 7, section 1.3):

"In 2010, over 3,000 extra deaths were attributed to man-made toxic particles in the air across London ? seven per cent of all adult deaths."

Are you telling me that in a mere 7 years, 7,000 extra people are dying in London due to air pollution? And that 40,000 additional people across the UK are dying from air pollution even though London is the most polluted and most populous city in the UK?

I'll come back to the other point tomorrow, but there's an IPPL report which we've discussed before on this board which is where I took my figures from. When I get a chance to find it I'll link to it.

[rendelharris]

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/pollution-killing-50000-in-the-uk-every-year-research-finds-a3663371.html

I notice you haven't said anything about the fact that you claimed that only 40,000 people die from pollution in the entire world each year?

ETA if you read properly you'll see that directly - literally the next sentence - after the 3,000 deaths figure it says "NO2 is not included in current mortality estimates, but recent evidence suggests that NO2 may cause about as many deaths again. Therefore the overall death toll due to air pollution may be considerably higher than previous figures showed." You must have missed that sentence, because you surely wouldn't just cherrypick a figure and ignore the evidence in the next sentence which contradicts your argument, would you?

[Robert Poste's Child]

DaveR Wrote:

------------------------------------------------

> *except for the guys who drive the red Royal Mail

> vans. What is it with them? Is there a psycho

> test you have to do before they give you the keys?

They are, or anyway used to be, above the law in a way as they're 'on the Queen's business'. A friend's family ran a post office for a while and the local postman would refuse to stop for police checkpoints.

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz, here's a tip to save your typing fingers: in answer to the question "Do you have any evidence

> for this lofty assertion beyond your oft-demonstrated dislike of cyclists?" you could

> have simple answered "no I haven't,"

Actually, the answer is "Rendell, your question not only contained a complete inaccuracy, but the more interesting question is why you didn't ask that of malumbu as well". It went a bit like this...

malumbu: "Here's an assertion without any stats".

Loz: "I think that is completely wrong"

Angry of Mayfair: "WHERE ARE YOUR STATS LOZ. GAAAH!! HOW CAN YOU MAKE SUCH AN A LOFTY ASSERTION?".

You are, at least, consistent in your inconsistencies.

> The idea that more people using their bikes instead of cars for work,

> shopping and socializing won't reduce pollution is absurd.

Goodness me, he's accidentally stumbled upon the problem. How many of these bike journeys are actually directly replacing a car journey? And how many have resulted in fewer buses and trains travelling?? (Clue for that second question: none).

And, to go back to malumbu's post, do these few actual direct car replacements actually add up to the cyclists being 'chuffing heroes"??

> Try arguments, backed with figures, instead of insults, it would make for a more interesting debate.

Oh, please say you actually understand the irony of you actually typing that. You have chutzpah, Ill give you that much.

[Loz]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I need road transport to deliver commodities and goods. Build housing and infrastructure. But

> don't see it as a right to harm others in selfish/wasteful use of the tin boxes. Now that

> is my moral high ground. What is your moral high ground Loz? (I've had my speeding points, and not

> born a tree hugger)

I can't argue with any of that. But I was actually questioning is there was actually significantly less "tin box" use because of cycle use. Not taking a bus or a train, but cycling instead actually makes no difference whatsoever. As I've tried to get through to RH, how many cycle journeys therefore actually make a difference?

And anyway, how does that actually relate to your claim that cyclists are 'chuffing heroes'? Because to me heroes run into burning buildings to pull people out. Or they leap into a freezing river to save a drowning child. Somehow, someone cycling around just doesn't cut it on the hero scale.

Six years ago I sold my car. Now it wasn't in any way for altruistic reasons at the time, as I was going out of the country. But, when a couple of years later I returned, I decided not to buy a new one. So, I would argue that I have made much more of a difference than any of Rendell's car-owning friends that hop onto their bikes some of the time - possibly all of them put together. Because it is not just in direct pollution, but also the actual carbon footprint of actually buying a car.

Does that make me a 'chuffing hero'?? Of course it doesn't. That would be silly, and hyperbole in the extreme.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Goodness me, he's accidentally stumbled upon the

> problem. How many of these bike journeys are

> actually directly replacing a car journey?

A question to which you have no answer, and yet you try to impose it on others. Find some statistics, or even a vaguely supportable argument, and the debate can continue. Have a word with yourself squire - apparently you believe that more people using bikes instead of cars won't reduce the number of car journeys. Surely even with your apparently tangential connections to logic and reality you can see you're making rather a fool of yourself? Goodnight.

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > Goodness me, he's accidentally stumbled upon the problem. How many of these bike journeys are

> > actually directly replacing a car journey?

>

> A question to which you have no answer, and yet you try to impose it on others. Find some

> statistics, or even a vaguely supportable argument, and the debate can continue. Have a

> word with yourself squire - apparently you believe that more people using bikes instead of cars won't

> reduce the number of car journeys. Surely even with your apparently tangential connections to

> logic and reality you can see you're making rather a fool of yourself? Goodnight.

But I have never actually said that I "believe that more people using bikes instead of cars won't reduce the number of car journeys". No one has ever said that. And we know that I never said it because if I had, you would have directly quoted me.

Yet the question I did ask, you actually did quote. But you chose not to answer it.

[red devil]

Loz's point (I think) is that there is no direct correlation that one extra cyclist means one less car journey. I doubt there will be stats to back that up, but from personal experience, when I first started cycling in London I stopped using the Tube. I didn't own a car then and still don't...