Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
Hugo a Gogo said:
that particular post is less laughable, just a dull example of you trying to badger some obscure point in an argument with another post
don't try to claim some moral high ground because you mentioned deaths, you twerp
I am not trying to badger an obscure point, I am trying to get the use of the emotive expression 'drivers killing cyclists' out of certain people's heads as it's divisive and in some cases untrue. If you bothered to read the post on page 304 you might understand (although I am dubious as to whether you are capable). Mave, as usual, has chosen to go off on a tangent as said post didn't suit their agenda... 'drivers killing cyclists'don't try to claim some moral high ground because you mentioned deaths, you twerp
Hugo a Gogo said:
cb1965 said:
Serious question... do you ever intend to visit the surface of the planet any time soon? It is rare that I have read such a load of biased nonsense even from Mave.
I will pick just one of your excuses. Should cyclists not have to have lights? If yes then the fact that many don't is wrong yes? And if they get hit by a driver who can't see them because they don't have them why is it not their fault?
if A then B and it follows that C, ergo D - you are mentalI will pick just one of your excuses. Should cyclists not have to have lights? If yes then the fact that many don't is wrong yes? And if they get hit by a driver who can't see them because they don't have them why is it not their fault?
an example of your twists of logic, as you have proved again
any sign of that warped view?
and 'drivers killing cyclists' sometimes untrue? so you admit that some drivers do kill some cyclists? so what's your problem?
I'm on page 77 on big boy settings btw
any sign of that warped view?
and 'drivers killing cyclists' sometimes untrue? so you admit that some drivers do kill some cyclists? so what's your problem?
I'm on page 77 on big boy settings btw
Edited by Hugo a Gogo on Monday 29th May 08:38
Hugo a Gogo said:
cb1965 said:
We don't, no drivers are killing cyclists, it's a stupidly sensationalist expression that your type like to use. It's pathetic, divisive and downright unpleasant!
Some cyclists are dying as a result of accidents with motorised vehicles and in all likelihood the majority are doing so probably because they are stupid and have no sense of self preservation!
That's the truth of the situation!
ironySome cyclists are dying as a result of accidents with motorised vehicles and in all likelihood the majority are doing so probably because they are stupid and have no sense of self preservation!
That's the truth of the situation!
Rich_W said:
Mave/HeeBe/ME et al et al are a vocal minority. They hate cars. They cannot abide them on the roads and hate anyone who defends them. Every and ALL cars drivers are law breaking 
s to them. There simply is never a car rider that doesn't do something wrong in their eyes. They will excuse (or employ standard forum blinkers) any person riding a bike who makes a mistake. Show this tiny group a car driver being a dick and they will say "SEE! All car driver are tts"
Other people (well, Digby, to be fair) have said I hate cars, so let me please address this.s to them. There simply is never a car rider that doesn't do something wrong in their eyes. They will excuse (or employ standard forum blinkers) any person riding a bike who makes a mistake. Show this tiny group a car driver being a dick and they will say "SEE! All car driver are tts"I love cars. I have loved for as long as I can remember. I had all the corgi and dinky toys in my childhood (I'm 59 btw). I've 'read' cars all my life, or perhaps I should say motorsport. I work with cars, having a small garage business, and most of my leisure time seems to be involved with motoring, or motoring chums.
This weekend myself and a pal went to the VSCC meeting at Loton Park, yesterday was a bbq with friends whist viewing the Monaco GP and the Indy 500. Despite justified criticisms of both events, I enjoyed both. This was not an untypical weekend.Last weekend I competed in a sprint at Curborough, next weekend we're off on yet another driving break.
Most of our holidays involve motoring; I spend hours and hours poring over TYRE and plotting routes; I have hundreds of routes saved; I'll do things like plot routes from home in the Midlands to the coast involving unclassified roads all the way, then drive there at night at speed because I know (from my road rallying days) that these lanes are utterly deserted after midnight; we marshal on classic road rallies.
I have few friends outside the world of motoring motorsport, or the trade. I have a memory which can recollect all sorts of names and anecdotes from past decades of motoring or motorsport, but normally I couldn't tell you what I did yesterday.
I love driving; I was an hgv driver for many years yet still our holidays involved driving; I would much rather drive and get on a ferry than take a flight anywhere; as can be seen, I spend ages (far too long) on PH. In short, most of my waking hours involves motoring.
But I happen to think the way we use our roads is not fair. I love cars but the way that car-is-king in this country, at the direct cost to other types of road user, is completely unfair. I also hate s
t driving. I find myself addressing statements on these threads which are either completely wrong or make no sense. I really, *really* struggle to fathom out my fellow motorists issues with cyclists, given we have so incredibly few compared to our neighbouring countries. And because of this, people conclude that I hate cars.
Cyclists - I barely notice them, (same with hgvs). All I seem to do is pass them by, but it's not possible to pass by the chronic congestion that we motorists cause in our millions.
cb1965 said:
1. I drive round London quite a lot these days and there are some idiots in cars, taxis, vans etc. but by quite a long way the proportion of cyclists doing daft things is much higher.
2. I really do think if all cyclists behaved like some do and paid a bit more attention to what's going on around them and didn't take silly chances the rate of injury and death would come down further. .
