OT. Dutch cyclist v cyclist crashes rise 40 per cent over 4 years

I thought that there was safety in numbers?

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archive...ing_busier.php

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

I thought that there was safety in numbers?

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archive...ing_busier.php

Lovely quote in that piece:

"However, almost three out of four racing cyclists said the other cyclist
caused the accident."

Looks like when there are no motorists around to blame, they have to resort
to blaming each other!
Quite nicely shoots down their usual claim that the cyclists is never, ever
at fault.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:46:06 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

I thought that there was safety in numbers?

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/04/
cycle_lanes_are_getting_busier.php

Lovely quote in that piece:

"However, almost three out of four racing cyclists said the other
cyclist caused the accident."

Looks like when there are no motorists around to blame, they have to
resort to blaming each other!
Quite nicely shoots down their usual claim that the cyclists is never,
ever at fault.

Who made that claim?

"Peter Keller" wrote in message ...

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:46:06 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

I thought that there was safety in numbers?

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/04/
cycle_lanes_are_getting_busier.php

Lovely quote in that piece:

"However, almost three out of four racing cyclists said the other
cyclist caused the accident."

Looks like when there are no motorists around to blame, they have to
resort to blaming each other!
Quite nicely shoots down their usual claim that the cyclists is never,
ever at fault.

Who made that claim?

Psycholists. Regularly.

On 24/04/2014 09:50, Peter Keller wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:46:06 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

I thought that there was safety in numbers?

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/04/
cycle_lanes_are_getting_busier.php

Lovely quote in that piece:

"However, almost three out of four racing cyclists said the other
cyclist caused the accident."

Looks like when there are no motorists around to blame, they have to
resort to blaming each other!
Quite nicely shoots down their usual claim that the cyclists is never,
ever at fault.

Who made that claim?

Various posters here for a start. Whenever an incident is reported or
discussed, any blame that can be attributed is invariably attributed to
the operators of involved motor vehicles, or to the authorities
(especially if it's anything to do with Boris) or both.

Even in clear cut-cases of appalling behaviour by a cyclist, he will
usually be defended on the spurious basis that cycles/cyclists cannot do
any serious harm to anyone and/or that damage to property is of no
significance.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:49:59 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 24/04/2014 09:50, Peter Keller wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:46:06 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

I thought that there was safety in numbers?

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/04/
cycle_lanes_are_getting_busier.php

Lovely quote in that piece:

"However, almost three out of four racing cyclists said the other
cyclist caused the accident."

Looks like when there are no motorists around to blame, they have to
resort to blaming each other!
Quite nicely shoots down their usual claim that the cyclists is never,
ever at fault.

Who made that claim?

Various posters here for a start. Whenever an incident is reported or
discussed, any blame that can be attributed is invariably attributed to
the operators of involved motor vehicles, or to the authorities
(especially if it's anything to do with Boris) or both.

Even in clear cut-cases of appalling behaviour by a cyclist, he will
usually be defended on the spurious basis that cycles/cyclists cannot do
any serious harm to anyone and/or that damage to property is of no
significance.

Cite?

I have certainly seen posters here, me included, advocating strict
liability for motorists - but never have I seen people suggesting that
cyclists are never at fault. I would be interested to see that cite
which you will undoubtedly provide to support this claim.

On 24/04/2014 13:07, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:49:59 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 24/04/2014 09:50, Peter Keller wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:46:06 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

I thought that there was safety in numbers?

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/04/
cycle_lanes_are_getting_busier.php

Lovely quote in that piece:

"However, almost three out of four racing cyclists said the other
cyclist caused the accident."

Looks like when there are no motorists around to blame, they have to
resort to blaming each other!
Quite nicely shoots down their usual claim that the cyclists is never,
ever at fault.

Who made that claim?

Various posters here for a start. Whenever an incident is reported or
discussed, any blame that can be attributed is invariably attributed to
the operators of involved motor vehicles, or to the authorities
(especially if it's anything to do with Boris) or both.

