Another cyclist dies in London

[FiF]

FiF said:

heebeegeetee said:

FiF said:

Maybe, frankly he needs to explain himself in my opinion.

It's in response to Digbys post listed as yesterday at 10.57. Seems he's criticising me for responding to the points he raised.

He keeps mentioning drunk cyclists too, I simply gave my direct experience of them.

Not sure what harm drunk cyclists do, say, as opposed to the problem of drunk drivers.

And what was the connection to that list of incidents, out of interest.

So are you going to answer this or not? Furthermore if it was in answer to an earlier post at 10:57, why not quote that post as opposed to one twelve hours later, 22:27 iirc. Huh?

In absence of an answer one could be forgiven for thinking it's just another bit of blatant diversionary what aboutism, but this time using a series of very different but tragic incidents.

[TroubledSoul]

Hang on, are we now saying drunk cycling is ok... because they're not in a car?

Does that also mean that theft is OK because nobody was hurt or fraud is OK because nobody got killed and so on? Where do you draw the line with your brand of socialist justice?

[heebeegeetee]

TroubledSoul said:

Hang on, are we now saying drunk cycling is ok... because they're not in a car?

Does that also mean that theft is OK because nobody was hurt or fraud is OK because nobody got killed and so on? Where do you draw the line with your brand of socialist justice?

Well I notice you have a very nice garage full of some really quite high performance vehicles.

Were I question this, the default response would be to say or infer that despite spending some strong money on high performance vehicles, speed limits are never broken.

Will this be the case for you? Or are you like me, and like to give speed limits a right good thrashing?

In which case , what kind of socialism might this be ? (Am I doing this right?)

[TroubledSoul]

heebeegeetee said:

Well I notice you have a very nice garage full of some really quite high performance vehicles.

Were I question this, the default response would be to say or infer that despite spending some strong money on high performance vehicles, speed limits are never broken.

Will this be the case for you? Or are you like me, and like to give speed limits a right good thrashing?

In which case , what kind of socialism might this be ? (Am I doing this right?)

I'm actually very conservative with speed limits and do my real performance driving on track, hence my building a hillclimb car and having a day booked at Blyton in two weeks

You're dodged answering the question btw And speed limits weren't a part of what I asked in any way so not entirely sure of the relevance...

[FiF]

Incidentally, anyone who thinks this thread doesn't have sensible debate should read this one

Warning, it's a waste of time in biker banter.

[heebeegeetee]

TroubledSoul said:

You're dodged answering the question btw And speed limits weren't a part of what I asked in any way so not entirely sure of the relevance...

Well you asked if cycling drunk was ok and I asked if speeding is ok, because incorrect speed is possibly a factor in a great many deaths and injuries, whereas I really do not know the scale of the problem of riding bikes when drunk, and I'd suggest you possibly don't know either.

I'd suggest in the UK drunk cycling isn't a great issue, but in the Nertherlands...:

>>How Big of a Problem Is Drunk Bicycling?<<

Some quotes:

>>According to the study, which examined cycling habits in the cities of Groningen and The Hague, 68 percent of young people in The Netherlands admit to getting on their bikes at night when under the influence of alcohol—or at least, that’s how the report’s accompanying press release puts it. Fast-forward to five in the morning and the share of younger riders cycling under the influence allegedly reaches 80 percent.<<

>>The number of total cyclists out at 5 a.m. is surely very low, but the crashes that result are not to be taken lightly. When it comes to weekend nights, around 50 percent of young Dutch cyclists involved in crashes have consumed alcohol. It’s thus reasonable to infer that consumption is compromising road safety in the country, and that these younger cyclists are taking foolish risks and exposing pedestrians and drivers to greater danger.

But is this the whole story? The SWOV’s report discusses the proportion of bicycle crashes that involve alcohol among a specific age group, at a particular time of the day. What it doesn’t do is provide actual numbers of incidents, or discuss how they relate in number to other road collisions. Are we talking about five incidents, or five thousand? The report doesn’t say.<<

>>In truth, the greatest peril facing both Dutch cyclists and pedestrians is the same as it is pretty much everywhere—people driving cars. ...

... >> among these fatalities, the largest number of victims (40 percent of the total) were over the age of 70. Most fatal collisions involving cyclists, meanwhile, happened between 3 and 4 p.m. on weekdays, with fatalities dropping off sharply on weekends. In other words, the most high-risk group for serious cycling crashes consists of older, sober bicycle riders exposed to cars during busier daylight hours.<<

>>If there is a serious menace on the streets of the Netherlands, it quite clearly isn’t drunk young people cycling late on the weekends. In fact, you need to delve deep into the SWOV report to discover that the figure of 68 percent of younger cyclists riding under the influence refers to those still on the roads after 1 a.m., by which time most other people have already gone home.<<

>>There’s nonetheless a danger in spotlighting a particular problem in false isolation—it makes it look bigger than it is. << WOOHOO! This bloke's met Digby.

