Another cyclist dies in London

[anonymous-user]

Mave said:

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?

No.

Ergo the number of deaths as a percentage is small and the majority are in collisions with HGVs yet you said we hadn't established that. So why say that?

[Mave]

cb1965 said:

Mave said:

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?

No.

Ergo the number of deaths as a percentage is small and the majority are in collisions with HGVs yet you said we hadn't established that. So why say that?

Again, no. Previously you criticised me for not answering questions directly so that is what I have done. You now appear to be trying to infer my opinion from a statement I haven't made.

[anonymous-user]

Firstly we have this:

Mave said:

cb1965 said:

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.

"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).

Then we have this:

Mave said:

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?

No.

So seriously, which is it?

Mave said:

Again, no. Previously you criticised me for not answering questions directly so that is what I have done. You now appear to be trying to infer my opinion from a statement I haven't made.

No I am trying to get you to answer a question directly!

[saaby93]

You need to look at the questions you're asking

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

You need to look at the questions you're asking

No I really don't, you and Mave are making this stupidly complicated when it's simple.

Person A says we have established a fact

Person B says we haven't

Person A says Person B must therefore think otherwise

Person B says they don't

Conclusion: Person A has the notion that Person B is being deliberately obtuse reinforced!

[saaby93]

Are you person A or person B?

And dont lump me in the same box as Mave

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

Are you person A or person B?

And dont lump me in the same box as Mave

Sigh, come on now

Yeah, sorry about the latter.

[saaby93]

Really cant tell the difference A or B.....

Have a look at what FiF posted

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

Really cant tell the difference A or B.....

Have a look at what FiF posted

What FiF posted has nothing to do with my statement that Mave is arguing about.

I said in this thread we had established that in London it is a very small percentage of cyclists that die and of those that do it's usually in a collision with a HGV. Mave said that was wrong. Yet when I asked if they therefore thought otherwise Mave said no.

[saaby93]

cb1965 said:

What FiF posted has nothing to do with my statement that Mave is arguing about.

It probably has more than you think

cb1965 said:

I said in this thread we had established that in London it is a very small percentage of cyclists that die and of those that do it's usually in a collision with a HGV. Mave said that was wrong. Yet when I asked if they therefore thought otherwise Mave said no.

Didnt you ask a different question in response?
Somewhere between one and the other is where the land lies

[FiF]

cb1965 said:

saaby93 said:

Really cant tell the difference A or B.....

Have a look at what FiF posted

What FiF posted has nothing to do with my statement that Mave is arguing about.

I said in this thread we had established that in London it is a very small percentage of cyclists that die and of those that do it's usually in a collision with a HGV. Mave said that was wrong. Yet when I asked if they therefore thought otherwise Mave said no.

Well it is, indirectly, you needed to follow the links in the article.

For example to the TfL 2010 stats. Table 11.

10 fatals.

2 goods > 7.5t
1 skip lorry
1 concrete mixer
1 bus/coach
4 cars
1 taxi

So one could be forgiven for thinking it's not usually in a collision with an HGV, but 4 of them are, but then that's the same number as cars.

I haven't the patience to dissect the bickering, sorry.

[anonymous-user]

FiF said:

Well it is, indirectly, you needed to follow the links in the article.

For example to the TfL 2010 stats. Table 11.

10 fatals.

2 goods > 7.5t
1 skip lorry
1 concrete mixer
1 bus/coach
4 cars
1 taxi

So one could be forgiven for thinking it's not usually in a collision with an HGV, but 4 of them are, but then that's the same number as cars.

I haven't the patience to dissect the bickering, sorry.

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

[FiF]

cb1965 said:

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

Be so good as to provide links to the data please.

Also aiui cycle journeys are increasing significantly, deaths not, even falling. Though 21 was a relatively high number compared to previous years iirc.

[Mave]

cb1965 said:

saaby93 said:

You need to look at the questions you're asking

No I really don't, you and Mave are making this stupidly complicated when it's simple.

Person A says we have established a fact

Person B says we haven't

Person A says Person B must therefore think otherwise

Person B says they don't

Conclusion: Person A has the notion that Person B is being deliberately obtuse reinforced!

You didn't ask what i thought. You asked me what I had said. As requested previously, I've answered your question directly.

[Mave]

cb1965 said:

No I am trying to get you to answer a question directly!

I have answered your question directly. If you want me to answer a different question then ask a different question!

[anonymous-user]

FiF said:

Be so good as to provide links to the data please.

Also aiui cycle journeys are increasing significantly, deaths not, even falling. Though 21 was a relatively high number compared to previous years iirc.

https://cycling-intelligence.com/fatal-cycling-accidents-in-london/

[anonymous-user]

Mave said:

You didn't ask what i thought. You asked me what I had said. As requested previously, I've answered your question directly.

FFS!!!!

Mave said:

cb1965 said:

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.

"we" have established no such thing.

Put simply what is it you disagree with here then?

[FiF]

cb1965 said:

FiF said:

Be so good as to provide links to the data please.

Also aiui cycle journeys are increasing significantly, deaths not, even falling. Though 21 was a relatively high number compared to previous years iirc.

https://cycling-intelligence.com/fatal-cycling-accidents-in-london/

Thanks, will have a look at that. Just reread your post again, think I misread it. 21 deaths over 3 years? If so that continues the trend of fatalities decreasing versus a rapidly increasing number of cycle journeys. Considering the congestion that suggests people are trying to avoid conflict.

[anonymous-user]

FiF said:

Thanks, will have a look at that. Just reread your post again, think I misread it. 21 deaths over 3 years? If so that continues the trend of fatalities decreasing versus a rapidly increasing number of cycle journeys. Considering the congestion that suggests people are trying to avoid conflict.

As said the percentage is pretty small (which admittedly is not much comfort if you're in the small minority) and given the increase in cycling is quite remarkably small actually.

I drive round London quite a lot these days and there are some idiots in cars, taxis, vans etc. but by quite a long way the proportion of cyclists doing daft things is much higher. I really do think if all cyclists behaved like some do and paid a bit more attention to what's going on around them and didn't take silly chances the rate of injury and death would come down further. That's not to say all motorised vehicles are perfect either, but the the police could actually deal with a lot of them better if they chose to focus a bit more on the various misdemeanours some of them get up to.

[FiF]

cb1965 said:

As said the percentage is pretty small (which admittedly is not much comfort if you're in the small minority) and given the increase in cycling is quite remarkably small actually.

I drive round London quite a lot these days and there are some idiots in cars, taxis, vans etc. but by quite a long way the proportion of cyclists doing daft things is much higher. I really do think if all cyclists behaved like some do and paid a bit more attention to what's going on around them and didn't take silly chances the rate of injury and death would come down further. That's not to say all motorised vehicles are perfect either, but the the police could actually deal with a lot of them better if they chose to focus a bit more on the various misdemeanours some of them get up to.

On the question of increase in cycling, if you look at figs 4 and 5 on the TFL analysis, the number of radial journeys on the inner cordon has increased markedly. For example fig 5 from 2000 to 2010, the index of cycling flow increased from 100 to about 250, whilst the ksi index went from 100 to about 130. Some disparity.

A general observation is that in this debate, there's one faction that sees the other as suicidal uncaring idiots, whereas the other sees the first as homicidal uncaring monsters. Complete unwillingness by some to take any centre position, which all it does makes some of us, me for example, automatically discount and largely ignored what certain posters write. No names obviously, to do otherwise would simply be inflammatory. But it's tiresome.