Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
I wouldn't waste your time. Reading, understanding, and responding to what people have actually said is not cb1965s MO. Only in cb1965s strange little world could my comments quoted above, be interpreted as my thinking that "if a cyclist goes down the inside of a HGV and gets killed, it's the driver's fault"
[/footnote]
You're the one using emotive expressions about drivers killing cyclists, not me. [/footnote]
Edited by Mave on Saturday 27th May 18:44
Mave said:
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
I wouldn't waste your time. Reading, understanding, and responding to what people have actually said is not cb1965s MO. Only in cb1965s strange little world could my comments quoted above, be interpreted as my thinking that "if a cyclist goes down the inside of a HGV and gets killed, it's the driver's fault"
[/footnote]
You're the one using emotive expressions about drivers killing cyclists, not me. [/footnote]
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 27th May 18:44
kerWolf are unable to read what is written without applying a biased uber pro cycling filter to it first. This leaves you unable to comprehend any argument presented to you in the way a normal person would.To explain one final time to see if it can seep through to whatever it is you use for a brain this thread is whinging about cyclists dying in London. We have established many pages back that not many die as a percentage and those that do generally do so due to colliding with heavy goods vehicles and usually when said vehicles are turning.
Of the cases that get to a prosecution stage the majority seem to find no fault with the driver and I suspect the prosecutions only come about as a result of heavy pressure by pro cycling groups on the authorities (witness nonsense like their pathetic protests where they all lie in the street and 'play dead'). This means that the inevitable conclusion is these cyclists are putting themselves in danger by riding up the side of HGVs as we all know there is no such thing as an accident any more.
Yet you come on here and reference 'drivers killing cyclists'. When you were called on it a few pages back you defended it and said that is exactly what it is, yet it clearly isn't is it? It's generally cyclists being ****ing stupid yet we're not allowed to say that as you and your chums get all butt hurt and start jumping up and down like a bunch of 3 year olds.
Face facts you are absolutely equating cyclists putting themselves in danger with the expression 'drivers killing cyclists' and you are bang out of order doing so!
No doubt you will come back with another twisted reply desperately trying to insult my intelligence as always, well crack on if it makes you feel better about yourself, I am sitting here with a university education and earning a nice living... if I can do that and be stupid then yay for me!
cb1965 said:
Of the cases that get to a prosecution stage the majority seem to find no fault with the driver and I suspect the prosecutions only come about as a result of heavy pressure by pro cycling groups on the authorities (witness nonsense like their pathetic protests where they all lie in the street and 'play dead'). This means that the inevitable conclusion is these cyclists are putting themselves in danger by riding up the side of HGVs as we all know there is no such thing as an accident any more.
If that's the basis of your approach to all this then I think you should share the statistics that you've found to arrive at that conclusion.cb1965 said:
Mave said:
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
I wouldn't waste your time. Reading, understanding, and responding to what people have actually said is not cb1965s MO. Only in cb1965s strange little world could my comments quoted above, be interpreted as my thinking that "if a cyclist goes down the inside of a HGV and gets killed, it's the driver's fault"
[/footnote]
You're the one using emotive expressions about drivers killing cyclists, not me. [/footnote]
Edited by Mave on Saturday 27th May 18:44
kerWolf are unable to read what is written without applying a biased uber pro cycling filter to it first. This leaves you unable to comprehend any argument presented to you in the way a normal person would.To explain one final time to see if it can seep through to whatever it is you use for a brain this thread is whinging about cyclists dying in London. We have established many pages back that not many die as a percentage and those that do generally do so due to colliding with heavy goods vehicles and usually when said vehicles are turning.
cb1965 said:
The problem is that you and that other dolt wkerWolf are unable to read what is written without applying a biased uber pro cycling filter to it first. This leaves you unable to comprehend any argument presented to you in the way a normal person would.
To explain one final time to see if it can seep through to whatever it is you use for a brain this thread is whinging about cyclists dying in London. We have established many pages back that not many die as a percentage and those that do generally do so due to colliding with heavy goods vehicles and usually when said vehicles are turning.
Of the cases that get to a prosecution stage the majority seem to find no fault with the driver and I suspect the prosecutions only come about as a result of heavy pressure by pro cycling groups on the authorities (witness nonsense like their pathetic protests where they all lie in the street and 'play dead'). This means that the inevitable conclusion is these cyclists are putting themselves in danger by riding up the side of HGVs as we all know there is no such thing as an accident any more.
Yet you come on here and reference 'drivers killing cyclists'. When you were called on it a few pages back you defended it and said that is exactly what it is, yet it clearly isn't is it? It's generally cyclists being ****ing stupid yet we're not allowed to say that as you and your chums get all butt hurt and start jumping up and down like a bunch of 3 year olds.
Face facts you are absolutely equating cyclists putting themselves in danger with the expression 'drivers killing cyclists' and you are bang out of order doing so!
No doubt you will come back with another twisted reply desperately trying to insult my intelligence as always, well crack on if it makes you feel better about yourself, I am sitting here with a university education and earning a nice living... if I can do that and be stupid then yay for me!
Your statement that in the majority of cases no fault is found with the driver is totally untrue. The complete opposite is the case.kerWolf are unable to read what is written without applying a biased uber pro cycling filter to it first. This leaves you unable to comprehend any argument presented to you in the way a normal person would.To explain one final time to see if it can seep through to whatever it is you use for a brain this thread is whinging about cyclists dying in London. We have established many pages back that not many die as a percentage and those that do generally do so due to colliding with heavy goods vehicles and usually when said vehicles are turning.
Of the cases that get to a prosecution stage the majority seem to find no fault with the driver and I suspect the prosecutions only come about as a result of heavy pressure by pro cycling groups on the authorities (witness nonsense like their pathetic protests where they all lie in the street and 'play dead'). This means that the inevitable conclusion is these cyclists are putting themselves in danger by riding up the side of HGVs as we all know there is no such thing as an accident any more.
Yet you come on here and reference 'drivers killing cyclists'. When you were called on it a few pages back you defended it and said that is exactly what it is, yet it clearly isn't is it? It's generally cyclists being ****ing stupid yet we're not allowed to say that as you and your chums get all butt hurt and start jumping up and down like a bunch of 3 year olds.
Face facts you are absolutely equating cyclists putting themselves in danger with the expression 'drivers killing cyclists' and you are bang out of order doing so!
No doubt you will come back with another twisted reply desperately trying to insult my intelligence as always, well crack on if it makes you feel better about yourself, I am sitting here with a university education and earning a nice living... if I can do that and be stupid then yay for me!
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cyclists+at+faul...
Is your lengthy post and all your other posts based on a premise that is completely wrong?
To be fair, from what I see on these threads, far too many motorists do get facts completely wrong, and I've often wondered if that's where they get their difficulties from when it comes to driving.
IroningMan said:
If that's the basis of your approach to all this then I think you should share the statistics that you've found to arrive at that conclusion.
I think they're on this thread somewhere or one of the cycling threads in here anyway. I didn't dig them up, someone else did.It was something like of 40 cases brought before the courts 29 were dropped or found not guilty, 4 drivers imprisoned, 7 drivers fined/banned. More recently even less are being successfully prosecuted most of which are documented on here in one or other of the cycling threads (with the usual air of disappointment from the pro cyclists - doesn't matter whether they were actually guilty or not).
Mave said:
"we" have established no such thing. Go back and find me the evidence many pages back (other than you saying it is so based on your observation).
So the number of deaths as a percentage of cyclists is not small! So the majority don't die at the hands of HGVs.Is that what you are saying?
cb1965 said:
saaby93 said:
There are prosecutions from time to time where a driver has made a mistake
Yes and of those the majority get dropped or found not guilty... fact!are you using it to mean greater than 50%?
Where's your stats?
saaby93 said:
to be fair ' the complete opposite' is stretching it too 
In the majority of cases, the motorist is found to be at fault. That is fairly opposite. It's the case in Westminster http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-224...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/crashes-involvi...
"The City of Westminster Council found that drivers were to blame for 68 per cent of collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles in the borough in the past 12 months. It found that cyclists were at fault for only 20 per cent. "
And it's the case nationally
http://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/chris-peck/whos-to-b...
cb1965 said:
^^^^^^^^ Up a bit
Where? In your post starting "It was something like..."?Meanwhile, the Myth of the Blameless Cyclist.
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2016/12/...
"‘The person being hit with the door should have been more careful’. ‘They should have been expecting me to open my car door’. ‘They shouldn’t be cycling past my stationary car’. ‘They shouldn’t have been passing my car on that side’. ‘They were going too fast’. ‘They came out of nowhere’. ‘They were in the blind spot’. ‘They weren’t wearing enough hi-viz’. ‘Their hi-viz was the wrong colour’. ‘They weren’t using lights’. ‘They shouldn’t even be on these kinds of roads in the first place’. ‘They are irresponsible, full stop’.
The list of potential faults is essentially endless; all flowing from a background assumption that the victim must be in the wrong somehow, because he is not like me, he is doing something that I would never do and can’t ever imagine doing."
heebeegeetee said:
Where? In your post starting "It was something like..."?
Meanwhile, the Myth of the Blameless Cyclist.
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2016/12/...
"‘The person being hit with the door should have been more careful’. ‘They should have been expecting me to open my car door’. ‘They shouldn’t be cycling past my stationary car’. ‘They shouldn’t have been passing my car on that side’. ‘They were going too fast’. ‘They came out of nowhere’. ‘They were in the blind spot’. ‘They weren’t wearing enough hi-viz’. ‘Their hi-viz was the wrong colour’. ‘They weren’t using lights’. ‘They shouldn’t even be on these kinds of roads in the first place’. ‘They are irresponsible, full stop’.
The list of potential faults is essentially endless; all flowing from a background assumption that the victim must be in the wrong somehow, because he is not like me, he is doing something that I would never do and can’t ever imagine doing."
Serious question... do you ever intend to visit the surface of the planet any time soon? It is rare that I have read such a load of biased nonsense even from Mave. Meanwhile, the Myth of the Blameless Cyclist.
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2016/12/...
"‘The person being hit with the door should have been more careful’. ‘They should have been expecting me to open my car door’. ‘They shouldn’t be cycling past my stationary car’. ‘They shouldn’t have been passing my car on that side’. ‘They were going too fast’. ‘They came out of nowhere’. ‘They were in the blind spot’. ‘They weren’t wearing enough hi-viz’. ‘Their hi-viz was the wrong colour’. ‘They weren’t using lights’. ‘They shouldn’t even be on these kinds of roads in the first place’. ‘They are irresponsible, full stop’.
The list of potential faults is essentially endless; all flowing from a background assumption that the victim must be in the wrong somehow, because he is not like me, he is doing something that I would never do and can’t ever imagine doing."
I will pick just one of your excuses. Should cyclists not have to have lights? If yes then the fact that many don't is wrong yes? And if they get hit by a driver who can't see them because they don't have them why is it not their fault?
From Full Fact
https://fullfact.org/news/are-cyclists-blame-road-...
Nationally recognised ksi collisions they say, "Overall the data indicates that, in one-on-one collisions, drivers and cyclists broadly share the blame in those involving deaths and the most serious injuries, while drivers are more implicated in slight accidents."
As far as London is concerned they comment that we "cannot reliably use these figures to suggest that drivers are implicated on substantially more occasions than cyclists."
Looking at the data it shows fault on all quarters, and statistically very similar shapes to the general preponderance of contributory factor guilt for various modes of transport.
Now stop bleeding bickering.
https://fullfact.org/news/are-cyclists-blame-road-...
Nationally recognised ksi collisions they say, "Overall the data indicates that, in one-on-one collisions, drivers and cyclists broadly share the blame in those involving deaths and the most serious injuries, while drivers are more implicated in slight accidents."
As far as London is concerned they comment that we "cannot reliably use these figures to suggest that drivers are implicated on substantially more occasions than cyclists."
Looking at the data it shows fault on all quarters, and statistically very similar shapes to the general preponderance of contributory factor guilt for various modes of transport.
Now stop bleeding bickering.
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
"we" have established no such thing. Go back and find me the evidence many pages back (other than you saying it is so based on your observation).
So the number of deaths as a percentage of cyclists is not small! So the majority don't die at the hands of HGVs.Is that what you are saying?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff