Another cyclist dies in London

[will_]

Mr2Mike said:

will_ said:

There are pages and pages of evidence of drivers doing unbelievably stupid things - the Bad Parking thread, the Dashcam thread and numerous other discrete examples.

Whereas there is no evidence of cyclists doing anything stupid, they are all perfect?

Absolutely not - has anyone said that they are? I certainly haven't.

The idea that there would be hundreds of dead suicidal cyclists around but for the amazing skills of motorists is rather laughable though, given the multiple threads evidencing terrible driving (and the number of collisions which motorists have).

[ambuletz]

cycling back from the gym earlier I noticed 2 flatbed HGVs with illuminated bicycle logos on the back. very eye catching, even in the day. the bicycle logo was illiuminated all red and a ring of amber illuminated around that. good idea that.

[saaby93]

will_ said:

The idea that there would be hundreds of dead suicidal cyclists around but for the amazing skills of motorists

Not sure where you get hundreds from or suicidal but it'll be a bit of each
We've seen videos of cyclists putting themselves in positions which if it wasnt for motorists making allowances theyd come to grief.
Some cyclists do it because theyre eejerts, some because they rely on motorists backing away and others who dont realise the danger
Some is just people making mistakes. Some will wind up motorists which also has a knock on effect.
You'll also see motorists getting things wrong too
So long as everyone shares, doesnt take liberties and looks out for others for the most part everything will run ok

[FiF]

saaby93 said:

will_ said:

The idea that there would be hundreds of dead suicidal cyclists around but for the amazing skills of motorists

Not sure where you get hundreds from or suicidal but it'll be a bit of each
We've seen videos of cyclists putting themselves in positions which if it wasnt for motorists making allowances theyd come to grief.
Some cyclists do it because theyre eejerts, some because they rely on motorists backing away and others who dont realise the danger
Some is just people making mistakes. Some will wind up motorists which also has a knock on effect.
You'll also see motorists getting things wrong too
So long as everyone shares, doesnt take liberties and looks out for others for the most part everything will run ok

Far too reasonable a view there saabs. You'll now get some contrary berk along arguing the toss over what you meant by for the most part. It's pathetic arguing the detail over semantics with the aim of saying they're right over one word thus all the rest of the points are automatically rendered invalid. Marginally one step up from the punctuation police. Waste of bandwidth.

[Mave]

FiF said:

Far too reasonable a view there saabs. You'll now get some contrary berk along arguing the toss over what you meant by for the most part. It's pathetic arguing the detail over semantics with the aim of saying they're right over one word thus all the rest of the points are automatically rendered invalid. Marginally one step up from the punctuation police. Waste of bandwidth.

I'm assuming that dig was partly at me seeing as you've used some of the same language as in your last dig at me, referring to "semantics" and "bandwidth" again. Very poor form. I politely didn't respond to your earlier digs because I didn't want to continue to be accused off taking up "bandwidth" with "semantics" discussion, but you appear to be unable to let it lie. So I'll respond.

What you glibly call "semantics" I call "detail". Differences of opinion and understanding frequently reside in the detail. The level of detail generally (ie much more often than not) provided by CB in his posts "I'm right and if you don't agree then you're stupid" is insufficient to have a reasonable debate. On the occasions when he has provided more detail they have so far appeared to disagree with his stated opinion. My post seeking clarification of an opinion, or questioning evidence offered in support of an opinion is not semantics. Its discussion. That's what discussion forums are for.

[FiF]

Mave said:

I'm assuming that dig was partly at me seeing as you've used some of the same language as in your last dig at me, referring to "semantics" and "bandwidth" again. Very poor form. I politely didn't respond to your earlier digs because I didn't want to continue to be accused off taking up "bandwidth" with "semantics" discussion, but you appear to be unable to let it lie. So I'll respond.

What you glibly call "semantics" I call "detail". Differences of opinion and understanding frequently reside in the detail. The level of detail generally (ie much more often than not) provided by CB in his posts "I'm right and if you don't agree then you're stupid" is insufficient to have a reasonable debate. On the occasions when he has provided more detail they have so far appeared to disagree with his stated opinion. My post seeking clarification of an opinion, or questioning evidence offered in support of an opinion is not semantics. Its discussion. That's what discussion forums are for.

Yes it was a dig at you, and I submit that your only purpose was as described, to win the internet over use of a word, or the interpretation of a word, and thus go onto dismiss the other arguments, despite his position being one of more or less pointing at the major issue.

You have imo ruined thread after thread after thread. If speaking as I find is, in your eyes, poor form then guilty as charged. Complain to the mods if you don't like it. Looks like we're now ignoring each other. Excellent. Now please go away.

[anonymous-user]

Mave said:

On the occasions when he has provided more detail they have so far appeared to disagree with his stated opinion.

You're a liar! And save the convoluted explanation of why you're not by debating some minor words as being semantically erroneous. I'm not listening to your divisive crap any more!

[Hugo a Gogo]

Consistently insults, then says others are being divisive

[Mave]

FiF said:

Mave said:

I'm assuming that dig was partly at me seeing as you've used some of the same language as in your last dig at me, referring to "semantics" and "bandwidth" again. Very poor form. I politely didn't respond to your earlier digs because I didn't want to continue to be accused off taking up "bandwidth" with "semantics" discussion, but you appear to be unable to let it lie. So I'll respond.

What you glibly call "semantics" I call "detail". Differences of opinion and understanding frequently reside in the detail. The level of detail generally (ie much more often than not) provided by CB in his posts "I'm right and if you don't agree then you're stupid" is insufficient to have a reasonable debate. On the occasions when he has provided more detail they have so far appeared to disagree with his stated opinion. My post seeking clarification of an opinion, or questioning evidence offered in support of an opinion is not semantics. Its discussion. That's what discussion forums are for.

Yes it was a dig at you, and I submit that your only purpose was as described, to win the internet over use of a word, or the interpretation of a word, and thus go onto dismiss the other arguments, despite his position being one of more or less pointing at the major issue.

You have imo ruined thread after thread after thread. If speaking as I find is, in your eyes, poor form then guilty as charged. Complain to the mods if you don't like it. Looks like we're now ignoring each other. Excellent. Now please go away.

I went away but you wouldn't let it lie. So now I will respond.

The purpose of my questions was not to "win" the Internet over the use of a word. It was to challenge someone making unsubstantiated claims, misrepresenting data, and using fallacious data to arrive at a conclusion. I will not "go away" just because you don't like my questions and discussion. I will continue to post them as I see fit. HTH. :-)

[FiF]

Misrepresenting data, using fallacious data, you mean like using a report about national road network when discussing London issues, and seemingly continuing to do so even when called out on it. Done with it and you.

[Mave]

cb1965 said:

Mave said:

On the occasions when he has provided more detail they have so far appeared to disagree with his stated opinion.

You're a liar! And save the convoluted explanation of why you're not by debating some minor words as being semantically erroneous. I'm not listening to your divisive crap any more!

I provided the data that I believe disagree with your opinion, along with the reference page number and table. You haven't responded with any clarification or counterpoint so no, I'm not a liar.

[Mave]

FiF said:

Misrepresenting data, using fallacious data, you mean like using a report about national road network when discussing London issues, and seemingly continuing to do so even when called out on it. Done with it and you.

Initially I used the national data which I had to hand, 18%. When called out on it I downloaded, reviewed, and subsequently included and referred to the London data, 25%. So no, I didn't "continue to do so even when called out on it".

[saaby93]

Hey can we move away from chucking insults and especially calling people liars
If someone's said something that isnt right - just show what it is
And no being master of an apples and oranges debate

I added 'for the most part' to keep some leeway but maybe it was covered by road users of all types do make mistakes or daft things from time, and if someone else makes allowance nothing might happens, if they too get it wrong it can end up in the headlines

How to reduce the chance of people getting it wrong in the first place?

[FiF]

Mave said:

FiF said:

Misrepresenting data, using fallacious data, you mean like using a report about national road network when discussing London issues, and seemingly continuing to do so even when called out on it. Done with it and you.

Initially I used the national data which I had to hand, 18%. When called out on it I downloaded, reviewed, and subsequently included and referred to the London data, 25%. So no, I didn't "continue to do so even when called out on it".

It's actually 42% for London btw, wind in hgv and turning left it's 33%, plus you conveniently ignored the point about 59% of issues at automatic traffic signals being HGV related. Bah. Proper details, not subjective interpretations.

Out of interest, you threw out something, when you went back to edit a post after I'd quoted it, about the results being skewed by children, where did that come from, as I can't see it in the London stats. 11% only under 16, vs 22% nationally, didn't understand the point.

[Mave]

FiF said:

It's actually 42% for London btw, wind in hgv and turning left it's 33%, plus you conveniently ignored the point about 59% of issues at automatic traffic signals being HGV related. Bah. Proper details, not subjective interpretations.

Not sure where you got the 42% from? I read 25% from the London report referenced in the national PPR report. I ignored the comment about traffic lights because I ignored the whole post - you said you weren't discussing it any more. FYI the reason I was pulling HGV turning left out specifically and ignoring traffic lights was because those were the incidents CB was concentrating on, and describing as what generally was happening. My issue is that if you only look at these because they are generally what happens, incidents which represent the remaining 67%? 75%? are ignored.

FIF said:

Out of interest, you threw out something, when you went back to edit a post after I'd quoted it, about the results being skewed by children, where did that come from, as I can't see it in the London stats. 11% only under 16, vs 22% nationally, didn't understand the point.

I thought that your comment was from the national stats summary. If you go and look at the details, the overall cyclist at fault / motorist at fault stats are heavily skewed by children making mistakes.

[FiF]

Mave said:

FiF said:

It's actually 42% for London btw, wind in hgv and turning left it's 33%, plus you conveniently ignored the point about 59% of issues at automatic traffic signals being HGV related. Bah. Proper details, not subjective interpretations.

Not sure where you got the 42% from? I read 25% from the London report referenced in the national PPR report.

Firstly I made it quite clear that I was referring to the report by Maureen Keigan et al.
Table 1-3 Distribution of cyclist fatalities by other type of vehicle involved, type of vehicle determined by first contact vehicle.

As written earlier, HGV > 7.5t 39%, HGV 3.5-7.5t 3%, total HGV 42 Bus 3% btw.

Mave said:

I ignored the comment about traffic lights because I ignored the whole post - you said you weren't discussing it any more.

Weak, very weak,

Mave said:

FYI the reason I was pulling HGV turning left out specifically and ignoring traffic lights was because those were the incidents CB was concentrating on, and describing as what generally was happening. My issue is that if you only look at these because they are generally what happens, incidents which represent the remaining 67%? 75%? are ignored.

Back to concentrating on the 'generally' issue. Moving on and point ignored as it misses the whole issue of the thread, sorry.

Mave said:

FIF said:

Out of interest, you threw out something, when you went back to edit a post after I'd quoted it, about the results being skewed by children, where did that come from, as I can't see it in the London stats. 11% only under 16, vs 22% nationally, didn't understand the point.

I thought that your comment was from the national stats summary. If you go and look at the details, the overall cyclist at fault / motorist at fault stats are heavily skewed by children making mistakes.

Ok so you've confirmed my point that you were still looking at the national stats, thanks for that. Again, very early in my post made it quite clear that was looking directly and specifically at the London specific report by Maureen Keigan et al. That's the problem with looking at a report which cites a second report, and not going back to the original report cited. So much more info in the original, for example interesting stuff like 6 fatalities when the cyclist went against the traffic signal, only 1 when the other vehicle was against the signal.

Well we've settled that, and confirmed that however one wants to word things the most significant issue is conflict with large vehicles, within that subset very frequently HGVs when turning left at junctions, particularly situations involving automatic traffic signals. Of course there are many other scenarios besides these in all sorts of circumstances including single vehicle fatalities.

By the way, if anyone is wondering how a cyclist in London can manage to kill themselves without involving another vehicle or person, here goes. Example 1, cyclist riding at night, without lights on the footpath of a poorly lit road, hit a wooden post. Example two, cycling head down in a bus lane where cyclists not permitted, hit a bus driver controlled barrier. Very sad, but idiotic.

[Mave]

FiF said:

Mave said:

FiF said:

It's actually 42% for London btw, wind in hgv and turning left it's 33%, plus you conveniently ignored the point about 59% of issues at automatic traffic signals being HGV related. Bah. Proper details, not subjective interpretations.

Not sure where you got the 42% from? I read 25% from the London report referenced in the national PPR report.

Firstly I made it quite clear that I was referring to the report by Maureen Keigan et al.
Table 1-3 Distribution of cyclist fatalities by other type of vehicle involved, type of vehicle determined by first contact vehicle.

As written earlier, HGV > 7.5t 39%, HGV 3.5-7.5t 3%, total HGV 42 Bus 3% btw.

Yes, and if you go further into section 3 of the report it breaks the data down further by accident type. 25% for HGVs turning left broken out explicitly.

FiF said:

Mave said:

I ignored the comment about traffic lights because I ignored the whole post - you said you weren't discussing it any more.

Weak, very weak,

What, you think I was remiss in not discussing traffic lights in a reply I didn't post? Now who's consuming bandwidth?! Anyway, see below

FiF said:

Mave said:

FYI the reason I was pulling HGV turning left out specifically and ignoring traffic lights was because those were the incidents CB was concentrating on, and describing as what generally was happening. My issue is that if you only look at these because they are generally what happens, incidents which represent the remaining 67%? 75%? are ignored.

Back to concentrating on the 'generally' issue. Moving on and point ignored as it misses the whole issue of the thread, sorry.

I rather think it's you who is missing the point of the thread, and my posts. It's supposed to be about cyclists dying in London. Not just cyclists dying due to HGVs turning left but ALL causes INCLUDING involving HGVs at traffic lights.

FiF said:

Mave said:

FIF said:

Out of interest, you threw out something, when you went back to edit a post after I'd quoted it, about the results being skewed by children, where did that come from, as I can't see it in the London stats. 11% only under 16, vs 22% nationally, didn't understand the point.

I thought that your comment was from the national stats summary. If you go and look at the details, the overall cyclist at fault / motorist at fault stats are heavily skewed by children making mistakes.

Ok so you've confirmed my point that you were still looking at the national stats, thanks for that. Again, very early in my post made it quite clear that was looking directly and specifically at the London specific report by Maureen Keigan et al

No it doesn't, the first paragraph specifically refers to and cites conclusions from the national report. The Keigan report is not specifically referenced at all in your post, or in the link.

FiF said:

That's the problem with looking at a report which cites a second report, and not going back to the original report cited. So much more info in the original, for example interesting stuff like 6 fatalities when the cyclist went against the traffic signal, only 1 when the other vehicle was against the signal.

Well we've settled that, and confirmed that however one wants to word things the most significant issue is conflict with large vehicles, within that subset very frequently HGVs when turning left at junctions, particularly situations involving automatic traffic signals. Of course there are many other scenarios besides these in all sorts of circumstances including single vehicle fatalities.

Yes, and as those "other" scenarios represent the majority of fatalities, why wouldn't we spend as much time looking at and discussing those scenarios as HGVs turning left?

[Psimpson7]

Hope this guy gets well soon. Shows the danger of badly loaded vehicles, and the impact even something as 'minor' as a loose rope can have on a cyclist

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/05/31/17/32/...

[FiF]

Mave said:

The Keigan report is not specifically referenced at all in your post,

On Monday I wrote, very clearly.

Mave said:

The PPR report covering national road network refers to the report by M Keigan et al, a report specific to London. It's that report to which I refer.

HTH

We're not going anywhere with this. Done finally.

[Mave]

FiF said:

Mave said:

The Keigan report is not specifically referenced at all in your post,

On Monday I wrote, very clearly.

FiF said:

The PPR report covering national road network refers to the report by M Keigan et al, a report specific to London. It's that report to which I refer.

HTH

We're not going anywhere with this. Done finally.

Yes you wrote that post, but downthread of my post about the skewed data. When I raised the issue of skewed data, I said "in your summary yesterday of the TFL report" so clearly I was referring to a post you had made in the past. HTH.

Edited by Mave on Thursday 1st June 06:56