Cyclists taking over paths!!

[Rockets]

39 minutes ago, malumbu said:

1.  I was responding to a post that inferred that drivers were not a problem due to licensing, having to pass a test etc.  I disagree.  I made a number of points why.  You simply dismiss these points.

No, you were doing what so many on the pro-side of the argument do when confronted with a thread that is critical of the behaviour of some cyclists. You try to distract by screaming...WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!!!....which is exactly what you, and others, have done on this thread - and you do it all the time - you go head in the sand about the problems caused by cyclists and try to turn the debate on to cars. Again, another example of why so many people get fed-up with the actions of active travel protagonists because few are keen to address the issues in their own backyard.

[malumbu]

This is a forum to discuss issues,; could you tell me where in the 100s of posts responding to my generally thoughtful and informed posts, you have actually discussed my points rather than dismiss them? I struggle to see why my last post would result in your response.   You are most welcome to disagree with what I post, but at least be prepared to have a proper discussion.

[Rockets]

Malumbu - you (and others) regularly post things in threads that have no bearing on the subject matter but are just a ploy to move the discussion onto something YOU want to talk about - especially when the subject matter of the OP is something close to your heart and you are ideologically opposed to. It's nothing more than a distraction technique and adds nothing to the debate. How many times have threads been hijacked by people saying the forum equivalent of "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!!!!"? It happens all the time and it's always done by the usual suspects and it's against the forum rules.

[Spartacus]

But Rockets, what about the cyclists? 

I mean isn't that what this thread is about 😀

[KalamityKel]

10 hours ago, Spartacus said:

But Rockets, what about the cyclists? 

I mean isn't that what this thread is about 😀

Shhh we're not allowed to mention them! 😶

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 10/11/2024 at 09:48, Penguin68 said:

Careless and bad driving is not excusable, but why should careless and bad cycling get a free pass?

Cyclists shouldn't, and don't get a free pass. As mentioned, people behaving dangerously or breaking the rules, whilst travelling by bicycle are often issued with penalty notices. Regulation of push bikes is much lower than for motor vehicles, but that's because they are considerably less dangerous to others than a heavy, fast moving, motor vehicle. There are far, far fewer examples of people travelling on bicycle actually causing serious damage to property, or injuring / killing other people. I don't have any issue with people criticising poor road behaviour, whatever the mode of transport they're using. But the slightest level of proportion / objectivity in such debates would be good. The forum has numerous threads by people who post almost exclusively about the 'dangers' of push bikes, whilst seeking to minimise the more significant road safety issue posed by cars, vans and HGVs.

In particular, I do not understand why Rockets would heavily criticise / attack posters who highlights actual crashes and property damage caused by the bad driving, whilst promoting another who exclusively highlights inconsiderate behaviour by those on bicycles. It is clear to me that the only difference is the mode of transport. Rockets has also sought to minimise the number of recorded car crashes locally, and repeatedly railed against attempts to make cycling safer through road management schemes, cycle lanes etc.

I am really bored, of this 'footballification', where some people use this section to 'score points' for their 'side'. The 'cars good, bicycles bad' mentality is as dumb as it is unhelpful. Anyone who genuinely cares about road safety, wants to see better road behaviour. From those on foot and travelling by bike, but especially by those travelling in cars, vans and HGVs. It is this latter category that cause the overwhelming number of serious injuries and deaths (in fact almost exclusively so). If you're one of the people who can't accept this fact, and who constantly seek to minimise car crashes / the most serious road dangers, then I'm not really interested hearing you endlessly bang on about 'dangerous cyclists', because it's not really coming from a place of interest in road safety.

(I realise that I quoted you at the top of this post, but to be clear Penguin, this is not aimed at you btw).

[Rockets]

9 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

In particular, I do not understand why Rockets would heavily criticise / attack posters who highlights actual crashes and property damage caused by the bad driving, whilst promoting another who exclusively highlights inconsiderate behaviour by those on bicycles.

Because folks like you categorise every accident as bad driving (you have, predictably, just done it again) without any clue as to what actually happened. It's a Pavlovian response some of you seem incapable of shaking off. Car accident = bad driving.

12 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Rockets has also sought to minimise the number of recorded car crashes locally, and repeatedly railed against attempts to make cycling safer through road management schemes, cycle lanes etc.

Absolute fantasy-land made-up nonsense. Earl, you need to be better than that.

14 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I am really bored, of this 'footballification', where some people use this section to 'score points' for their 'side'. The 'cars good, bicycles bad' mentality is as dumb as it is unhelpful.

My jaw has not returned from where it dropped to when I read this.....

15 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

If you're one of the people who can't accept this fact, and who constantly seek to minimise car crashes / the most serious road dangers, then I'm not really interested hearing you endlessly bang on about 'dangerous cyclists', because it's not really coming from a place of interest in road safety.

I am afraid there are a hundred times more examples on this forum of people trying to minimise the impact of cyclists - it's almost daily. The BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!! brigade do it every time anyone dares suggests cyclists might be becoming a problem - Earl, you just did it again.

