To the cyclist on the pavement ...

[binary_star]

Just because this forum has theme tourettes doesn't mean you have to listen to it...

[Loz]

binary_star Wrote:

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

> 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.

Look at it this way - cyclists probably (as I don't have the stats) as dangerous as red Honda S2000s on the basis that they have probably killed a similar amount of pedestrians over the last 10 years. On that basis, should we exclude red Honda S2000s from road rules? Of course not, because for the number of them on the road, they are similarly as dangerous as any other vehicle.

But if the henryb's of this world (and you, to an extent) drove red Honda S2000s they'd try to argue that the stats show red Honda S2000s are 'safe' and 'don't kill anyone'. But it's just not true.

And that's why your argument is fallacious.

And actually, I (and probably anyone else still awake) have rather lost the point of your argument. My original post was to highlight and disprove henryb's comment that 'cyclists don't kill', which is easily rebutted (indeed you have done so yourself). So, what exactly are you saying?

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Look at it this way - cyclists probably (as I

> don't have the stats) as dangerous as red Honda

> S2000s on the basis that they have probably killed

> a similar amount of pedestrians over the last 10

> years. On that basis, should we exclude red Honda

> S2000s from road rules?

I have never said anyone should be exempt from road rules?

> Of course not, because for

> the number of them on the road, they are similarly

> as dangerous as any other vehicle.

Now you're just being silly. A vehicle's make or model doesn't equate to vehicle type which is why they are all subject to the same rules.

> And that's why your argument is fallacious.

>

> And actually, I (and probably anyone else still

> awake) have rather lost the point of your

> argument.

My argument is fallacious but you don't actually know the point of it?

> My original post was to highlight and

> disprove henryb's comment that 'cyclists don't

> kill', which is easily rebutted (indeed you have

> done so yourself). So, what exactly are you

> saying?

What I'm saying is that some people have an emotional response to seeing cyclists riding on pavements, jumping red lights, cycling "in the middle of the road". But instead of admitting that they're getting all frothy mouthed about it because they don't think it's fair, they start saying daft things like cyclists are one if the biggest dangers on our roads.

My point is that, no actually they're really not. Stop trying to hide annoyance behind a safety issue.

[LadyDeliah]

Anyway, Loz and the other cyclephobes, are as effective as King Canute.

The tide is turning and you can't hold it back, so ner-ner-na-ner-ner.

Last laugh and all that.

[Loz]

binary_star Wrote:

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

> What I'm saying is that some people have an emotional response to seeing cyclists riding on

> pavements, jumping red lights, cycling "in the middle of the road". But instead of admitting that

> they're getting all frothy mouthed about it evaluate they don't think it's fair, they start

> saying daft things like cyclists are one if the biggest dangers on our roads and nonsense like

> that.

>

> My point is that, no actually they're really not.

But no one is saying that. What some people like henryb are saying is that cyclists are NO danger on the road, which is plainly false. When I pointed this out, you got your lycra shorts all in a twist and jumped in. Yet you are saying that this is your point all along? Not sure how this ties in with your last few posts.

Anyway, what I am saying that cyclists are part of the danger on the roads. I don't think anyone with an ounce of common sense would deny that. And even your own dodgy stat manipulations agree with it.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> Anyway, Loz and the other cyclephobes, are as effective as King Canute.

>

> The tide is turning and you can't hold it back, so ner-ner-na-ner-ner.

>

> Last laugh and all that.

Yeah, yeah, they'll be first up against the wall come the revolution and all that.

I surprised you've not commented on my thoughts a couple of days ago, LD. To remind you...

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.

[LadyDeliah]

Tentative hi-5 to Loz (but turned into a thumb-nose-finger wiggle) for the crap stats.

[Loz]

I'd expect no less (and certainly no more) from you LD. Besides, my stats are solid and referenced. Unlike some.

Anyway, still no comment on the above?

[LadyDeliah]

That was my comment. It's Saturday afternoon and the sun is shining. What more do you want??

[Zebedee Tring]

"Ner-ner-na-ner-ner" was the sort of thing my kids said when they were about six years old, Lady D. Surely you can do better than that.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> That was my comment. It's Saturday afternoon and

> the sun is shining. What more do you want??

Tis snowing here, my comment contained no stats and since you already have your laptop opened a slightly more grown-up response was sort-of expected. Or do you only reply to the more provocative comments in order to later complain about them?

Or, in other words, being the self-same wrecker for forwarding cycling in the UK that I described?

[LadyDeliah]

iPhone, not laptop. Enjoying the fresh air and sunshine.

Messaging whilst cycling on the pavements :-)

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

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

> I'd expect no less (and certainly no more) from

> you LD. Besides, my stats are solid and

> referenced. Unlike some.

I trust that wasn't directed at me since I used the same ones you did. Twice.

Anyway. Even though I used those stats to disprove your argument, you still have no explanation as to why you ever thought "casualties per estimated mike travelled" actually tells us anything...

[binary_star]

Loz you're having so many cyclist-bashing arguments on here you've forgotten which ones are which. I'm not referring to the argument you're having with henryb I was tailing about the one you and I were having about cyclists being 'that dangerous' although still no idea what that means (as dangerous as a Honda civic apparently). No stats for that one though...

P.S. I don't own Lycra shorts

[Loz]

binary_star Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I'd expect no less (and certainly no more) from

> > you LD. Besides, my stats are solid and

> > referenced. Unlike some.

>

> I trust that wasn't directed at me since I used the same ones you did. Twice.

Directed straight at you, obviously. You can't mix-and-match stats like you tried, taking casualties for all roads and dividing them by a very small subset of roads. Find the casualty rates for minor roads and you may have an argument. Until then, your calculation is flawed and meaningless.

> Anyway. Even though I used those stats to disprove your argument, you still have no explanation as to

> why you ever thought "casualties per estimated mike travelled" actually tells us anything...

Google 'deaths per mile travelled' and 'deaths per mile travelled uk'. It's a fairly well used approach to standardise differing modes of transport.

[Loz]

binary_star Wrote:

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

> Loz you're having so many cyclist-bashing arguments on here you've forgotten which ones are which.

Not true. Quote me one 'cyclist bashing' comment I have made on this thread. Actually, you are having a massive argument with yourself and I am just helping you do it.

> I was tailing about the one you and I were having about cyclists being 'that

> dangerous' although still no idea what that means

Really? You are confused about two words? Think of it as the opposite of 'not dangerous', as henryb tried to claim. As that was the entire point of my original post, I'd have thought that would have been obvious.

[edcam]

Zebedee Tring Wrote:

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

> so ner-ner-na-ner-ner >

>

> "Ner-ner-na-ner-ner" was the sort of thing my kids

> said when they were about six years old, Lady D.

> Surely you can do better than that.

LD's descent into such juvenile nonsense doesn't do her any favours (along with her inability to display any sense of reason.)

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Directed straight at you, obviously. You can't

> mix-and-match stats like you tried, taking

> casualties for all roads and dividing them by a

> very small subset of roads. Find the casualty

> rates for minor roads and you may have an

> argument. Until then, your calculation is flawed

> and meaningless.

You did it with motorways, I just used your method. Anyway, That was the first lot of stats. How about the second? I didn't do anything to those.

Loz Wrote:

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

> > Anyway. Even though I used those stats to

> disprove your argument, you still have no

> explanation as to

> > why you ever thought "casualties per estimated

> mike travelled" actually tells us anything...

>

> Google 'deaths per mile travelled' and 'deaths per

> mile travelled uk'. It's a fairly well used

> approach to standardise differing modes of

> transport.

For the vehicle you are travelling IN yes, certainly. For the one that hits you? No Loz, that's just bonkers.

[northlondoner]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> iPhone, not laptop. Enjoying the fresh air and

> sunshine.

>

> Messaging whilst cycling on the pavements :-)

Well played Lady D! Yes it's a gorgeous day !

[Loz]

binary_star Wrote:

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

> You did it with motorways, I just used your method. Anyway, That was the first lot of stats.

> How about the second? I didn't do anything to those.

I did it with motorways purely as an aside just to try and make the cycling figures look more palatable for you. As I said, assuming no pedestrian deaths on motorways is not an unreasonable assumption (though wrong), but you have assumed that EVERY pedestrian death in the UK occurs on a minor urban road - a ridiculous assumption.

And your second calc IS the minor urban roads one.

> For the vehicle you are travelling IN yes, certainly. For the one that hits you? No Loz,

> that's just bonkers.

Not at all. It's cause of death. It's like looking at cycle deaths. I'm guessing here, but I would suspect that HGVs and buses caused cycle deaths would be a small percentage of total deaths compared to cars and other vehicles, but very high in relation to their comparative annual miles travelled (i.e. high in relation to the possibility of being near one). It's this sort of standardisation that brings the real issues to the fore. You just don't understand how stats work.

[binary_star]

Loz Wrote:

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

> binary_star Wrote:

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

> -----

> > You did it with motorways, I just used your

> method. Anyway, That was the first lot of stats.

> > How about the second? I didn't do anything to

> those.

>

> I did it with motorways purely as an aside just to

> try and make the cycling figures look more

> palatable for you. As I said, assuming no

> pedestrian deaths on motorways is not an

> unreasonable assumption (though wrong), but you

> have assumed that EVERY pedestrian death in the UK

> occurs on a minor urban road - a ridiculous

> assumption.

>

> And your second calc IS the minor urban roads

> one.

No I'm talking about these stats. Yes, initially I used YOUR OWN dodgy technique on the original 2010 data which YOU provided...but I then used the stats from the twelve year analysis you also provided. I didn't manipulate those figures they just showed that year on year for over a decade, cyclists caused very few deaths and that overall motorists caused almost three times as many deaths "per estimated mile travelled" than cyclists.

Loz Wrote:

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

> > For the vehicle you are travelling IN yes, certainly. For the one that hits you? No Loz, that's just bonkers.

> Not at all. It's cause of death. It's like looking

> at cycle deaths. I'm guessing here, but I would

> suspect that HGVs and buses caused cycle deaths

> would be a small percentage of total deaths

> compared to cars and other vehicles, but very high

> in relation to their comparative annual miles

> travelled (i.e. high in relation to the

> possibility of being near one). It's this sort of

> standardisation that brings the real issues to the

> fore. You just don't understand how stats work.

I understand perfectly well how they work, you just don't understand what they mean or how to use them. You have said on this forum that you have proved: "cycling causes relatively, by total mileage, more casualties that cars and vans and, thus, is more dangerous" using "deaths per estimated mile travelled". That metric is bonkers in terms of the stats you keep quoting because it includes miles travelled across the whole of Great Britain from totally incomparable journeys. It doesn't tell us anything...cyclists' journeys are typically in areas where there are lots of pedestrians to hit. Just because a car can travel hundreds of miles down country lanes and a-roads without even seeing a pedestrian doesn't mean anything. Which is why not a single study actually uses that data like that. It might make some sense if you were to use data from one central location where journeys by all vehicles are equally weighted by pedestrians (like inner London) but then I expect (no I haven't looked into it) that motorists would come out worse still.

I don't know why I'm bothering because the longitudinal data clearly blows your theory out of the water anyway.

[Loz]

Oh, I give up binary_star. You and stats were just never meant be in the same universe together.

You remind me of an old adage: I should never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes my time. And it annoys the pig.

[binary_star]

Loz, take a look at what happens when people who actually know what they are doing try to assess risk by analysing data using deaths per unit of distance travelled (my emphasis):

"The risk per unit of distance travelled by articulated HGVs is greater, being involved in the collisions resulting in five (11%) of the relevant fatalities but only 5% of the total vehicle kilometres driven by goods vehicles in London.

However, it is clear that by far the greatest risks per unit of distance travelled are presented by rigid HGVs, being involved in 87% of the relevant fatalities, despite making up just 15% of the total goods vehicle traffic."

Even though they've actually managed to narrow their traffic data to London's roads, at first it looks like they're doing a Loz doesn't it?

But wait...

"On the surface this would imply that moving freight from rigid vehicles to larger articulated vehicles would reduce the number of cyclists killed in left turns. However, this would ignore the possibility that within this traffic data there is a different distribution by class of road, for example, articulated vehicles may be doing a greater proportion of their total distance on relatively safe major arterial roads whereas rigid vehicles might be used more on local unclassified roads where the chances of a conflict with a cyclist may be greater. Much more detailed modelling of the routes taken by different types of HGV combined with information on cyclist flows by route would be required to evaluate this further."

Do you understand why using deaths per unit travelled doesn't make any sense unless you also understand the types of journeys made and on what roads they are made on? Well you might not but thankfully the Transport Research Laboratory do.

Loz Wrote:

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

> Oh, I give up binary_star.

I would as well if I had absolutely no idea what I was talking about.

[Loz]

binary_star Wrote:

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

> I would [give up] well if I had absolutely no idea what I was talking about.

But you don't though, do you? Give up or have any idea.

Truly, you're arguing with me, but have no idea of stats or even the point you are trying to make. You just seem to be throwing stuff around to make an argument, but with no coherent point.

And, like LD, when there is a reasonable, balanced post like a made a couple of days ago and repeated, then.... nothing. Not a sound (well, except LD being childish). It's like you just want to jump up and down, making lots of noise and playing the victim, but not actually interested in a debating any issues. Like a bunch of spoilt-brat children, whining because they don't get their own way all of the time.

It's just bloody pointless talking to you. Honestly, I tried, but it's just gotten way past the point of ridiculousness. I'd love to have a decent debate, but with someone who isn't (probably wilfully) obtuse.

[the-e-dealer]

Is this about cycling?