Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
FiF said:
That thread seems to be about criticising poor driving standards and examples of unacceptable behaviour. But but but we are constantly told on this thread that nobody wants to discuss that and only want to concentrate on cyclists.
The difference is that on that thread, the finger is being explicity pointed at people doing something wrong, eg the MLM. Note, the name of this group represents the thing they have done wrong. Even though the poster is part of the larger "motorist" group, they are typically excluding themselves from the minor "MLM" group. On this thread, the finger is often pointed at "cyclists" as the sub group as if being a cyclist is a misdemeanour in its own right, with a significant amount of effort tarring all cyclists with the same brush to justify that stereotyping.Digby said:
It is done to avoid accepting anything he doesn't like.
Remember the classic post which started talking of accidents in the home, rather than face up to facts?
You never know where you will end up.
Talk of cycling accidents etc and you could find yourself in the middle of a statistical chat about accidents down a mine in South Africa.
There is a certain degree of irony here in that you present your own fact based on your own "experience" as proof as to why cyclist somehow deserve to die, and everything you have bemoaned has had zero to do with any (that I'm aware of) fatalities in this thread. The cause in every one I've seen are trucks turning left, but you are somehow hell bent on red light jumping, cyclists "not using infrastructure" and London turning into Copenhagen. You have also moaned about statistics of all these. Remember the classic post which started talking of accidents in the home, rather than face up to facts?
You never know where you will end up.
Talk of cycling accidents etc and you could find yourself in the middle of a statistical chat about accidents down a mine in South Africa.
Mave said:
FiF said:
That thread seems to be about criticising poor driving standards and examples of unacceptable behaviour. But but but we are constantly told on this thread that nobody wants to discuss that and only want to concentrate on cyclists.
The difference is that on that thread, the finger is being explicity pointed at people doing something wrong, eg the MLM. Note, the name of this group represents the thing they have done wrong. Even though the poster is part of the larger "motorist" group, they are typically excluding themselves from the minor "MLM" group. On this thread, the finger is often pointed at "cyclists" as the sub group as if being a cyclist is a misdemeanour in its own right, with a significant amount of effort tarring all cyclists with the same brush to justify that stereotyping.There are a few posts, admittedly, which seem to try to tarnish all people in a particular mode of travel, and that goes both ways btw. There are also others which don't explicitly say they are referring to some of that type of users so a sensitive sausage might infer that despite there being no such implication in what has been written.
But to say that someone complaining about, say cyclists going up the inside of HGVs, or riding without lights, or RLJing, or wrong way up a one way is somehow complaining about all cyclists generally rather than, to use your own words, complaining about someone doing something specific wrong as part of a minor group, yet when people complain about another's driving is a completely different case of blatant one eyed bias with the telescope to the wrong eye. There may be some, a very small subset perhaps, who do all those things and more, there will be some who do none of them.
Reading these threads, and here my own bias may be showing but at least I'm honest enough to admit it, seems that it's the cyclists who seem to lump themselves together and form a defence group when someone moans. I don't get all butt hurt, to use a Breadvan expression, when accusations of drivers RLJing abound, because I don't do it, equally MLM, mobile phone, close passes, driving along footpath bla bla bla.
FiF said:
Utter rubbish. Well being generous, generally rubbish and blatantly wanting it both ways.
There are a few posts, admittedly, which seem to try to tarnish all people in a particular mode of travel, and that goes both ways btw. There are also others which don't explicitly say they are referring to some of that type of users so a sensitive sausage might infer that despite there being no such implication in what has been written.
But to say that someone complaining about, say cyclists going up the inside of HGVs, or riding without lights, or RLJing, or wrong way up a one way is somehow complaining about all cyclists generally rather than, to use your own words, complaining about someone doing something specific wrong as part of a minor group, yet when people complain about another's driving is a completely different case of blatant one eyed bias with the telescope to the wrong eye. There may be some, a very small subset perhaps, who do all those things and more, there will be some who do none of them.
Reading these threads, and here my own bias may be showing but at least I'm honest enough to admit it, seems that it's the cyclists who seem to lump themselves together and form a defence group when someone moans. I don't get all butt hurt, to use a Breadvan expression, when accusations of drivers RLJing abound, because I don't do it, equally MLM, mobile phone, close passes, driving along footpath bla bla bla.
A very small subset? Yep, that's your bias coming through loud and strong.There are a few posts, admittedly, which seem to try to tarnish all people in a particular mode of travel, and that goes both ways btw. There are also others which don't explicitly say they are referring to some of that type of users so a sensitive sausage might infer that despite there being no such implication in what has been written.
But to say that someone complaining about, say cyclists going up the inside of HGVs, or riding without lights, or RLJing, or wrong way up a one way is somehow complaining about all cyclists generally rather than, to use your own words, complaining about someone doing something specific wrong as part of a minor group, yet when people complain about another's driving is a completely different case of blatant one eyed bias with the telescope to the wrong eye. There may be some, a very small subset perhaps, who do all those things and more, there will be some who do none of them.
Reading these threads, and here my own bias may be showing but at least I'm honest enough to admit it, seems that it's the cyclists who seem to lump themselves together and form a defence group when someone moans. I don't get all butt hurt, to use a Breadvan expression, when accusations of drivers RLJing abound, because I don't do it, equally MLM, mobile phone, close passes, driving along footpath bla bla bla.
If you took the time to actually read and consider my post, you might actually understand it. Maybe think about how PH regulars would respond if the post about poor driving was on a different forum where they were in a minority, and all motorists were being tarred and vilified with the same brush?
Edited by Mave on Sunday 22 October 14:03
Mave said:
FiF said:
Utter rubbish. Well being generous, generally rubbish and blatantly wanting it both ways.
There are a few posts, admittedly, which seem to try to tarnish all people in a particular mode of travel, and that goes both ways btw. There are also others which don't explicitly say they are referring to some of that type of users so a sensitive sausage might infer that despite there being no such implication in what has been written.
But to say that someone complaining about, say cyclists going up the inside of HGVs, or riding without lights, or RLJing, or wrong way up a one way is somehow complaining about all cyclists generally rather than, to use your own words, complaining about someone doing something specific wrong as part of a minor group, yet when people complain about another's driving is a completely different case of blatant one eyed bias with the telescope to the wrong eye. There may be some, a very small subset perhaps, who do all those things and more, there will be some who do none of them.
Reading these threads, and here my own bias may be showing but at least I'm honest enough to admit it, seems that it's the cyclists who seem to lump themselves together and form a defence group when someone moans. I don't get all butt hurt, to use a Breadvan expression, when accusations of drivers RLJing abound, because I don't do it, equally MLM, mobile phone, close passes, driving along footpath bla bla bla.
A very small subset? Yep, that's your bias coming through loud and strong.There are a few posts, admittedly, which seem to try to tarnish all people in a particular mode of travel, and that goes both ways btw. There are also others which don't explicitly say they are referring to some of that type of users so a sensitive sausage might infer that despite there being no such implication in what has been written.
But to say that someone complaining about, say cyclists going up the inside of HGVs, or riding without lights, or RLJing, or wrong way up a one way is somehow complaining about all cyclists generally rather than, to use your own words, complaining about someone doing something specific wrong as part of a minor group, yet when people complain about another's driving is a completely different case of blatant one eyed bias with the telescope to the wrong eye. There may be some, a very small subset perhaps, who do all those things and more, there will be some who do none of them.
Reading these threads, and here my own bias may be showing but at least I'm honest enough to admit it, seems that it's the cyclists who seem to lump themselves together and form a defence group when someone moans. I don't get all butt hurt, to use a Breadvan expression, when accusations of drivers RLJing abound, because I don't do it, equally MLM, mobile phone, close passes, driving along footpath bla bla bla.
If you took the time to actually read and consider my post, you might actually understand it. Maybe think about how PH regulars would respond if the post about poor driving was on a different forum where they were in a minority, and all motorists were being tarred and vilified with the same brush?
Edited by Mave on Sunday 22 October 14:03
If that is unnacceptable bias in your eyes, guilty as charged. Frankly don't care.
FiF said:
When I refer to a very small subset, just to be clear I am talking about there may be a very small subset of cyclists who cyclists go up the inside of HGVs, or riding without lights, or RLJing, or wrong way up a one way, just to be absolutely clear. Equally some who won't do any of those. Perhaps it wasn't made sufficiently clear.
If that is unnacceptable bias in your eyes, guilty as charged. Frankly don't care.
Apologies, I misunderstood, I thought you were saying that the subset of posters who lumped cyclists into one homogenous group was very small.If that is unnacceptable bias in your eyes, guilty as charged. Frankly don't care.
Killboy said:
There is a certain degree of irony here in that you present your own fact based on your own "experience" as proof as to why cyclist somehow deserve to die, and everything you have bemoaned has had zero to do with any (that I'm aware of) fatalities in this thread. The cause in every one I've seen are trucks turning left, but you are somehow hell bent on red light jumping, cyclists "not using infrastructure" and London turning into Copenhagen. You have also moaned about statistics of all these.
I didn't start the topic of red lights. That happened way back at the start of the thread when it became clear you were not allowed to say anything bad about cyclists / cycling to several members on here. Even if those who regularly cycle in London said the behaviour was often poor, those who don't ride there would still explain why this wasn't the case or why cars were bad, too. (not sure if you knew that?)One of my very first mentions of red lights (not started by myself btw) prompted a response from HeeBee of "If they get off and walk they are legal, so who cares if they jump red lights?"
It was all downhill from then, because many people do care but are not allowed to express those opinions. Btw, cars are bad.
I started by posting what I saw regularly, explained what was happening to try and stop this, tried to explain why it was often hard to keep track of riders etc, etc, etc and it all ended up with me being called a liar, a fantasists, that I should hand in my licence and numerous other forms of playground BS.
From then on, it was clear I was wasting my time, so why not play their game?
As an example, way back in 2015 was the first time I mentioned not seeing cars jump red lights 20 to 30+ seconds after they had gone red. Yet here we are, two years later, and STILL I am accused of saying I don't see cars jump red lights. This despite me saying the same thing again many, many times even within the last few pages.
You have to laugh.
Now I just find out all the negatives I can about cycling and keep reminding everyone based purely on the responses I was given. It's so easy, because there are so many things to choose from. I gave up explaining that I hate bad motorists etc and that cars are bad (not sure if you knew?)
And here we are again....
Drunk riding isn't a problem and it's even less of a problem because some bloke saw some cyclists from a boat.
This thread is truly fantastic. It makes me laugh every time I come here at the sheer desperation on show from those who do not want to hear anything negative about cycling. But we can't let them have it all their way, can we?
I love my bike, I love seeing cyclists out and about. We always get on well and most are fantastic riders. I'm only here due to the ones that may die under my wheels; but I'm not allowed to talk about them because.......cars are bad. Not sure if anyone knew that?
Oh and my experiences were all based around London, trucks and vehicles in London and riders in London.
Most of the people on here can't say the same. Not that I drive a truck. I am a fantasist liar who should hang his keys up (not sure what the keys are for, then?)
Quality thread. Absolute quality.
Edited by Digby on Monday 23 October 00:49
Yet still the only issue is of hgvs turning left over cyclists, and the cyclists in these cases, for whatever reason appear to be predominantly professional, middle class women.
Digby and the rest can waffle on as much as they like, and I and others can respond and they can criticise our responses as much as they like, and accuse of us of looping because we're responding to the same nonsense all the time, but still the issue is a narrow one, and still more pedestrians and more motorcyclists are killed in London than cyclists.
The only other issue is how the stuff the Digbys and ceebbeebies come up with, is so rarely, if ever, supported by any evidence, starting from the usual road tax, red lights, collisions always being the cyclists fault, and so on.
