Another cyclist dies in London

[heebeegeetee]

Digby said:

heebeegeetee said:

Digby said:

Oh, it's the play on the word "think" joker being used again. Is it the fantasist liar joker, next, or the blame it on the pub one?

Can you see how desperate you are becoming when backed in to a corner?

And you now don't want to waste any more bandwidth? How convenient. The ultimate white flag.

You said you had "countless" blind spot incidents. Describe them to me. That's all I am asking.

I know perfectly well what a blind spot is, in 30 years of driving, I have had one incident with a car.

All the other times someone has wanted to sit in a blind spot, I have known they were there.

So, once again, explain your "countless" blind spot experiences.

So no, you are not going to explain?

There are no words, you have completely lost it. "You said you had "countless" blind spot incidents. Describe them to me. That's all I am asking. "

[Digby]

heebeegeetee said:

Well I agree with you, and I'd really rather not mention it, but the man goes on and on and on about whether he's a driver or not, and he's the only one who said he's not.

heebeegeetee said:

1. Total bks! Utter bullst. You ain't a lorry driver at all mate. Time for pics methinks, 'cos I think you're a complete fantasist.


You're a liar mate, and not a well traveled one at that. You've been dishonest through the past 2.5 years.

I'm not sure if you are joking, or not feeling well?

Are there two of you?

[Digby]

heebeegeetee said:

There are no words, you have completely lost it.

Soooo no then?

Lost it? You just agreed with someone that your own post is worthless bullst.

[Digby]

There's also a relatively new name for being a on a bike!!

Skilled, urban, cyclist.

They made a movie!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGlZrK9WYpo

You can see similar, movie or not, every day if you spend enough time in London.

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

And what education is there for cyclists? Not training, but education.

If we want to reduce the cyclists deaths in London, then we need to, in one way or another, also include cyclist education/making cyclists aware of the dangers.

Well either way, trust me, there is no and will be no restrictions of cyclists freedoms to take to the roads.

That entirely depends on how big the problem gets and how many will be killed. Only took one pedestrian to be run over by an idiot on a illegal bike to spark talks about new legislation.
Cyclists are going the same way as motorists, some dheads will ruin it for everyone.

[Ares]

Digby said:

Right, let's get back to fighting and ignoring London..

Angry riders. People too scared to let their kids ride. Deteriorating behaviour. Congestion. Drunk cycling. Breaking laws and reckless riding...

Copenhagen, huh? Often used as the perfect example of how London should be. Really?

According to the Danish Cyclists' Federation and Wonderful , the official tourism organisation for Denmark, the sheer success of the drive to get more locals and tourists on bikes is creating a dangerous, intimidating and unpleasant climate for cyclists in the city.

"In Copenhagen, we have quite extraordinary problems around cycling congestion," said Aneh Hajdu, of Wonderful Copenhagen. "I don't take my children on their bikes into Copenhagen at rush hour any more. It's too dangerous and scary. I just wouldn't risk it."

It is not just the locals who are, according to Hajdu, finding the sheer crush of cyclists in Copenhagen an ordeal. "I went on a cycling trip around Copenhagen with a friend visiting from London recently, and she was terrified by the mass of cyclists and the aggressive way they behaved," said Hadju. "She found them so overwhelming that she burst into tears. She was too scared to get back on her bike. We had to put it in a taxi and drive back home."

As numbers increase in the cycle lanes, says Hadju, so behaviour deteriorates, with jostling and cutting-up becoming more frequent. "The locals rush past the foreigners, who are often uncertain on their bikes and going slowly," she said. "The locals get impatient and therefore become more threatening."

"As numbers grow and they fight for space, cyclists are becoming more aggressive and reckless in traffic. I increasingly see people bringing themselves and others into dangerous situations," he adds. "They break the laws and use their bikes in completely reckless ways."

Yes, because being in a massively congested major city is so calm without any sign of aggression.

[Ares]

Digby said:

heebeegeetee said:

I don't care how anyone cuts it, dealing with a million bicycles is infinitely easier than dealing with a million cars, on every level including time, space, health, pollution, longevity... the negatives of dealing with a million cyclists are tiny in comparison.

The article is from a city with more bikes than cars and with an infrastructure you probably have pictures of beside your bed.

....written by a person with a chip on their shoulder, who doesn't live in Copenhagen and who's friend burst into tears at the sight of a few bikes. As opposed to locals who voice massive support for the move.

Rational argument then.

[Ares]

frisbee said:

A drunk cyclist could do as much damage as a drunk captain of a nuclear submarine. How can people not realise this? Think of the children etc..

Yes. Never mind a nuclear arsenal, just prey Kim Jong-un doesn't arm himself with a carbon-framed road bike.

[Ares]

Digby said:

I asked if it should be law to use it if provided and asked why some do and some do not.

Edited by Digby on Monday 23 October 18:06

In fairness, you've been given reasons several times. You've either ignored, or chosen to disagree. Then asked again. Ad Nauseam etc

[Ares]

cb1965 said:

You're wasting your time, the pro cycling chaps on this board and in general don't like the truth and are unwilling to accept any responsibility for failings their type might have!!

Don't tarnish other with adopting your blinkers

I have never said, and can't recall any cyclist saying they are unwilling to accept any responsibility.

[Ares]

heebeegeetee said:

Well we've been educating motorists for some 120 years or so now, and cyclists for longer because they were on the roads before the car. How much longer do you say we should give it?

Problem is, driving standards are ever worsening. 1,000 reasons for it. And that has little to do with cycling.

I drove from Edinburgh yesterday, across the lovely A702, through Biggar, to the motorway.

I came across several lines of traffic doing c25mph, stuck behind a car dawdling along, all on 60 mph limit roads. The drivers were happy to sit behind, despite clear and easy opportunities to overtake.

I'm lucky, I have over 500bhp to fire me past lines of cars, but most times I did, I had at least one of the drivers flash or gesticulate to me once I'd gone past - all perfectly safely, especially as I had my family in the car.

We stopped at Abingdon for coffee, the requisite toilet break (joys of travelling with family) and to fill up with petrol (the joys of 500bhp!). The driver of one of the cars we'd passed pulled into the petrol station as I was getting back in to drive away, he had a go at me for dangerous driving and scaring him as I suddenly came passed him. Despite saying nothing to him, his parting shot was to shout aggressive wker at me across the forecourt.

[Digby]

Ares said:

....written by a person with a chip on their shoulder, who doesn't live in Copenhagen and who's friend burst into tears at the sight of a few bikes. As opposed to locals who voice massive support for the move.

Rational argument then.

My friend?
Massive chip?

Not me, Sir.

Locals who ride may enjoy it, but many do not. My point being, how would London cope?

I only ever started looking at and mentioning other countries issues because a certain someone here took us round the world so regularly. I stayed on topic for as long as possible, but it clearly wasn't welcome.

[Digby]

Ares said:

Problem is, driving standards are ever worsening. 1,000 reasons for it. And that has little to do with cycling.

Agree with you there. As mentioned several times (often after accusations of not seeing bad driving etc) you only need dip a toe in to the bad driving caught on camera thread to get an idea of how correct you are.

[Ares]

Digby said:

Ares said:

....written by a person with a chip on their shoulder, who doesn't live in Copenhagen and who's friend burst into tears at the sight of a few bikes. As opposed to locals who voice massive support for the move.

Rational argument then.

My friend?
Massive chip?

Not me, Sir.

Locals who ride may enjoy it, but many do not. My point being, how would London cope?

I only ever started looking at and mentioning other countries issues because a certain someone here took us round the world so regularly. I stayed on topic for as long as possible, but it clearly wasn't welcome.

Didn't say your friend?

And London would cope fine. It won't happen overnight, the rate of change will be at a pace then even the pathetically slow British will be able to match it's development with changes to infrastructure. EG, take one 500 car carpark.... How many 1000s of bikes could you fit in?

Mindset shift might be slower though

[heebeegeetee]

Digby said:

I only ever started looking at and mentioning other countries issues because a certain someone here took us round the world so regularly. I stayed on topic for as long as possible, but it clearly wasn't welcome.

It's just not true. Here you are back in June 2015 banging on about red lights, which you've continued to do tom this day. I stand to be corrected but I'm not sure one London cycling fatality has been attributed to red lights during this thread, so red lights are not on topic.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

In your next post you go on to applaud a comment about India. Are these your first posts on the thread?

At least the part of the world I often quote is close to London, possibly closer than a good deal of the UK.

