More cyclists getting in the way

On Mar 30, 1:09*pm, PhilO wrote:
On Mar 30, 9:13*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:



when I went to central London recently the endangerment and injury to
pedestrians that I saw all came from cyclists.

Really? How many injuries to pedestrians by cyclists did you see?
You didn't see any endangerment to pedestrians caused by motor
vehicles?
We don't believe you.

Perhaps he was trying to walk along pavements or across pedestrian
crossings.


*If all cycling in London
was banned there would be zero cyclists squashed or injured and far fewer
pedestrian injuries. *

You have excelled yourself here! Let's ban women and eliminate rape
too.

Do you get rapped by many women?


Drivers would be able to more attentive to the
remaining traffic/pedestrians and so would have fewer accidents too.

So, not only do you see cyclists as being at fault in all lorry/
cyclist accidents, you also blame cyclists for cars crashing into each
other?
Do you realise quite how mad you appear?

P.S. Dave - Bicycles are a great viable form of transport - pass it on!

On Mar 30, 9:08*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

I am certain there are some excellent cyclists and I applaud the ones that
help to train others.

I you knew anything about the subject you would know that the
cycle training you are so keen to mandate is all about teaching
people how to mitigate the danger caused by bad driving.
Adopting the primary position, for example. It should not
matter where in the lane you cycle as drivers should always pass
safely. Unfortunately they don't so the victim has to force a
safe overtake.
Better get that foot seen to before gangrene sets in.

On Mar 30, 9:13*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
when I went to central London recently the endangerment and injury to
pedestrians that I saw all came from cyclists.

An outright lie.

*If all cycling in London was banned

cyclists would be forced to use their cars and

there would be zero cyclists squashed or injured and far fewer
pedestrian injuries.

because there would be permanent gridlock and stationary
traffic poses no risk.
*

On 30/03/2011 11:34, Tony Raven wrote:

wrote:

when I went to central London recently the endangerment and injury to
pedestrians that I saw all came from cyclists.

You need to go to Specsavers. TfL 2009 figures for Greater London:
Pedestrians injured by cyclists: 78
Pedestrians injured by motor vehicles: 5,049.

Surely his journey to Central (or even Greater) London did not last from
1/1/2009 to 31/12/2009? And yet you expect him to have witnessed every
accident which took place during that calendar year and challenge his account
of what he did see on the bsis that you think he should have seen more.

Bet you didn't really see a single pedestrian injury by a cyclist with only
one happening in the whole of London every 5 days.

Make your mind up. Should he have seen everything, or nothing?

On 30/03/2011 13:09, PhilO wrote:

On Mar 30, 9:13 am, wrote:

when I went to central London recently the endangerment and injury to
pedestrians that I saw all came from cyclists.

Really? How many injuries to pedestrians by cyclists did you see?
You didn't see any endangerment to pedestrians caused by motor
vehicles?
We don't believe you.

Less of the "we", paleface.

If he saw a cyclist travelling along a footway (as I saw several in C. London
today), and if he saw no motor-vehicles being driven along the footway, then
he will have sen endamgerment of pedestrians by cyclists and none by drivers.

QED.

PS: Yes, there's still the injury he quoted. Either he saw one or he didn't.
But either way, you can have nothing credible or relevant to say on the
subject unless you were standing behind him all day.

On 30/03/2011 15:51, paul george wrote:

On Mar 30, 9:08 am, wrote:

I am certain there are some excellent cyclists and I applaud the ones that
help to train others.

I you knew anything about the subject you would know that the
cycle training you are so keen to mandate is all about teaching
people how to mitigate the danger caused by bad driving.

Is *none* of it about following the rules of the road (and the footway), then?

That could explain a lot.

JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2011 11:34, Tony Raven wrote:

wrote:

when I went to central London recently the endangerment and injury
to pedestrians that I saw all came from cyclists.

You need to go to Specsavers. TfL 2009 figures for Greater London:
Pedestrians injured by cyclists: 78
Pedestrians injured by motor vehicles: 5,049.

Surely his journey to Central (or even Greater) London did not last
from 1/1/2009 to 31/12/2009? And yet you expect him to have witnessed
every accident which took place during that calendar year and
challenge his account of what he did see on the bsis that you think
he should have seen more.
Bet you didn't really see a single pedestrian injury by a cyclist
with only one happening in the whole of London every 5 days.

Make your mind up. Should he have seen everything, or nothing?

