That's it, I am no longer defending Cyclists!

That's it, I am no longer defending Cyclists!

Author
Discussion

heebeegeetee

26,367 posts

185 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
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 accident

heebeegeetee 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.
So in a benefit vs inconvenience it makes the case for use on a cycle many times stronger than for a pedestrian.
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
Let's put it to bed:

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.





heebeegeetee

26,367 posts

185 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
Graveworm said:
You are turning things on their head, It's more likely that a cyclist will be in a collision with you than a pedestrian.
Given the sheer difference in numbers, how?

heebeegeetee

26,367 posts

185 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
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.

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.

heebeegeetee

26,367 posts

185 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
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

Graveworm

942 posts

8 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
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.
Advertisement

Tired

24 posts

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
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.

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 laugh

thedugmaster

938 posts

96 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
I mean, here in Birmingham, the driving is so st that you'll encounter very few cyclists indeed.
I disagree, to a degree. I see lots of cyclists in Birmingham but not all are using the roads. Don't forget we have an expansive canal network allowing many to cycle commute in and out along towpaths, and old railway lines for that matter.

There must be a demand, otherwise why would the council be spending all that money laying the cycle highway along the length of the Bristol Road instead of using the money to relay the tram network that everyone wants which it saw fit to take away 40 years ago.

Not disagreeing about the standard of driving though - very bad in some quarters.

Graveworm

942 posts

8 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
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).
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

Finlandia

7,368 posts

168 months

Friday 11th January
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
Interestingly, the Dutch seem to have found that wearing helmets doesn't lessen the risk
Netherlands is also the country where more cyclists are killed in RTAs than car occupants.

80sMatchbox

3,600 posts

113 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
Tired said:
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 laugh
BTW, Heebeegeetee is not a cyclist.

Welcome to Pistonheads, if you're newly here.

yonex

12,781 posts

105 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
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.

deltashad

6,611 posts

134 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
yonex said:
Insecure dimwits don’t like cyclists.
I think you'll find many people are cyclists here, they just don't like a certain type of cyclist.

yonex

12,781 posts

105 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
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’?

mygoldfishbowl

2,678 posts

80 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
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. laugh


Edited by mygoldfishbowl on Saturday 12th January 14:18

yonex

12,781 posts

105 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
mygoldfishbowl said:
What's not to like, they are the funniest idiots on the planet. laugh


Edited by mygoldfishbowl on Saturday 12th January 14:18
Thanks for proving my point wink

yellowjack

11,090 posts

103 months

Saturday 12th January
quotequote all
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?

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 fking 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 aholes. Everybody has one, but I don't really want to hear yours or smell what comes out of it...

tongue out

Mort7

54 posts

45 months

Sunday 13th January
quotequote all
You've got a way with words Yellowjack. You've got away with them so far! **

wink

** Morecombe & Wise IIRC

nickfrog

9,294 posts

154 months

Sunday 13th January
quotequote all
I just don't see the point of those threads although perhaps I shouldn't take part then. As a driver I extremely rarely get annoyed by cyclists. But it happened last week, the two abreast thing. But in retrospect I then totally saw the point : we were approaching a very tight blind corner littered with potholes. They were two abreast as a defensive move which made sense both for their safety and the overtaking drivers'. It would have been pointless and dangerous to overtake, particularly if they were not 2 abreast but in file. I wasted around 8 seconds behind them (but got stuck behind traffic right after that). As I drove past once they had gone single file they thanked and gave a thumbs up. I can see why an impatient driver could have got in a mood and I did for a couple of seconds prior to reading the road's configuration as I was probably focused on the riders than on the corner 50 yards ahead.
For once I rode on the road for about 10 miles today on the way to a mtb spot : a couple of marginal passes but overall excellent consideration from drivers.

This sounds like two very boring stories but my point is, there really doesn't seem to be a problem unless you're really desperate to find one.

colonel c

7,546 posts

176 months

Sunday 13th January
quotequote all
Have we seen peak cycling.

The Guardian said:
The decline of high street bike shops, at a time when people are being encouraged to be healthier and to reduce their car use, reflects a wider problem: despite millions of pounds being spent in recent years promoting cycling, the number of people using bikes has remained largely static.
In 2017, 14% of respondents to a national survey said they cycled at least once a week. One fifth also said they cycled, but less often than that. Two out of three, though, reported that they cycled less than once a year, or never. Those figures have hardly changed since 2003, according to Cycling UK, largely because the younger generation think cycling “is too scary”.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/12/millenials-cycle-shop-closures

Jagmanv12

1,423 posts

101 months

Sunday 13th January
quotequote all
thedugmaster said:
There must be a demand, otherwise why would the council be spending all that money laying the cycle highway along the length of the Bristol Road instead of using the money to relay the tram network that everyone wants which it saw fit to take away 40 years ago.
No there is no proven demand.
I believe central government gives the council funds as long as they are spent on cycling infrastructure. If councils don't spend it they probably lose it.

The problem is that government and councils work on the "build it and they will come" principle. Which any sensible person will tell you is a sure fire way to waste money. You should establish if there is a demand first.

Bucks council (presumably) have wasted a load of money putting a cycle track beside the A413 south from Buckingham. I have never seen cyclists use it or on the A413.

It would be far better if government/councils spent the money on filling in the potholes. This would benefit both cyclists and motorists.