Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
Rich_W said:
Hardly!
But lets do it and see if its true! Here's the reverse version
Mave/HeeBe/ME et al et al are a vocal minority. They hate cars. They cannot abide them on the roads and hate anyone who defends them. Every and ALL cars drivers are law breaking
s to them. There simply is never a car rider that doesn't do something wrong in their eyes. They will excuse (or employ standard forum blinkers) any person riding a bike who makes a mistake. Show this tiny group a car driver being a dick and they will say "SEE! All car driver are tts"
With the caveat that I can't speak for everyone here's my riposte to that
I don't hate cars,
I am fine with them being on the road
I don't hate anyone that defends them
Not all car drivers are law breakers
There are car drivers who do wrong
I will excuse anyone who makes an honest mistake car or bike
Show me a car driver being a dick and I will say this driver is a dick, not all car drivers.
Marvellous
But Rich, I don't hate bikes, you have just decided that I do and so on and so forth.... But lets do it and see if its true! Here's the reverse version
Mave/HeeBe/ME et al et al are a vocal minority. They hate cars. They cannot abide them on the roads and hate anyone who defends them. Every and ALL cars drivers are law breaking
s to them. There simply is never a car rider that doesn't do something wrong in their eyes. They will excuse (or employ standard forum blinkers) any person riding a bike who makes a mistake. Show this tiny group a car driver being a dick and they will say "SEE! All car driver are tts"With the caveat that I can't speak for everyone here's my riposte to that
I don't hate cars,
I am fine with them being on the road
I don't hate anyone that defends them
Not all car drivers are law breakers
There are car drivers who do wrong
I will excuse anyone who makes an honest mistake car or bike
Show me a car driver being a dick and I will say this driver is a dick, not all car drivers.
Marvellous
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
So where is the post, or series of posts, where we have established the above?
Earlier in this thread, but also in the link I posted today, if you tot it up and then read the reports linked to each one.Mave said:
That's not "we" establishing your statement. That's you posting links. If I post links which disagree with yours, which of those links have "we" established to be correct?
Link I posted collates data from TfL, the police and other independent sources for the last 10 years! Anyway stop diverting, wriggling and being a **** and answer me the three questions below with a yes or no:
1) Is the number of fatalities in London a very small percentage of the total cyclists on the roads?
2) Are the fatalities more often than not when a cyclist is involved in a collision with a HGV?
3) In the collisions involving HGVs that result in fatalities is it more often than not when the vehicle is turning?
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 29th May 06:39
FiF said:
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.
come on, that's nonsense, as almost everyone taking a positive view of cycling on here is also a driver (otherwise why would they be on PH?) so it makes no sense to say they think all drivers are homicidal uncaring monstersno-one has even suggested anything similar, whereas there are regular statements of anti-cyclists calling all cyclists idiots or that they all get what they deserve
frisbee said:
Lance Catamaran said:
This happened just down the road from me, will be interesting to hear the full details when they emerge
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4549794/Ke...
They should castrate anyone who writes a comment on the daily mail site (on the daily mail site itself, not your post!). It would solve so many of this country's problems.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4549794/Ke...
Hugo a Gogo said:
what is my warped and ridiculously biased view?
that it's fun, often practical, good for you?
what a crazy world I live in, cuckoo! Nurse! quick!
No, all this crap about anyone who says anything against a cyclist or an aspect of cycling is therefore someone who hates all cyclists and is completely anti-cycling!that it's fun, often practical, good for you?
what a crazy world I live in, cuckoo! Nurse! quick!
cb1965 said:
No, all this crap about anyone who says anything against a cyclist or an aspect of cycling is therefore someone who hates all cyclists and is completely anti-cycling!
did I say that?cb1965 said:
No, they are not, they may make you laugh, but that is because they don't support your warped and ridiculously biased view of cycling (as evidenced by the utter whining drivel you've just posted above this)!
so what's my warped view of cycling?Hugo a Gogo said:
did I say that?
Hugo a Gogo said:
come on, that's nonsense, as almost everyone taking a positive view of cycling on here is also a driver (otherwise why would they be on PH?) so it makes no sense to say they think all drivers are homicidal uncaring monsters
no-one has even suggested anything similar, whereas there are regular statements of anti-cyclists calling all cyclists idiots or that they all get what they deserve
Aside from that in what way are my posts laughable. Your post to that end followed a post where I have provided data and was drawing conclusions from that data as to the circumstances in which cyclists die in London. You find that funny?no-one has even suggested anything similar, whereas there are regular statements of anti-cyclists calling all cyclists idiots or that they all get what they deserve
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
That's not "we" establishing your statement. That's you posting links. If I post links which disagree with yours, which of those links have "we" established to be correct?
Link I posted collates data from TfL, the police and other independent sources for the last 10 years! Anyway stop diverting, wriggling and being a ****
Mave said:
You still haven't shown me the posts where "we" established your statement. I'm not diverting, wriggling or being an arse, I'm asking the same question / making the same point that you STILL seem to be unable to understand or answer. So, where have "we" established your statement? Or is the truth (the real truth, rather than your alternative version of the truth) that no such thing was actually established when you made that statement?
OK I'll take another tack. Does it matter whether you felt it had been established at the time it was written or not? What matters is whether it is true and it is. Or do you dispute that?cb1965 said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
did I say that?
Hugo a Gogo said:
come on, that's nonsense, as almost everyone taking a positive view of cycling on here is also a driver (otherwise why would they be on PH?) so it makes no sense to say they think all drivers are homicidal uncaring monsters
no-one has even suggested anything similar, whereas there are regular statements of anti-cyclists calling all cyclists idiots or that they all get what they deserve
Aside from that in what way are my posts laughable. Your post to that end followed a post where I have provided data and was drawing conclusions from that data as to the circumstances in which cyclists die in London. You find that funny?no-one has even suggested anything similar, whereas there are regular statements of anti-cyclists calling all cyclists idiots or that they all get what they deserve
cb1965 said:
No, all this crap about anyone who says anything against a cyclist or an aspect of cycling is therefore someone who hates all cyclists and is completely anti-cycling!
how you can spin the above statement to be 'anyone who says anything against a cyclist' is laughable, there are plenty of people who have made similar statements who are not 'all-out cyclist-haters', I think some cyclists are idiots tooI can't take you seriously, I find your posts laughable, is that clear?
cb1965 said:
No, they are not, they may make you laugh, but that is because they don't support your warped and ridiculously biased view of cycling (as evidenced by the utter whining drivel you've just posted above this)!
so what's my warped view of cycling?btw it's not a bank holiday for me, I'm just back at work from a 4-day bank holiday, and it's blazing sunshine
cb1965 said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
I can't take you seriously, I find your posts laughable, is that clear?
Crystal clear, you find posts about people dying and how they died laughable. Nice chap aren't you? as I've stated I find your lack of comprehension laughable, also your wild leaps of 'logic' are laughable, absurd, ludicrous, preposterous, pick a word
if not A then it must be B
Hugo a Gogo said:
i'm lovely
as I've stated I find your lack of comprehension laughable, also your wild leaps of 'logic'
if not A then it must be B
You said you find my posts laughable. When you said that the post above by me was about cyclists dying and how they died. In what way is that a laughable post then? All my recent posts in this thread are about that. If the subject matter isn't what amuses you what is it? as I've stated I find your lack of comprehension laughable, also your wild leaps of 'logic'
if not A then it must be B
that particular post is less laughable, just a dull example of you trying to badger some obscure point in an argument with another post
don't try to claim some moral high ground because you mentioned deaths, you twerp
I actually hit reply from a post on the previous page
and what is my warped view of cycling?
don't try to claim some moral high ground because you mentioned deaths, you twerp
I actually hit reply from a post on the previous page
cb1965 said:
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.
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?
if A then B and it follows that C, ergo D - you are mentalI 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?
and what is my warped view of cycling?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff