Pavement Cyclists - Daily Telegraph

On Oct 25, 10:04*pm, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:31:52 +0000, Phil W Lee

phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
Would you like to think that out again?
You managed to make a prat of yourself with your first assumption.

Ah, well you see I took that figure from Mr Crispin who quoted 1.7M.
Perhaps that was a mistake. *What do you think the figure should be?

You also somehow missed the fact that the average cyclist is in a
higher income bracket than the average non-cyclist, so less likely to
be in the group of people with no household insurance.

I'd like to see some evidence of that. *Around here most cyclists do
not appear to be from high income groups unless hoodies are the new in
thing to wear. *

I know plenty of high income cyclists. There are about 250 of us
working in our building. There are places for 100 bikes by the
entrance, and the racks tend to be 3/4 full. The average salary is
probably 2.5 or 3 times the national average, so the people working
there, apart from the cleaners, use bicycle by choice, not because
they cannot afford anything else. They also have lights, most wear hi-
vis jacket and I never see them cycling on the pavement, but this does
not get noticed.

I am sure my hospital consultant neight could also afford a car if he
wanted to drive to work instead of cycling there.

I notice you have not addressed the problem that anyone struck by an
uninsured motorist still has cover from the MIB pool. *Anyone struck
by an uninsured cyclist doesn't.

This is bad luck, just like if a tile is blown of someone's roof and
lands on your head.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:19:29 -0700 (PDT), S
wrote:

On Oct 25, 10:04*pm, Peter Parry wrote:
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:31:52 +0000, Phil W Lee

The average salary is
probably 2.5 or 3 times the national average, so the people working
there, apart from the cleaners, use bicycle by choice, not because
they cannot afford anything else. They also have lights, most wear hi-
vis jacket and I never see them cycling on the pavement, but this does
not get noticed.

Very good, it does not alter the fact that around here most cyclists
are notably low income.

I notice you have not addressed the problem that anyone struck by an
uninsured motorist still has cover from the MIB pool. *Anyone struck
by an uninsured cyclist doesn't.

This is bad luck, just like if a tile is blown of someone's roof and
lands on your head.

You think being run over by a cycle being ridden on a pavement at
furious speed should be called "bad luck"?

Peter Parry wrote:



furious speed

What's that?
I don't have anything on my bike comp that indicates 'furious', just
'average' and 'max'.
should I get one with heart rate and blood pressure sensors as well in
the hope that there is also a 'furious' setting?





--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle

Phil W Lee wrote:

IIRC, you have more chance of being killed by lightning than by a bike
you aren't riding.

Do you expect all clouds to be insured too?

No, they're Acts of God, not to be confused with acts of Doug.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

I'm not aware of any "statistics" showing it is extremely improbable
that one will be hit by a cyclist whilst on a pavement or pedestrian
area. As I know several people who have suffered precisely this I
suggest it is a bit more common that lightning strikes.

http://www.publications.parliament.u...nsrd/vo060509/
halltext/60509h0006.htm

You're more likely to be hit and injured by a moped than by a cyclist.
And that's in London, which has an unusually high level of cycling.

I've personally never reported the incidents where I've been hit (or very
nearly hit) by cyclists who have ignored pedestrian crossings, red
traffic lights, or who are cycling down the pavement. I'm sure that none
of the other pedestrians who I've personally witnessed have similar
incidents or near-misses have done, either.

It'd be kinda pointless, since there's no way to identify the bicycle or
rider.

OTOH, it's very straightforward to identify a motor vehicle, so there's
almost certainly a far higher ratio of reported incidents to all
incidents.

On 28 Oct 2009 10:02:16 GMT, Adrian wrote:

I've personally never reported the incidents where I've been hit (or very
nearly hit)

I tend not to report incidents where I'm not hit, either. Only once,
I think, and that was a case where the driver actually ran me off the
road. While looking straight at me.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Adrian wrote:

I've personally never reported the incidents where I've been hit (or very
nearly hit)

I tend not to report incidents where I'm not hit, either. Only once,
I think, and that was a case where the driver actually ran me off the
road. While looking straight at me.

Do you *often* get yourself into such confrontations?

"Just zis Guy, you know?" gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

I've personally never reported the incidents where I've been hit (or
very nearly hit)

I tend not to report incidents where I'm not hit, either. Only once, I
think, and that was a case where the driver actually ran me off the
road. While looking straight at me.

You wouldn't report a driver or motorcyclist who deliberately drove
straight at a crowded pedestrian crossing - then changed direction to
follow you down the pavement hurling abuse at you because you'd suggested
they may be familiar with the joys of onanism?

On Oct 28, 10:38*am, Adrian wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

I've personally never reported the incidents where I've been hit (or
very nearly hit)
I tend not to report incidents where I'm not hit, either. *Only once, I
think, and that was a case where the driver actually ran me off the
road. *While looking straight at me.

You wouldn't report a driver or motorcyclist who deliberately drove
straight at a crowded pedestrian crossing - then changed direction to
follow you down the pavement hurling abuse at you because you'd suggested
they may be familiar with the joys of onanism?

The problem is, how can you report a cyclist who hit (or nearly) you
while you were walking on the pavement.

It is relativly easy to note the number plate of a motor vehicle,
impossible with a cyclist.

There is no point in reporting it to the police because you can not
identify the cyclist.


Francis

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:24:50 +0000, Keitht KeithT wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:

furious speed

What's that?
I don't have anything on my bike comp that indicates 'furious', just
'average' and 'max'.

It is hardly my fault if your "bike comp" is illiterate. If you have
a dictionary (a book which defines words, available at all good
booksellers) then you will find furious defined as "full of energy or
intensity" which quite adequately describes a certain style of riding
I am sure you have observed.

should I get one with heart rate and blood pressure sensors as well in
the hope that there is also a 'furious' setting?

I'd concentrate on where you were going, it would probably be safer.