1. But so what? Sure, they're a bit of nuisance, like the weather can be a nuisance, but it's not cyclists who grind the roads to a halt for 12 hours a day, it's not cyclists apparently killing thousands by polluting the air, nor are they killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of people a a year through collisions , so your obsession with cyclists simply makes no sense. Good job we hardly have any, eh?2. I really do think if all cyclists behaved like some do and paid a bit more attention to what's going on around them and didn't take silly chances the rate of injury and death would come down further. .
2. As always I reckon, your statements are not backed up by fact. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drivers-to-b...
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/...
Edited by heebeegeetee on Monday 29th May 10:16
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
You still haven't shown me the posts where "we" established your statement. I'm not diverting, wriggling or being an arse, I'm asking the same question / making the same point that you STILL seem to be unable to understand or answer. So, where have "we" established your statement? Or is the truth (the real truth, rather than your alternative version of the truth) that no such thing was actually established when you made that statement?
OK I'll take another tack. Does it matter whether you felt it had been established at the time it was written or not? What matters is whether it is true and it is. Or do you dispute that?Edited by Mave on Monday 29th May 09:52
Mave said:
Whether it is true or not is only part of what matters. You laid out an end to end scenario based on opinion overstated as fact, and logical irregularities which you then used to draw an incorrect conclusion about people's opinions to then become offended by. Do you accept that the facts you claim were established were, in fact, not established when you made that claim?
No J absolutely don't accept that, but it's irrelevant to the point being made anyway as well you know. They are facts not conjecture and yet you will still not address the real issue. But that is how you operate on here. I can't imagine it is how you are in the real world as no one would give you the time of day so why be a tEdited by anonymous-user on Monday 29th May 09:52
t on the internet other than because you can? If you are like that in the real world I bet you can make ordering a sandwich more complicated than building a moon rocket! You must be so much 'fun' 
cb1965 said:
Mave said:
Whether it is true or not is only part of what matters. You laid out an end to end scenario based on opinion overstated as fact, and logical irregularities which you then used to draw an incorrect conclusion about people's opinions to then become offended by. Do you accept that the facts you claim were established were, in fact, not established when you made that claim?
No J absolutely don't accept that, but it's irrelevant to the point being made anyway as well you know.Edited by Mave on Monday 29th May 09:52
heebeegeetee said:
Rich_W said:
Mave/HeeBe/ME et al et al are a vocal minority. They hate cars. They cannot abide them on the roads and hate anyone who defends them. Every and ALL cars drivers are law breaking s to them. There simply is never a car rider that doesn't do something wrong in their eyes. They will excuse (or employ standard forum blinkers) any person riding a bike who makes a mistake. Show this tiny group a car driver being a dick and they will say "SEE! All car driver are tts"
Other people (well, Digby, to be fair) have said I hate cars, so let me please address this.s to them. There simply is never a car rider that doesn't do something wrong in their eyes. They will excuse (or employ standard forum blinkers) any person riding a bike who makes a mistake. Show this tiny group a car driver being a dick and they will say "SEE! All car driver are tts"As Hugo said, this is PH. In theory we ALL like cars.
cb1965 said:
The irony of you not being able to spell coherent is quite amusing
Oh st a Typo. Well that invalidates everything I've said or ever will 
cb1965 said:
You don't get out much in London do you? I'll spell it out for you - the percentage of cyclists who behave like bell ends is much higher than the percentage of drivers. It's that simple!
Given the Council Tax I pay goes to a London Borough. And I've commuted to various jobs a stone throw on both sides of the Thames. Both by bike and by car in recent years. I'm going to say you're wrong And I'm well aware of the Peletons that form at every set of lights (cause you cant jump them as there's loads of cars going across the junction!) Imagine if all those people were in single occupancy cars instead. Congestion would be EVEN worse
Mave said:
It is totally relevant. If you don't accept my statement then why won't you point to the posts where your claim was established?
No it's really not! The point is it is fact whether you think it was established before or after I typed my post. You just won't debate the point made preferring instead to deflect at every opportunity. You carry on with your 'drivers killing cyclists' mantra and hopefully one day karma will visit you as you're a genuinely nasty piece of work!cb1965 said:
Mave said:
It is totally relevant. If you don't accept my statement then why won't you point to the posts where your claim was established?
No it's really not! The point is it is fact whether you think it was established before or after I typed my post. cb1965 said:
You just won't debate the point made preferring instead to deflect at every opportunity. You carry on with your 'drivers killing cyclists' mantra and hopefully one day karma will visit you as you're a genuinely nasty piece of work!
And this is why my earlier question, where I have repeatedly asked you to show where "we" had established your "facts", is relevant. Instead of checking whether people agree with your "facts", instead of checking why people think the way they do, instead of reading what they have and haven't written, you're going round generating straw men arguments and opinion that no-one has expressed, and then hurling round abuse and insults. If you actually want to debate instead of antagonise then wind your neck in and start debating in a civil manner.
saaby93 said:
Any chance of getting back to topic guys?
That's after a very quick perusal, and excludes bus /coach figures.
So where does the claimed 18% come from?
Mave said:
FiF said:
Right here goes, the figures linked earlier by CB showed that out of the 31 deaths in years 2014-16 inclusive, 16 involved a lorry.
That's after a very quick perusal, and excludes bus /coach figures.
So where does the claimed 18% come from?
TRL PPR 445 main findings summary.That's after a very quick perusal, and excludes bus /coach figures.
So where does the claimed 18% come from?
So there have been what felt like endless pages arguing the minutiae over figures effectively comparing apples and oranges then.
Unbelievable.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff