Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
Finlandia said:
The Swedish stats proves you wrong, and so on it goes.
Factor in uk sedentary lifestyles, factor in uk pollution levels in cities, factor in uk's grinding levels of congestion, I doubt very much Swedish stats prove me wrong. Also doesn't prove me wrong about shopping by bike, taking kids to school (what's Sweden's school runs like, are they as ridiculous as ours or are far more Swedish kids travelling independently, in the fresh air, taking exercise on the way?)heebeegeetee said:
Finlandia said:
The Swedish stats proves you wrong, and so on it goes.
Factor in uk sedentary lifestyles, factor in uk pollution levels in cities, factor in uk's grinding levels of congestion, I doubt very much Swedish stats prove me wrong. Also doesn't prove me wrong about shopping by bike, taking kids to school (what's Sweden's school runs like, are they as ridiculous as ours or are far more Swedish kids travelling independently, in the fresh air, taking exercise on the way?)Swedish school kids usually walk or go by bus, that gives even less congestion than cycling, not to mention the parking space needed for the bikes.
Finlandia said:
Factor in all you like but you can't compare UK to Denmark or Holland either.
Swedish school kids usually walk or go by bus, that gives even less congestion than cycling, not to mention the parking space needed for the bikes.
I don't really see why we can't compare to Netherlands, or Germany, or possibly even Switzerland or other leading euro cycling nations, but anyway, my responses were more to answer the cries of "it can't be done", to simply point out that 'it' is already being done, by millions of people.Swedish school kids usually walk or go by bus, that gives even less congestion than cycling, not to mention the parking space needed for the bikes.
As I'm sure you're aware, congestion in the uk goes off the scale at school run time. We have a school by us, in deepest subrbia, and the school run often reminds me of the Paris-Dakar, so numerous are the 4x4's.
heebeegeetee said:
Finlandia said:
Factor in all you like but you can't compare UK to Denmark or Holland either.
Swedish school kids usually walk or go by bus, that gives even less congestion than cycling, not to mention the parking space needed for the bikes.
I don't really see why we can't compare to Netherlands, or Germany, or possibly even Switzerland or other leading euro cycling nations, but anyway, my responses were more to answer the cries of "it can't be done", to simply point out that 'it' is already being done, by millions of people.Swedish school kids usually walk or go by bus, that gives even less congestion than cycling, not to mention the parking space needed for the bikes.
As I'm sure you're aware, congestion in the uk goes off the scale at school run time. We have a school by us, in deepest subrbia, and the school run often reminds me of the Paris-Dakar, so numerous are the 4x4's.
In some cities road users can be separated, in others they can't, for various reasons.
Imagine if all those school runs were made by foot or in a couple of buses, surely that is even better than cycling for congestion?
heebeegeetee said:
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.
YOU agreed this can’t be done in London. YOU did. YOU.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.
I told you for some time before you gave in.
Clearly, it’s you who hates the fact London will never be how you would like it to be.
Not going well for you here, is it?
You agree with me completely regarding people exposing themselves to danger with no right to do so and you agree with me you won’t see what you want in London.
When you don’t get what you want or don’t like what you read, you change the topic, use terms such as dinosaur, blame the pub and admit you don’t know what you have written.
You are so pro-bike and screw anything else, you don’t even realise you do it.
It has just been on the radio that high-vis clothing and helmets for cyclists being made law is being looked at again. And up popped someone from cycle UK to....yes, you guessed it, have a moan and suggest it is a bad idea.
When asked why the law applied to motorbikes regarding helmets, he said he had never thought about it and had been put on the spot.
Perhaps he was the same chap who suggested taking large trucks off the road to replace them with dozens of smaller ones 😂
When asked why the law applied to motorbikes regarding helmets, he said he had never thought about it and had been put on the spot.