>>By distracting attention from the most common sources of road fatalities, this kind of emphasis risks diverting action away from more serious problems, << - This chap's definitely met Digby.

And to end: - >>Even with a few fools behind the handlebars, the threat that bicycles expose the public to is infinitesimally small compared to that posed by cars.<<

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2016/04/dru...

You talk about illegality, but just how illegal is drunk cycling? Answer: I don't know. In the UK, what are the penalties? I don't know, is it a £10 fine or do you lose your licence? What if you don't have a licence? Is it legal to be drunk in public? Possibly not http://www.themix.org.uk/drink-and-drugs/drinking-... What are the consequences and ramifications of drunk cycling? I don't know, perhaps someone can help me here.

So I don't know how 'ok' or 'not ok' drunk cycling is. Theft and fraud though, they do people a great deal of distress, so they're not ok in my book.

[heebeegeetee]

FiF said:

So are you going to answer this or not? Furthermore if it was in answer to an earlier post at 10:57, why not quote that post as opposed to one twelve hours later, 22:27 iirc. Huh?

In absence of an answer one could be forgiven for thinking it's just another bit of blatant diversionary what aboutism, but this time using a series of very different but tragic incidents.

The reason I didn't answer was because I thought it was rather self-explanatory. I simply highlighted the issue of young people in cars, as opposed to young people getting up to no good on bicycles. That problem seems much higher to quantify.

Digby is very good at identifying problems in isolation, without quantifying what the problem actually is. He's identified that there are drunk cyclists but he hasn't (afaiaa) quantified the problem. Like the report I've quoted above says: >>Are we talking about five incidents, or five thousand? The report doesn’t say.<< And neither does Digby.

Likewise his highlighting red light jumping by cyclists. He said that is a problem, but didn't quantify the problem. Does it lead to one loss of life per annum, or 10,100,1000? He doesn't say. Indeed evidence says risky cycling is rarely a factor in bike accidents https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/...
and other evidence says that drivers are solely to blame in 60-75% of collisions with adult cyclists.

Plus >>There’s nonetheless a danger in spotlighting a particular problem in false isolation—it makes it look bigger than it is. By distracting attention from the most common sources of road fatalities, this kind of emphasis risks diverting action away from more serious problems, such as poorly protected junctions shared by cars and bikes, or bad road skills on the part of drivers.<<

And that's been Digby's modus operandi throughout the thread.

I think 'whataboutism' is often justified, because distracting attention away from the most common sources of road fatalities risks diverting action away from the more serious and more common problems, although there might be less whataboutism if people would actually quantify what the problem is rather than just stating that it's "a problem".

[Killboy]

Digby said:

I didn't start the topic of red lights. That happened way back at the start of the thread when it became clear you were not allowed to say anything bad about cyclists / cycling to several members on here. Even if those who regularly cycle in London said the behaviour was often poor, those who don't ride there would still explain why this wasn't the case or why cars were bad, too. (not sure if you knew that?)

One of my very first mentions of red lights (not started by myself btw) prompted a response from HeeBee of "If they get off and walk they are legal, so who cares if they jump red lights?"

It was all downhill from then, because many people do care but are not allowed to express those opinions. Btw, cars are bad.

I started by posting what I saw regularly, explained what was happening to try and stop this, tried to explain why it was often hard to keep track of riders etc, etc, etc and it all ended up with me being called a liar, a fantasists, that I should hand in my licence and numerous other forms of playground BS.

From then on, it was clear I was wasting my time, so why not play their game?

As an example, way back in 2015 was the first time I mentioned not seeing cars jump red lights 20 to 30+ seconds after they had gone red. Yet here we are, two years later, and STILL I am accused of saying I don't see cars jump red lights. This despite me saying the same thing again many, many times even within the last few pages.

You have to laugh.

Now I just find out all the negatives I can about cycling and keep reminding everyone based purely on the responses I was given. It's so easy, because there are so many things to choose from. I gave up explaining that I hate bad motorists etc and that cars are bad (not sure if you knew?)

And here we are again....

Drunk riding isn't a problem and it's even less of a problem because some bloke saw some cyclists from a boat.

This thread is truly fantastic. It makes me laugh every time I come here at the sheer desperation on show from those who do not want to hear anything negative about cycling. But we can't let them have it all their way, can we?

I love my bike, I love seeing cyclists out and about. We always get on well and most are fantastic riders. I'm only here due to the ones that may die under my wheels; but I'm not allowed to talk about them because.......cars are bad. Not sure if anyone knew that?

Oh and my experiences were all based around London, trucks and vehicles in London and riders in London.

Most of the people on here can't say the same. Not that I drive a truck. I am a fantasist liar who should hang his keys up (not sure what the keys are for, then?)

Quality thread. Absolute quality.

Edited by Digby on Monday 23 October 00:49

You forgot:

• Cyclists not using cycle infrastructure
• Cyclists causing pedestrians to run for their lives on sidewalks
• Copenhagen's demise

I'm sure if one goes far back enough we may even find the "they dont pay road tax" arguments.

Sorry mate, but you have been on of the ring leaders in "its their fault" arguments here.

[Finlandia]

Just now on the news here in Sweden, 25% of the cyclists are uncertain about the rules of cycling, the three biggest uncertainties are, who has right of way, how to cycle in a roundabout, and where are you allowed to cycle.

[Digby]

heebeegeetee said:

...yet the Digbys want to talk about red lights and the rest of it, whilst excusing motorists who also jump red lights, but which from the start of the thread had never shown to be particularly relevant to the title of the thread.

See what I mean? Great, isn't it?

I said ban drivers who jump them and those who drive like tts. Makes no difference to me.

Heebee version: I excuse them. And I'm the liar?

No particular relevance to the thread? Not started by me, anyway, but, let's take a look back over the last few years and see what you talk about and how relevant it is. Shall we? Come on, let's play..

Let's keep it simple for now because the levels of desperation become even more comical.

Q: Has talking about pollution got anything to do with this topic?

heebeegeetee said:

The only other issue is how the stuff the Digbys and ceebbeebies come up with, is so rarely, if ever, supported by any evidence, starting from the usual road tax, red lights, collisions always being the cyclists fault, and so on.

Show me a single time where I said bikes need to be taxed. Oh, you can't. You made it up.
Show me where I ever said anything was always the cyclists fault. Oh, you can't. You made it up.

Mind you, all I have to say is I saw all of the above from a boat.

I was with some Sentinelese tribe members. They had never seen bikes or cars. They couldn't believe we had such amazing vehicles and wondered why anyone would want to pedal. They asked how they were supposed to get a skip delivered by bike and then we all got drunk and went for a ride to see how many pedestrians we could hit.

Edited by Digby on Monday 23 October 18:29

[Digby]

Killboy said:

Sorry mate, but you have been on of the ring leaders in "its their fault" arguments here.

As soon as "they" started, sure I was. As explained above. EDIT: Well, actually, where have I said it was their fault?

Let's keep it simple again.

I think those who jump red lights in cars are s.

Do you think those who jump red lights on bikes are s?

Killboy said:

You forgot:

• Cyclists not using cycle infrastructure
• Cyclists causing pedestrians to run for their lives on sidewalks
• Copenhagen's demise

I'm sure if one goes far back enough we may even find the "they dont pay road tax" arguments.

I asked if it should be law to use it if provided and asked why some do and some do not.
Run for their lives? Show me where I said that. Maybe I was wound up?
Copenhagen's demise? Show me where I said that.

Don't faff about, show me. If you can't, you have given the perfect example of what I said above.

Cheers

Edited by Digby on Monday 23 October 18:06

[Digby]

FiF said:

Incidentally, anyone who thinks this thread doesn't have sensible debate should read this one

Warning, it's a waste of time in biker banter.

Rosanne said:

I do wish, though, that bikers might recognise that high speed weaving between moving or stationary traffic leaves them virtually invisible to car drivers and therefore very vulnerable.

No, no, no!!

You know what you have been told on here several times! If you can't see them all at all times, you are a danger and need to hand in your licence. Also, your vehicle is not fit for purpose. They can ride how they like!

[heebeegeetee]

Well you say since "they" started it. The second post of the thread refers to trucks, the third post refers to red lights.

It's clear which "they" you have sided with ever since.

[Digby]

heebeegeetee said:

Well you say since "they" started it. The second post of the thread refers to trucks, the third post refers to red lights.

It's clear which "they" you have sided with ever since.

Covering nothing I said above, then? Same old story.

Answering nothing. Shock.

[Mave]

FiF said:

Mave said:

FiF said:

Back of the net.

More like an own goal!

Nope, not in the slightest. Back on ignore for you.

Well done. That's the response I expect from my nephew when he hears something he doesn't agree with.

You've accused me of ruining a thread for challenging someone's ridiculous view of what constitutes dangerous behaviour, and for disagreeing with what causes the majority of cycling deaths in London. You've accused me of running a smear campaign for pointing out that some people on this thread won't acknowledge or condemn motorists jumping red lights.

Yet you applaud Digby's post like he's some kind of victorious hero. You're an utter hypocrite.

[FiF]

Mave said:

FiF said:

Mave said:

FiF said:

Back of the net.

More like an own goal!

Nope, not in the slightest. Back on ignore for you.

Well done. That's the response I expect from my nephew when he hears something he doesn't agree with.