As far as I am concerned, and I have stated this a lot before, I do not want to be hit by a car or a bike and the biggest threat in the area we live in at the moment is being hit by a cyclist due to the high number of cyclists who ignore the rules of the road and put pedestrians at risk as a result. If some don't want to accept or acknowledge that or try to justify/minimise it because "well a bike won't hurt you as much as a car" then so be it - it does nothing to strengthen their cause just harms it and demonstrates how detached some are from reality because of their ideological blindness.

 

 

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

Because folks like you categorise every accident as bad driving (you have, predictably, just done it again) without any clue as to what actually happened. It's a Pavlovian response some of you seem incapable of shaking off. Car accident = bad driving.

Research indicates that driver error is the primary cause of road collisions in the UK, accounting for an average of 67.26% of accidents annually. Among UK regions, London stands out with the highest percentage of driver error collisions, averaging 74.24%. So yes, many (most) are the result of bad driving.

You have sought to minimise the number of car crashes that occur locally. Everyone can see your comments on this. For those who aren't aware, in a 5km by 2km area centred on SE22, there are 5 reported crashes every week on average. Across Southwark, 3,136 people were injured in road traffic collisions between 2018 and 2020.

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

I am afraid there are a hundred times more examples on this forum of people trying to minimise the impact of cyclists - it's almost daily.

No one has highlighted the impact of cyclists, merely the observed incidence of rule breaking. Whilst I don't condone rule breaking, it is not in and of itself an impact. More of a nuisance and potential danger. It is not 5 cars driving in to people, or property every week and causing damage to property or injury to people.

2 hours ago, Rockets said:

I do not want to be hit by a car or a bike and the biggest threat in the area we live in at the moment is being hit by a cyclist

This is demonstrably, objectively untrue. And therein lies the point. It is another example of how you dismiss the data, minimise by far the biggest cause of road injuries, death, and property damage, whilst overstating the impact of people showing disregard for other whilst cycling. It is a wild misrepresentation of reality. It's a perfect example of being ideologically blinkered; something you accuse other of with apparently no sense of irony. Incredible.

Edited November 12 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You have sought to minimise the number of car crashes that occur locally.

Seemingly only in your mind but that's you interpretation and you're entitled to it. I have clearly done nothing of the sort but then it's down to your interpretation of what I, and others, have been saying and as we have seen time and time and again you get things wrong very frequently.

 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

For those who aren't aware, in a 5km by 2km area centred on SE22, there are 5 reported crashes every week on average.

And, on the basis of the number of journeys made within that area that does not make then a common/regular occurrence. I was taking issue with you stating that they were a common/regular occurrence - which they are clearly not. Another example of you putting your spin on the data and, deliberately, taking my point out of context to try and further your own position.

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

No one has highlighted the impact of cyclists, merely the observed incidence of rule breaking. Whilst I don't condone rule breaking, it is not in and of itself an impact.

Well it is if one of them hits you and that, at the end of the day, is what this thread is about so again, you have tried to turn it into a BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CARS!! 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is demonstrably, objectively untrue.

I, and many others, will agree to disagree with you on this one, especially given the number of cyclists riding on pavements in the area - which, thankfully, despite your best efforts, keeps this thread on thread!!!

[Earl Aelfheah]

You claim that you haven't sought to minimise the number of car crashes that occur locally, then state that 5 crashes a week in a 5km by 2km area:

57 minutes ago, Rockets said:

does not make then [sic] a common/regular occurrence

This is literally minimising actual car crashes, occurring at a rate of 5 a week, across a tiny area. It is far, far too regular by any standard.

57 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Well it is if one of them [a person on a bike] hits you and that, at the end of the day, is what this thread is about

No it's not. It's relaying instances of people breaking the rules whilst on a bicycle, not people being regularly hit by people on bicycles.

If there were evidence of wide spread collisions, leading to personal injury, death, and destruction of property, caused by people on bicycles (as there is for motor vehicles) then you might have a point when you claim that:

Quote

I do not want to be hit by a car or a bike and the biggest threat in the area we live in at the moment is being hit by a cyclist

As it stands, it's absolute nonsense. Demonstrably so.

Edited November 12 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

Of course, missing the point, if nothing is done to stop this rise in careless cycling behaviour people will eventually get hurt. That is the point. It is not a contest of which is worse, but and especially if you have your way, more and more people will cycle. If cycling on pavements becomes the norm it will be a problem. Lime etc... want to ramp up e-bike use and because these are not owned I believe those using them are more likely to do so in a cavalier fashion. We can already see this happening, not only in how they are left lying around but also the manner in which they are ridden.

[Rockets]

Earl, I think you need to spend more time reading what people actually post as you seem to constantly misinterpret/fail to grasp the message. I am wondering if you are starting to do it deliberately so you can pick a fight or whether you really don't understand.

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is literally minimising actual car crashes, occurring at a rate of 5 a week, across a tiny area. It is far, far too regular by any standard.

But if you had taken the time to actually read what I had said instead of doing your usual knee-jerk reaction then perhaps you would have understood it. I have explained it more than enough times to you that, given the overall number of journeys taken within an area then it is not a regular occurrence but you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge what I ACTUALLY said and instead try to accuse me of minimising it. Not for the first time, a complete untruth.

Clearly....you can't argue with an....active travel lobbyist....;-)

[Sue]

Why don't you lot meet up and have a nice friendly discussion over a pint?

You don't seem to get very far on here, rehashing the same old stuff over and over 🤣

[Rockets]

Ha ha, Earl doesn't seem like the pub going type! 😉 If we did I certainly wouldn't want to get into an argument with them! 😉

[Spartacus]

This article in the Telegraph will get Malumbu and others ranting about "what about car drivers" 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/17/lets-get-tough-on-the-scourge-of-rogue-cyclists/

It's titled "Let's get tough on the scourge of rogue cyclists" 

What Simon Heffer is saying is a good discussion point. 

 

[snowy]

Simon Heffer

The Telegraph 

Cycling

 

The anti-cycling bingo card practically writes itself.
 

What is the UK and Farage supporter saying? It's behind a firewall?.I bet license plates, something unresearched about insurance (which you're covered by home contents insurance), road tax, war on motorists etc? 
 

i'm unsure of his background as a road and traffic management expert, does he explan what makes his view more valuable?

[Penguin68]

28 minutes ago, snowy said:

(which you're covered by home contents insurance)

You are only covered for theft of the bike, not for accidental damage or injury, to yourself or others. Any general injury insurance you do take out will not cover injury to others caused by you. 

[malumbu]

7 hours ago, Spartacus said:

This article in the Telegraph will get Malumbu and others ranting about "what about car drivers" 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/17/lets-get-tough-on-the-scourge-of-rogue-cyclists/

It's titled "Let's get tough on the scourge of rogue cyclists" 

What Simon Heffer is saying is a good discussion point. 

 

Always nice to be quoted.  Not bothered what the Telegraph thinks of cyclists, could guess in any case, particularly with a loaded headline that talks about 'a scourge'.  Much more interested in what they say about COP29,

Oh dear I just looked - headlines criticising government for sending out so many delegates, a view that it is all a scam and that technology and markets will solve everything (straight out of the Trump playbook), and one, which just talks about it being a vehicle for oil deals - if the Telegraph supported Net Zero then that cynical view would be more relevant.

There's also a pervasive thread in recent articles that is very anti-Starmer.

It's a sort of grown up Daily Mail.  That doesn't excuse the stuff they put out.  Interestingly I visited their offices a few years ago, we were shown round by a nice journo who said words to the effect that they tended to live in places like SE London, and you didn't have to agree with the Telegraph's politics to work there.  I expect that he cycled in too!

Penguin and others interested in cyclists insurance, members of the LCC have free third party insurance.  Not that I have ever needed it.  I've had successful claims following a hit and run, one against a hire company (box van knocked me off) and one against a bus driver.  Also against Southwark of all local authorities for not maintaining the road.  But that was all in the past and know do my best to avoid hurting myself, whether self inflicted or otherwise.

I keep promising myself I will no longer post in response to anti cycling, anti LTN and pro driver threads.  I'll do my best.  Happy to discuss Net Zero and climate change.  The latter is happening just in case you were unaware.

[snowy]

1 hour ago, Penguin68 said:

You are only covered for theft of the bike, not for accidental damage or injury, to yourself or others. Any general injury insurance you do take out will not cover injury to others caused by you. 

No, many (mine included) has a specific first party property and third party liability sections. Even LCC offers full insurance for something like £10 - year as the damage caused by cyclists is so minimal.

Also the precedent set by the Russell vs Smith court case will probably blow your mind

[Spartacus]

Love the fact that the pro cycle lobby are attempting to poo poo the idea of licencing, insurance, and compulsory testing for cyclists. 

If car drivers did the same they (cyclists)  would soon be arguing it is  needed. 

What's good for the goose is good for the gander as they say, and if we all want fair use and equal safety on the road then bring it on I say.

But yet again the usual suspects disagree as it appears cyclists are "special" 

 

[Pugwash]

Many years ago my elderly aunt was knocked down outside what is now Sainsburys, by a boy cycling  on the pavement. People witnessing the fall, tried to find out the lad's name, where his parents were also why cycling where people were shopping, Aunt taken to hospital with fractured hip and was reluctant to go out unless accompanied. From that point she physically declined, her health suffered and her happy go lucky personality went.  We are talking about 40 years ago at least and people were rooting for bikes to have registration plates, and be covered by insurance.

 

[malumbu]

Thread discussing undeliverable cycle licensing/registration:

 

[Spartacus]

5 hours ago, malumbu said:

Thread discussing undeliverable cycle licensing/registration:

 

Undeliverable only because you and your cohort don't want it. 

It's deliverable, will take some work but hey we licence mopeds, motor cycles and cars so why can't we do bikes ? 

[malumbu]

Because it is impossible to deliver.  End of story.  See the other thread.

[Spartacus]

Nothings impossible Mal 

If it's legislated, it can be delivered, but yet again the cry of the lycra warrior is "because we are special" 

Resistance is futile