Cyclists without lights - something needs to be done
Discussion
Mave said:
If you think "I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as to why you would make up things I've said" isn't clear, then there's little hope for you in this discussion lark.
What you don't seem to understand is I don't want a discussion with you! Not because I can't debate or any other such retort you'll doubtless come back with any minute now, but because, despite your protestations to the contrary, any lengthy engagement with you becomes bogged down in tedium caused by you latching onto some small and usually only partially relevant point and then questioning it to the nth degree and even when you get the answer explained to you in minute detail you still refuse to accept it as an answer all of which I suspect is some sort of diversionary tactic on your part to wear people down into submission.Frankly you're like one of those boring pub regulars who barges in on other people's conversations making some tedious point while trying to be clever and who ends up boring everyone to death because they are all too polite to tell them to go away. Well I'm done being polite with you so take the hint!
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
If you think "I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as to why you would make up things I've said" isn't clear, then there's little hope for you in this discussion lark.
What you don't seem to understand is I don't want a discussion with you! Not because I can't debate or any other such retort you'll doubtless come back with any minute now, but because, despite your protestations to the contrary, any lengthy engagement with you becomes bogged down in tedium caused by you latching onto some small and usually only partially relevant point Cbeebies said:
and then questioning it to the nth degree
No, asking the same question in a different way because you keep avoiding answering itCbeebies said:
and even when you get the answer explained to you in minute detail you still refuse to accept it as an answer
Responding to a question by saying "it's an irrelevant question" or "it's obvious" or "can you guess" is not explaining an answer in minute detailCbeebies said:
all of which I suspect is some sort of diversionary tactic on your part to wear people down into submission.
How can it be diversionary to ask a relevant question?Cbeebies said:
Frankly you're like one of those boring pub regulars who barges in on other people's conversations making some tedious point while trying to be clever and who ends up boring everyone to death because they are all too polite to tell them to go away. Well I'm done being polite with you so take the hint!
Here's a hint for you. If you misrepresent my opinions, or lie about what's been said, then I'm going to call you out. If you find that boring, that's your problem not mine.Killboy said:
I'm going to post pictures of my cycle every evening this week. I'm fairly certain the pictures will still show, as challenged, the numbers and "problem" is nowhere near what is touted as fact in here. It will obviously be "fake news". But hey ho.
There must be no problem across the UK if your cycle shows people with lights on.johnwilliams77 said:
Killboy said:
I'm going to post pictures of my cycle every evening this week. I'm fairly certain the pictures will still show, as challenged, the numbers and "problem" is nowhere near what is touted as fact in here. It will obviously be "fake news". But hey ho.
There must be no problem across the UK if your cycle shows people with lights on.Four of us went riding today. Combined age somewhere north of 210 years old. A self employed flooring contractor, an IT manager, a business adviser, and an unemployed/retired layabout (me!).
It was daylight, not too gloomy, and in 20 miles we did 400 yards on one bit of road. We didn't see a single car on that section. Yet three of the group had brought lights, and two had their rear lights on for the whole ride.
Me? I was that damned idiot who didn't bring lights at all because we were MTB riding, and it was planned to be all off road. That, and I switched bikes this morning, last minute, and forgot to port over my lights from my "gravel" bike. And don't I feel like the stupid one...
It was daylight, not too gloomy, and in 20 miles we did 400 yards on one bit of road. We didn't see a single car on that section. Yet three of the group had brought lights, and two had their rear lights on for the whole ride.
Me? I was that damned idiot who didn't bring lights at all because we were MTB riding, and it was planned to be all off road. That, and I switched bikes this morning, last minute, and forgot to port over my lights from my "gravel" bike. And don't I feel like the stupid one...
mygoldfishbowl said:
"In the United Kingdom, London is a great example of how cycling has become a detriment cities." https://www.dangerous.com/37925/bike-lanes-just-an...