You've accused me of ruining a thread for challenging someone's ridiculous view of what constitutes dangerous behaviour, and for disagreeing with what causes the majority of cycling deaths in London. You've accused me of running a smear campaign for pointing out that some people on this thread won't acknowledge or condemn motorists jumping red lights.

Yet you applaud Digby's post like he's some kind of victorious hero. You're an utter hypocrite.

As are you. Every so often you throw out a comment to try and show some sort of objective balance, and then immediately revert to type completely one eyed support of cyclists. Yes you do ruin thread after thread, and to be frank I have no idea what this accusation of a smear campaign is about. None whatsoever. If it's about the refusal to accept what Digby has clearly defined as to the different way some drivers and some cyclists RLJ and you are interpreting that as a refusal to condemn or acknowledge motorists RLJing, well you need help.

Yet you repeatedly accuse motorists of putting all cyclists into a box, as in "they all do it". Yet look back at the video where the truck went straight on, yet all the cyclists packed down the left on the lane recommended for left turners. In the aftermath confrontation, when the cyclist defence league rounded on the truck driver, what was their defence? Oh yes "We all do it."

Well clearly, in my experience, they don't all do it but well, it speaks volumes though.

That's the last thing I'm going to respond to you on. This thread is going nowhere, I'm out, finally lost patience with others and you, taking the link out of my stuff. Bye. Stay safe.

[Mave]

FiF said:

Unless you really did mean a broad brush smear in which case it really is pointless to continue. Suspect the latter.

Here you go, to refresh your memory...

[Mave]

FiF said:

As are you. Every so often you throw out a comment to try and show some sort of objective balance, and then immediately revert to type completely one eyed support of cyclists. Yes you do ruin thread after thread

And yet, on those posts when you've accused me of ruining the thread, you've actually ended up agreeing with my viewpoint....

[anonymous-user]

Finlandia said:

heebeegeetee said:

Well, as I say, the predominant issue, and I'd argue the only issue, is of hgvs turning left over cyclists

heebeegeetee said:

In cases involving left turns I believe it's nearer 50-50

In other words, split fault in the most common death scenario for cyclists in London. What do we do about that, how about ban over/undertaking at junctions?

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!!

[anonymous-user]

Killboy said:

Digby said:

I didn't start the topic of red lights. That happened way back at the start of the thread when it became clear you were not allowed to say anything bad about cyclists / cycling to several members on here. Even if those who regularly cycle in London said the behaviour was often poor, those who don't ride there would still explain why this wasn't the case or why cars were bad, too. (not sure if you knew that?)

One of my very first mentions of red lights (not started by myself btw) prompted a response from HeeBee of "If they get off and walk they are legal, so who cares if they jump red lights?"

It was all downhill from then, because many people do care but are not allowed to express those opinions. Btw, cars are bad.

I started by posting what I saw regularly, explained what was happening to try and stop this, tried to explain why it was often hard to keep track of riders etc, etc, etc and it all ended up with me being called a liar, a fantasists, that I should hand in my licence and numerous other forms of playground BS.

From then on, it was clear I was wasting my time, so why not play their game?

As an example, way back in 2015 was the first time I mentioned not seeing cars jump red lights 20 to 30+ seconds after they had gone red. Yet here we are, two years later, and STILL I am accused of saying I don't see cars jump red lights. This despite me saying the same thing again many, many times even within the last few pages.

You have to laugh.

Now I just find out all the negatives I can about cycling and keep reminding everyone based purely on the responses I was given. It's so easy, because there are so many things to choose from. I gave up explaining that I hate bad motorists etc and that cars are bad (not sure if you knew?)

And here we are again....

Drunk riding isn't a problem and it's even less of a problem because some bloke saw some cyclists from a boat.

This thread is truly fantastic. It makes me laugh every time I come here at the sheer desperation on show from those who do not want to hear anything negative about cycling. But we can't let them have it all their way, can we?

I love my bike, I love seeing cyclists out and about. We always get on well and most are fantastic riders. I'm only here due to the ones that may die under my wheels; but I'm not allowed to talk about them because.......cars are bad. Not sure if anyone knew that?

Oh and my experiences were all based around London, trucks and vehicles in London and riders in London.

Most of the people on here can't say the same. Not that I drive a truck. I am a fantasist liar who should hang his keys up (not sure what the keys are for, then?)

Quality thread. Absolute quality.

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 23 October 00:49

You forgot:

• Cyclists not using cycle infrastructure
• Cyclists causing pedestrians to run for their lives on sidewalks
• Copenhagen's demise

I'm sure if one goes far back enough we may even find the "they dont pay road tax" arguments.

Sorry mate, but you have been on of the ring leaders in "its their fault" arguments here.

Ignore this utter garbage Digby, your posts are just about the most balanced and honest on here!