Another cyclist dies in London

[Finlandia]

nickfrog said:

Finlandia said:

Every single suggestion for the cyclists to do something is met by that's "victim blaming"

shooshmoose said:

Cyclists are morons

I note that basic critical thinking is still not on the agenda.

Meaning?

Ares said:

Finlandia said:

Ares said:

Lists of laws are irrelevant. The onus should not solely be in the cyclists to improve the situation. You think that every one else should do absolutely nothing?

Trouble is that everyone else has done something or plenty, especially the transport industry, cyclists have so far done, what exactly? Every single suggestion for the cyclists to do something is met by that's "victim blaming" or "we are not the problem, everyone else is" or something else as stupid.
Everyfkingone using the roads must improve and change.

Show me a cyclist that has ever said "we are not the problem, everyone else is".

And cyclists do plenty, most, the vast majority of cyclists ride very lawfully. Probably the most lawful group of people on the road. Not all are lawful, far from it, but the vast majority are.

But you final quote is exactly my point EVERYONE using the roads must improve and change. Not just cyclists.

So lets start with the most basic thing this time of year, lights. The most important thing in traffic is to be seen. Didn't you admit to cycling without lights some pages back?
And yes, cars have lights out too, but they mostly have some sort of light even if one or two lights are blown.

The cyclists here blame everything and everyone else but themselves. They shouldn't have to fit any sort of devices to their bikes to make their own life safer. Winter tyres for example, winters here are icy/snowy/cold, to keep upright on a bike you may want to get studded winter tyres for it, you know just like drivers do, nope, it's up to the road maintenance to keep roads clear. Lights or reflectors then, so you can be seen, nope cars have lights, drivers should see us anyway. Ok, how about stopping at red lights and stop signs then, when there is traffic, nope, stopping on a bike takes too much effort getting going again.
And so it goes...

[Mave]

Finlandia said:

The cyclists here blame everything and everyone else but themselves.

No they don't. There is no such entity as "the cyclists here" just as there is no such entity as "the motorists here". There are individuals with their own opinions and views.

[Mave]

Mave said:

cb1965 said:

Mave said:

cb1965 said:

Mave said:

Digby said:

I think everyone would be staggered to see just how rare it is to see a cyclist move their head and shoulder check etc. Kids stuff again.

Meanwhile, over on a separate PH thread it's staggering to see how many trained and licensed driving enthusiasts don't check their blind spots before changing lanes...

Sigh, do you ever stop with deflecting this thread? It isn't about drivers, it's about cyclists. Cyclists stand far more chance of seriously injuring themselves by not shoulder checking... that alone is reason why they should!!!!

Sigh yourself. Do you ever stop excusing hypocrisy? Why is it ok to complain about cyclists not shoulder checking, but ok to ignore motorists shoulder checking? This thread isn't just about cyclists. It's about cyclists dying, predominantly in a collision involving a motorist. Sometimes as a result of the cyclist getting it wrong but more often as a result of the motorist getting it wrong.

Where's your evidence for that? Oh yeah, you don't need any as it's Mave's law

The department of transport report investigating causes of killed / seriously injured cycling accidents that has been referred to in the past on thids thread.

Found it yet? I dug out the reference, try googling PPR445. Might want to look at the data Ares cited as well.

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

So lets start with the most basic thing this time of year, lights. The most important thing in traffic is to be seen. Didn't you admit to cycling without lights some pages back?
And yes, cars have lights out too, but they mostly have some sort of light even if one or two lights are blown.

The cyclists here blame everything and everyone else but themselves. They shouldn't have to fit any sort of devices to their bikes to make their own life safer. Winter tyres for example, winters here are icy/snowy/cold, to keep upright on a bike you may want to get studded winter tyres for it, you know just like drivers do, nope, it's up to the road maintenance to keep roads clear. Lights or reflectors then, so you can be seen, nope cars have lights, drivers should see us anyway. Ok, how about stopping at red lights and stop signs then, when there is traffic, nope, stopping on a bike takes too much effort getting going again.
And so it goes...

Whoa, steady on. Here in the UK even the most mundane cars are on tyres best suited to a sunny day at the Nurburgring, never mind the wet, or cold, or a typical British winter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-398901/Fur...

There are also Highway Code rules about pedestrians wearing reflective items or clothing, advice which is all but completely and totally ignored, including of course, by those criticising others for not lighting up.

[The Dangerous Elk]

Mave said:

No they don't. There is no such entity as "the cyclists here" just as there is no such entity as "the motorists here". There are individuals with their own opinions and views.

That is like saying there are no "young drivers" or any other grouping of people/actions/social demographic.
You can group types of people together by actions, thoughts, fashion etc. Statists dear chap, you are wrong. It is exactly what actuaries and social planners do for a living and what governments use for planning, marketing uses for campaigns etc.

Edited by The Dangerous Elk on Thursday 23 November 18:33

[heebeegeetee]

The Dangerous Elk said:

That is like saying there are no "young drivers" or any other "grouping of people/actions/social demographic.
Of course you can groups types of people together by actions, thoughts, fashion etc. Statists dear chap, you are wrong. It is exactly what actuaries and social planners do for a living and what governments use for planning, marketing uses for campaigns etc.

Plus, we're not all cyclists. A good few of us are motorists who are pissed off with attitudes of other motorists.

[heebeegeetee]

shooshmoose said:

Cyclists are morons

Yup, morons all.

https://www.seecannes.com/news/ride-monaco-with-f1...

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%...

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%...

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F...

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%...

[Mave]

The Dangerous Elk said:

Mave said:

No they don't. There is no such entity as "the cyclists here" just as there is no such entity as "the motorists here". There are individuals with their own opinions and views.

That is like saying there are no "young drivers" or any other grouping of people/actions/social demographic.
You can group types of people together by actions, thoughts, fashion etc. Statists dear chap, you are wrong. It is exactly what actuaries and social planners do for a living and what governments use for planning, marketing uses for campaigns etc.

Edited by The Dangerous Elk on Thursday 23 November 18:33

Ok then, so if you want to create a group called "the cyclists here" then your statement is bks because, as you suggest yourself, that group needs to be characterised by the statistics of that group.

Statistically, "the cyclists here" don't "blame everything and everyone else", (no matter how many times you and the rest of the anti-cycling brigade say it), they have lights, don't go down the inside of HGVs or run red lights.

Edited by Mave on Thursday 23 November 18:58

[The Dangerous Elk]

"you and the rest of the anti-cycling brigade"

errrrr

would you like to quote my "anti-cycling" comments please?

Edited by The Dangerous Elk on Thursday 23 November 19:11

[Mave]

The Dangerous Elk said:

"you and the rest of the anti-cycling brigade"

errrrr

That's what we're doing now isn't it? Grouping people together so we can accuse them of opinions as a single entity (and of course representing the most extreme opinions as the norm) rather than recognising people as individuals with their own individual views?

[Mave]

The Dangerous Elk said:

"you and the rest of the anti-cycling brigade"

errrrr

would you like to quote my "anti-cycling" comments please?

Edited by The Dangerous Elk on Thursday 23 November 19:11

It's the kind of thing your lot come up with all the time.

[Digby]

Ares said:

Lists of laws are irrelevant. The onus should not solely be in the cyclists to improve the situation. You think that every one else should do absolutely nothing?

It's not on them at all.
I haven't seen anything which is required by cyclists to keep themselves safe. It's all optional, if they can be bothered.

[Digby]

heebeegeetee said:

1. But I have specialist knowledge of the heavy vehicle in question, I am aware of the difficulties of seeing out of them.

Yes, you do. You said every single day countless people would place their lives in your hands and that they should have no right to do so.
That happens to me, now. Does it no longer matter because you hung up your keys?

You also said you would never put yourself in a position of danger near an HGV. That happens to me a lot. Does that not matter now you have hung up your keys?

You also said you were really surprised that cyclists still don't seem to be aware of the dangers after all this time and after all these tragic deaths. I agree. Does that no longer matter since you hung up your keys?

[nickfrog]

Finlandia said:

nickfrog said:

Finlandia said:

Every single suggestion for the cyclists to do something is met by that's "victim blaming"

shooshmoose said:

Cyclists are morons

I note that basic critical thinking is still not on the agenda.

Meaning?

Classic.

[Finlandia]

Mave said:

Finlandia said:

The cyclists here blame everything and everyone else but themselves.

No they don't. There is no such entity as "the cyclists here" just as there is no such entity as "the motorists here". There are individuals with their own opinions and views.

The cyclists here, as in where I live, and yes they do.

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

So lets start with the most basic thing this time of year, lights. The most important thing in traffic is to be seen. Didn't you admit to cycling without lights some pages back?
And yes, cars have lights out too, but they mostly have some sort of light even if one or two lights are blown.

The cyclists here blame everything and everyone else but themselves. They shouldn't have to fit any sort of devices to their bikes to make their own life safer. Winter tyres for example, winters here are icy/snowy/cold, to keep upright on a bike you may want to get studded winter tyres for it, you know just like drivers do, nope, it's up to the road maintenance to keep roads clear. Lights or reflectors then, so you can be seen, nope cars have lights, drivers should see us anyway. Ok, how about stopping at red lights and stop signs then, when there is traffic, nope, stopping on a bike takes too much effort getting going again.
And so it goes...

Whoa, steady on. Here in the UK even the most mundane cars are on tyres best suited to a sunny day at the Nurburgring, never mind the wet, or cold, or a typical British winter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-398901/Fur...

There are also Highway Code rules about pedestrians wearing reflective items or clothing, advice which is all but completely and totally ignored, including of course, by those criticising others for not lighting up.

Here, as in Sweden, the land of ice and snow for the big part of the year, cars are by law required to have winter tyres, 69% of those are studded winter tyres. All cars are also required by law to always have lights on, either the new fad DRLs or proper low beam.

[Finlandia]

nickfrog said:

Finlandia said:

nickfrog said:

Finlandia said:

Every single suggestion for the cyclists to do something is met by that's "victim blaming"

shooshmoose said:

Cyclists are morons

I note that basic critical thinking is still not on the agenda.

Meaning?

Classic.

And do you have a point to make?

[Digby]

Finlandia said:

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

So lets start with the most basic thing this time of year, lights. The most important thing in traffic is to be seen. Didn't you admit to cycling without lights some pages back?
And yes, cars have lights out too, but they mostly have some sort of light even if one or two lights are blown.

The cyclists here blame everything and everyone else but themselves. They shouldn't have to fit any sort of devices to their bikes to make their own life safer. Winter tyres for example, winters here are icy/snowy/cold, to keep upright on a bike you may want to get studded winter tyres for it, you know just like drivers do, nope, it's up to the road maintenance to keep roads clear. Lights or reflectors then, so you can be seen, nope cars have lights, drivers should see us anyway. Ok, how about stopping at red lights and stop signs then, when there is traffic, nope, stopping on a bike takes too much effort getting going again.
And so it goes...

Whoa, steady on. Here in the UK even the most mundane cars are on tyres best suited to a sunny day at the Nurburgring, never mind the wet, or cold, or a typical British winter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-398901/Fur...

There are also Highway Code rules about pedestrians wearing reflective items or clothing, advice which is all but completely and totally ignored, including of course, by those criticising others for not lighting up.

Here, as in Sweden, the land of ice and snow for the big part of the year, cars are by law required to have winter tyres, 69% of those are studded winter tyres. All cars are also required by law to always have lights on, either the new fad DRLs or proper low beam.

Come on mate, you knew the "cars are bad" button had a finger hovering over it from the moment he read the first few words of your post.

They are bad you know. Pedestrians are bad, too. Also, having too many sausages can be bad.

Funny, too, how you are not allowed to talk of bad riding, because in the great scheme of things, it doesn't matter and yet despite apparently minimal and decreasing deaths, trucks are not fit for purpose and should be changed. Such a lot of effort for something which hardly blips the radar..

So, don't talk about bikes, because they don't matter. Talk about cars and pedestrians because that's the real issue. Oh, but do talk about bikes when one appears underneath an HGV because then, it is a huge problem and even though their riding which may have put them there doesn't matter, it matters that the truck is not fit for purpose, even though they hardly ever kill riders...

Clear as mud.

[The Dangerous Elk]

Mave said:

The Dangerous Elk said:

"you and the rest of the anti-cycling brigade"

errrrr

That's what we're doing now isn't it? Grouping people together so we can accuse them of opinions as a single entity (and of course representing the most extreme opinions as the norm) rather than recognising people as individuals with their own individual views?

It is perfectly possible to group people together, there are many examples of this in everyday life, bussisness, politics etc.
Assumptions can be made given you accept certain wide margins.

[Finlandia]

Digby said:

Finlandia said:

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

So lets start with the most basic thing this time of year, lights. The most important thing in traffic is to be seen. Didn't you admit to cycling without lights some pages back?
And yes, cars have lights out too, but they mostly have some sort of light even if one or two lights are blown.

The cyclists here blame everything and everyone else but themselves. They shouldn't have to fit any sort of devices to their bikes to make their own life safer. Winter tyres for example, winters here are icy/snowy/cold, to keep upright on a bike you may want to get studded winter tyres for it, you know just like drivers do, nope, it's up to the road maintenance to keep roads clear. Lights or reflectors then, so you can be seen, nope cars have lights, drivers should see us anyway. Ok, how about stopping at red lights and stop signs then, when there is traffic, nope, stopping on a bike takes too much effort getting going again.
And so it goes...

Whoa, steady on. Here in the UK even the most mundane cars are on tyres best suited to a sunny day at the Nurburgring, never mind the wet, or cold, or a typical British winter.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-398901/Fur...

There are also Highway Code rules about pedestrians wearing reflective items or clothing, advice which is all but completely and totally ignored, including of course, by those criticising others for not lighting up.

Here, as in Sweden, the land of ice and snow for the big part of the year, cars are by law required to have winter tyres, 69% of those are studded winter tyres. All cars are also required by law to always have lights on, either the new fad DRLs or proper low beam.

Come on mate, you knew the "cars are bad" button had a finger hovering over it from the moment he read the first few words of your post.

They are bad you know. Pedestrians are bad, too. Also, having too many sausages can be bad.

Funny, too, how you are not allowed to talk of bad riding, because in the great scheme of things, it doesn't matter and yet despite apparently minimal and decreasing deaths, trucks are not fit for purpose and should be changed. Such a lot of effort for something which hardly blips the radar..

So, don't talk about bikes, because they don't matter. Talk about cars and pedestrians because that's the real issue. Oh, but do talk about bikes when one appears underneath an HGV because then, it is a huge problem and even though their riding which may have put them there doesn't matter, it matters that the truck is not fit for purpose, even though they hardly ever kill riders...

Clear as mud.

But, but... I thought that wasn't an issue, in the grand scheme of things?