OT 8 cyclists dead in one hit: groups of cyclists should be illegal

On Dec 8, 10:10*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Road victims that DELIBERATELY and unnecessarily put themselves at greater
risk than they need to should take some of the blame.

So, a family should never travel together in a car, because by doing
so they increase the chances of more than one person being injured in
an accident? After all, they would be 'road victims' ?

I'm well aware that when I drive my family that there is the chance
of an accident. Maybe even a drugged up driver going the wrong way up
a motorway and hitting my car head on. As I'm aware of this
possibility, and I would be a 'road victim', I'm clearly putting
myself, and my family, at greater risk than if I decided to stay at
home and not make the trip?

--
Dan

wrote:
On Dec 8, 10:10 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Road victims that DELIBERATELY and unnecessarily put themselves at
greater risk than they need to should take some of the blame.

So, a family should never travel together in a car, because by doing
so they increase the chances of more than one person being injured in
an accident? After all, they would be 'road victims' ?

I'm well aware that when I drive my family that there is the chance
of an accident. Maybe even a drugged up driver going the wrong way up
a motorway and hitting my car head on. As I'm aware of this
possibility, and I would be a 'road victim', I'm clearly putting
myself, and my family, at greater risk than if I decided to stay at
home and not make the trip?

you are, but there is far less risk in a car with all its safety equipment
than on a bicycle with absolutely nothing except your own wits to protect
you (which were not in operation afaics)

On Dec 7, 7:19*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Dec 7, 4:14 pm, Justin wrote:
On 7 dec, 09:59, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Doug wrote:
On Dec 7, 7:34 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Dec 6, 7:14 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
This would not have happened if they had been riding a
reasonable distance apart.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sts-killed-dru...

So what would make them immune from a drugged driver?

not riding in a bunch would have saved many of them (if the
accident had occurred at all.)

So now you are actually trying to justify drugged driving by
blaming the vulnerable victims?

There is no justification for the alledged misdeeds of the driver.
BUT do you agree that if the cyclists had been spread further apart
AND the car had hit the first one or pair, that the death and
injury toll would be very likely to be lower?

I agree with you in as much as you agree that the victims of the
Potters Bar train disaster would not have been killed had they been
neither on the train nor standing at the Station. I take it that you
propose that people should not gather in such large numbers at
stations and on trains.

The same applies to motorists, who gather closely in very large
numbers and multiple deaths are caused when they are rammed by large
lorries on motorways, for example. Let's hope they are more dispersed
in future and leave large gaps between each other, which would save
lives..

*so you do agree that leaving gaps between vehicles helps with safety.

I am merely pointing out that your argument applies equally well to
motorists too, so why do you distort the facts with your anti-cyclist
thread titles?

Doug

On Dec 8, 10:39*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

you are, but there is far less risk in a car with all its safety equipment
than on a bicycle with absolutely nothing except your own wits to protect
you (which were not in operation afaics)

So it's about personal evaluation of risk ?

--
Dan

wrote:
On Dec 8, 10:39 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

you are, but there is far less risk in a car with all its safety
equipment than on a bicycle with absolutely nothing except your own
wits to protect you (which were not in operation afaics)

So it's about personal evaluation of risk ?

I am also fairly sure that when you go out in your car, with or without your
family, you would not drive within inches of the vehicles in front of and
around you.

The cyclists evidently did not evaluate the risks of being so close in the
event of emergency and it is about a lack of sense in them riding in a pack
which caused such a great number to be hurt/killed in an accident that might
not even have occurred if they had been riding in a sensible manner. I
could understand it if they were very young, they would have no sense of the
dangers, but adults should know better. The only good thing that might come
from this is if the cycle clubs give out some good advice about riding with
gaps rather than in a close bunch.

Doug wrote:
On Dec 7, 7:19 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Dec 7, 4:14 pm, Justin wrote:
On 7 dec, 09:59, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Doug wrote:
On Dec 7, 7:34 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Dec 6, 7:14 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
This would not have happened if they had been riding a
reasonable distance apart.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sts-killed-dru...