I saw three collisions between cyclists and pedestrians. I saw one between
two cyclists. I don't expect that any of the collisions resulted in serious
injury and therefore would be unlikely to appear in any stats. However,
every one of them was unnecessary and caused by cyclist selfishness. I was
startled by the sudden approach of several cyclists while I was on the
pavement, especially the ones that come up behind you with no warning sound.
I did not see any cars hit anyone, I did see a car nearly turn into a no
entry one way street, but he did not carry on. Bear in mind that I was only
walking for about half an hour and driving for about two. Weekday during
the working day.

Mrcheerful

JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2011 11:34, Tony Raven wrote:

wrote:

when I went to central London recently the endangerment and injury to
pedestrians that I saw all came from cyclists.

You need to go to Specsavers. TfL 2009 figures for Greater London:
Pedestrians injured by cyclists: 78
Pedestrians injured by motor vehicles: 5,049.

Surely his journey to Central (or even Greater) London did not last from
1/1/2009 to 31/12/2009? And yet you expect him to have witnessed every
accident which took place during that calendar year and challenge his
account of what he did see on the bsis that you think he should have
seen more.

Not at all. He claims to have seen endangerment AND injury when he was
there. If he was there for five days, the probability was that there
was just one such injury in the whole of Greater London during that
stay. The probability that he saw it is incredibly small unless he is
omnipresent. In fact the probability is pretty low even if he had
stayed there the whole year and spent all his time 24/7/365 walking the
streets looking for cyclists injuring pedestrians.


Bet you didn't really see a single pedestrian injury by a cyclist with
only
one happening in the whole of London every 5 days.

Make your mind up. Should he have seen everything, or nothing?

I'm saying it very very unlikely he saw a pedestrian injury and
therefore that his claims are more fiction than fact. He was sixty five
times more likely to have seen a pedestrian injured by a motor vehicle -
something he claims to have seen none of at all - than by a cyclist.

YMWV

Tony

Mrcheerful wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2011 11:34, Tony Raven wrote:

wrote:
when I went to central London recently the endangerment and injury
to pedestrians that I saw all came from cyclists.
You need to go to Specsavers. TfL 2009 figures for Greater London:
Pedestrians injured by cyclists: 78
Pedestrians injured by motor vehicles: 5,049.
Surely his journey to Central (or even Greater) London did not last
from 1/1/2009 to 31/12/2009? And yet you expect him to have witnessed
every accident which took place during that calendar year and
challenge his account of what he did see on the bsis that you think
he should have seen more.
Bet you didn't really see a single pedestrian injury by a cyclist
with only one happening in the whole of London every 5 days.
Make your mind up. Should he have seen everything, or nothing?

I saw three collisions between cyclists and pedestrians. I saw one between
two cyclists. I don't expect that any of the collisions resulted in serious
injury and therefore would be unlikely to appear in any stats. However,
every one of them was unnecessary and caused by cyclist selfishness. I was
startled by the sudden approach of several cyclists while I was on the
pavement, especially the ones that come up behind you with no warning sound.
I did not see any cars hit anyone, I did see a car nearly turn into a no
entry one way street, but he did not carry on. Bear in mind that I was only
walking for about half an hour and driving for about two. Weekday during
the working day.

Mrcheerful



So where were you walking when these several cyclists caught you by
surprise?

Tony

On 30/03/2011 17:06, Tony Raven wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2011 11:34, Tony Raven wrote:

wrote:

when I went to central London recently the endangerment and injury to
pedestrians that I saw all came from cyclists.

You need to go to Specsavers. TfL 2009 figures for Greater London:
Pedestrians injured by cyclists: 78
Pedestrians injured by motor vehicles: 5,049.

Surely his journey to Central (or even Greater) London did not last from
1/1/2009 to 31/12/2009? And yet you expect him to have witnessed every
accident which took place during that calendar year and challenge his
account of what he did see on the bsis that you think he should have seen
more.

Not at all. He claims to have seen endangerment AND injury when he was there.
If he was there for five days, the probability was that there was just one
such injury in the whole of Greater London during that stay. The probability
that he saw it is incredibly small unless he is omnipresent. In fact the
probability is pretty low even if he had stayed there the whole year and
spent all his time 24/7/365 walking the streets looking for cyclists injuring
pedestrians.


Bet you didn't really see a single pedestrian injury by a cyclist with only
one happening in the whole of London every 5 days.

Make your mind up. Should he have seen everything, or nothing?

I'm saying it very very unlikely he saw a pedestrian injury and therefore
that his claims are more fiction than fact. He was sixty five times more
likely to have seen a pedestrian injured by a motor vehicle - something he
claims to have seen none of at all - than by a cyclist.

Do you call *everyone* who witnesses a collision a liar, based purely on your
dodgy interpretation of statistics?