Perhaps he was the same chap who suggested taking large trucks off the road to replace them with dozens of smaller ones 😂
Digby said:
1. YOU agreed this can’t be done in London. YOU did. YOU.
2. I told you for some time before you gave in.
3. Clearly, it’s you who hates the fact London will never be how you would like it to be.
4. Not going well for you here, is it?
5. You agree with me completely regarding people exposing themselves to danger with no right to do so and you agree with me you won’t see what you want in London.
6. You are so pro-bike and screw anything else, you don’t even realise you do it.
1. No I didn't.2. I told you for some time before you gave in.
3. Clearly, it’s you who hates the fact London will never be how you would like it to be.
4. Not going well for you here, is it?
5. You agree with me completely regarding people exposing themselves to danger with no right to do so and you agree with me you won’t see what you want in London.
6. You are so pro-bike and screw anything else, you don’t even realise you do it.
2. Eh?
3. I do indeed regret the lack of the UK populace as a whole to have the freedom of a fair share of the roads.
4.
It's going fine.5. And as I've said repeatedly, now I'm better informed I've had a change of mind, so now I don't agree with anywhere near as much.
6. In fact I'm a non-cycling, committed car enthusiast, who happens to think that the majority of drivers are numpties and I think that non car-users get a really bum deal in the UK.
The Dangerous Elk said:
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".Mave said:
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...heebeegeetee said:
1. No I didn't.
2. Eh?
3. I do indeed regret the lack of the UK populace as a whole to have the freedom of a fair share of the roads.
4. It's going fine.
5. And as I've said repeatedly, now I'm better informed I've had a change of mind, so now I don't agree with anywhere near as much.
6. In fact I'm a non-cycling, committed car enthusiast, who happens to think that the majority of drivers are numpties and I think that non car-users get a really bum deal in the UK.
1) Yes, you did. Just a few posts ago you admitted you can’t always remember what you typed and other times blamed coming home from the pub. Here’s another example of that.2. Eh?
3. I do indeed regret the lack of the UK populace as a whole to have the freedom of a fair share of the roads.
4.
It's going fine.5. And as I've said repeatedly, now I'm better informed I've had a change of mind, so now I don't agree with anywhere near as much.
6. In fact I'm a non-cycling, committed car enthusiast, who happens to think that the majority of drivers are numpties and I think that non car-users get a really bum deal in the UK.
3) Back when cycling groups complained about the first cycle lanes, they also wanted roads built only for cars. That’s what they got with much of our road networks.
5) Better informed with what? When you said people had no right to take risks, why is that now ok?
When you said you were surprised riders still do, why are yoh now not surprised?
6) Yes I remember your revelation. You don’t like car drivers because they mean you can’t use your own vehicle as you would like.
Why do you struggle to cope with other vehicle users?
And last but not least, it’s not going well. Someone moaned about your post not too long ago and you agreed with them. You have become blind and confused.
Saying “No I didn’t” when you did or blaming the pub makes you a forum troll I’m afraid.
Digby said:
1. It has just been on the radio that high-vis clothing and helmets for cyclists being made law is being looked at again. And up popped someone from cycle UK to....yes, you guessed it, have a moan and suggest it is a bad idea.
2. When asked why the law applied to motorbikes regarding helmets, he said he had never thought about it and had been put on the spot.
1. I'll have a wager with you that it'll never happen. Let's bet £100, but how long are you prepared to give it? 1 year, 2, 5 or 10 years? I say it'll never happen. What say you?2. When asked why the law applied to motorbikes regarding helmets, he said he had never thought about it and had been put on the spot.
2. Well it's such a stupid point that I've no doubt the chap was non-plussed. Cycling is tremendously beneficial to the whole of society, tremendously beneficial to health, so to compare cycling with a dangerous activity like motor cycling is spectacularly dumb.
I've only just read that with the risks known as they are:
The health benefits of cycling outweigh the safety risks by a factor of 20 to one. Source.
Cyclists on average live two years longer than non-cyclists and take 15% fewer days off work through illness. Source.
An adult who cycles regularly will typically have a level of fitness equivalent to being 10 years younger.
Source:Tuxworth, B. 1986, Quality control. Sport and Leisure, 1986 Vol. 27 No. 3 pp. 32-33
Countries with the highest levels of cycling and walking generally have the lowest obesity rates. Source.
Cycling has a positive effect on emotional health – improving levels of well-being, self-confidence and tolerance to stress while reducing tiredness, difficulties with sleep and a range of medical symptoms.
Source: Boyd, H., Hillman, M., Nevill, A., Pearce, A. and Tuxworth, B. (1998). Health-related effects of regular cycling on a sample of previous non-exercisers, Resume of main findings.
People cycling to work ‘mortality rate is 28% below the average population. Source.
https://ecf.com/resources/cycling-facts-and-figure...
heebeegeetee said:
1. I'll have a wager with you that it'll never happen. Let's bet £100, but how long are you prepared to give it? 1 year, 2, 5 or 10 years? I say it'll never happen. What say you?
2. Well it's such a stupid point that I've no doubt the chap was non-plussed. Cycling is tremendously beneficial to the whole of society, tremendously beneficial to health, so to compare cycling with a dangerous activity like motor cycling is spectacularly dumb.
I've only just read that with the risks known as they are:
The health benefits of cycling outweigh the safety risks by a factor of 20 to one. Source.
Cyclists on average live two years longer than non-cyclists and take 15% fewer days off work through illness. Source.
An adult who cycles regularly will typically have a level of fitness equivalent to being 10 years younger.
Source:Tuxworth, B. 1986, Quality control. Sport and Leisure, 1986 Vol. 27 No. 3 pp. 32-33
Countries with the highest levels of cycling and walking generally have the lowest obesity rates. Source.
Cycling has a positive effect on emotional health – improving levels of well-being, self-confidence and tolerance to stress while reducing tiredness, difficulties with sleep and a range of medical symptoms.
Source: Boyd, H., Hillman, M., Nevill, A., Pearce, A. and Tuxworth, B. (1998). Health-related effects of regular cycling on a sample of previous non-exercisers, Resume of main findings.
People cycling to work ‘mortality rate is 28% below the average population. Source.
https://ecf.com/resources/cycling-facts-and-figure...
Is it safer to wear high visibility clothing when on a bike?2. Well it's such a stupid point that I've no doubt the chap was non-plussed. Cycling is tremendously beneficial to the whole of society, tremendously beneficial to health, so to compare cycling with a dangerous activity like motor cycling is spectacularly dumb.
I've only just read that with the risks known as they are:
The health benefits of cycling outweigh the safety risks by a factor of 20 to one. Source.
Cyclists on average live two years longer than non-cyclists and take 15% fewer days off work through illness. Source.
An adult who cycles regularly will typically have a level of fitness equivalent to being 10 years younger.
Source:Tuxworth, B. 1986, Quality control. Sport and Leisure, 1986 Vol. 27 No. 3 pp. 32-33
Countries with the highest levels of cycling and walking generally have the lowest obesity rates. Source.
Cycling has a positive effect on emotional health – improving levels of well-being, self-confidence and tolerance to stress while reducing tiredness, difficulties with sleep and a range of medical symptoms.
Source: Boyd, H., Hillman, M., Nevill, A., Pearce, A. and Tuxworth, B. (1998). Health-related effects of regular cycling on a sample of previous non-exercisers, Resume of main findings.
People cycling to work ‘mortality rate is 28% below the average population. Source.
https://ecf.com/resources/cycling-facts-and-figure...
Digby said:
1) Yes, you did. Just a few posts ago you admitted you can’t always remember what you typed and other times blamed coming home from the pub. Here’s another example of that.
3) Back when cycling groups complained about the first cycle lanes, they also wanted roads built only for cars. That’s what they got with much of our road networks.
5) Better informed with what? When you said people had no right to take risks, why is that now ok?
When you said you were surprised riders still do, why are yoh now not surprised?
6) Yes I remember your revelation. You don’t like car drivers because they mean you can’t use your own vehicle as you would like.
Why do you struggle to cope with other vehicle users?
And last but not least, it’s not going well. Someone moaned about your post not too long ago and you agreed with them. You have become blind and confused.
Saying “No I didn’t” when you did or blaming the pub makes you a forum troll I’m afraid.
Well I think this is as good an example of trolling as we'd want. You asked me earlier if I'd confine the topic to London alone but I see you're still nowhere near this yourself. 3) Back when cycling groups complained about the first cycle lanes, they also wanted roads built only for cars. That’s what they got with much of our road networks.
5) Better informed with what? When you said people had no right to take risks, why is that now ok?
When you said you were surprised riders still do, why are yoh now not surprised?
6) Yes I remember your revelation. You don’t like car drivers because they mean you can’t use your own vehicle as you would like.
Why do you struggle to cope with other vehicle users?
And last but not least, it’s not going well. Someone moaned about your post not too long ago and you agreed with them. You have become blind and confused.
Saying “No I didn’t” when you did or blaming the pub makes you a forum troll I’m afraid.
Do you want to take me up on any of my wagers? Care to put your money where your mouth is?
heebeegeetee said:
Well I think this is as good an example of trolling as we'd want. You asked me earlier if I'd confine the topic to London alone but I see you're still nowhere near this yourself.
Do you want to take me up on any of my wagers? Care to put your money where your mouth is?
And you failed.Do you want to take me up on any of my wagers? Care to put your money where your mouth is?
To take you up on a wager, I would have to care either way. People can ride nude for all I care.
Digby said:
Is it safer to wear high visibility clothing when on a bike?
I imagine it's safer for everybody to wear hi visibility clothing at all times. In France you have to carry hi vis in your car, and if your car breaks down you can't get out of the car without it.More pedestrians die than cyclists, so clearly they need it more.
Considerably more lives would be saved by making motorists wear helmets. There would be numerous benefits to enforcing drivers to wear helmets, (people would make fewer short journeys, for instance) and there possibly isn't any negatives.
Nice avoidance to move the debate onto helmets, avoiding the issue of hgvs, but one serious question: of the cyclists crushed by trucks, I'm not aware of any of the cyclists being without a helmet. Are you?
Digby said:
heebeegeetee said:
Well I think this is as good an example of trolling as we'd want. You asked me earlier if I'd confine the topic to London alone but I see you're still nowhere near this yourself.
Do you want to take me up on any of my wagers? Care to put your money where your mouth is?
And you failed.Do you want to take me up on any of my wagers? Care to put your money where your mouth is?
To take you up on a wager, I would have to care either way. People can ride nude for all I care.
I'll take that as a no then.Not very convinced by your own opinions, are you?
heebeegeetee said:
Digby said:
Is it safer to wear high visibility clothing when on a bike?
I imagine it's safer for everybody to wear hi visibility clothing at all times. In France you have to carry hi vis in your car, and if your car breaks down you can't get out of the car without it.More pedestrians die than cyclists, so clearly they need it more.
Considerably more lives would be saved by making motorists wear helmets. There would be numerous benefits to enforcing drivers to wear helmets, (people would make fewer short journeys, for instance) and there possibly isn't any negatives.
Nice avoidance to move the debate onto helmets, avoiding the issue of hgvs, but one serious question: of the cyclists crushed by trucks, I'm not aware of any of the cyclists being without a helmet. Are you?
Digby said:
Is it safer to wear high visibility clothing when on a bike?
Try to answer pleaseSome peds do use High Vis.
Kids often do/school outings, Road Race runners do (Park Run even do), Army traing runs do, Walking groups often do. Cyclist traning groups do, etc etc.
Drivers do when engaged in high risk activities.
Edited by The Dangerous Elk on Friday 24th November 13:16
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff