To the cyclist on the pavement ...

[Otta]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> Undolicited PM's to someone you are slagging off

> publicly are fair game in my opinion.

If the PM had been rude and swearing at you / calling you names, I'd agree. But it wasn't.

[LadyDeliah]

con?tro?ver?sy

1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.

2.contention, strife, or argument.

He/she posted something that he/she knew would cause prolonged public dispute, ipso facto, it was a controversial post.

And if there was no cyclist in any case, then your second & third points are moot.

[Loz]

monkeylite Wrote:

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

> Cycling to work today, another cyclist almost

> crashed into me by ignoring a red light. Would be

> hospitalised if I did not stop in time. Obviously

> *some* cyclists think that they are above the law.

> He got lucky today. It could be a bus he will be

> cycling into tomorrow.

... at which point henryb will be on here defending said cyclist and quoting unrelated statistics.

[edcam]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> con?tro?ver?sy

> 1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or

> contention; disputation concerning a matter of

> opinion.

> 2.contention, strife, or argument.

>

> He/she posted something that he/she knew would

> cause prolonged public dispute, ipso facto, it was

> a controversial post.

>

> And if there was no cyclist in any case, then your

> second & third points are moot.

SO you agree that the fourth point is completely accurate?

[edcam]

Loz Wrote:

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

> monkeylite Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Cycling to work today, another cyclist almost

> > crashed into me by ignoring a red light. Would

> be

> > hospitalised if I did not stop in time.

> Obviously

> > *some* cyclists think that they are above the

> law.

> > He got lucky today. It could be a bus he will

> be

> > cycling into tomorrow.

>

> ... at which point henryb will be on here

> defending said cyclist and quoting unrelated

> statistics.

And don't forget that doubt must be cast on monkeylite's post as it may be untrue, like the OP's according to some, so it may all be moot *raises eyes*

[LadyDeliah]

Ok for all of those hanging on my every word, yes I do think there are arseholes on bikes who piss people off by behaving badly, in addition to the arseholes in cars and on foot who also piss people off by behaving badly. I just don't believe the incident described in the original post actually happened. Are you happy now?

For anyone who has participated in any of the many previous cycling on pavement discussions, you may remember that this has been my position consistently throughout.

As I said before, failure to join in with the mantra, doesn't mean I disagree with the basic premise. I just don't go in for self-flaggellation to appease the wrath of the anti-cycling majority.

[Zebedee Tring]

For heaven's sake LD, the majority of people aren't anti-cycling. What, however, they probably are is anti - bad cycling.

You clearly like to portray yourself as a victim or martyr. If that helps you to get through the day, then please go ahead, but don't expect us to agree with this self-portrayal.

[LadyDeliah]

Ok, sorry my bad. I shouldn't use the EDF as a gauge of majority opinion. I forgot where I was for a minute.

[edcam]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> Ok for all of those hanging on my every word, yes

> I do think there are arseholes on bikes who piss

> people off by behaving badly, in addition to the

> arseholes in cars and on foot who also piss people

> off by behaving badly. I just don't believe the

> incident described in the original post actually

> happened. Are you happy now?

>

> For anyone who has participated in any of the many

> previous cycling on pavement discussions, you may

> remember that this has been my position

> consistently throughout.

>

> As I said before, failure to join in with the

> mantra, doesn't mean I disagree with the basic

> premise. I just don't go in for

> self-flaggellation to appease the wrath of the

> anti-cycling majority.

Why would the OP make something like that up though? Just to annoy you? This smacks of paranoia...

[Loz]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> For heaven's sake LD, the majority of people aren't anti-cycling.

Actually, I think this is an interesting point. I think most people (including myself) think that more cycling is a good thing. The cycling lobby could easily harvest a lot of good will and achieve some their goals much faster, but they have an unerring ability to get up people's noses. They do lots of good stuff behind the scenes with government and the police, but their public persona is absolutely wretched.

As it is, politicians and other decision makers are making positive noises, but are almost certainly reticent to act for fear of being seen as 'pandering to the cycling lobby'. If the general public was bought on board with a friendlier approach, rather than yelled at and browbeaten with the general 'holier than thou' attitude, then things may just move a lot faster.

[haruki]

Hello, OP here. The incident happened exactly as described. Not sure why it's so hard to believe. I have no anti-cycling agenda, my point was about this particular arsehole, not cyclists in general.

And as for why I've not been joining in this conversation? I think the resulting five pages are answer enough.

[fitch]

Down on Akerman Road, just the other side of Myatts Fields/Mostyn Gardens, where that massive new housing scheme is being built, there is a sign painted on the road reading 'Cyclists are encouraged to use the centre of the road'.

Has anyone else wondered what is going on here? Is someone having a laugh, or is it a genuine attempt at population control?

I cycle most of the time, but I think that's pushing it a bit.

[LadyDeliah]

Flawless timing Haruki!

Fitch, the reason we are encouraged to use the centre of the road or centre of a lane is to prevent a car trying to overtake when the road/lane is too narrow to pass safely.

I always go to the centre on narrow roads/lanes because I've been hit twice, by a car and a van pushing past when there wasn't enough room.

It pisses the motorists off who are behind, but I cycle pretty fast so generally keep up with the traffic flow anyway and even when I don't I usually pass the pissed off motorist who screeched past me, at the next lights.

[aquarius moon]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

>

anyway and even when I don't I

> usually pass the pissed off motorist who screeched

> past me, at the next lights.

You mean because he has to stop while you go zooming through the red! ;-)

[LadyDeliah]

No, because I can pass the queue of cars congesting up the road and sit in front of them all at the lights.

[spider69]

aquarius moon Wrote:

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

> LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> -----

> >

> anyway and even when I don't I

> > usually pass the pissed off motorist who

> screeched

> > past me, at the next lights.

>

>

> You mean because he has to stop while you go

> zooming through the red! ;-)

You have just guaranteed another 10 pages of boredom.

[the-e-dealer]

they do do that don't they though! (in the voice of Terry from Brookside)

[northlondoner]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> No, because I can pass the queue of cars

> congesting up the road and sit in front of them

> all at the lights.

LD: cars don't congest traffic. They are traffic.

To coin a phrase .

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

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

> In a desperate attempt to try and skew the figures, you have discounted all major, non-motorway roads

> without any adjustment in the death figures (which would not be insignificant).

>

> Ridiculous. And a complete stats fail.

Not really, I was desperately trying to use the same data set, not desperately trying to skew that data. Methodological fail, but only because that data can never be broken down like that. Let's use the other stats you linked to instead then if you like...

This 'proves' (by your weird definition) that cyclists have been consistently less dangerous every single year that the data was recorded for more than an entire decade.

In fact, if you collate the data for deaths from "Bike: Killed/Billion passenger kilometers" and "Car: Killed/Billion passenger kilometers not on motorways" from his spreadsheet then over the 12 yrs the results are:

Bikes: 7.08

Cars: 19.4

Cars come out almost 3 times as 'dangerous'. BUT seriously...who cares about "casualties per estimated mile travelled"???

The reason it's impossible to find a credible study that compares data like this as a measure for safety/risk/danger (as opposed to the post by a random blogger that you consider to be "rather better statistical analysis") is because that metric is completely useless. It doesn't tell us anything about how dangerous vehicles are to other road users or pedestrians. It's a bit like saying wild lions are less dangerous than captive lions because they can travel miles and miles without savaging anyone whereas captive lions kill more people per mile in their cages in captivity...utterly bizarre way of looking at things.

Loz Wrote:

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

> Face it BS, we can argue all day which is more dangerous, but cars and bicycles are both dangerous and lethal to pedestrians. The cycle-evangelists around here need to just accept that fact. Cycles ARE that dangerous, and as more

> cyclist take to the roads the death toll is only going to increase.

>

> Accept it, or prove (with decent, referenced stats) otherwise.

Define 'that dangerous'. I accept they can be dangerous but cyclists are involved in such a small minority of incidents I honestly don't believe it's morally viable to divert resources from more effective measures to increase road safety for everyone.

[LadyDeliah]

Nice try NL, they are indeed traffic, no dispute there, but they congest the road for cars, vans, motorbikes, cycles etc, therefore they congest the road for traffic :-)

[edcam]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> Flawless timing Haruki!

>

> Fitch, the reason we are encouraged to use the

> centre of the road or centre of a lane is to

> prevent a car trying to overtake when the

> road/lane is too narrow to pass safely.

>

> I always go to the centre on narrow roads/lanes

> because I've been hit twice, by a car and a van

> pushing past when there wasn't enough room.

>

> It pisses the motorists off who are behind, but I

> cycle pretty fast so generally keep up with the

> traffic flow anyway and even when I don't I

> usually pass the pissed off motorist who screeched

> past me, at the next lights.

I'm a motorist and this doesn't piss me off. I'm sure it does some but here you are generalising about people. Somewhat hypocritically really, in light of your posts on this subject.

[Otta]

*puts gun to head, curls finger around the trigger...*

[spider69]

Otta Wrote:

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

> *puts gun to head, curls finger around the

> trigger...*

Then reads about dogs in the park again on General Issues......BANG

[Otta]

LOL

[edcam]

Foie gras anyone?