Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...

Which does not actually change the documented fact that pedestrians
are far more likely to be injured on the footway by motorists than
cyclists.

I think the fact that is documented it the number of reported injuries not
the number of injuries per se, there is after all a legal duty to report
motor accident causing injury there will be close to 100% reporting of car
related injuries but a far lower proportion of the minor cycle/pedestrian
collisions will be reported.

pk

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 08:31:38 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:34:53 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

can you explain why none of my family have never had a near miss with
a car on the footway, but have had many with cyclists?

Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured by
motorists than cyclists ?

Here is a word you missed *footway*

Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured on
the footway by motorists than cyclists ?

Guy


er - answer - they are not.

The vast majority of incidents involving a motor vehicle and a
pedestrian will be reported to the police and will contribute to the
statistics.

The vast majority of incidents involving a bike and a pedestrian will
not be reported to the police and will not contribute to the
statistics.

I am surprised you can't see that.

judith

--

Cyclists have been known to ride on the pavement and this occasionally
brings them into conflict with pedestrians. This conflict has been
known to cause injury and even, in very rare cases, death. (Guy
Chapman)

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:54:14 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 08:51:52 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured on
the footway by motorists than cyclists ?

In my experience, they aren't.

Which does not actually change the documented fact that pedestrians
are far more likely to be injured on the footway by motorists than
cyclists.


That is not a documented fact. If you believe that it is - then you
will no doubt be able to point to where it is documented.

Even worse - you know that it is not true.

Why do you have to be such a despicable liar?

You wonder why so many people despise you.




judith

--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:05:43 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Tony Dragon" wrote in message
...

In my experience, they aren't.
But I would imagine that most motorist caused injuries are reported,
probably not the same for cycle collisions. (My daughters injuries were
not reported)

Why not? If you want the authorities to do something about this, you need
them to have the evidence that it is a problem.

Complaining on here isn't going to do anything - go to the police and get
the injury recorded.

What did you do about the person who caused the injury?



Do you agree that it is very likely that most accidents between
pedestrians and cyclists are not reported?


Excellent idea.

Perhaps you are right - there should be a campaign for all people
injured by a cyclist to report the matter to the police - lets go for
it - it will probably lead to many more prosecutions for riding on the
footpath.

In article , Tony Dragon wrote:

So you agree with cyclist's breaking the law, glad we have established that.

Like pizza? Then why not join the non-sequitur appreciation society?

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:38:28 +0000, Phil W Lee
phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:

Tony Dragon considered Sun, 25 Jan 2009
08:51:52 +0000 the perfect time to write:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:34:53 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

can you explain why none of my family have never had a near miss with
a car on the footway, but have had many with cyclists?

Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured by
motorists than cyclists ?

Here is a word you missed *footway*

Can you explain why pedestrians are far more likely to be injured on
the footway by motorists than cyclists ?

Guy

In my experience, they aren't.
But I would imagine that most motorist caused injuries are reported,
probably not the same for cycle collisions. (My daughters injuries were
not reported)
Did you lie to the hospital about the cause then?
Because if you didn't, they will have made it into the stats.


Not in to the stats which the ****wit Chapman is referring to.

The stats which he is relying on for his lies are those collected
via the police.


Of course - as has been demonstrated - the vast majority of accidents
involving people on bikes and pedestrians are unlikely to be included
in the stats.

Whereas nearly all incidents involving a motor vehicle and a
pedestrian will be reported to the police.

There - wasn't too difficult was it?




--

If you find 2 abreast cyclists more obstructive than single file ones,
you must have been intending to pass dangerously close anyway.
(****** Lee)

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:55:34 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:59:37 +0000 someone who may be Tony Dragon
wrote this:-

If you are correct, can you explain why none of my family have never had
a near miss with a car on the footway, but have had many with cyclists?

If you are correct, can you explain why I have been struck (and
knocked down) twice by motor vehicles being driven on the pavement,
but I have never been struck by a bike being ridden on the pavement?


People who recognised you?

Perhaps you can answer the simple question which most on here refuse
to answer:

Will you agree that more pedestrians are hit by cyclists whilst
walking on a pavement compared to the number of those hit by a
vehicle?

If you don't *know* the answer - how about what do you think the most
likely answer is?

Alan Braggins wrote:
In article , Tony Dragon wrote:
So you agree with cyclist's breaking the law, glad we have established that.

Like pizza? Then why not join the non-sequitur appreciation society?

Can you point me to the relevant usenet group?

--
Tony the Dragon

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:49:47 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

So you agree with cyclist's breaking the law, glad we have established that.

Nope. I agree with removing the prime incentive for them to do so,
which also as it turns out is the major source of risk to
pedestrians (on or off the footway) and cyclists alike. You
probably didn't notice but I did point out that in many places
cycling on the footway is now perfectly legal, due to the
application of Magic White Paint (TM).

Note that in many places there are no footways, pedestrians are
forced to use the carriageway.

It is long past time that people stopped making excuses for motor
danger.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 08:33:16 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:02:05 +0000, JNugent
said in
:

Why not just "start" by arresting footway cyclists, fining them (heavily) and
crushing their bikes?

For the same reason that you don't treat a runny nose by nasal
amputation. It's a symptom, and not even a serious one as far as
the available evidence goes.

Guy


But perhaps if they were arrested then the magnitude of the problem
would become more apparent.

It is obvious that most accidents involving someone on a bike and a
pedestrian will not be reported to the police - whereas almost all
accidents involving a pedestrian and a motor vehicle *will* be
reported to the police.

There are no accurate stats for the number of cyclists who are
breaking the law by riding on the pavement. However - most - with
the exception of rabid cyclists - would suggest that the problem is
getting worse.

judith