If anyone doesn't agree with the above, feel free to contact Lawrence Solomon and disagree with his studies. The plural of anecdote is not data
sIf anyone doesn't agree with the above, feel free to contact Lawrence Solomon and disagree with his studies. The plural of anecdote is not data
t cycling infrastructure is not the fault of the cycling community, nor is it the act of cycling that has become a detriment to business. mygoldfishbowl said:
"In the United Kingdom, London is a great example of how cycling has become a detriment cities." https://www.dangerous.com/37925/bike-lanes-just-an...
If anyone doesn't agree with the above, feel free to contact Lawrence Solomon and disagree with his studies. The plural of anecdote is not data
Genuine question, do you know and follow Lawrence Solomon, or did you just use Google?If anyone doesn't agree with the above, feel free to contact Lawrence Solomon and disagree with his studies. The plural of anecdote is not data
If it's the latter, you may want to Google a bit more into his credibility, qualifications etc. and if it's the former, I'm truly baffled.
yellowjack said:
Four of us went riding today. Combined age somewhere north of 210 years old. A self employed flooring contractor, an IT manager, a business adviser, and an unemployed/retired layabout (me!).
It was daylight, not too gloomy, and in 20 miles we did 400 yards on one bit of road. We didn't see a single car on that section. Yet three of the group had brought lights, and two had their rear lights on for the whole ride.
Me? I was that damned idiot who didn't bring lights at all because we were MTB riding, and it was planned to be all off road. That, and I switched bikes this morning, last minute, and forgot to port over my lights from my "gravel" bike. And don't I feel like the stupid one...
I was running daytime running lights on Saturday. Run all the way from Oxford to Wales and then into Bristol. And then I had to get to the station later and my rear light, which had shown no signs of battery distress, was dead It was daylight, not too gloomy, and in 20 miles we did 400 yards on one bit of road. We didn't see a single car on that section. Yet three of the group had brought lights, and two had their rear lights on for the whole ride.
Me? I was that damned idiot who didn't bring lights at all because we were MTB riding, and it was planned to be all off road. That, and I switched bikes this morning, last minute, and forgot to port over my lights from my "gravel" bike. And don't I feel like the stupid one...
I pottered down a shared use path to poundland and picked up a new rear light!Mave said:
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
If you think "I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as to why you would make up things I've said" isn't clear, then there's little hope for you in this discussion lark.
What you don't seem to understand is I don't want a discussion with you! Not because I can't debate or any other such retort you'll doubtless come back with any minute now, but because, despite your protestations to the contrary, any lengthy engagement with you becomes bogged down in tedium caused by you latching onto some small and usually only partially relevant point Cbeebies said:
and then questioning it to the nth degree
No, asking the same question in a different way because you keep avoiding answering itCbeebies said:
and even when you get the answer explained to you in minute detail you still refuse to accept it as an answer
Responding to a question by saying "it's an irrelevant question" or "it's obvious" or "can you guess" is not explaining an answer in minute detailCbeebies said:
all of which I suspect is some sort of diversionary tactic on your part to wear people down into submission.
How can it be diversionary to ask a relevant question?Cbeebies said:
Frankly you're like one of those boring pub regulars who barges in on other people's conversations making some tedious point while trying to be clever and who ends up boring everyone to death because they are all too polite to tell them to go away. Well I'm done being polite with you so take the hint!
Here's a hint for you. If you misrepresent my opinions, or lie about what's been said, then I'm going to call you out. If you find that boring, that's your problem not mine.PS Before you jump up and down like a spoilt child again recall your nonsense about trucks and bikes from a couple of years ago!
cb1965 said:
And here's a hint for you, if you repeatedly question every answer you get to the questions you ask because you don't like or want to ignore the truth I am going to call you a divisive bore!
PS Before you jump up and down like a spoilt child again recall your nonsense about trucks and bikes from a couple of years ago!
Oh, that one. The one where you claimed that the majority of cyclists' deaths involved HGVs so you could avoid discussing all non-HGV related incidents? Even though the "majority" was 30-40% IIRC? The thread where you denied that the report contained the statics I quoted, even when I linked the report and cited the page and table numbers?PS Before you jump up and down like a spoilt child again recall your nonsense about trucks and bikes from a couple of years ago!
Do you want me to carry on recalling the content of that thread, or is this just a ploy to accuse me of bringing up irrelevant facts and taking the thread off topic?
Here's a tip. If you want to have a serious discussion, then don't deliberately misrepresent what people have said, and then threaten to insult them if they question your opinion.
Edited by Mave on Monday 26th November 07:41
Mave said:
cb1965 said:
And here's a hint for you, if you repeatedly question every answer you get to the questions you ask because you don't like or want to ignore the truth I am going to call you a divisive bore!
PS Before you jump up and down like a spoilt child again recall your nonsense about trucks and bikes from a couple of years ago!
Oh, that one. The one where you claimed that the majority of cyclists' deaths involved HGVs so you could avoid discussing all non-HGV related incidents? Even though the "majority" was 30-40% IIRC? The thread where you denied that the report contained the statics I quoted, even when I linked the report and cited the page and table numbers?PS Before you jump up and down like a spoilt child again recall your nonsense about trucks and bikes from a couple of years ago!
Do you want me to carry on recalling the content of that thread, or is this just a ploy to accuse me of bringing up irrelevant facts and taking the thread off topic?
Here's a tip. If you want to have a serious discussion, then don't deliberately misrepresent what people have said, and then threaten to insult them if they question your opinion.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 26th November 07:41
gazza285 said:
gazza285 said:
st cycling infrastructure is not the fault of the cycling community, nor is it the act of cycling that has become a detriment to business.
Why does st cycling infrastructure is not the fault of the cycling community, nor is it the act of cycling that has become a detriment to business. t not have a capital S? It did when I typed it, and it is there when I click the edit post link, but not on the post...If you want your "s
t" to have a capital "S" then you must type "censored" with a ":" at either end to replace the "hi", thus ~ St (although you'll obviously have to click the "quote" button to see what I mean... 
)F
kS
tBo
cksFl
psPi
keys; Bitch; Chink; Scunthorpe ( )Cy
stscb
1965etc, etc...
Edited by yellowjack on Monday 26th November 07:53
cb1965 said:
I think you are having a selective memory moment there and that's being kind. Still on the bright side I made it through that post without nodding off.
Selective memory? Let's go through the facts.Did you say it was a majority? Yes.
Did various people from all "mobs" provide and debate evidence, and conclude the number was between 30 and 40%? Yes.
Did anyone suggest there was any evidence that number was greater than 40%? No
Would you acknowledge that the number wasn't a majority? No.
Those aren't opinions or memories, those are facts.
Seems to me you keep confusing dreams and reality. Either put the IT down and pour yourself a cocoa, or go for a nice cycle ride and warm your brain up.
Mave said:
cb1965 said:
I think you are having a selective memory moment there and that's being kind. Still on the bright side I made it through that post without nodding off.
Selective memory? Let's go through the facts.Did you say it was a majority? Yes.
Did various people from all "mobs" provide and debate evidence, and conclude the number was between 30 and 40%? Yes.
Did anyone suggest there was any evidence that number was greater than 40%? No
Would you acknowledge that the number wasn't a majority? No.
Those aren't opinions or memories, those are facts.
Seems to me you keep confusing dreams and reality. Either put the IT down and pour yourself a cocoa, or go for a nice cycle ride and warm your brain up.
Here is what Fif and I came up with from the TfL data on the subject of lory related deaths in London all those months ago:
Last 3 years, cycling deaths in London - 14 deaths in collision with lorry, 2 with buses, 4 with car, 1 with bicycle.
14 out of 21 are lorry related, 16 out of 21 lorry/bus
I'll let you do the maths.
If you recall, the stats you were quoting from were national not London based. Bit of a cock up on your part that one!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff