LadyDeliah

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BS... > > 'Similar' is not 'more'. Semantics fail. > > And the original calc done ages ago was in > response to a very specific challenge, which I > rather elegantly met. So, context fail > > Really, you are just trying to pick fights where > there are none. Are you like this out on the road > as well?? I suggest pedestrians keep well out of > your way if you are. You have not shown they are even similar for all of the reasons above. Your stats are crap. As I said above, all they show is cars cover more miles than bikes and cyclists have more contact with pedestrians. They say nothing at all about relative dangerousness of bikes versus cars, so why not stop trying to argue something that is so clearly flawed?

She said "I was attacked on the main road in the park very close to where the ice cream van usually stands."

Nope, I think it was on the road (in a dog off leads permitted area), she said the dog ran up to her and she screamed. This later changed to attacked and jumped up upon, but she has not confirmed the dog touched her or how close it got, despite being asked a number of times. "First Mate, I was not attacked by the dog in those off the road areas where I have seen people exercise their dogs. I was attacked on the main road in the park very close to where the ice cream van usually stands." Hysterics and over-reaction indicating a possible dog-phobia People with phobias need treatment for their phobia, not a change in the behaviour of everyone else.

Loz, all your stats prove is that motorists do more miles than cyclists and cyclists have more contact with pedestrians, which I doubt anyone would dispute. They have no worth in proving relative dangerousness of cycles versus cars.

I want to know why only pedestrian deaths are important. Surely if we are looking at relative dangerousness, we should be looking at all deaths. All deaths by car or cycle to all road users and pedestrians. Plus a look at who is at fault needs to be brought into the equation, or again, real dangerousness isn't actually being measured properly. It also doesn't make sense when measuring general dangerousness, to only include a group of people (pedestrians) who overwhelmingly share a space that is predominantly used by one form of transport (cyclists) over another. So I dismiss all the flawed stats on here which do not take into account the above and only show deaths of pedestrians as a general indication of relative dangerousness of cycles over cars. It's a total nonsense.

Thanks guys. Lots of options :-)

iPhone, not laptop. Enjoying the fresh air and sunshine. Messaging whilst cycling on the pavements :-)

That was my comment. It's Saturday afternoon and the sun is shining. What more do you want??

Tentative hi-5 to Loz (but turned into a thumb-nose-finger wiggle) for the crap stats.

Anyway, Loz and the other cyclephobes, are as effective as King Canute. The tide is turning and you can't hold it back, so ner-ner-na-ner-ner. Last laugh and all that.

It's my daughter's 22nd birthday next week and I'm taking her to a posh dinner in Temple and want to have a few drinks in a posh cocktail bar afterwards. Any suggestions?

Nice try NL, they are indeed traffic, no dispute there, but they congest the road for cars, vans, motorbikes, cycles etc, therefore they congest the road for traffic :-)

No, because I can pass the queue of cars congesting up the road and sit in front of them all at the lights.

Flawless timing Haruki! Fitch, the reason we are encouraged to use the centre of the road or centre of a lane is to prevent a car trying to overtake when the road/lane is too narrow to pass safely. I always go to the centre on narrow roads/lanes because I've been hit twice, by a car and a van pushing past when there wasn't enough room. It pisses the motorists off who are behind, but I cycle pretty fast so generally keep up with the traffic flow anyway and even when I don't I usually pass the pissed off motorist who screeched past me, at the next lights.

Ok, sorry my bad. I shouldn't use the EDF as a gauge of majority opinion. I forgot where I was for a minute.

Ok for all of those hanging on my every word, yes I do think there are arseholes on bikes who piss people off by behaving badly, in addition to the arseholes in cars and on foot who also piss people off by behaving badly. I just don't believe the incident described in the original post actually happened. Are you happy now? For anyone who has participated in any of the many previous cycling on pavement discussions, you may remember that this has been my position consistently throughout. As I said before, failure to join in with the mantra, doesn't mean I disagree with the basic premise. I just don't go in for self-flaggellation to appease the wrath of the anti-cycling majority.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > someone actually started researching this in 2011 > (just before the riots).. > > http://www.rc21.org/conferences/amsterdam2011/edoc > s2/Session%2010/10-2-Jackson.pdf > > wish it went deeper. Brilliant piece. Thanks for that.

con?tro?ver?sy 1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion. 2.contention, strife, or argument. He/she posted something that he/she knew would cause prolonged public dispute, ipso facto, it was a controversial post. And if there was no cyclist in any case, then your second & third points are moot.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You're telling me a street full of used chicken > bones, dirty hair extensions, bags full of smelly > rubbish and cars parking on double yellow lines > blocking buses is 'progress'? Er, did you not read the bit where I explained that the progress to which I referred, was in your formally intransigent position, i.e. you had made some progress towards a less insular viewpoint?

Well that's progress Louisa, (in her mind set, incase you were wondering) so are you going to stop banging on about it not being like the old (predominantly white, working class) days now?

And what would you have happen to change it back to your 'halcyon' days then Louisa? Wait for the demographic to change to majority, arty middle class types? because it is pretty unlikely that the pearly kings and queens of your rosey memory are going to come flooding back. Not sure it's even going to change to a majority of arty middle class in your lifetime either, but it would give you something else to moan about, so fingers crossed eh.

The OP dropped a controversial bomb, sat back and watched the resultant fire. No reason to believe the OP on that basis.

Maybe because that's not my stance Louisa and I think you constantly banging on about Peckham no longer reflecting your shops of choice can't mean anything other than resentment that the shops currently occupying Rye Lane are the shops of choice for those who have 'caused' the change, i.e. The increased non-white majority.

PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LOL. That was a bit blunt LadyDeliah but is > truthful. I'm not really a beat around the bush kind of person PT. Life is too short :-)

I haven't mentioned the condition, I was responding to criticism of the types of goods sold. If it doesn't supply what you want, go somewhere else. I never shop on LL cos I think it's full of crap, so I go 5 mins further afield to Peckham. Louisa, why don't you just say what you mean, you think there are too many non-whites in Peckham and you resent their shops outnumbering the smaller white community. That's life. The French & Spanish hate the dominance of Brits in lots of their communities, but, you know, that's just how the world is. People travel dnd communities change. Unless you're promoting enforced re-patriation, you're just going to have to get used to it.