So what would make them immune from a drugged driver?

not riding in a bunch would have saved many of them (if the
accident had occurred at all.)

So now you are actually trying to justify drugged driving by
blaming the vulnerable victims?

There is no justification for the alledged misdeeds of the driver.
BUT do you agree that if the cyclists had been spread further
apart AND the car had hit the first one or pair, that the death
and injury toll would be very likely to be lower?

I agree with you in as much as you agree that the victims of the
Potters Bar train disaster would not have been killed had they been
neither on the train nor standing at the Station. I take it that
you propose that people should not gather in such large numbers at
stations and on trains.

The same applies to motorists, who gather closely in very large
numbers and multiple deaths are caused when they are rammed by large
lorries on motorways, for example. Let's hope they are more
dispersed in future and leave large gaps between each other, which
would save lives..

so you do agree that leaving gaps between vehicles helps with safety.

I am merely pointing out that your argument applies equally well to
motorists too, so why do you distort the facts with your anti-cyclist
thread titles?

Doug

of couse it equally applies, but it is extremely unlikely that you will ever
see 12 cars driving within inches of each other.
If every vehicle and cyclist left enough room to stop in and watched where
they are going, then there would be scarcely any crashes at all and the ksi
rate would plummet.

On 8 dec, 11:48, Doug wrote:
On Dec 7, 7:19*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Doug wrote:
On Dec 7, 4:14 pm, Justin wrote:
On 7 dec, 09:59, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Doug wrote:
On Dec 7, 7:34 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Dec 6, 7:14 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
This would not have happened if they had been riding a
reasonable distance apart.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sts-killed-dru...

So what would make them immune from a drugged driver?

not riding in a bunch would have saved many of them (if the
accident had occurred at all.)

So now you are actually trying to justify drugged driving by
blaming the vulnerable victims?

There is no justification for the alledged misdeeds of the driver.
BUT do you agree that if the cyclists had been spread further apart
AND the car had hit the first one or pair, that the death and
injury toll would be very likely to be lower?

I agree with you in as much as you agree that the victims of the
Potters Bar train disaster would not have been killed had they been
neither on the train nor standing at the Station. I take it that you
propose that people should not gather in such large numbers at
stations and on trains.

The same applies to motorists, who gather closely in very large
numbers and multiple deaths are caused when they are rammed by large
lorries on motorways, for example. Let's hope they are more dispersed
in future and leave large gaps between each other, which would save
lives..

*so you do agree that leaving gaps between vehicles helps with safety..

I am merely pointing out that your argument applies equally well to
motorists too, so why do you distort the facts with your anti-cyclist
thread titles?

Doug

Distort the facts? He did not even know the facts when he started the
thread yet chose to apportion blame.
We have some legislation against tailgating in some countries: why?
Not because of the damage you can do to youself but because of the
damage you do to the people you drive into.
Cycling is a sport which owes its very existence (road racing at
leats) to the ability to ride in close formation. You must also train
in this manner to master the skill. If you run into the cyclist in
front of you, you suffer the damage and not he/she does not. There is
no need for such legislation.

Should cyclists in groups be banned because of their increased
vulnerabilty (not yet established, by the way)? Of course not. Should
they be seen as contributing to their own demise in this instance? No
reasonable person could support that position. Should there actions be
seen as contributory negilgence? Of course not - just think what sort
of precedent it would set.
I take it cheerful would no treat people with heart disease who have
followed an unhealthy lifestyle, not treat lungcancer victims who have
smoked, not treat footballlers who break their legs, not treat people
who have winter sport accidents, blame plane crash victims for getting
in a plane in such proximity to so many other people and blame
passengers who get killed for having got in a car with other people.

On Dec 8, 11:41*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 8, 10:39 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

you are, but there is far less risk in a car with all its safety
equipment than on a bicycle with absolutely nothing except your own
wits to protect you (which were not in operation afaics)

* So *it's about personal evaluation of risk ?

I am also fairly sure that when you go out in your car, with or without your
family, you would not drive within inches of the vehicles in front of and
around you.


If I'm hit head on I'm hit head on .... Perversely I might even be
better of if there was a car in front of me as it would absorb more of
the impact ....


The cyclists evidently did not evaluate the risks of being so close in the
event of emergency and it is about a lack of sense in them riding in a pack
which caused such a great number to be hurt/killed in an accident that might
not even have occurred if they had been riding in a sensible manner. *I
could understand it if they were very young, they would have no sense of the
dangers, but adults should know better. The only good thing that might come
from this is if the cycle clubs give out some good advice about riding with
gaps rather than in a close bunch.

I'm fairly certain that the cyclists had evaluated the risks, given
they were adults doing the same activity week in week out. What they
didn't account for was a drugged up car driver hitting them head on at
speed.

Have you ever ridden in a group?

It is, in my experience, perfectly safe, and I fret about it less
than when my wife takes a trip up the A14 with the children. Warnings
are shouted, hand signals given, and rarely does anything go wrong.

--
Dan

On 8 dec, 12:44, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Dec 7, 7:19 pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Dec 7, 4:14 pm, Justin wrote:
On 7 dec, 09:59, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

Doug wrote:
On Dec 7, 7:34 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
Doug wrote:
On Dec 6, 7:14 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
This would not have happened if they had been riding a
reasonable distance apart.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...sts-killed-dru...

So what would make them immune from a drugged driver?

not riding in a bunch would have saved many of them (if the
accident had occurred at all.)

So now you are actually trying to justify drugged driving by
blaming the vulnerable victims?

There is no justification for the alledged misdeeds of the driver.
BUT do you agree that if the cyclists had been spread further
apart AND the car had hit the first one or pair, that the death
and injury toll would be very likely to be lower?

I agree with you in as much as you agree that the victims of the
Potters Bar train disaster would not have been killed had they been
neither on the train nor standing at the Station. I take it that
you propose that people should not gather in such large numbers at
stations and on trains.

The same applies to motorists, who gather closely in very large
numbers and multiple deaths are caused when they are rammed by large
lorries on motorways, for example. Let's hope they are more
dispersed in future and leave large gaps between each other, which
would save lives..

so you do agree that leaving gaps between vehicles helps with safety.

I am merely pointing out that your argument applies equally well to
motorists too, so why do you distort the facts with your anti-cyclist
thread titles?

Doug

of couse it equally applies, but it is extremely unlikely that you will ever
see 12 cars driving within inches of each other.
*If every vehicle and cyclist left enough room to stop in and watched where
they are going, then there would be scarcely any crashes at all and the ksi
rate would plummet.

Show us the figures which suggest that a substantial proportion of the
ksi's in cycling are as a result of group riding. If you cannot do so,
you cannot conclude that prohibition of group riding will cause the
ksi rate to "plummet".

wrote:
On Dec 8, 11:41 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 8, 10:39 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

you are, but there is far less risk in a car with all its safety
equipment than on a bicycle with absolutely nothing except your own
wits to protect you (which were not in operation afaics)

So it's about personal evaluation of risk ?

I am also fairly sure that when you go out in your car, with or
without your family, you would not drive within inches of the
vehicles in front of and around you.


If I'm hit head on I'm hit head on .... Perversely I might even be
better of if there was a car in front of me as it would absorb more of
the impact ....


The cyclists evidently did not evaluate the risks of being so close
in the event of emergency and it is about a lack of sense in them
riding in a pack which caused such a great number to be hurt/killed
in an accident that might not even have occurred if they had been
riding in a sensible manner. I could understand it if they were very
young, they would have no sense of the dangers, but adults should
know better. The only good thing that might come from this is if the
cycle clubs give out some good advice about riding with gaps rather
than in a close bunch.

I'm fairly certain that the cyclists had evaluated the risks, given
they were adults doing the same activity week in week out. What they
didn't account for was a drugged up car driver hitting them head on at
speed.

Have you ever ridden in a group?

It is, in my experience, perfectly safe, and I fret about it less
than when my wife takes a trip up the A14 with the children. Warnings
are shouted, hand signals given, and rarely does anything go wrong.

and if it does go wrong there is no escape route or room to stop.