To the cyclist on the pavement ...

[binary_star]

.

[edcam]

Ah - name calling. Classy.

[Parkdrive]

This thread has reaffirmed waht I've always thought about the EDF. Someone starts a thread and you get two camps, who after not too long get firmly entrenched in their positions, refuse to budge, and before long the whole thing degenerates into a slanging match. Good to see this thread is no different.

Pedestrians don't block traffic, they're human beings.

[binary_star]

edcam Wrote:

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

> Ah - name calling. Classy.

Bit of context...

Loz Wrote:

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

> Oh, I give up binary_star. You and stats were just never meant be in the same universe together.

> You remind me of an old adage: I should never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes my time. And it annoys the pig.

ETA: have removed 'pig' reference - not constructive in the slightest.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> Loz, stop dodging the bullet. Do you still claim

> that cyclists are similarly dangerous as motorists? Yes or no? Simple :-)

Actually, LD, I'm glad you asked that simple question. It's something that BS never bothered to ask - he/she just kept telling me what they thought I believed. Which was invariably - and unsurprisingly - wrong.

Answer... it depends. 'Similarly' is a hard word to quantify - which is, admittedly, why I used it.

(You're a lawyer, I'm sure you'll appreciate that answer).

But as you asked nicely, I'll give you a fuller answer. Here's what I think: when it comes to pedestrians, it seems that the stats would suggest that cyclist are less dangerous than cars/vans, but still a significant danger proportionally to their numbers/usage. It is hard to tell as standardising isn't easy, since the data isn't quite as available and as granular as I'd like. But, with what we have, that would be the suggestion.

If only binary_star had the sense to have asked that question six pages ago. But, hey... I haven't had this much fun on the EDF in ages. :))

[LadyDeliah]

Lol, I'd have flicked your ear really hard for being a relentless wind-up if you were my offspring, but seeing as how you are an unrelated grown-up, it's off to the naughty step for you!

[binary_star]

Loz wrote:

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

> Actually, LD, I'm glad you asked that simple

> question. It's something that BS never bothered

> to ask - he/she just kept telling me what they

> thought I believed.

No. I only quoted what you said you believed (or in some instances believed you had proved).

Unless you didn't believe it? In which case, you are in the habit of posting inflammatory things you don't believe to provoke a reaction...rather trollish behaviour, don't you think?

[Loz]

binary_star Wrote:

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

> Loz wrote:

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

> -----

> > Actually, LD, I'm glad you asked that simple

> > question. It's something that BS never

> bothered

> > to ask - he/she just kept telling me what they

> > thought I believed.

>

> No. I only quoted what you said you believed (or

> in some instances believed you had proved).

I've said many differing things on the subject - you merely selectively quoted me (often out of context) in order to try and provoke some sort of argument. I said just enough, and rarely anything remotely inflammatory or controversial, to enable you to continue your argument with what was effectively yourself. In fact, the only controversial thing I've said in this thread has been studiously ignored by you.

Even LD - usually more belligerent in these sorts of threads - mostly kept out of it. Otta, general wise old head of the forum, pretty much told you outright. But you still kept arguing .. and arguing ... and arguing, even though no real counterpoints were ever made.

Basically, you trolled yourself.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> Lol, I'd have flicked your ear really hard for being a relentless wind-up if you were my

> offspring, but seeing as how you are an unrelated grown-up, it's off to the naughty step for you!

It's one minute on the step for every year old you are, isn't it?

Hmmm. I may be some time.

[binary_star]

Loz, what Otta or anyone else reads into your posting history is up them. I'm very active on the cycling threads and even when I'm not contributing, I'm likely reading them.

Yes, I do challenge opinions and comments that I believe to be inflammatory, especially if they originate from prejudice rather than evidence. I don't think there is anything wrong with that - I haven't singled you out, you just happen to be a frequent poster on the topic but unlike the typical nonsense you'd expect from threads like these, you also make some rather bold assertions you claim are backed up with statistical analysis:

"Do we have to dig out the 'cycles and cars are - per mile travelled

- similarly lethal to pedestrians' figures again, henryb?"

"That is my analysis. It proved that cycling causes relatively, by total mileage, more casualties that [sic] cars and vans and, thus, is more dangerous."

These kind of comments are inflammatory because not everyone reading is going to look at the data to draw their own, more logical, conclusions.

These statement posts appear to legitimise attacking cyclists because on the surface it looks like there are stats to back up the anti-cycling prejudices.That is what is really worrying, because when a thread like this one comes up which is purely anecdotal, out come the nonsense stats again to add fuel to the fire. It's ammunition and a false sense of justification to fire it (exactly how you have used the blog post by 'Matt from Sheffield' to legitimise your own opinions on here).

Loz Wrote:

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

> In fact, the only controversial thing I've said in this thread has been studiously ignored by you.

I don't know you're referring to. Seems like we have differing ideas about what constitutes controversial.

[Applespider]

katanita Wrote:

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

> Not sure, seems like a good idea but might

> actually encourage poor road positioning. You

> should't be putting yourself in a position where

> you need a light like that for someone to see you

> in the first place. See also risk compensation

> behaviour, which often gets raised around the

> issue of wearing helmets: that riders will adjust

> their behaviour to be more risky because they feel

> safer by wearing a helmet/using a safety light

> etc.

>

> giggirl Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Seven pages and still running.

> >

> > I just came across this safety light for

> cyclists.

> > Good idea or not?

> >

> > https://www.blaze.cc/product/lights/laserlight

I have a Blaze light which I got via Kickstarter. It arrived a few weeks ago and I've used it every night since. It gets a lot of attention - primarily from other cyclists and pedestrians (especially those waiting at bus stops!) I don't think I've had a ride without some reaction/comment since I got it.

On dry nights it shows up better than when there is any glare on the roads - and there have been a few cars which seem to give me more room when passing (i.e. they only pull back in after they pass the cycle in the road ahead). In terms of safety, it's stopped a few pedestrians from stepping off the pavement in front of me without looking but equally has confused a few when I've been on a cycle path and they are crossing.

I can see katanita's point that it might encourage poor road-positioning if people think it is now OK to go down the side of large vehicles although if you're passing a bus (on driver's side) it could help them from pulling out on you. In terms of stopping drivers pulling out from a side road, I'm less convinced since I don't think drivers are looking at the road surface at that point - thankfully the light part of the Blaze is pretty bright too.

I've attached a pic of the light - obviously when stopped and more in the gutter than usual. It's about 12-15ft in front of me usually. My biggest regret is that it doesn't have a 'stun' mode ;-p

[binary_star]

Applespider, I got really excited about these when I saw them on kickstarter then forgot all about them. Reading your comments though has just convinced me to get one!

[Applespider]

It's actually a pretty decent light even without the laser bit. The battery life is good (a week of commutes with laser on constant and light flashing) and it charges via USB (although through a proprietary magnetic cable). It's got a few useful touches like good indicators to tell you how much battery is left and a handy trick when battery gets low to switch light and laser to flashing mode to give you a little longer before you are left in the dark (that was my wishlist comment on kickstarter so really chuffed to see it in there). Other nice touches are that if you are using it off the bike as a flashlight, you don't have to cycle through the flashing modes.

It's v amusing coming up behind other cyclists at junctions and watching them trying to figure out where the big green bike is coming from.

[uncleglen]

Just read a report about the killing of the autistic man in Bournemouth. He was punched by a man who was walking with a friend who was cycling on the pavement and the autistic man told the cyclist off for being on the pavement and then the friend punched him and he hit his head and died. The killer got 4 years but it is going to be reviewed. The killer's mother had the 'oh well it was an accident' attitude. We need to adopt the Australians' one punch law

[KidKruger]

The footage and story of that assault was shocking.

This kind of assault on people just out shopping should be 40 not 4 years penalty IMO.

[uncleglen]

Exactly