To the cyclist on the pavement ...

[Loz]

binary_star Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > 2) You have completely failed to reference your death figures for 'minor roads'. That stat does

> > not appear in the link you gave - where did you get it? Did you just make it up?

>

> This is getting tedious, you know very well that the data set you used doesn't break fatalities

> down like that. I used EXACTLY the same data source as you which means I had to use EXACTLY the

> same method you did to calculate when you discounted motorways - I just removed the mileage.

> If you're not happy with that, then I'd need to use a different data set (pretty sure one that

> only includes journeys where pedestrians are likely to be like inner London would be ideal).

> But I have a hunch that it wouldn't matter would it - because you're just not going to accept that

> cyclists aren't actually that dangerous after all, no matter what the data or common sense says.

Whilst discounting pedestrian deaths on motorways is not an exact estimate and should be treated with due caution, the fact that pedestrians are not allowed on motorways (and therefore deaths there would be statistically insignificant) means that it's not a bad assumption. But, in a desperate attempt to try and skew the figures, you have discounted all major, non-motorway roads without any adjustment in the death figures (which would not be insignificant).

Ridiculous. And a complete stats fail.

Face it BS, we can argue all day which is more dangerous, but cars and bicycles are both dangerous and lethal to pedestrians. The cycle-evangelists around here need to just accept that fact. Cycles ARE that dangerous, and as more cyclist take to the roads the death toll is only going to increase.

Accept it, or prove (with decent, referenced stats) otherwise.

[unlurked]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> OK new rule cyclists may use pavement if no

> pedestrians are using it. Thats as far as I will

> go.

Exactly. Another law breaking selfish cyclist doing whatever suits them whenever it suits them. Agree with Monkeylite, Showboat and Katanita.

[LadyDeliah]

And in other news, people are still getting slaughtered in Syria, Iraq, Afgsnistsn, DRC ....

[showboat]

All very true LD. What does that have to do with this discussion?

Looks to me like when a bunch of cyclists don't adhere to your 'party line' you try to divert the argument.

Of course there are terrible things happening elsewhere, but why does that invalidate our opinions? You haven't responded to the points made by Monkeylite, Katanita or myself, preferring instead to try and deflect the argument by saying (I'm paraphrasing here, just to be clear) that none of this matters because of worse things elsewhere. But that's the reaction of a schoolchild who's lost an argument, and you've always stood your ground before. What's changed? Is it because there are other bike riders actually disagreeing with your stance that cyclists are immune from criticism?

It's easy to just shout "car bad, bike good!", but the debate is more nuanced than that. I ask again, what's your position on the posts by Katanita and Monkeylite? You can't have it both ways!

[KidKruger]

"And in other news, people are still getting slaughtered in Syria, Iraq, Afgsnistsn, DRC ...."

Cop-out. Why wasn't that your FIRST post on this thread ? Because you hadn't had robust challenges to your belligerent views by then.

[Camects]

These People creating bad image to well-behaved cyclists a bad. Unfortunately,nowadays there are so many bad-behaved and idiot cyclists. They should be fined strictly to change their unacceptable behaviour

[the-e-dealer]

But I'm not a cyclist. Maybe I would Allow cars on the pavement too if they are empty.

[henryb]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But I'm not a cyclist. Maybe I would Allow cars on

> the pavement too if they are empty.

Wasn't the last thread started by someone witnessing a collision between a car and cyclist on the pavement? Presumably the car wasn't built in situ. No one actually witnessed what happened this time... hasn't stopped 3 pages of rants about it though.

[showboat]

Nice one henryb. Nice attempt to deflect the argument and find something to blame cars for.

Whatever this thread started as, it's turned into a 'heated debate' about the manners of some cyclists. Yourself and LD seem unwilling to admit a person on a bike could ever be in the wrong. No one is disputing that cars are bigger, more dangerous and too often driven recklessly (or worse). It's just that we object to being told no cyclist is ever able to be ill-mannered, inconsiderate or even...gasp...dangerous to pedastrians!

But guess what? Some (not all) of them are. And then LadyD tries to say that our opinions don't count because of Syria and you make a post which has no relevance except to try and remind people that cars are dangerous (newsflash, we know), and it just looks like you can't concede that others might have a point.

[Mellors]

I'm a daily cyclist.

I'm also a car driver.

I feel neither the need, nor the desire, to operate either on the pavement, with or without pedestrians on it. Why would you? I see no reason - either cycle safely on the road or cycle in the park if you have kids with you etc.

Cyclists on the pavement drive me mad - they give us all a bad name.

[henryb]

showboat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Nice one henryb. Nice attempt to deflect the

> argument and find something to blame cars for.

>

> Whatever this thread started as, it's turned into

> a 'heated debate' about the manners of some

> cyclists. Yourself and LD seem unwilling to admit

> a person on a bike could ever be in the wrong. No

> one is disputing that cars are bigger, more

> dangerous and too often driven recklessly (or

> worse). It's just that we object to being told no

> cyclist is ever able to be ill-mannered,

> inconsiderate or even...gasp...dangerous to

> pedastrians!

>

> But guess what? Some (not all) of them are. And

> then LadyD tries to say that our opinions don't

> count because of Syria and you make a post which

> has no relevance except to try and remind people

> that cars are dangerous (newsflash, we know), and

> it just looks like you can't concede that others

> might have a point.

Well I was actually replying to e-dealer post about driving on the pavement - but if you would like me to clarify yes I think some people cycle irresponsibly and dangerously and break the law, some also cause injuries to pedestrians.

It is just a matter of degree and proportionality. The data collected ctc http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/pedestriansbrf.pdf seems about right on the matter.

If the OP was about how someone was bombing down the pavement and had run into someone then they would rightly deserve condemnation and a fine or worse. I certainly wouldn?t have defended them. However it wasn?t though was it?

In regard to cycling on the pavement - then no, as general rule, cyclists shouldn?t do it, however the home office?s guidelines to the police suggests that there is some grey area about it:

"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required."

I am cyclist and car driver and a pedestrian. When I am a pedestrian ? I really don?t mind sharing the pavement with a cyclist as long as they go slowly and do it responsibly and with consideration. For example jesska's post sounds pefrectly reasonable to me.

[henryb]

> Why would you? I see no

> reason - either cycle safely on the road or cycle

> in the park if you have kids with you etc.

>

What if you are taking them to school?

[showboat]

Henryb - ok, fair enough.

LadyDeliah - your turn now.

[LadyDeliah]

Can't be arsed!

[showboat]

Of course you can't. You only engage in browbeating others when you feel like your moral point is unassailable.

Henryb had responded, makes done good points and accepts that there are arguments on both sides.

As soon as people rebut with coherent arguments that undermine your unique and frankly prejudiced view of the world as it relates to cycling you can't engage with them.

Other cyclists call you out, and what do you have? Well, who knows, because apparently now you can't be arsed.

Have to go now and open a window; the stench of your hypocrisy is leaking out of my computer and fugging up the room...

[taper]

Sometimes pedestrians use the cycle lanes, so eg on the New Kent Road. This forces cyclists to use the pavement.

My point is I think cyclists and car drivers should bury the hatchet and recognise our true mutual enemy: pedestrians, the I-zombiefied cotton-clad idiots.

[spider69]

I think this should now be consigned to the trash can as it is getting very boring and repetative.

Drive or cycle on the pavement keep death off the road

[LadyDeliah]

No, I can't be arsed because I've said it all many times before and in any case, all I have to do is wait .....

.

.

.

.

The tide is already turning ..,,.

.

.

.

Motorists and pedestrians will have no choice but to share space with cyclists ......

.

.

.

We are coming and you can all complain and huff and puff as much as you like .....

.

.

.

.

You can't stop us ....

.

.

HaHaHaHa think I'm smug now, just wait ....

:-)

[LadyDeliah]

And for every step closer to equality of provision we take, I'll be smiling, thinking of your increasingly frothy keyboards.

[the-e-dealer]

Fortunately we don't live in the US where pedestrians can be fined.

[Loz]

You're like a cycling Wolfie Smith, LD.

[LadyDeliah]

That's so kind of you Loz. I am touched!

But didn't he turn into a middle aged dentist?

[LadyDeliah]

And not sure if anyone noticed, but the OP dropped the match, stood back and hasn't had to fan the flames since the first post.

Predictable, so no marks for effort H.

[showboat]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And for every step closer to equality of provision

> we take, I'll be smiling, thinking of your

> increasingly frothy keyboards.

And still refusing to accept that the cyclist needs show manners too. Me and two other cyclists have openly said that on here - yet you refuse to acknowledge it. Why? So the views of others only count if they fall in with your mantra?

Of course we need a city that welcomes bikes in same manner as others round the globe, but it means the bike riders have to show the same courtesy to pedastrians that we demand car drivers show to everyone else.

Seriously, what part of that do you have a problem with? Where is that unreasonable?

[showboat]

You know what LadyDeliah? Forget it, you're not worth it.

(Edited because I won't sink to LD's level anymore)