binary_star

TillieTrotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Maybe you should do so BS, isn't that what driving > without due care and attention is for? I'd > certainly report a twit in a car if he'd nearly > mown me down on a crossing. I'd get his number > plate and expect a bobby to have a word, not > something you can do with a cyclist. It's why I bought a helmet cam actually but it takes a lot of time and effort. Far less than ranting on your local forum anyway...

numbers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ah well I think horse riders are the most > vulnerable road users not cyclists. > It doesn't really matter what you 'think'. The Highway Code classes horse rides, cyclists and motorcyclist ALL as vulnerable road users for very good reason. That's the problem with opinions, beliefs as prejudices. They're not objective.

TillieTrotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And just a trivial point but maybe not. I don't > think many people report to the authorities when a > twit on a bike nearly knocks your shopping out of > your hands whilst crossing a pedestrian crossing > or doing other equally ignorant things. So the > stats don't really add up here. I don't report every twit in a car that nearly knocks me off either. If it's not a RTA there's not anything to report.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can't imagine anyone contributing to this thread > qualifying as being 'the most dangerous' Me neither. But a few are still targeting the most vulnerable.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which basically translates to "I've made up my > mind, if you are in a car you are dangerous. > Cyclists are vulnerable, so I'm with them, even > the ones who do act like @#$%&". No. I'm saying IF we are going to target a particular road user, let's target the most dangerous. I'm not saying I want to target motorists, I'm questioning why people are targeting cyclists.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > binary_star Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > it's REALLY frustrating to hear people make > > sweeping statements all the time when they're > just > > not warranted. > > > You let the one in the opening post pass though, > right? Yeh because MY issue is with people singling out the most vulnerable (not dangerous) road users to have a go at. I'm not all the sympathetic to the most dangerous I'm afraid. That's my agenda - I've asked time and time again for everyone else's.

'bout now Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Christ, someone just sent me this and I agree with > it! > > It's from the Mail, I need a shower, I feel > dirty. > > http://hanlonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2013/05/why-do-s > o-many-people-hate-cyclists.html I agree with this guy (who is no angel) http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/cyclists_are_annoying_why_you_think_they_re_a_menace_on_two_wheels_.single.html

'bout now Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Christ, someone just sent me this and I agree with > it! > > It's from the Mail, I need a shower, I feel > dirty. > > http://hanlonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2013/05/why-do-s > o-many-people-hate-cyclists.html I agree with this guy (who is no angel) http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/cyclists_are_annoying_why_you_think_they_re_a_menace_on_two_wheels_.single.html

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not sure how that contradicts anything I said. > Unless you don't think cyclists can ever behave in > a dangerous way, I'm not sure what your point is > besides being obnoxious. My point is to challenge statements that maintain that cyclists are dangerous road users based on no actual evidence whatsoever. Unless you're talking comparatively it's a rather pointless statement to make since anything and anyone has the POTENTIAL to be or become dangerous. I realise I am coming across as a bit obnoxious but it's REALLY frustrating to hear people make sweeping statements all the time when they're just not warranted.

TillieTrotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not at all BS. LadyD was a driver before becoming > an anti-driver so my question is in her experience > as the former did she ever mow anyone down. I > think it's a valid question. It is a valid question, but what are you proposing to do with the answer?

TillieTrotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How long were you a car driver before you gave the > wicked activity up LadyD and did you ever manage > to kill/maim or otherwise any cyclists? It's a > genuine query. Fishing for more anecdotal claptrap?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You know the ony way to have accident free roads is for ALL road users to show consideration to and awareness of all other road users. I do know that thanks. Next time I need the obvious stating, I'll be sure to let you know. I absolutely advocate that ALL ROAD users show consideration and awareness. I've said over and over again that I don't believe anyone is exempt. That's not the issue though is it? What is your argument there? Because as far as I can tell no-one is arguing any different. No one (despite Loz's statement to the contrary) is asking cyclists to be exempt from the rules of the road. My issue is that if you're going to demonise a particular group then pick the most dangerous not the most vulnerable. If you want to demonise cyclists then at least back that shit up with some actual evidence. Otherwise you're just perpetuating a 'cycle of hate' based on a load of anecdotal nonsense for absolutely no other reason than to vent your one frustrations. It's the same psychological phenomena that's behind racial stereotyping and like LD, I don't think people should be allowed to get away with it. But as LD said above it seems to have become acceptable. I am genuinely shocked that anyone would claim cyclists are EQUALLY capable of causing a pedestrian death as drivers are (your own words) with no evidence whatsoever. Really??? Forget the weight, have you ever been hit by a car? A push bike? Compared their average speed? Or even looked at them side by side? It's laughable. I've been hit by both and trust me I don't need stats to tell me which one I'd rather be hit by again...

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I think most people mean when they say > cyclists are dangerous is that they can > cause an accident either endangering their own lives or > cause an accident between two vehicles (one car swerving to avoid a reckless cyclists and > accidentally hitting another car/ bus/ etc). Aha ok now this makes sense! But still no evidence to support that. Quite the opposite: http://road.cc/content/news/12065-report-dft-casualty-stats-says-cyclists-not-blame-93-cent-cases Next?

"Cycle of hate". Perpetuated by saying things like "cyclists are dangerous". I don't jump reds because it pisses other road users off. It's THE ONLY reason I don't do it when I think it would otherwise be safe to do so. I obey traffic laws and the Highway Code within the infrastructure we've got. Still not enough, people want my bicycle to be registered or for me to pay road tax (God knows what for cycles don't produce any emissions). It's ridiculous, ill-thought out and prejudice founded on stereotypes that should be challenged. Cyclist angers driver. Driver drives at cyclist. Cyclist dies. Driver angers cyclist. Cyclist cycles at driver. Cyclist dies. The odds aren't exactly evenly stacked. If anything, cyclists have a right to be angrier at bad drivers than the other way around.

If you believe the stereotype portrayed, it's almost as if all those cyclists with their red light jumping, recklessness and law-flouting behaviour are actually trying to be more dangerous than drivers...and even still they're managing to kill less people than are accidentally killing themselves by either falling off ladders (or cliffs) or by accidentally suffocating themselves in bed. More pedestrians alone are killed in collision with motor vehicles than the number of people killed by all of these 'dangerous' activities combined.

Ok look it's really a very simple question...what is it about cyclists that we need to "worry about". What is it that makes them so much more "dangerous". Because as a matter of FACT, rather than opinion, it looks like motorists are far more dangerous than cyclists. Except perhaps to themselves. Lucky for them they have a ton of metal, airbags and all those other forms of protection a car provides. Prove this wrong. I've asked anyone who asserts any different to pick any parameter for danger they like, then choose any study, any data set, from any date range. And demonstrate that cyclists are more dangerous than drivers. Even getting fined (less often than drivers) for jumping red lights doesn't mean cyclists are posing more danger. Why do the Police even bother targeting cyclists who jump reds??? Because: "Police forces are now obliged by central government to tackle issues flagged up by local communities. In the City, this tends to bring complaints about rough sleepers and law-flouting cyclists." http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/16/police-cyclists-red-lights ...Which is exactly why such sting operations are often in The City (there is literally nothing else for the 'community' to complain about). EVEN IF it were demonstrated that cyclists jump more reds, this in itself is not always dangerous (left turns on some reds is legal in some countries for all vehicles for instance and Boris campaigned for cyclists to be able to legally turn left on a red here also). What IS dangerous is causing an accident, killing or injuring someone. No-one is denying that SOME cyclists can be dangerous. And no doubt some pedestrians are too. But when people say "cyclists are dangerous" they want to mean in comparison with motorists, but what they really mean is: "I personally find cyclists annoying." LadyD I wouldn't worry about looking obsessive, I too am obsessive about this (and not in a good way either). And I couldn't give a toss how that comes across.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Boris bikes might have numbers but thousands of > cycles on the roads up and down the country don't > so ridiculing the low number of Boris bikes > reported as some kind of indication that cyclists > don't break the highway code It was an indication that people wouldn't bother reporting it. I mean really - breaking the higway code? > However take a look at the number of cyclists fined by Police for ... I've asked time and time again for people to pick a parameter for danger. Then prove that cyclists are particularly dangerous. They're not.

@SheldorAFK - all valid points but I thin the main issue is that one type of dick is more likely to seriously injure or kill than the other. So maybe they shouldn't be so dickish?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > At least drivers have number plates to identify > them when things do go wrong......cyclists on the > other hand? Boris bikes are 'registered' in the sense that they all have a unique number to identify them (and thereby the cyclist). In 2010 the IPayRoadTax guy (via a Freedom of Information request) asked TfL how many Boris Bike users had been reported as "transgressors of any sort?" The response: "TfL has received two reports that a third party has contacted the Barclays Cycle Hire Scheme contact centre about the behaviour of scheme members." Wow, a whole two. "The bicycle serial numbers were not reported" From: http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/bike-licensing-doesnt-work-just-ask-boris/

I got doored once it was very painful and I had a shoulder problem for weeks. My bike was totalled as well. Unfortunately I was a more naive cyclist back then and when the Police offer who was there to witness the ensuing argument (when the driver got out of the car to have a go at me) said: "these things happen" I just left it. He opened a car door into a bike lane to let the passenger out and was 100% at fault.

TillieTrotter Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's your take on motor bikers? They seem to be > getting away with it. Getting away with what? You tend to adopt defensive behaviour very quickly when you're a very vulnerable road user (mistakes cost you dearly). Bar the odd close overtake I don't find motorcyclists on the whole to be a hazard to me as a cyclist.

17 months for this bus driver:

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dick cyclists are annoying, dick motorists are dangerous. Exactly. Most dick cyclists are not dangerous. Use any parameter you like to measure 'danger' - limb loss, death, paralysis (just being pissed off doesn't count btw). By comparison, cyclists cause very few of these. Let's use death because a serious risk of dying seems like a good way to measure danger to me and mortality rates are easy to find. This spreadsheet collates a massive amount of data from the ONS: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdEZBNS1ETG8xT0JBSnR5N3Z6Q0hzNnc#gid=13 Drivers killed in collisions with cyclists isn't a recorded way to die (go figure) but pedestrians killed in such collisions are. In 2007, 6 pedestrians died as a result of colliding with a cycle. 275 died by being hit by a car/van. And 17 people died falling off a cliff. Historically, more people have died from falling off cliffs than being hit by cyclists...it's that dangerous! If I drive at you and hit you I'll cause more damage than if I cycle at you and hit you, which will cause more damage than if I walk at you and hit you. When you drive a car you HAVE to accept that an accident is going to result in much more damage.

Well I imagine like most threads it'll be pretty organic with a few twists and turns. Still yet to find a single thread where cyclists said the law shouldn't apply to them though. Although they're found passim on here apparently...

Loz Wrote: -------------------------------------------------- > I'm saying that cyclists should stop asking for the law to not apply to them binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who are these people? Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All the ones that, every time you mention cyclists obeying the law, they jump in and say 'but whatabout all the terrible car drivers'. Except, in this instance, the issue was that a little girl had been knocked down by a car. But it turned into a thread about how dangerous cyclists are and a call for bicycle registration. Huh.