[LCC City] City of London Cycle Accident Assessment Study

From the London Cycling Campaign:

Figure 10: All accidents caused by cyclists by contributing factor
2.6.2 The main contributing factors of accidents caused by cyclists
were
overtaking on the nearside (19%)"

And no mention of whether there was a cycle lane?

So a cyclist could be using a cycle lane, collide with a vehicle, and
the cyclist is held at fault?

I don't understand this at all.

"spindrift" wrote in message
ups.com...
From the London Cycling Campaign:

Figure 10: All accidents caused by cyclists by contributing factor
2.6.2 The main contributing factors of accidents caused by cyclists
were
overtaking on the nearside (19%)"

And no mention of whether there was a cycle lane?

So a cyclist could be using a cycle lane, collide with a vehicle,
and
the cyclist is held at fault?

I don't understand this at all.

Thanks to a recent posting on the London cycling Camapign's Planning
and Engineering mailing list I now know that the "STATS 19" form,
that the police fill out after accidents, has a section for adding
code numbers for "contributing factors". Code no 220 is "Overtaking
on the Nearside Injudciously". I thnk they are allowed to add more
than one code, but there is some maximum number. There doesn't seem
to be a code for "presence of a bike lane"

Jeremy Parker

" There doesn't seem to be a code for "presence of a bike lane"

Jeremy Parker"


Which kind of skews the results.

It's very hard to see how a cyclist can be blamed when they are using a
cycle lane correctly.

This is like the kind of misleading guff that proven liar and perverter
of justice Paul Smith would come out with.

" There doesn't seem to be a code for "presence of a bike lane"

Jeremy Parker"


Which kind of skews the results.

It's very hard to see how a cyclist can be blamed when they are using a
cycle lane correctly.

This is like the kind of misleading guff that proven liar and perverter
of justice Paul Smith would come out with.

Wow, I'm not kill-filing you because you really are a hoot. I must be
the only one hear who still reads your posts.

Prove that PS perverts

Prove that PS lies

I have given you ample opportunity in your previous threads to do just
that.

smeggy wrote:

Prove that PS perverts

Prove that PS lies


1/


Smith is a liar.


He refused to remove his "Speed bumps kill 500 people a year" press
release from his site even after it had been carefully explained to him

that he was talking guff.


http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/motorc...peedhumps.html

Smith cites Sigurd Reinton as the source of the claim. Reinton denies
ever saying any such thing. Smith's a liar.


Smith also claims to remove anything from safespeed that's factually
inaccurate, yet the laughable "12mph" page that Joksch demanded be
removed is still there?

Smith has the sheer affrontery to misrepresent real statistician's
claims!

Prove me wrong, ask Smith why Joksch demanded his name be removed.


2/


Smith is a bullying lair. After Smith dismissed posts which called for
Mary Williams of Brake to be burned alive he ran whining and snivelling

to the Times editor to complain about a Times journalist who reported
Smith's disgusting words verbatim. Smith lost the case. You can check
with the PCC is you like, the case number's on the safespeed website,
but you have to ask yourself whether you would react with equanimity if
Smith started banging on about threats to burn someone you love to
death being "a mild reaction". The man's a bully and a woman-hater.


Smith has a long history of threatening anyone who disagress with him:


http://www.cyclingforums.com/t28196-15-2.html


The threats ALWAYS come to nothing, of course. Smith posts his
childish garbage, someone politely explains that Smith has
fundamentally misunderstood the issue, Smith threatens to sue. So far
Smith has made over twenty seperate threats to sue.

None of the threats was acted upon.


3/


Smith is hopelessly out of his depth and has very little understanding
of road safety issues.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4646008.stm


Quote from above story: Paul Smith of road safety campaign group
Safespeed said: "White van man poses less risk to pedestrians than even

cyclists and is one of the very safest road user groups."


When you`ve picked yourself up laughing at this terrible, dangerous
lie, take a look at the reasoning behind it.


Smith`s explanation:


http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/vi...737&highlight=


The usual Smith ploy of baffling with inappropriate statistical
comparisons... Smith`s argument is that the risk of a van hitting a
pedestrian per van mile driven is less than the risk of a bus or
bicycle hitting a pedestrian per bus-mile driven or per mile cycled.
This conveniently ignores the very different exposure to pedestrians of



each mode: both buses and bicycles do most of their mileage on roads
with comparatively high levels of pedestrian use; whereas total van
mileage includes lots of motorway and trunk road travel with very low
or zero pedestrian exposure.


No cyclists on motorways either.


Thus a totally meaningless conclusion is drawn from stats that look
convincing because they are taken from real data. The funny thing is
that Smith is so terribly pompous about his use of statistics: a quote
from the SS forum: "We can win the arguments on bare facts and logic"!


What a laugh. If anyone would like to visit Safespeed and put this
point directly to Smith then please go right ahead. I tried yesterday
and my account was banned and the post deleted. No abuse, no slander,
just a reasoned explanation of how Smith had made rudimentary errors,
which can only be expected from a van driver with no academic
qualifications in statistical analysis.


The man is TERRIFIED of exposure as a fraud.


4/


Smith encourages the perversion of justice and thinks that arranging
for speeding fines to be sent to a grieving family is a "good odea":


http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost...e%20points.htm


http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost...ermeasures.htm


http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost...ooperation.htm

Meanwhile the safespeed website boasts:


"Safe Speed does not, nor has ever,
advocated or condoned law breaking or civil disobedience."


http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/vi...postdays=0&pos...



Breathtaking dishonesty and a staggering callousness. A family torn
apart by grief get Smith's speeding tickets through the door addressed
to their dead loved one. Charming.

Use a recently deceased person to duck a speeding ticket, and Smith
calls this a "good idea".

The man's a perverter of justice, what he condones is explicitly
against the law. He encourages lawlessness and the most dreadful
intrusion on a grieving family imagineable.




5/


Smith holds some loathsomely unpleasant attitudes toward disabled
people:


"Personally I don't see why disabled folk should get special
treatment [for parking]."


"How much has to be wrong with my legs before I get a specially
designated parking space?"


"If it goes on like this we'll just have to cripple everyone to
bring them down to the level of the disabled - it's only fair."


"I know full well it's not 'politically correct' to question
(dubious) 'rights' given to disabled people, but I don't give a
damn about political correctness."


http://www.transport2000.org.uk/cele...rDiary.asp?Edi...



6/


Smith looks like the guy in the science fiction film who is the first
to see The Monster. Can't hold that against him, of course, not his
fault.


But if this whining, self-publicising, dangerously ignorant goon thinks

that his credibility is enhanced by employing
fake police officers to make utter fools of themself on the crapspeed
website then he is even more deluded that I thought.


The man's on the brink of a full-blown nervous breakdown if he thinks
pretend plastic coppers add weight to his "cyclists are more dangerous
than van drivers" theories.


North Wales Police are now investigating Smith's use of fake police
officers but the question really ouight to be why has Smith's desperate
need for credibility allowed him to either:

1/

Be fooled by some illiterate clown with a history of lies who claims
he's a copper or

2/

Employ said pretend copper to lend weight to his crappy "research"?



Either way the man's a joke, but again don't take my word for it, ask
"In Gear" which police force allows him to post AS A POLICE OFFICER on
a website which until recently advocated criminal acts.

I look forward to your response smith.

spindrift wrote:

smeggy wrote:

Prove that PS perverts

Prove that PS lies


1/


Smith is a liar.


He refused to remove his "Speed bumps kill 500 people a year" press
release from his site even after it had been carefully explained to him

that he was talking guff.


http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/motorc...peedhumps.html

Smith cites Sigurd Reinton as the source of the claim. Reinton denies
ever saying any such thing. Smith's a liar.


Smith also claims to remove anything from safespeed that's factually
inaccurate, yet the laughable "12mph" page that Joksch demanded be
removed is still there?

Smith has the sheer affrontery to misrepresent real statistician's
claims!

Prove me wrong, ask Smith why Joksch demanded his name be removed.


2/


Smith is a bullying lair. After Smith dismissed posts which called for
Mary Williams of Brake to be burned alive he ran whining and snivelling

to the Times editor to complain about a Times journalist who reported
Smith's disgusting words verbatim. Smith lost the case. You can check
with the PCC is you like, the case number's on the safespeed website,
but you have to ask yourself whether you would react with equanimity if
Smith started banging on about threats to burn someone you love to
death being "a mild reaction". The man's a bully and a woman-hater.


Smith has a long history of threatening anyone who disagress with him:


http://www.cyclingforums.com/t28196-15-2.html


The threats ALWAYS come to nothing, of course. Smith posts his
childish garbage, someone politely explains that Smith has
fundamentally misunderstood the issue, Smith threatens to sue. So far
Smith has made over twenty seperate threats to sue.

None of the threats was acted upon.


3/


Smith is hopelessly out of his depth and has very little understanding
of road safety issues.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4646008.stm


Quote from above story: Paul Smith of road safety campaign group
Safespeed said: "White van man poses less risk to pedestrians than even

cyclists and is one of the very safest road user groups."


When you`ve picked yourself up laughing at this terrible, dangerous
lie, take a look at the reasoning behind it.


Smith`s explanation:


http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/vi...737&highlight=


The usual Smith ploy of baffling with inappropriate statistical
comparisons... Smith`s argument is that the risk of a van hitting a
pedestrian per van mile driven is less than the risk of a bus or
bicycle hitting a pedestrian per bus-mile driven or per mile cycled.
This conveniently ignores the very different exposure to pedestrians of



each mode: both buses and bicycles do most of their mileage on roads
with comparatively high levels of pedestrian use; whereas total van
mileage includes lots of motorway and trunk road travel with very low
or zero pedestrian exposure.


No cyclists on motorways either.


Thus a totally meaningless conclusion is drawn from stats that look
convincing because they are taken from real data. The funny thing is
that Smith is so terribly pompous about his use of statistics: a quote
from the SS forum: "We can win the arguments on bare facts and logic"!


What a laugh. If anyone would like to visit Safespeed and put this
point directly to Smith then please go right ahead. I tried yesterday
and my account was banned and the post deleted. No abuse, no slander,
just a reasoned explanation of how Smith had made rudimentary errors,
which can only be expected from a van driver with no academic
qualifications in statistical analysis.


The man is TERRIFIED of exposure as a fraud.


4/


Smith encourages the perversion of justice and thinks that arranging
for speeding fines to be sent to a grieving family is a "good odea":


http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost...e%20points.htm


http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost...ermeasures.htm


http://www.max-boost.co.uk/max-boost...ooperation.htm

Meanwhile the safespeed website boasts:


"Safe Speed does not, nor has ever,
advocated or condoned law breaking or civil disobedience."


http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/vi...postdays=0&pos...



Breathtaking dishonesty and a staggering callousness. A family torn
apart by grief get Smith's speeding tickets through the door addressed
to their dead loved one. Charming.

Use a recently deceased person to duck a speeding ticket, and Smith
calls this a "good idea".

The man's a perverter of justice, what he condones is explicitly
against the law. He encourages lawlessness and the most dreadful
intrusion on a grieving family imagineable.




5/


Smith holds some loathsomely unpleasant attitudes toward disabled
people:


"Personally I don't see why disabled folk should get special
treatment [for parking]."


"How much has to be wrong with my legs before I get a specially
designated parking space?"


"If it goes on like this we'll just have to cripple everyone to
bring them down to the level of the disabled - it's only fair."


"I know full well it's not 'politically correct' to question
(dubious) 'rights' given to disabled people, but I don't give a
damn about political correctness."


http://www.transport2000.org.uk/cele...rDiary.asp?Edi...



6/


Smith looks like the guy in the science fiction film who is the first
to see The Monster. Can't hold that against him, of course, not his
fault.


But if this whining, self-publicising, dangerously ignorant goon thinks

that his credibility is enhanced by employing
fake police officers to make utter fools of themself on the crapspeed
website then he is even more deluded that I thought.


The man's on the brink of a full-blown nervous breakdown if he thinks
pretend plastic coppers add weight to his "cyclists are more dangerous
than van drivers" theories.


North Wales Police are now investigating Smith's use of fake police
officers but the question really ouight to be why has Smith's desperate
need for credibility allowed him to either:

1/

Be fooled by some illiterate clown with a history of lies who claims
he's a copper or

2/

Employ said pretend copper to lend weight to his crappy "research"?



Either way the man's a joke, but again don't take my word for it, ask
"In Gear" which police force allows him to post AS A POLICE OFFICER on
a website which until recently advocated criminal acts.

I look forward to your response smith.

oh my....is your stylus stuck spinny?

I answered all of these in your orignial thread (the last post -
currently mine):

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....651?scoring=d&

So were you too stupid to notice or too stupid to give an answer?