Digby and the rest can waffle on as much as they like, and I and others can respond and they can criticise our responses as much as they like, and accuse of us of looping because we're responding to the same nonsense all the time, but still the issue is a narrow one, and still more pedestrians and more motorcyclists are killed in London than cyclists.
The only other issue is how the stuff the Digbys and ceebbeebies come up with, is so rarely, if ever, supported by any evidence, starting from the usual road tax, red lights, collisions always being the cyclists fault, and so on.
heebeegeetee said:
Yet still the only issue is of hgvs turning left over cyclists, and the cyclists in these cases, for whatever reason appear to be predominantly professional, middle class women.
Digby and the rest can waffle on as much as they like, and I and others can respond and they can criticise our responses as much as they like, and accuse of us of looping because we're responding to the same nonsense all the time, but still the issue is a narrow one, and still more pedestrians and more motorcyclists are killed in London than cyclists.
The only other issue is how the stuff the Digbys and ceebbeebies come up with, is so rarely, if ever, supported by any evidence, starting from the usual road tax, red lights, collisions always being the cyclists fault, and so on.
So Digby's contribution is waffle, yet yours is a response? Digby and the rest can waffle on as much as they like, and I and others can respond and they can criticise our responses as much as they like, and accuse of us of looping because we're responding to the same nonsense all the time, but still the issue is a narrow one, and still more pedestrians and more motorcyclists are killed in London than cyclists.
The only other issue is how the stuff the Digbys and ceebbeebies come up with, is so rarely, if ever, supported by any evidence, starting from the usual road tax, red lights, collisions always being the cyclists fault, and so on.
Righty-o. Are you... older, by any chance?
OpulentBob said:
So Digby's contribution is waffle, yet yours is a response?
Righty-o. Are you... older, by any chance?
Well, as I say, the predominant issue, and I'd argue the only issue, is of hgvs turning left over cyclists, yet the Digbys want to talk about red lights and the rest of it, whilst excusing motorists who also jump red lights, but which from the start of the thread had never shown to be particularly relevant to the title of the thread. Righty-o. Are you... older, by any chance?
cb1965 said:
Nope, every one has occurred with trucks turning left, the cause in a lot of cases is the dumb ass cyclist going up the left hand side of said trucks.
If you care to go back to posts on this thread dated 27th January 2015, you'll find links to show that with adult cyclists, drivers are solely to blame 60-75% of the time. In cases involving left turns I believe it's nearer 50-50, although it's often proven that the cyclist was in the driver's sight for a period of time. I recall the German student who definitely cycled up the inside, the driver had passed her 200m before the lights and it took her 23 seconds for her to catch up with him. Re dumb-ass cyclists, and your previous comments about gene pools etc, the cyclists in these cases are often professional, educated middle class, whereas too often in the past, the truck driver has been found to have no licence, or insufficient eyesight, or had a lengthy history of driving bans and convictions etc.
But essentially you're still repeating what was said and largely disproved on this thread back in January 2015.
heebeegeetee said:
Well, as I say, the predominant issue, and I'd argue the only issue, is of hgvs turning left over cyclists
heebeegeetee said:
In cases involving left turns I believe it's nearer 50-50
In other words, split fault in the most common death scenario for cyclists in London. What do we do about that, how about ban over/undertaking at junctions?
heebeegeetee said:
Finlandia said:
In other words, split fault in the most common death scenario for cyclists in London. What do we do about that, how about ban over/undertaking at junctions?
FiF said:
heebeegeetee said:
FiF said:
Maybe, frankly he needs to explain himself in my opinion.
It's in response to Digbys post listed as yesterday at 10.57. Seems he's criticising me for responding to the points he raised. He keeps mentioning drunk cyclists too, I simply gave my direct experience of them.
Not sure what harm drunk cyclists do, say, as opposed to the problem of drunk drivers.
In absence of an answer one could be forgiven for thinking it's just another bit of blatant diversionary what aboutism, but this time using a series of very different but tragic incidents.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff