To the cyclist on the pavement ...

[henryb]

edcam Wrote:

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

> Agree with Otta. The inability of some of the

> "cyclists" that appear on these threads to be

> reasonable merely strengthens the arguments

> against antisocial cycling (which is becoming more

> of a problem in London, there's no doubt.)

Well to be fair you are not sounding particularly reasonable either. You are just having a go at a group of road users simply they have chosen a different transport mechanism than you. The OP didn't state any evidence that the cyclist had behaved badly just that they had got upset that someone was having a go at them.

As stated by the Home Office some cycling on the pavement is reasonable.

If you are going to start making claim that a group of road users are being particularly anti-social then you have to be sure you are not part of group that is being equally or even more anti-social, or you have to have actual evidence that an individual is especially behaving badly - otherwise it sounds like just bigotry and ignorance.

Yes some cyclists do feel holier than thou - and for a good reason - they don't kill, they don't seriously injure and they don't pollute the air and don't overcrowd an already over crowded public transport system.

Seriously get a grip - someone was cycling along the pavement with child on the back.

[Loz]

Agree with the above... if anyone wanted to know why people find the cycle-evangelists a pain in the **** then this thread pretty much explains all.

[Loz]

henryb Wrote:

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

> Yes some cyclists do feel holier than thou - and

> for a good reason - they don't kill, they don't seriously injure

Do we have to dig out the 'cycles and cars are - per mile travelled - similarly lethal to pedestrians' figures again, henryb?

So you can put that little faux-halo away.

[monkeylite]

Cyclists don't kill?

Tell that to the family of Rhiannon Bennett.

For what it's worth, I am also a cyclist. Never own a car, not even a drivers license.

[Jeremy]

While normal people realise that there are both sensible and irresponsible users of all forms of transport, a couple of militant cyclists seem to think that anyone on a bike is beyond criticism, because you know, cars are bad and stuff.

Its boring and childish.

[LadyDeliah]

Within 3 posts this thread descended into a general cyclist bashing thread, as do all threads on here that have anything at all to do with cyclists, but for some reason some of you expect cyclists not to challenge the shit that's said about them.

Cycle hatred by motorists endangers my life. I refuse to ignore it when I see it, no matter how boring you think that may be.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> Within 3 posts this thread descended into a

> general cyclist bashing thread

I suggest you go back and read it again, then. It started going downhill at post #5 when the 'cyclists are never to blame' usual suspect stepped in.

[KidKruger]

What's the twat on the bike doing getting aggressive and abusive to strangers in front of their child ?

These cyclists have really bad manners.

[Galev]

In 2012, the vast majority - 98% - of serious or fatal pedestrian injuries in urban areas (i.e. where pedestrians are most likely to be) - were due to collisions with motor vehicles;

From 2008 to 2012 (inclusive), out of the total numbers of pedestrians killed in single vehicle collisions with vehicles in any location/area (i.e. in the road or on the footway, urban and rural), cycles were involved in about 0.4% of fatalities and around 1.4% of serious injuries, while cars were involved in about 68% of pedestrian fatalities, and 81% of pedestrian serious injuries:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/pedestriansbrf.pdf

[NewtwoED]

http://vimeo.com/m/36287895

Don't know if this link has been posted before, if not, enjoy :)

Please note the speaker doesn't reflect my views - if anything I've always been a bit bike-curious.

[showboat]

Galev Wrote:

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

> In 2012, the vast majority - 98% - of serious or

> fatal pedestrian injuries in urban areas (i.e.

> where pedestrians are most likely to be) - were

> due to collisions with motor vehicles;

> From 2008 to 2012 (inclusive), out of the total

> numbers of pedestrians killed in single vehicle

> collisions with vehicles in any location/area

> (i.e. in the road or on the footway, urban and

> rural), cycles were involved in about 0.4% of

> fatalities and around 1.4% of serious injuries,

> while cars were involved in about 68% of

> pedestrian fatalities, and 81% of pedestrian

> serious injuries:

> http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_pub

> lic/pedestriansbrf.pdf

And this has what exactly to do with cyclists who behave badly or irresponsibly when on the pavement?

[edcam]

Hilarious that the usual suspects still refuse to accept that the behaviour of some cyclists is unreasonable. I don't see anyone here bashing all cyclists, just the idiots. And I don't care what the Home Office says, cycling on the pavement is antisocial. As is the behaviour of many motorists but that wasn't the subject of this thread. There are threads here about that subject and I don't see many car drivers getting defensive, because most of them accept that some motorists are dicks. Most odd that some cyclists can't do the same.

[LadyDeliah]

I didn't comment about the cyclist who was the subject of the op because I wasn't there and don't usually comment on what people say they saw. I responded to the posters who made general comments about cyclists, as I am a cyclist and they therefore apply to me.

If people don't want cyclists to respond to negative comments on them as a group, I suggest they keep the topic to the individual in the op instead of dragging us all off on these tedious cyclist bashing tangents.

[LadyDeliah]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> People like that give well behaved cyclists a bad.

> Unfortunately there are too many arrogant, badly

> behaved cyclists around these days.

Post 3, too many arrogant, badly behaved cyclists around these days.

Negative general cyclist comment based on nothing but this poster's prejudice.

[LadyDeliah]

edcam Wrote:

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

> It's a problem that's definitely getting worse.

> And I agree it gives the cyclists with a brain or

> an iota of respect for others a bad name.

Post 4, unsubstantiated assertion that bad behaviour of cyclists is getting worse.

[LadyDeliah]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> henryb Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > In my view driving a car in the busy, polluted

> > city is more anti-social than cycling on the

> > pavement.

>

> Uh? So what you're saying is, "Here's a worse

> thing than the bad thing you mentioned, so it

> makes your bad thing less bad." Stabbing people is

> worse than spitting at them, too.

And then Brandnewguy decides to ramp it up by bringing in stabbing and spitting at someone.

[Earl Aelfheah]

As many cyclists are also car drivers, pedestrians etc., at different given times, I think it's a reasonable assumption that the aggressive and rude cyclists are also likely to be aggressive and rude drivers / generally aggressive and rude individuals. There is no need to make this a thing about cyclists vs drivers. I walk a lot, but I don't identify myself in terms of some oppositional 'walker-non walker' dichotomy.

[LadyDeliah]

I submit the anti-cyclists took it off the subject of the op and some cyclists responded to their negative comments, myself included.

The moment I saw the thread, I knew that would be exactly what happened and the EDFers haven't let me down.

[henryb]

Post 1, unsubstantiated assertion that the cyclists in question had done anything wrong in the first place.

Also note it has only been the "motorists" who have been hurling the abusive comments. I guess it just what they are like ;o)

[northlondoner]

henryb Wrote:

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

> If spitting was illegal and stabbing people wasn't

> then it would be fair to point out the

> inconsistency.

The usual zombie logic. It doesn't matter how often they are hit with reason ...they will shake it off, yowl grotesquely at the moon and pedal, with demonic force, through the red light of logic..a terrifying rictus smirk across their unholier than though faces. Be afraid ...

[henryb]

2/10

[monkeylite]

I don't see generalisation against cyclists in this thread. Only holiar than thou attitude by militant cyclists who somehow takes criticism of *some* cyclists as a general attack. I am a cyclist myself and I feel offended by the way militant cyclists on EDF like to deflect every single blame to other road users.

[henryb]

monkeylite Wrote:

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

> I don't see generalisation against cyclists in

> this thread. Only holiar than thou attitude by

> militant cyclists who somehow takes criticism of

> *some* cyclists as a general attack. I am a

> cyclist myself and I feel offended by the way

> militant cyclists on EDF like to deflect every

> single blame to other road users.

When/where has anyone said cyclists were never to blame always cycle responsibly? As it stands no-one on this thread actually witnessed the incident that led to the argument.

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Do we have to dig out the 'cycles and cars are -

> per mile travelled - similarly lethal to

> pedestrians' figures again, henryb?

>

> So you can put that little faux-halo away.

I couldn't be *rsed to do this at the time on the original thread but now you're persisting with that ridiculous 'statistic'...

The extremely small number of pedestrian deaths by cyclists means even minor differences will massively skew the data year on year if you're going to measure deaths per mile. However, I've voiced my opinion on the problems with 'deaths per estimated mile' enough so let's run with it for now...

If you are going to compare two data sets you should try to pick the same year to do it (i.e. not compare my 2007 deaths with your 2010 estimated travel miles). The reason I used 2007 data for pedestrian deaths was because that year was a huge anomaly for cyclists because they killed a record 6 pedestrians. If you actually look at most other years it's more like 2 or 3.

In fact, in 2009 there were NONE, so that year cyclists weren't deadly at all to pedestrians using 'estimated death per mile' or any other parameter because they didn't kill ANY. If I use that year, I don't need to do any calculations...cyclists by your own definition were not dangerous at all.

Anyway, you were using 2010 data so I'll work out pedestrian deaths in 2010 (from the ONS stats you used here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdEZBNS1ETG8xT0JBSnR5N3Z6Q0hzNnc&f=true&noheader=false&gid=13) per estimated billion vehicle miles travelled in 2010 (from the dft stats you used here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/10424/tra0104.xls)

PEDESTRIAN DEATHS 2010

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

By car or van: 133

By pedal cycle: 2

Estimated billion miles travelled on ALL ROADS, EXCLUDING MOTORWAYS 2010

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

Cars, taxis (194.1) + vans (33.6) = 227.7

Pedal cycles: 3.1

Deaths per billion mile

By cars + vans: 133/227.7 = 0.584

By pedal cycles: 2/3.1 = 0.645

Estimated billion miles travelled on

MINOR URBAN RDS 2010

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

Cars, taxis (51.8) + vans (8.7) = 60.5

Pedal cycles: 1.8

Deaths per billion mile

By cars + vans: 121/61.1 = 1.980

By pedal cycles: 2/1.8 = 1.111

If you look at the two calculations, it clearly shows that on roads where there are actually likely to be any pedestrians, cars are almost twice as dangerous. In general, things don't tend to pose a danger to you when they're nowhere near you... Even with your loophole allowance which allows cars to rack up almost 200billion miles worth of relatively pedestrian free roads (of which cyclists only used 0.6billion miles), cars are still not coming out much better than cyclists.

So it expends on what year and what roads. But more importantly 'deaths per mile travelled' is just a load of sh*t and you know it.

[KidKruger]

2 (non-motorised) wheels bad, 4 wheels good.