Even in clear cut-cases of appalling behaviour by a cyclist, he will
usually be defended on the spurious basis that cycles/cyclists cannot do
any serious harm to anyone and/or that damage to property is of no
significance.

Cite?

Grow up.

I have certainly seen posters here, me included, advocating strict
liability for motorists - but never have I seen people suggesting that
cyclists are never at fault. I would be interested to see that cite
which you will undoubtedly provide to support this claim.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:28:50 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 24/04/2014 13:07, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:49:59 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 24/04/2014 09:50, Peter Keller wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:46:06 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

I thought that there was safety in numbers?

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/04/
cycle_lanes_are_getting_busier.php

Lovely quote in that piece:

"However, almost three out of four racing cyclists said the other
cyclist caused the accident."

Looks like when there are no motorists around to blame, they have to
resort to blaming each other!
Quite nicely shoots down their usual claim that the cyclists is never,
ever at fault.

Who made that claim?

Various posters here for a start. Whenever an incident is reported or
discussed, any blame that can be attributed is invariably attributed to
the operators of involved motor vehicles, or to the authorities
(especially if it's anything to do with Boris) or both.

Even in clear cut-cases of appalling behaviour by a cyclist, he will
usually be defended on the spurious basis that cycles/cyclists cannot do
any serious harm to anyone and/or that damage to property is of no
significance.

Cite?

Grow up.

Does that mean you have no evidence to support your claim?

I have certainly seen posters here, me included, advocating strict
liability for motorists - but never have I seen people suggesting that
cyclists are never at fault. I would be interested to see that cite
which you will undoubtedly provide to support this claim.

On 24/04/2014 13:34, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:28:50 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 24/04/2014 13:07, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:49:59 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 24/04/2014 09:50, Peter Keller wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:46:06 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

I thought that there was safety in numbers?

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/04/
cycle_lanes_are_getting_busier.php

Lovely quote in that piece:

"However, almost three out of four racing cyclists said the other
cyclist caused the accident."

Looks like when there are no motorists around to blame, they have to
resort to blaming each other!
Quite nicely shoots down their usual claim that the cyclists is never,
ever at fault.

Who made that claim?

Various posters here for a start. Whenever an incident is reported or
discussed, any blame that can be attributed is invariably attributed to
the operators of involved motor vehicles, or to the authorities
(especially if it's anything to do with Boris) or both.

Even in clear cut-cases of appalling behaviour by a cyclist, he will
usually be defended on the spurious basis that cycles/cyclists cannot do
any serious harm to anyone and/or that damage to property is of no
significance.

Cite?

Grow up.

Does that mean you have no evidence to support your claim?

It means that I am not going to scrabble around to find instances of
that which you already know quite well to be true.

Don't resort to lies.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:43:05 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 24/04/2014 13:34, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:28:50 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 24/04/2014 13:07, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:49:59 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 24/04/2014 09:50, Peter Keller wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:46:06 +0100, Tarcap wrote:

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message ...

I thought that there was safety in numbers?

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2014/04/
cycle_lanes_are_getting_busier.php

Lovely quote in that piece:

"However, almost three out of four racing cyclists said the other
cyclist caused the accident."

Looks like when there are no motorists around to blame, they have to
resort to blaming each other!
Quite nicely shoots down their usual claim that the cyclists is never,
ever at fault.

Who made that claim?

Various posters here for a start. Whenever an incident is reported or
discussed, any blame that can be attributed is invariably attributed to
the operators of involved motor vehicles, or to the authorities
(especially if it's anything to do with Boris) or both.

Even in clear cut-cases of appalling behaviour by a cyclist, he will
usually be defended on the spurious basis that cycles/cyclists cannot do
any serious harm to anyone and/or that damage to property is of no
significance.

Cite?

Grow up.

Does that mean you have no evidence to support your claim?

It means that I am not going to scrabble around to find instances of
that which you already know quite well to be true.

I don't know that at all.

Don't resort to lies.

"I would be interested to see that cite which you will undoubtedly
provide to support this claim."

I apologise for any lie in the above.