More cyclists getting in the way

JNugent wrote:

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?

I said the probability that he saw a pedestrian injured by a cyclist was
very very low. The probability he saw three in two and a half hours
beggars belief. But I am sure you believe him; I wouldn't expect
anything else.

Tony

On 30/03/2011 17:26, Tony Raven wrote:
JNugent wrote:

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?

I said the probability that he saw a pedestrian injured by a cyclist was
very very low. The probability he saw three in two and a half hours
beggars belief.

Only if you assume that the STATS19 based data is representative of reality.

--
Matt B

On 30/03/2011 17:26, Tony Raven wrote:

JNugent wrote:

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?

I said the probability that he saw a pedestrian injured by a cyclist was very
very low.

But you have no proper idea of how many pedestrians are injured by cyclists.
The statistics will only count injuries which are either serious enough to
require treatment automatically or about which the victim feels strongly
enough to go to the trouble of reporting them.

The probability he saw three in two and a half hours beggars
belief. But I am sure you believe him; I wouldn't expect anything else.

Why would he not be telling the truth? What benefit could he derive from it?
Surely you are the one with more incentive to dissemble on this issue? And to
over-interpret statistics which are hazy at best?

Mrcheerful wrote:


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.


Lets get out an envelope and turn to its back.

Two and a half hours in London, two driving, half walking. Say 30 miles
distance covered to be generous.

Total road length in London is about 9,000 miles so you sampled 0.3% of
the road network in that time.

You saw three pedestrian injuries from cyclists in that time making it
1.2 pedestrian injuries an hour or, pro-rata for Greater London 1.2 x
300 injuries an hour = 360.

Assume not 24/7/365 but 8/5/220 as times when people are around on bikes
and walking. That is 1,760 interaction hours a year.

Multiply it all up and it comes to 633,600 injuries a year of which 78
are reported.

So the injury hierarchy for pedestrians hit by cyclists goes something
like this according to you:

3 killed
17 seriously injured
51 slightly injured
633,500 not reported.

I'm sure your mother believes you.

Tony

JNugent wrote:
On 30/03/2011 17:26, Tony Raven wrote:

JNugent wrote:

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?

I said the probability that he saw a pedestrian injured by a cyclist
was very very low.

But you have no proper idea of how many pedestrians are injured by
cyclists. The statistics will only count injuries which are either
serious enough to require treatment automatically or about which the
victim feels strongly enough to go to the trouble of reporting them.

The probability he saw three in two and a half hours beggars
belief. But I am sure you believe him; I wouldn't expect anything
else.

Why would he not be telling the truth? What benefit could he derive
from it? Surely you are the one with more incentive to dissemble on
this issue? And to over-interpret statistics which are hazy at best?

I would challenge anyone to go to the same areas (near V and A museum) on a
warm, bright day and NOT see cyclists ignoring crossings, one way streets
and stop lights and their actual collisions with pedestrians, not to mention
the foul language they are hurling about and of course everyone, even
cyclists would agree that pavement cycling is rife everywhere in the
country.

Matt B wrote:
On 30/03/2011 17:26, Tony Raven wrote:
JNugent wrote:

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?

I said the probability that he saw a pedestrian injured by a cyclist was
very very low. The probability he saw three in two and a half hours
beggars belief.

Only if you assume that the STATS19 based data is representative of
reality.


Even the worst assumptions of unreality take you nowhere close to
Cheerless' claimed experience. See my back of the envelope posted
elsewhere. It seems that ~10% of London's population are injured by
bikes every year based on Cheerless' account.

I also like his ability to drive in Central London while concentrating
on what bikes are doing to pedestrians rather than all the other traffic
around him. Either superhuman powers of perception or driving
dangerously distracted.

Tony

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.

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.


When the cyclist ran into me, it did not get reported.

On 30/03/2011 17:39, Tony Raven wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:

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.

Lets get out an envelope and turn to its back.

Two and a half hours in London, two driving, half walking. Say 30 miles
distance covered to be generous.

Total road length in London is about 9,000 miles so you sampled 0.3% of
the road network in that time.

You saw three pedestrian injuries from cyclists in that time making it
1.2 pedestrian injuries an hour or, pro-rata for Greater London 1.2 x
300 injuries an hour = 360.

Assume not 24/7/365 but 8/5/220 as times when people are around on bikes
and walking. That is 1,760 interaction hours a year.

Multiply it all up and it comes to 633,600 injuries a year of which 78
are reported.

The 78 will be just the ones that the police got involved with. What we
need is a more accurate way of getting a feel for the size of the
problem. A survey of pedestrians in the central area perhaps?

--
Matt B

JNugent wrote:

The probability he saw three in two and a half hours beggars
belief. But I am sure you believe him; I wouldn't expect anything else.

Why would he not be telling the truth? What benefit could he derive from
it? Surely you are the one with more incentive to dissemble on this
issue? And to over-interpret statistics which are hazy at best?

How long have you been here and you haven't twigged why non-cyclist Mr
Cheerless is here?

Tony

Mrcheerful wrote:

I would challenge anyone to go to the same areas (near V and A museum) on a
warm, bright day and NOT see cyclists ignoring crossings, one way streets
and stop lights and their actual collisions with pedestrians, not to mention
the foul language they are hurling about and of course everyone, even
cyclists would agree that pavement cycling is rife everywhere in the
country.


Could you point to where these crossings and one way streets are that
they ignore near the V&A?

Personally I'd think you need you head examining if you cycle on the
pavements around there. But it will soon all be solved with pavements
and roads going on Exhibition Road to be replaced by a shared pedestrian
and traffic space. I cycle and walk round there a lot and have to say
I've almost never seen what you are claiming. It must be something
about you, Mr Dragon and Mr Nugent that encourages this happening in
your presence.

Tony