Another cyclist dies in London

[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?

[Mave]

The Dangerous Elk said:

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.

How succesful do you think you would be in business or politics if, when talking to an individual, you assumed their opinion was in line with that coarse model despite them repeatedly telling you it wasn't? Especially when that coarse model represented the extreme?

[The Dangerous Elk]

Mave said:

How succesful do you think you would be in business or politics if, when talking to an individual, you assumed their opinion was in line with that coarse model despite them repeatedly telling you it wasn't? Especially when that coarse model represented the extreme?

I am not talking to an individual. You ask a totally pointless question.

I have said that demographics gives certain general results and it is possible to make particular assumptions given you accept wide margins.

You would accept would you not that it is a fair assumption to think that most cyclists would be in favour of increased protective road design measures for cyclists (given a margin of error) ?

[Mave]

The Dangerous Elk said:

I am not talking to an individual. You ask a totally pointless question.

I was talking to someone else when you decided to respond to my post - and a number of people on this thread repeatedly respond to individuals based on some imaginary extreme group opinion rather what has actually been posted. So the question isn't pointless, you've just changed the context.

Edited by Mave on Thursday 23 November 22:13

[The Dangerous Elk]

The Dangerous Elk said:

Mave said:

Well firstly yes you are talking to an individual and secondly, I was talking to someone else when you decided to respond to my post - so the question isn't pointless, you've just changed the context.

OK, sorry for the interruption on an open forum in an open discussion


Would accept it is a fair assumption that - most - cyclists would be in favour of increased protective road design measures for cyclists (given a margin of error)?

Would you accept that - most - children under 10 like sweets (given a margin of error)?

Would you accept that - most - men prefer to have sex with females (given a margin of error)?

[Mave]

The Dangerous Elk said:

The Dangerous Elk said:

Mave said:

Well firstly yes you are talking to an individual and secondly, I was talking to someone else when you decided to respond to my post - so the question isn't pointless, you've just changed the context.

OK, sorry for the interruption on an open forum in an open discussion


Would accept it is a fair assumption that - most - cyclists would be in favour of increased protective road design measures for cyclists (given a margin of error)?

Would you accept that - most - children under 10 like sweets (given a margin of error)?

Would you accept that - most - men prefer to have sex with females (given a margin of error)?

Oh don't be so precious. You jumped into a discussion and guess what? The point I had previously made wasn't necessarily relevant to your later point.

To your examples?
Yes, most kids under 10 like sweets. That doesn't mean they are all obese.
Yes most men prefer to have sex with women. That doesn't mean they are all sex pests.

[The Dangerous Elk]

Mave said:

Oh don't be so precious. You jumped into a discussion and guess what? The point I had previously made wasn't necessarily relevant to your later point.

To your examples?
Yes, most kids under 10 like sweets. That doesn't mean they are all obese.
Yes most men prefer to have sex with women. That doesn't mean they are all sex pests.

LOL.....ahhh bless.

Nice try but a purposeful fail to defend an incorrect position.

It is not credible to try and say that certain demographics/jobs/clubs etc do not carry a certain % of attitudes and opinions that can be estimated. (given a wide margin accepted)

Take as an example a Golf Club or a Ramblers club, do you think political parties could draw conclusions as to a how in "general" the attitudes would be to a particular party?

[heebeegeetee]

Finlandia said:

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.

But you're on a uk forum and I think you're on very dodgy ground if you're going to talk about 'wrong tyres'. In the uk the average shopping car is on tyre profiles more extreme than F1 cars use. I understand F1 is going to change tyre profiles and sizes, but only to reflect fashion trends and nothing else.

Digby said:

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.


Clear as mud.

The point of discussion is the anomaly of why hgvs are disproportionately involved in collisions with cyclists relative to their numbers. This is not confined to a cycling issue, hgvs are also disproportionately involved in collisions relative to their numbers, with everybody else too, nationwide.

Yes more car occupants and more pedestrians are killed annually than cyclists. I presume this isn't an issue for most people because most people are pedestrians and/ car users themselves, which leads us back to the only real reason why these countless cycling threads come up, or this one is so long, is cyclists are seen as an outlier group.

You keep saying "cycling is bad, cars are bad" but you're wrong, and you've been wrong throughout.

It's cycling is bad (well, it is to you, anyway), but cars are massively, humongously much more bad. As you've said, parking 10,000 or 100,000 bicycles is bad, but parking 10,000 or 100,000 cars is a much, much bigger problem, not least because the average car weighs 75 times more than a bike. Providing road space for 10k or 100k individuals on bikes is bad, but providing road space for 10k or 100k cars is much, much worse. The road space that has to handed over to individuals in cars is horrendous, especially when in London they're traveling no more quickly than cyclists.

The damage a cyclist does when he loses control is bad; the damage a driver does when loses control can be many, many times worse. It's unusual for a cyclist to kill someone but it's not regarded as unusual for a car to kill someone.

Your idea that there is some sort of equality between the problems of bicycles and cars is nonsense.

[heebeegeetee]

Digby said:

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?

And as I said at the time, and you choose to ignore, my comments were based on the experience that I had. 99.999999999999999% of the population doesn't have that experience and nor would they want it.

So what would you do about them?

These deaths involving women and hgvs does surprise me and I would like the opportunity to talk to families or friends to find out why such intelligent people weren't aware of the dangers.

The German girl was an experienced cyclist, but she still rode up the inside of an hgv (who overtook her 200m before the lights so knew there was a cyclist present). Maybe German/continental lorry drivers are much better than our own, or possibly more likely, maybe German or Continental lorry drivers are much more used to sharing roads with cyclists and are more likely to be cyclists themselves?

But either way she seemed to place far too much faith in British lorry drivers, which given that I was one myself for so long, greatly saddens me.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Friday 24th November 06:06

[Mave]

The Dangerous Elk said:

Mave said:

Oh don't be so precious. You jumped into a discussion and guess what? The point I had previously made wasn't necessarily relevant to your later point.

To your examples?
Yes, most kids under 10 like sweets. That doesn't mean they are all obese.
Yes most men prefer to have sex with women. That doesn't mean they are all sex pests.

LOL.....ahhh bless.

Nice try but a purposeful fail to defend an incorrect position.

Incorrect position? Which bit of it is incorrect? It's a spot on analogy to someone taking the characteristics of a significantly small part of the group and using it to assume the behaviour of the whole group.

[Digby]

heebeegeetee said:

And as I said at the time, and you choose to ignore, my comments were based on the experience that I had. 99.999999999999999% of the population doesn't have that experience and nor would they want it.

Edited by heebeegeetee on Friday 24th November 06:06

And 99.999999% of the population have no issues when in cars. Or as pedestrians, or as cyclists.

The problems you had I now have but a great deal more than you ever did. Something you continue to ignore whilst pointing out over and over and over again statistics about why cars are bad, pedestrians die and how other countries enjoy cycling.

Gven you eventually agreed you won’t see what you so dearly wanted in London unless they knock it down and given this is a cycling deaths in London thread, one has to ask why you even post here.

Try and focus all comments from now on on London only. See how long you can last.

[Digby]

Oh and I love the part saying “But you are on a UK forum” given you have spent most of this thread talking about other countries.

That is unless someone from another country shows you stats or facts and figures you do not like; then you are not interested (your own words) or you start waffling on again about something else.

[anonymous-user]

I had a puncture on my bike this morning. Made me half an hour late for my usual work start. Even when the only cyclist involved is me, I STILL manage to get delayed. fking cyclists.

[The Dangerous Elk]

Mave said:

Incorrect position? Which bit of it is incorrect? It's a spot on analogy to someone taking the characteristics of a significantly small part of the group and using it to assume the behaviour of the whole group.

"opinions that can be estimated. (given a wide margin accepted)"

OK move on, we are bumping into each others walls now.

[gazza285]

cb1965 said:

The psychology of grouping is an interesting one. For instance in the case of our favourite bunch, the cyclists, you have the somewhat extreme pro cycling organisations peddling their poison and you have one or two individuals declaring they want nothing to do with them. Then you have the vast majority who by their silence could be seen to be condoning the view of the organisations.... or could be seen to be doing anything but.... which it is depends on which side of the fence you sit I guess.

By their silence could be seen to be condoning? What crap.

[Mave]

cb1965 said:

gazza285 said:

cb1965 said:

The psychology of grouping is an interesting one. For instance in the case of our favourite bunch, the cyclists, you have the somewhat extreme pro cycling organisations peddling their poison and you have one or two individuals declaring they want nothing to do with them. Then you have the vast majority who by their silence could be seen to be condoning the view of the organisations.... or could be seen to be doing anything but.... which it is depends on which side of the fence you sit I guess.

By their silence could be seen to be condoning? What crap.

An argument often heard applied to certain other groups e.g. religions, race etc. Not saying it's always right, just in this case it probably is

And then there are certain people deliberately turning a deaf ear just so they can continue to pretend that the majority hold a certain view - rather than listening to what people are saying.

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

Finlandia said:

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.

But you're on a uk forum

You better stop going on about cycling in Denmark and Holland then.

[heebeegeetee]

Digby said:

1. And 99.999999% of the population have no issues when in cars. Or as pedestrians, or as cyclists.

2. The problems you had I now have but a great deal more than you ever did. Something you continue to ignore whilst pointing out over and over and over again statistics about why cars are bad, pedestrians die and how other countries enjoy cycling.

3. Gven you eventually agreed you won’t see what you so dearly wanted in London unless they knock it down and given this is a cycling deaths in London thread, one has to ask why you even post here.

4. Try and focus all comments from now on on London only. See how long you can last.

1. Woohoo, try asking the man in the street for his opinion on hgv drivers, see how non-committal 99.999999999999% are.

2. Oh dear god. When I was driving in London on a fairly regular basis, I was also driving in other european capitals and large cities. Try taking an articulated lorry down the former Yugoslavia, into Greece and down to Athens. Try driving around Athens. Try southern Italy. Try any large Italian city, in an artic. Paris isn’t far from London but I always found it surprising how mad the drivers were compared to the pussy cats in London. Not to mention the Netherlands of course.

Just try Athens, and I think you’ll soon be begging for the safety and sanctity of London. “I now have but a great deal more than you ever did”. Who are you trying to kid? Try leaving England once in a while!

3. London is going to have to change and will change whether you like it or not. How about a wager? In 10 years time there will be more cyclists than now, more cycle lanes than now, more restrictions on motor vehicles than now, safer hgvs than now. Cyclists will be much as they ever were, but hopefully there’ll be a lot more ‘normal’ people, diluting the gung-ho types who are predominant now. There’ll be no registration for cyclists and no compulsory training. How about it?

4. See below.

Digby said:

Oh and I love the part saying “But you are on a UK forum” given you have spent most of this thread talking about other countries.

That is unless someone from another country shows you stats or facts and figures you do not like; then you are not interested (your own words) or you start waffling on again about something else.

I mention other countries because it proves you and and the other dinosaurs wrong, like when people say we can’t have more cyclists, there isn’t room, there isn’t room for cycle lanes, you can’t take children to school on a bike, you can’t go to a restaurant, you can’t deliver anything on a bike, try going shopping on a bike, etc etc etc.

I simply point out to the Little Englanders like you that all this stuff you’re saying can’t be done, is done every single day by millions of people, and mostly not very far from London.

You hate it because it shows how wrong you are.

[The Dangerous Elk]

Mave said:

And then there are certain people deliberately turning a deaf ear just so they can continue to pretend that the majority hold a certain view - rather than listening to what people are saying.

Feel free to demonstrate how you listen to "what people are saying".

[Finlandia]

heebeegeetee said:

I mention other countries because it proves you and and the other dinosaurs wrong

The Swedish stats proves you wrong, and so on it goes.