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

That entirely depends on how big the problem gets and how many will be killed. Only took one pedestrian to be run over by an idiot on a illegal bike to spark talks about new legislation.

I would hope you'd agree that that was largely a knee-jerk reaction, not least because the fatality was so rare. Of the 400 pedestrian deaths per annum in the UK, cyclists are responsible for 2-3.
---


Found an interesting piece by Rospa here: https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-service...

>>Pedestrians
More pedestrians are killed or injured casualties in collisions with HGVs than cyclists. In 2015, 186 pedestrians
were killed or seriously injured on British roads in accidents involving at least one HGV.1
A review of 200
accidents in which a pedestrian was killed in London between 2006 and 20103
found that 56% of the
pedestrians were struck by a car, 17% by a bus or coach and 14% by an HGV. 27 pedestrians (15 male and 12
female) were killed in collisions with HGVs, almost two-thirds of whom were aged over 60 years old. Most of
the collisions were on 30 mph A roads.

Over half of the HGVs which hit a pedestrian were moving off when they struck the pedestrian, and almost all
the pedestrians were crossing the road in front of the HGV at the time of the collision. In some cases the driver
failed to stop because they had not realised that a collision had occurred. The report concluded that improving
the forward vision to enable the driver to see pedestrian in front, ensuring, and side vision, ensuring that
mirrors and/or sensors are fitted and used, and educating pedestrians about the dangers of crossing the road
directly in front of an HGV may have avoided the majority of HGV collisions. <<

It seems cyclists aren't the only Londoners who need educating.

[Mr2Mike]

heebeegeetee said:

If you want to reduce road casualties in the UK, you would almost certainly be completely wasting your money by focusing it on anyone other than motorists, because they make up something like 98% of the traffic.

And yet you have already stated that about half of all turn left cycling incidents were caused by the cyclist. I would be the first to agree that driving standards should be, and must be improved, why are you so adamant that cycling standards should not be improved?

[Ares]

Mr2Mike said:

heebeegeetee said:

If you want to reduce road casualties in the UK, you would almost certainly be completely wasting your money by focusing it on anyone other than motorists, because they make up something like 98% of the traffic.

And yet you have already stated that about half of all turn left cycling incidents were caused by the cyclist. I would be the first to agree that driving standards should be, and must be improved, why are you so adamant that cycling standards should not be improved?

They absolutely should be. But what percentage of all RTAs are the half of the left turn incidents that the motorist is culpable for? 0.0000000001%?

[Digby]

Ares said:

Digby said:

I asked if it should be law to use it if provided and asked why some do and some do not.

Edited by Digby on Monday 23 October 18:06

In fairness, you've been given reasons several times. You've either ignored, or chosen to disagree. Then asked again. Ad Nauseam etc

Because often, suggestions revolve around creating more lanes and segregating cyclists from road users in London. (not sure where the space will come from mind you)

When this was first tried many years ago, cyclists didn't want this to happen. They didn't want their rights taken away.

If wonderful, perfect lanes were created, would many still use the roads anyway because they have the right?

If they do and accidents still happen, will questions be asked as to why they were not using the cycle lanes?

If this continues, would it become law to use them if provided?

[Ares]

Digby said:

Ares said:

Digby said:

I asked if it should be law to use it if provided and asked why some do and some do not.

Edited by Digby on Monday 23 October 18:06

In fairness, you've been given reasons several times. You've either ignored, or chosen to disagree. Then asked again. Ad Nauseam etc

Because often, suggestions revolve around creating more lanes and segregating cyclists from road users in London. (not sure where the space will come from mind you)

When this was first tried many years ago, cyclists didn't want this to happen. They didn't want their rights taken away.

If wonderful, perfect lanes were created, would many still use the roads anyway because they have the right?

If they do and accidents still happen, will questions be asked as to why they were not using the cycle lanes?

If this continues, would it become law to use them if provided?

Segregating cyclists from road users is just common sense. I'd love to see the source to base your opinion that "cyclists didn't want this to happen as they didn't want their rights taken away"?? I suspect that is just hyperbole.

Cyclist don't use roads over cycle lanes because it's their 'right'....that is more bullst you've created between your ears.

Whenever there is a viable cycle lane to use, I use it. That includes the embankment lane in London and the 1,000km of lanes I've ridden on in Europe. But majority of the very few cycles lanes in the UK are dangerous. Potholed and covered in debris.