Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
You've always reckoned its safer for cars to charge through an amber stop or a red light when the junction is still busy, with possibly cars trying to turn right and having the amber/red gamblers missing them by inches, as opposed to going through after the worst of the traffic has cleared.
And you've been off topic pretty much throughout since.
Sorry, what? Oh, we are at the "make any old crap up" stage.And you've been off topic pretty much throughout since.
Please just stop.
Talk of red lights was never started by me. I commented iirc after people said "Cars do it". My point still stands. It still stood on the Government funded CPC course which covered BAD RIDING, too.
Digby said:
heebeegeetee said:
You've always reckoned its safer for cars to charge through an amber stop or a red light when the junction is still busy, with possibly cars trying to turn right and having the amber/red gamblers missing them by inches, as opposed to going through after the worst of the traffic has cleared.
And you've been off topic pretty much throughout since.
Sorry, what? Oh, we are at the "make any old crap up" stage.And you've been off topic pretty much throughout since.
Please just stop.
Digby Tuesday 2nd June 2015 said:
There are those who quickly dive through a fresh red and then there are those who don't care that their is a red.How long it has been red means nothing to them.
I'll take a nanosecond after the red cheeky jump over weaving through crossing pedestrians, trying to find a suitable gap whilst making them stop dead in their tracks any day.
I'll take a nanosecond after the red cheeky jump over weaving through crossing pedestrians, trying to find a suitable gap whilst making them stop dead in their tracks any day.
Digby said:
Sorry, what? Oh, we are at the "make any old crap up" stage.
So it seems:Digby said:
They can't target idiots on bikes how they would like, because they don't want to stop people riding.
Who are "they" and what do "they" want to do but can't?Digby said:
It proves drivers save idiot riders lives.
Please stop making things up, particularly when you contradict yourself:Digby said:
Perhaps we should start mentioning the lives saved and injuries avoided to cyclists due to drivers actions? Impossible to prove, of course, but it would undoubtedly be hundreds and possibly thousands.
Undoubtedly it wouldn't.Digby said:
Fortunately, the death toll is quite low when you happen across such riders, but only thanks to the actions of many drivers.
This is completely made up. The death toll is "reasonably" low as a result of a number of factors, including excellent defensive and evasive riding.It is laughably contradictory to, on the one hand, acknowledge time after time that "cars are bad" but then to suggest that the generally mediocre drivers somehow morph into driving gods just when they have to avoid errant cyclists.
How many cyclists have to take evasive actions to avoid terrible drivers and hence save those drivers from collisions? Hundreds if not thousands?
Digby said:
Please just stop.
Quite. Let's try to stick to:Digby said:
Start focusing on s
t riding / driving and how we can stop it.
I'm glad we can now discuss bad driving too - so what are your solutions?t riding / driving and how we can stop it.cb1965 said:
Yes I do disagree as I have said several times. The proportion of idiot cyclists is far far higher than the proportion of idiot drivers! The fact you cannot accept that is the problem!
Even if that is true - and for which you, as usual, offer no evidence at all - why does the proportion matter?cb1965 said:
nickfrog said:
cb1965 said:
So, again, I have to state the obvious : in London, some cyclists are morons, some drivers are morons, and in probably the same proportion. Morons exist irrespective of their vehicle of choice. Do you disagree ?
Yes I do disagree as I have said several times. The proportion of idiot cyclists is far far higher than the proportion of idiot drivers! The fact you cannot accept that is the problem!Remember you're the one who made up a story about a cyclist hitting your car. It would have been easy to prove it happened.
You have also added a penchant for Freudian projections too. They are countless in your posts.
cb1965 said:
PS You could also do to work out how to use the quote function as you just managed to screw that up too!!
No. You did :
But it's no big deal. If anything it provides more evidence of how bitter/desperate you are for pointing out a pretty innocuous mishap, which amusingly was yours. One could probably call it a Freudian slip.
Edited by nickfrog on Monday 27th November 13:13
Nanook said:
cb1965 said:
To me you're like that annoying regular in the pub that everyone humours but ultimately ignores.... and there is no way I'd feel or be inclined to prove anything to 'him' if he chose to call me a liar so you won't be getting any different treatment.
This is a perfect description for how everyone else here sees you. Your false sense of superiority is hilarious, you can't see you are, in fact, that person.nickfrog said:
Finlandia said:
The Swedish stats proves you wrong, and so on it goes.
You have mentioned the Swedish stats before but not linked to them so pretty irrelevant, even if we could speak the language.In short, everyday around 10 cyclists are treated in hospital for more than 24h, no other mode of transport sees as many injured as cycling, nearly 90% of the cycling accidents are single cyclist or cyclist on cyclist accidents.
will_ said:
Digby said:
Unlike you, I am quite capable of calling a plonker in a car a plonker and a plonker on a bike a plonker.
Except that you are very selective when it comes to this thread in focusing on cyclists who are plonkers. Let's also look at the reasons I talk of bad riding more often. Deal?
Once we have done that, what will you think of next to avoid talking about the same idiots Heebee admits he used to have to put up with who try to kill themselves so often on bikes?
As I said, the cycle CPC courses do not focus on bad driving because bad drivers don't squash themselves down the side of HGVs and end up underneath them.
So, given I have no issue in that regard with cars, or pedestrians, or motorbikes, or cabs, or buses, or aircraft, or boats but only cycles, what should I and the CPC courses be focusing on?
Trucks are now littered with technology to try and save such people.
Again, as Heebee said, why would you ever put yourself in such a position and if you find yourself in one, get out of the way.
Edited by Digby on Monday 27th November 15:42
heebeegeetee said:
Digby said:
heebeegeetee said:
You've always reckoned its safer for cars to charge through an amber stop or a red light when the junction is still busy, with possibly cars trying to turn right and having the amber/red gamblers missing them by inches, as opposed to going through after the worst of the traffic has cleared.
And you've been off topic pretty much throughout since.
Sorry, what? Oh, we are at the "make any old crap up" stage.And you've been off topic pretty much throughout since.
Please just stop.
Digby Tuesday 2nd June 2015 said:
There are those who quickly dive through a fresh red and then there are those who don't care that their is a red.How long it has been red means nothing to them.
I'll take a nanosecond after the red cheeky jump over weaving through crossing pedestrians, trying to find a suitable gap whilst making them stop dead in their tracks any day.
I'll take a nanosecond after the red cheeky jump over weaving through crossing pedestrians, trying to find a suitable gap whilst making them stop dead in their tracks any day.
But I keep forgetting, you know more than the cyclists and drivers on here who regularly drive and ride in London. You no longer have to avoid killing anyone, so can say what you prefer. What a luxury.
And of course, you have no agenda (obesity, obesity, clean air, obesity, Copenhagen, obesity, Denmark, obesity, Copenhagen, clean air, car crash, car crash, car crash, video link of car crash, obesity, car crash, Copenhagen, obesity, car crash video, lorry crash video, accidents stats in the home, obesity, car crash, Copenhagen............)
nickfrog said:
Nanook said:
cb1965 said:
To me you're like that annoying regular in the pub that everyone humours but ultimately ignores.... and there is no way I'd feel or be inclined to prove anything to 'him' if he chose to call me a liar so you won't be getting any different treatment.
This is a perfect description for how everyone else here sees you. Your false sense of superiority is hilarious, you can't see you are, in fact, that person.will_ said:
Digby said:
Unlike you, I am quite capable of calling a plonker in a car a plonker and a plonker on a bike a plonker.
Except that you are very selective when it comes to this thread in focusing on cyclists who are plonkers. Digby said:
Well, let's go back through the entire thread and see how many times I mention bad driving and you mention bad riding. Deal?
Knock yourself out. What you'll find is that my consistent position is that cyclists dying on London's roads is not exclusively a "bad driving" issue or a "bad riding" issue but a mixture of both, together with many other factors. It's simply not that binary, so seeking to address only one issue is hopeless. So moaning that people mention "bad driving" in this thread is bizarre - unless you actually believe that only bad riding kills cyclists?When you (and others) have tried to paint a one-sided story don't be surprised if I (and others) provide the other side.
Digby said:
Let's also look at the reasons I talk of bad riding more often. Deal?
Let's.Digby said:
Once we have done that, what will you think of next to avoid talking about the same idiots Heebee admits he used to have to put up with who try to kill themselves so often on bikes?
Have I avoided talking about idiots on bikes? Or have I also identified that that is not the sole cause of cycling deaths? And obviously none of them are trying to kill themselves - don't be so melodramatic. Digby said:
As I said, the cycle CPC courses do not focus on bad driving because bad drivers don't squash themselves down the side of HGVs and end up underneath them.
That's hardly surprising because, as you have identified yourself, they can't.Digby said:
The simple fact is, they [i.e. cars] will not end up underneath my wheels, are easy to keep track of and can't do what cycles can do in terms of dangerous manoeuvres and ending up under said wheels.
So (although I hate the term) that is just a strawman argument. Cars cannot necessarily be where cyclists can, so why would the CPC course focus on something that can't happen?Obviously you cannot be suggesting that HGVs never collide with cars, vans, cabs, motorcyclists or pedestrians.
Digby said:
As I said, the cycle CPC courses do not focus on bad driving because bad drivers don't squash themselves down the side of HGVs and end up underneath them.
I mean, that is just so spectacularly untrue a statement that it's hard to know where to begin. Cars ending up underneath hgvs is just commonplace. Youtube has no end of videos of them, I posted 4 the other day and was told I was off topic. My record is seeing the aftermath of four in one day, including a car upside down on the M25.
Bad drivers stuff themselves down the side of hgvs *all the time*, *all the time*, and it's a major, major PITA.
Either Digby doesn't drive hgvs (and indeed he has said he doesn't) or he's just lying in his back teeth.
Another common one is when a truck is turning left into premises, and has to swing out right (with left indicator on) to gain access, and a car goes straight up the inside.
Just google "Car drives into hgv blindspot" and sit back and relax. Put the kettle on, you'll be some time.
Here's one of the classics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_eiP8sk_KQ
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
There's an explanation below the vid:>>This accident (6 May 2010) happened on an urban motorway/highway (M621 junction 2, Leeds) when a truck trying to return to the driving lane clipped a Porsche Boxster travelling parallel (lane capture/clinching) in the nearside blind spot of the truck driver's view, having been given way onto the carriageway 0.4 mile (0.64 km) earlier at junction one. The car connects with the truck's steer wheel causing complete loss of steering and pulls away just in time before the 44 tonne truck rolls over. The contact, emergency braking and inertia causes the trailer carrying 30 tonne sand to topple. The blind spot is a documental accident risk and with Divine grace no one was injured. This has to be a lesson for drivers with small vehicles on the dangers associated with a truck blind spot.
Speed was an issue with all vehicles concerned. The first truck in the video was being followed by the second truck, under employer's instruction, by an experienced new recruit on his first day with the company. Notice how even after the accident the first truck, driven by the boss's son does not stop to enquire or assist. WHY? Thank goodness it all happened in view of CCTV cameras and dismissing any rumours, accusations or lies as a result.<<
The bit "having been given way onto the carriageway 0.4 mile (0.64 km) earlier at junction one" really strikes a chord with me. That is *soooo* common, just so, so common - truck moves into second lane to to allow joining traffic to enter lane 1 - and then said traffic just speed matches the truck and leaves it stuck out in L2.
The first tipper pulls back in behind a van, I reckon the van has also just joined the m'way and is up to speed, tipper pulls back in. Boxster has also just joined, but places itself *perfectly* in the blind spot and then matches the speed. Very common occurrence indeed.
cb1965 said:
will_ said:
cb1965 said:
.... we don't need 'evidence' ....
Another classic.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff