That's it, I am no longer defending Cyclists!
Discussion
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Read my previous posts if you want argument;And then come back with something that shows that the woman in the photo wouldn't be better off with a helmet on if she fell off and hit her head on the ground.
No nation's health. No herds. Just that woman on her bike. Thanks.
Had some bloke try and overtake me when I was on my bike going through a town center last night. I was right up behind a slow moving van but he was insistent on coming along side me (and about 5 foot away from the back of the van). When I waved to him as if to say 'wtf are you doing' he beeped, came along side with his window down and started shouting some unfathomable abuse. Another classic addition for the car driver in the 'bike v cars' spastic awards.
heebeegeetee said:
Why would you only care if a cyclist pulled out in front of you?
I mean, given the numbers involved it’s far more likely that a pedestrian would step out in front of you?
Each and every one of us is far more likely to collide with a pedestrian than a cyclist, and official figures show that pedestrians die at a higher number and a higher rate than cyclists (and a higher rate than drivers), so if a helmet is the difference between life and death, why wouldn’t we want the person we’re hitting to be wearing a helmet, whoever the person is?
You are turning things on their head, It's more likely that a cyclist will be in a collision with you than a pedestrian. I mean, given the numbers involved it’s far more likely that a pedestrian would step out in front of you?
Each and every one of us is far more likely to collide with a pedestrian than a cyclist, and official figures show that pedestrians die at a higher number and a higher rate than cyclists (and a higher rate than drivers), so if a helmet is the difference between life and death, why wouldn’t we want the person we’re hitting to be wearing a helmet, whoever the person is?
Graveworm said:
heebeegeetee said:
Applies to everyone, and definitely to pedestrians who die at a higher rate and number.
You keep ignoring and failing to acknowledge the facts that don't suit you. For clarity and the last time. Pedestrians do not die at a higher rate than cyclists NOT wearing a helmet and cyclists are about three times more likely to be injured or seriously injured in an accidentheebeegeetee said:
On average (and in reality, I believe), even day, week, month and year, more pedestrians have died than cyclists and more pedestrians have died than cyclists over distance. The number of journeys done makes no difference to these statistics at all.
Again not more pedestrians over distance than cyclists without helmets, injuries are also mitigated by helmets so it's inappropriate to just deal with deaths. The number of journeys matters because that is how often you would need to carry, put on and remove a helmet that would
- Still not be anywhere near as beneficial as it would be to as a cyclist
- Not be recommended by any safety body and have no evidence that it's use was of overall benefit. The exact opposite of cycle helmets.
All of which is only a distraction from: "It is great idea for a cyclist to wear a helmet when they can" being a good message and to say it should be suppressed makes no logical sense at all.
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 11th January 11:17
The Department of Transport says, Page 7:
>>There are two key ways of looking at casualty numbers. The first is in terms of absolute counts. <<
It then publishes figures which shows four times as many pedestrians are killed than cyclists, making up 26% of casualties as opposed to the 6% which is cyclists.
>>The second approach is to look at casualty rates in terms of the number of casualties per mile
travelled.<< and publishes figures which shows pedestrians have a higher fatality rate per distance.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen... Pages 7 and 8.
And that's it, and the numbers of journeys that the individual groups make no difference whatsoever to those statistics.
I accept the cycling casualty figures are too high, and if you guys would lay off with your fake news and fear-mongering , and if all road users could get a fair share of the roads, instead of the near-total car-is-king approach that the UK has, we could get all of those figures down, and cleaner air too.
Tired said:
Where did I say I "only" cared about cyclists?
You're just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, as far as I can tell. Aren't there forum rules about that sort of thing?
No, you were very specific. You didn't say "someone", you didn't say "some idiot", you said "some idiot on a bike", you were very specific.You're just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, as far as I can tell. Aren't there forum rules about that sort of thing?
I mean, here in Birmingham, the driving is so s
t that you'll encounter very few cyclists indeed. There are plenty of pedestrians, and there are plenty of angry idiots in BMWs and Audis, but there's very little chance of you colliding with a cyclist. In the UK we have significantly fewer cyclists on a daily basis than Europe but plenty of pedestrians, especially bearing in mind our population, so it's strange that you were so specific over who you didn't want to hit.Graveworm said:
I am not lecturing
And here pretty much, is a definition of lecturing, imo:Graveworm said:
If she chose to wear a helmet she would decrease the risk of injury and the severity if she had one. If more cyclists did, when they could, it would be nothing but a good thing and any savings to the public purse would benefit everyone including her.
Only cyclists mind. It's not up to pedestrians to "decrease the risk of injury and the severity"Interestingly, the Dutch seem to have found that wearing helmets doesn't lessen the risk. https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html
>>In cycle sport internationally, the number of deaths in races has increased markedly since helmet use became mandatory<<
Edited by heebeegeetee on Friday 11th January 13:15
heebeegeetee said:
Given the sheer difference in numbers, how?
Because an individual cyclist is far more likely to collide with you than an individual pedestrian. So when deciding which group benefits from helmets that's a key statistic that matters. It means that many many pedestrians would need to wear helmets (almost every journey includes some aspect on foot) to have possibly the same benefit as one cyclist wearing one. Hence why the number of journeys is not irrelevant. heebeegeetee said:
No, you were very specific. You didn't say "someone", you didn't say "some idiot", you said "some idiot on a bike", you were very specific.
I mean, here in Birmingham, the driving is so st that you'll encounter very few cyclists indeed. There are plenty of pedestrians, and there are plenty of angry idiots in BMWs and Audis, but there's very little chance of you colliding with a cyclist. In the UK we have significantly fewer cyclists on a daily basis than Europe but plenty of pedestrians, especially bearing in mind our population, so it's strange that you were so specific over who you didn't want to hit.
I was very specific, yes. As the excellent cyclists that follow all of the rules and cycle in a safe manner tend not to be the ones flying out in front of other motorists when they shoudn't be, so I was making the point that it's the idiot cyclists that make such mistakes, in order to avoid tarring all cyclists with the same brush.I mean, here in Birmingham, the driving is so s
t that you'll encounter very few cyclists indeed. There are plenty of pedestrians, and there are plenty of angry idiots in BMWs and Audis, but there's very little chance of you colliding with a cyclist. In the UK we have significantly fewer cyclists on a daily basis than Europe but plenty of pedestrians, especially bearing in mind our population, so it's strange that you were so specific over who you didn't want to hit.It's strange to you, that in a thread about cycling, when describing the potential for a motorist to hit an at-fault cyclist, that I was specific about it being a bad (or idiot) cyclist, and not a jolly pedestrian or a melancholy unicyclist?
Like I said, please, read what's written, stop trying to interpret it, there's no hidden meaning.
Only on a cycling thread do you get a hard time from a cyclist for stating that you don't want cyclists to get hurt on the road
heebeegeetee said:
Only cyclists mind. It's not up to pedestrians to "decrease the risk of injury and the severity"
Interestingly, the Dutch seem to have found that wearing helmets doesn't lessen the risk. https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html
>>In cycle sport internationally, the number of deaths in races has increased markedly since helmet use became mandatory<<
I invite anyone to read that and try to come to the same conclusion as heebeegeetee that wearing the helmet was what increased the risk. also to look at the "Marked" increase in cycle racing deaths Data and whether that has anything to do with any increase in cycle helmets (Given nearly everyone was wearing them anyway). Interestingly, the Dutch seem to have found that wearing helmets doesn't lessen the risk. https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html
>>In cycle sport internationally, the number of deaths in races has increased markedly since helmet use became mandatory<<
News just in people wearing body armour are more likely to be shot. People who take medicine to lower blood pressure are more likely to have high blood pressure and people who wear parachutes are more likely to jump out of plane and die.
Incidentally professional cyclists support mandatory cycle helmets for everyone, which personally I don't. I can't imagine why any of them would with this bombshell.
Do you actually have an opinion as to whether, all things being equal, wearing a helmet is beneficial or not? If it is why are you so against safety bodies telling people that?
Edited by Graveworm on Friday 11th January 14:04
Only on a PH cycling thread do you start off moaning about cyclists then try to form an argument about their PPE. Like I said, nobody would go into a pub and lecture people about lifestyle choices, so why on earth is there all this hot air in here?
Answer, because insecure dimwits don’t like cyclists.
Answer, because insecure dimwits don’t like cyclists.
deltashad said:
I think you'll find many people are cyclists here, they just don't like a certain type of cyclist.
No, that’s not it IMO. Perhaps if there was enough mental brain power to establish that individuals are the issue we could move away from threads like ‘that’s it, I’m no longer defending cyclists’
It’s just embarrassing.
A car cuts someone up, when’s the last time you had to read ‘that’s it, I’m no longer defending car drivers’?
yonex said:
Only on a PH cycling thread do you start off moaning about cyclists then try to form an argument about their PPE. Like I said, nobody would go into a pub and lecture people about lifestyle choices, so why on earth is there all this hot air in here?
Answer, because insecure dimwits don’t like cyclists.
What's not to like, they are the funniest idiots on the planet. Answer, because insecure dimwits don’t like cyclists.
Edited by mygoldfishbowl on Saturday 12th January 14:18
yonex said:
Only on a PH cycling thread do you start off moaning about cyclists then try to form an argument about their PPE. Like I said, nobody would go into a pub and lecture people about lifestyle choices, so why on earth is there all this hot air in here?
Answer, because insecure dimwits don’t like cyclists.
Hmmm?Answer, because insecure dimwits don’t like cyclists.
My last 4 weeks average cycling mileage is 123 miles per week. And not once during those 492 miles have I thought "what I really need right now is some random motorist to defend me..."
Weird really. Like me? Loath me? Show indifference to me? Do as you please, provided you actually look up from your iDrive, phone, GPS, or touch screen often enough to see me and drive safely around me.
You see, "we cyclists" don't need to be defended. All it takes is for other road users (and "us cyclists" too, of course) to use the road within the law and with consideration for others.
Just this afternoon I parked outside my son's house in Reading. It's on a one-way street. I thought "there's something odd about that van" but couldn't quite put my finger on it, until I'd unloaded my son's swag and was about to drive away. Then the couple in the van came back to it, and it dawned on me that it was facing the wrong way. But it was "only three spaces from the end of the road". So that's OK then. You can clearly drive a van the wrong way in a one-way street if you only drive a little bit in the wrong direction, whereas going through a red traffic light on a bicycle is a hanging offence?
Same as the BMW driver in the drop-off loop outside Frimley Park Hospital. He likes to cut the queue in the drop-off area most mornings by ignoring the "authorised vehicles and ambulances only" sign and using the "wrong" entrance, then turning into the drop-off loop through a no entry sign. When I challenged him about it a couple of times, his reply was "well I'm only driving one way". Ha f
king ha, cunny funt.Based upon this unchallengable scientific evidence, from a sample size of two individuals out of tens of thousands, "that's it, I am no longer defending drivers..." as they're clearly ALL a bunch of arrogant, ignorant pricks...
...and so the thread goes round and round more times than socks in a washing machine, and every time the door is opened we go through the same process with another load of smelly old socks. No matter how many times you wash them, they just end up needing to be washed again anyway. Opinions. They're like a
holes. Everybody has one, but I don't really want to hear yours or smell what comes out of it...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff