Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
Killboy said:
Yeah. No, I agree. I think you right. Number plates should be required so you can catch naughty cyclists. Obviously you'll have to think about how you will ensure a bicycle will have one, and people wont clone or use others. So hire some more police? Maybe set up something like the DVLC which you have to register new bikes to? Maybe a yearly MOT style checkup? All to solve what problem really?
Being a dick about it doesn't negate the point. Motorists are easier to catch and ticket because cars have registrations. FACT. I'm not getting into the whole "cyclists should have tax and registrations blah blah". I'm simply stating a fact and a reason why official figures can be used by people like yourself as your defense of two wheeled morons. If they're not getting caught, they won't be a part of any stats. Simples.
The Dangerous Elk said:
Yet in ALL that ranting, you cannot bring yourself to blame BOTH sides, you really are not the voice of reason in this thread by a wind margin.
I would say you are also part of the problem with this thread as you also stuggle to accept that BOTH drivers AND cyclists cause serious (but different) problems for other road users, themselves and pedestrians. These problems effect everybody who does follow the rules, the sooner posters here agree to accept this basic and simple fact maybe the discussion can move on.
Where has a cyclist on here ever said that both 'sides' are not to blame overall? Where has a cyclist said that cyclist/people on bikes are blameless?I would say you are also part of the problem with this thread as you also stuggle to accept that BOTH drivers AND cyclists cause serious (but different) problems for other road users, themselves and pedestrians. These problems effect everybody who does follow the rules, the sooner posters here agree to accept this basic and simple fact maybe the discussion can move on.
PS, you've suddenly changed your tune and position Casper? Increased the medication? Or have you fallen out with your alter-ego?
Killboy said:
TroubledSoul said:
What's that about sarcasm being the lowest form of wit?
You do understand how automated enforcement cameras work, and why they won't catch cyclists only motorists, right??
Yeah. No, I agree. I think you right. Number plates should be required so you can catch naughty cyclists. Obviously you'll have to think about how you will ensure a bicycle will have one, and people wont clone or use others. So hire some more police? Maybe set up something like the DVLC which you have to register new bikes to? Maybe a yearly MOT style checkup? All to solve what problem really?You do understand how automated enforcement cameras work, and why they won't catch cyclists only motorists, right??
They aren't suggesting that cyclists should have to have number plates, just trying to show part of the reason there's far more motorist being caught for offences on the roads compared to cyclists.
Ares said:
Where has a cyclist on here ever said that both 'sides' are not to blame overall? Where has a cyclist said that cyclist/people on bikes are blameless?
PS, you've suddenly changed your tune and position Casper? Increased the medication? Or have you fallen out with your alter-ego?
I have no "tune" in this game as I am all three examples as a cyclist, motorist and a pedestrian.PS, you've suddenly changed your tune and position Casper? Increased the medication? Or have you fallen out with your alter-ego?
Both sides take a (and you are a classic example) of "they do this/that which is worse so blah blah blah" and that is plain stupid and is just a form of diversion from "Another cyclist dies in London". So, to answer your question, constantly.
Other stuff: you are just making yourself look silly. If you have an accusation state it.
As for the "medication etc, pathetic.
The Dangerous Elk said:
Ares said:
Where has a cyclist on here ever said that both 'sides' are not to blame overall? Where has a cyclist said that cyclist/people on bikes are blameless?
PS, you've suddenly changed your tune and position Casper? Increased the medication? Or have you fallen out with your alter-ego?
I have no "tune" in this game as I am all three examples as a cyclist, motorist and a pedestrian.PS, you've suddenly changed your tune and position Casper? Increased the medication? Or have you fallen out with your alter-ego?
Both sides take a (and you are a classic example) of "they do this/that which is worse so blah blah blah" and that is plain stupid and is just a form of diversion from "Another cyclist dies in London". So, to answer your question, constantly.
Other stuff: you are just making yourself look silly. If you have an accusation state it.
As for the "medication etc, pathetic.
But please show me where I lay the blame on cyclists? or say "they do this/that which is worse so blah blah blah" etc.
Ares said:
Pathetic indeed.
But please show me where I lay the blame on cyclists? or say "they do this/that which is worse so blah blah blah" etc.
Yes, quite frankly it is, you show yourself up quite badly. But please show me where I lay the blame on cyclists? or say "they do this/that which is worse so blah blah blah" etc.
It is however also the case that you constantly (as do many others on "both sides" here) try to avoid discussion by constantly diverting with those exact "blah blah blah" methods of discussion.
As an example, the need to control/enforce RTL infringements by all road users. It is plain to see that there is angst amongst drivers and pedestrians in London with the habit of many many cyclists jumping red lights. Constructive discussion is however constantly disrupted by "blah blah blah they do worse". There are known and (relatively) effective methods of tracing and penalising drivers, the discussion on penalties for cyclists has as we have just seen, descended into pathetic diversion.
You and others should have a word with yourselves.
Digby said:
heebeegeetee said:
I do feel that there is little behind the multiple and regular anti-cycling threads other than gross hypocrisy, stupidity and a large dose of dishonesty. There's precious little fact, evidence, logic or sense behind them, nor behind the rantings of you, Digby and a few others.
1. On your driving in London decades ago...heebeegeetee said:
Every single day countless people would place their lives into my hands and I feel they have no right to do so.
2. Same here. The difference being, any problems you experienced way back then have now massively increased. You also now seem to not want to agree this is a problem, because it is no longer your problem.heebeegeetee said:
Whatever the rights and wrongs are, which can be argued over until the cows come home, the primary aim of everybody is surely to stay alive. If I found myself beside a tipper truck who I think might be turning left, I'd simply get off my bike and walk away. I wouldn't let the lorry run over me, I would make sure that that couldn't happen.
Doesn't every cyclist in London not know this? I know it's not fair, but you only have one life!
3. Oh look, something else I completely agree with and have said before. Once again, we find ourselves in a situation where now you are no longer working or driving in London, you can focus on how great bikes are from a lovely safe distance.Doesn't every cyclist in London not know this? I know it's not fair, but you only have one life!
I was berated for saying you should never get killed by a lorry in most of these situations.
"hypocrisy, stupidity and a large dose of dishonesty" with "precious little fact, evidence, logic or sense" you say?
4. I'll just quote what you said if you bother to comment again because it leaves aside your agenda and agrees with why I contribute.
Edited by Digby on Sunday 19th November 20:34
2. The problems have massively increased? Are you sure?
I'm pretty certain that the casualty rate was higher in the 1980s than it is now for motorists, as for cyclists in London it's much the same as it ever was, even with a rise in numbers.
https://cycling-intelligence.com/fatal-cycling-acc...
>>The number of cyclists killed in London per year varies massively. On average, from 1986 to 2010 , 17.2 cyclists died per year. If there is any trend, there seems to be a slight decline in the more recent years. The average from 1986 to 1999 was 18.3 while from 2000 to 2010 it was 15.9. However, the yearly variation is huge. For example, in 2004 only 8 cyclists died. One year later the number rose to 21. The worst year as 1989 with 33 fatalities. (Detailled statistics about long term trends are available here.)<<
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles...
>>Results
From 1992 to 2006 there was a mean of 16 cycling fatalities per year (range 8-21). 146 deaths (60%) were in inner London and 96 in outer London. There was no evidence for a decline over time (p = 0.7) other than a pronounced dip in 2004 when there were 8 fatalities. Freight vehicles were involved in 103 of 242 (43%) of all incidents and the vehicle was making a left turn in over half of these (53%). The fatality rate ranged from 20.5 deaths in 1992 to 11.1 deaths in 2006 per 100,000 estimated cyclists per kilometre (rate ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 1.03).
Conclusions
There is little evidence fatality rates have fallen. Freight vehicles over 3.5 tonnes continue to present a disproportionate threat; they should be removed from urban roads and more appropriate means of delivery of essential goods found.<<
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/apr/...
>>Misleading UK cycling casualty statistics
Linking a figure in the thousands with the expression “killed and injured” implies that thousands of pedal cyclists are killed and maimed annually. A hundred fatalities is 100 too many, but that total is a 10% decrease on the previous five-year average and is a quarter of pedestrian and a third of motorcycle fatality numbers for the same period.
While cycle usage is increasing, all the casualty figures show a decrease on the average for 2010-14. Further, the DfT statistics include a figure for injurious accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists, including a small number of fatalities.
The real threat felt by pedestrians and reported anecdotally of cycles powering up silently from nowhere on pavements and crossings, resulting in close shaves and injuries, should not be dismissed either. <<
(I agree with the last bit - bells should be compulsory).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_London
3. I've changed my mind to a great degree, based on better evidence since I made my comment, images and evidence captured of how cyclists have been killed, and also the woeful record of the haulage/construction industry on record in London, with drivers having found to have no licence or insurance, bad eyesight, defective vehicles etc etc.
4. What is my agenda?
LocoCoco said:
The poster is trying to explain to you that more motorists get caught because it's easier for the automated cameras to catch motorists due to them having number plates.
They aren't suggesting that cyclists should have to have number plates, just trying to show part of the reason there's far more motorist being caught for offences on the roads compared to cyclists.
The clamp downs are done by police in person. Red light cameras likely wont work for cyclists (could be wrong but they the pressure plates), and you gotta be pretty serious to hit 30mph through a speed camera on a bicycle (average speed about 20mph). London uses CCTV for bus lanes (cyclists exempt) and blocking yellow boxes - like busy interchanges and fire stations, all of which is likely not going to impact cyclists. So where would a number plate help to clamp down on cycles? They aren't suggesting that cyclists should have to have number plates, just trying to show part of the reason there's far more motorist being caught for offences on the roads compared to cyclists.
The Dangerous Elk said:
Yet in ALL that ranting, you cannot bring yourself to blame BOTH sides, you really are not the voice of reason in this thread by a wind margin.
I would say you are also part of the problem with this thread as you also stuggle to accept that BOTH drivers AND cyclists cause serious (but different) problems for other road users, themselves and pedestrians. These problems effect everybody who does follow the rules, the sooner posters here agree to accept this basic and simple fact maybe the discussion can move on.
You seem to be implying some sort of parity between the "serious problems" caused for other users by cyclists and motorists though - is that the case?I would say you are also part of the problem with this thread as you also stuggle to accept that BOTH drivers AND cyclists cause serious (but different) problems for other road users, themselves and pedestrians. These problems effect everybody who does follow the rules, the sooner posters here agree to accept this basic and simple fact maybe the discussion can move on.
The Dangerous Elk said:
Ares said:
Pathetic indeed.
But please show me where I lay the blame on cyclists? or say "they do this/that which is worse so blah blah blah" etc.
Yes, quite frankly it is, you show yourself up quite badly. But please show me where I lay the blame on cyclists? or say "they do this/that which is worse so blah blah blah" etc.
It is however also the case that you constantly (as do many others on "both sides" here) try to avoid discussion by constantly diverting with those exact "blah blah blah" methods of discussion.
As an example, the need to control/enforce RTL infringements by all road users. It is plain to see that there is angst amongst drivers and pedestrians in London with the habit of many many cyclists jumping red lights. Constructive discussion is however constantly disrupted by "blah blah blah they do worse". There are known and (relatively) effective methods of tracing and penalising drivers, the discussion on penalties for cyclists has as we have just seen, descended into pathetic diversion.
You and others should have a word with yourselves.
You then add to the discussion with blind rhetoric?
And you thing I should have a word my myself?
Killboy said:
LocoCoco said:
The poster is trying to explain to you that more motorists get caught because it's easier for the automated cameras to catch motorists due to them having number plates.
They aren't suggesting that cyclists should have to have number plates, just trying to show part of the reason there's far more motorist being caught for offences on the roads compared to cyclists.
The clamp downs are done by police in person. Red light cameras likely wont work for cyclists (could be wrong but they the pressure plates), and you gotta be pretty serious to hit 30mph through a speed camera on a bicycle (average speed about 20mph). London uses CCTV for bus lanes (cyclists exempt) and blocking yellow boxes - like busy interchanges and fire stations, all of which is likely not going to impact cyclists. So where would a number plate help to clamp down on cycles? They aren't suggesting that cyclists should have to have number plates, just trying to show part of the reason there's far more motorist being caught for offences on the roads compared to cyclists.
I remember getting done for speeding by a cop with a handheld laser device, I noticed he had my (and a few other) plate number(s) written on the back of his hand. He obviously thought that number plates are of help when policing in person.
edit, I don't care if cyclists have to use number plates or not and realize that if they did it wouldn't automatically make the number of cyclists and motorists caught in these clamp downs equal. Just answering your question.
Edited by LocoCoco on Monday 20th November 14:43
Killboy said:
LocoCoco said:
In a case where the police spot a transgression and the cyclist doesn't stop when asked?
Have the police reported any difficulty stopping cyclists? (Genuine question).Killboy said:
LocoCoco said:
I don't know. Do you concede that a number plate could be of help when policing in person?
Sure.Do you think it is a problem worth throwing resources at?
"edit, I don't care if cyclists have to use number plates or not and realize that if they did it wouldn't automatically make the number of cyclists and motorists caught in these clamp downs equal. Just answering your question."
LocoCoco said:
I'll quote myself:
"edit, I don't care if cyclists have to use number plates or not and realize that if they did it wouldn't automatically make the number of cyclists and motorists caught in these clamp downs equal. Just answering your question."
I'm really struggling to see what point you are making. Should they or should they not have numberplates? And do you support your tax money going to administration and policing of cycle numberplates?"edit, I don't care if cyclists have to use number plates or not and realize that if they did it wouldn't automatically make the number of cyclists and motorists caught in these clamp downs equal. Just answering your question."
Let's start simple: what problem are you solving?
LocoCoco said:
Killboy said:
I'll quote myself:
"edit, I don't care if cyclists have to use number plates or not and realize that if they did it wouldn't automatically make the number of cyclists and motorists caught in these clamp downs equal. Just answering your question."
I'm really struggling to see what point you are making. Should they or should they not have numberplates? And do you support your tax money going to administration and policing of cycle numberplates?"edit, I don't care if cyclists have to use number plates or not and realize that if they did it wouldn't automatically make the number of cyclists and motorists caught in these clamp downs equal. Just answering your question."
Let's start simple: what problem are you solving?
I don't care whether cyclists have number plates or not or what my tax money gets spent on. You're struggling because I'm not trying to make any point, just trying to answer your question.
Edited by LocoCoco on Monday 20th November 15:51
TroubledSoul said:
The rule about red lights meaning stop is also very simple to understand.
People want a level playing field, not more fines for cyclists just because. You are either enforcing the rules for everybody or not at all. Singling one group out because it's much easier just isn't on.
I agree. Going through red (and for that matter amber unless unsafe to stop) is wrong whoever does it.People want a level playing field, not more fines for cyclists just because. You are either enforcing the rules for everybody or not at all. Singling one group out because it's much easier just isn't on.
Killboy said:
LocoCoco said:
I don't know. Do you concede that a number plate could be of help when policing in person?
Sure.Do you think it is a problem worth throwing resources at?
Ares said:
stuff:
More twaddle added to the thread without any effort to contribute to it in any positive or constructive way, good job.heebeegeetee said:
3. I've changed my mind to a great degree, based on better evidence...
Based on the fact you no longer have to deal with any of it.heebeegeetee said:
As I thought, you're speaking from absolutely zero experience, making strong pronouncements on an important topic based on no more that one picture on the internet.
Absolutely pathetic. Ridiculous.
Pretty much what you are now doing.Absolutely pathetic. Ridiculous.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff