Blockade of King's Cross

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 22:55:08 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

If the same thing happens with a cyclist, which is what we were talking
about, then if the cyclist has no insurance my only resort, to get any
form of support for the future is to sue the cyclist themselves and hope
that they are a very wealthy person and can provide for me.

Or that they are one of the substantial number that have insurance,
yes. The reason for this is that documented cases of serious injury
inflicted by cyclists on pedestrians, being provably the cyclist's
fault, are very rare.

Very rare? Might that be an error of documentation rather than of
risk?

I think it unlikely that a significant cause of serious injury would
escape attention, especially given the determination of some parties
to paint cyclists as the modern version of Khan's invading hordes. You
appear to be multiplying hypotheses.

The likelihood is that they are not wealthy, so we both loose out. I
live poorer life than was planned and they are bankrupt and face living
the rest of their life with the thought that they have destroyed someone
else's.

No, the *likelihood* is that it doesn't happen at all.
Actuarially,this does not appear to be a significant concern, however
vivid individual incidents may appear to be.

How many "individual incidents" do you want before doing anything?

It depends on the individual incidents. Mostly the ones we hear are
along the lines of my Grandfather's tale of the day he was nearly
killed by a lorry. He assured us all that if he had not seen it,
stopped,and pushed his bike around the lorry on the footway, then he'd
surely have been killed when it started moving.

Rather like the invisible cyclists that drivers nearly don't see. It
doesn't make it clever or right, but the terms in which the problem is
stated generally include gross inflation of the risk.

We've already established that you have no credible data showing a
meaningful scale of problem requiring to be fixed,and proving that the
fault lies with cyclists (normally not at fault in road collisions)
not pedestrians (normally at fault in road collisions).

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 22:33:29 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:

Something tells me that neither number is large enough to form a
matter of significant public concern.

Unless of course you are the one on the receiving end.

i.e. the fallacy of misleading vividness, yes.

Quite objective & quantifiable, it can be seen most days on my journey
to work, the police must think the same, they turn up about once every
two weeks to catch such cyclists.

You really do need to look at the difference in meaning between the
words "objective" and "subjective". While you're at it, do compare
"evidence" and "anecdote" and note that the former is not the plural
of the latter.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:57:25 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:


snip



So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by
a three year old on a tricycle in a public space?


Some people would apply common sense and say that the insurance is only
required for those aged 14 and above.

But then of course - that would preclude you.

I despair that you are supposed to be able to teach children.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:39:39 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:57:25 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:


snip



So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by
a three year old on a tricycle in a public space?


Some people would apply common sense and say that the insurance is only
required for those aged 14 and above.

Why 14?

But then of course - that would preclude you.

I despair that you are supposed to be able to teach children.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:45:17 -0000, "Mr Pounder"
wrote:


"The Revd" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 17:41:22 -0000, "Mr Pounder"
wrote:


"Paul Clarke" wrote in message
...
On Dec 28, 1:46 am, Tom Crispin wrote:
Onpassing the following from Bikes Alive ]:

=====================

Dear fellow cyclists

As you will be aware, cyclists and other non-motorised road users
continue to suffer death and injury (not to mention being delayed,
poisoned and terrorised) by the selfish, anti-social (and frequently
illegal) behaviour of motorists.

There is no reason for much of the traffic in urban areas, other than
(in the case of cars) the selfishness of the drivers concerned. The
situation on major roads and at major junctions in London is
exacerbated by the policy of Transport for London, which prioritises
the speed and volume of motor vehicles above the safety and sanity of
everyone else.

Polite meetings and symbolic action are having no effect. We need to
act. The time has surely come for non-motorised road users to
(nonviolently) defend ourselves.

There is a plan (which you might already have seen leaflets about) for
large numbers of cyclists and pedestrians to be at the lethal junction
at Kings Cross (where York Way meets Pentonville Road and Euston Road)
at 6pm on Monday 9 January. According to taste, cyclists can ride very
slowly round the one-way system, or simply not move at all for an
hour. Pedestrians could cross the road very slowly - or simply block
the road completely.

If we succeeded in at least calming - and perhaps stopping - the
traffic for an hour, would TfL finally change their priorities? If
not, we could return for an hour every week until they did. (And then
we could target another dangerous junction...)

For more details of this plan, see bikesalive.wordpress.com; or e-mail
.

SO:

1) Will your group at least publicise this plan to your
members/contacts, whether or not you can officially support it?

2) Will your group publicly announce its support for this action?

3) Are there individuals who would help with the planning and
preparation of the action?

4) Do you have any comments or questions?

Whatever your answer to these four points, if you have any interest in
active resistance to the tyranny of motor vehicles in urban areas,
please respond to this e-mail.

Many thanks. __._,_.___

======================

I would not in any way support the deliberate obstrauction of the
highway at King's Cross. Instead I will choose to make a leisure ride
around the King's Cross gyratory several times at 6pm on Monday 9th
January. I will not be happy if fellow road users obstruct my proposed
journey. I find black cab drivers to be the worst offenders in this
respect. They should be barred from bus/cycle/motorcycle lanes.


Those that live in the ****e hole of the south deserve all they get.



In the meantime, the typical self righteous London cyclist will
continue to ride through red lights, across pedestrian crossings
where pedestrians have priority, ride the wrong way down one way
streets, ignore no entry signs, ride on the pavement, weave
dangerously between traffic relying on other road users to get them
out of trouble, etc.

Especially if he's black.

On a Zebra crossing ...

They're more difficult to see on a Zebra crossing than white people.

On 29/12/2011 10:31, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 22:33:29 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:

Something tells me that neither number is large enough to form a
matter of significant public concern.

Unless of course you are the one on the receiving end.

i.e. the fallacy of misleading vividness, yes.

Quite objective& quantifiable, it can be seen most days on my journey
to work, the police must think the same, they turn up about once every
two weeks to catch such cyclists.

You really do need to look at the difference in meaning between the
words "objective" and "subjective". While you're at it, do compare
"evidence" and "anecdote" and note that the former is not the plural
of the latter.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.


When I gave evidence in court about a hit & run rider a few years ago,
that evidence was anecdotal.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:30:43 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:

When I gave evidence in court about a hit & run rider a few years ago,
that evidence was anecdotal.

Correct, and it was I am sure combined with physical evidence to give
an overall picture. The collection and analysis of data is what
constitutes evidence in the scientific sense.

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:29:30 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 22:55:08 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:
snip

Did you know that more than half the accidents involving cyclists are the fault
of the cyclist?

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:26:38 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:39:39 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:57:25 +0000, Tom Crispin
wrote:


snip



So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by
a three year old on a tricycle in a public space?


Some people would apply common sense and say that the insurance is only
required for those aged 14 and above.

Why 14?


Why not? Do you have a better suggestion?

(Sorry - I should of course have said "sensible suggestion")

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:29:30 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 22:55:08 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

Very rare? Might that be an error of documentation rather than of
risk?

I think it unlikely that a significant cause of serious injury would
escape attention, especially given the determination of some parties
to paint cyclists as the modern version of Khan's invading hordes.

They may not escape attention, they most certainly escape from being
recorded in a useful way. For example, the Stats 19 collision
accident report is used as a major source of accident data and is
"analysed nationally by reference to a great variety of
characteristics and attendant circumstances and the results are used
extensively for research work and for guidance in the improvement of
road safety in relation to roads, road users, vehicles and traffic
movement. The data also form the basis for annual statistics on road
accidents and casualties published by DfT, the Scottish Executive (SE)
and the National Assembly for Wales (NAfW). Local authorities also
publish similar statistics data"

(Stats 20 Notes on Stats 19)

This data is often used to "prove" cyclists have few accidents yet
has been shown in several studies comparing hospital admissions to
Stats 19 data to substantially under report cyclist accidents.
Moreover, accidents between cyclists and pedestrians which take place
on cycle tracks with no lawful access for motor vehicles are
specifically excluded from Stats 10 as are accidents involving
cyclists and pedestrians on footpaths, car parks, shopping parks and
pedestrian malls. Rather unfortunately this is where many such
accidents seem to occur.

How many "individual incidents" do you want before doing anything?

It depends on the individual incidents. Mostly the ones we hear are
along the lines of my Grandfather's tale of the day he was nearly
killed by a lorry.

I think you are getting confused by Mr Masons tales of cycling to
work.

We've already established that you have no credible data showing a
meaningful scale of problem requiring to be fixed,

The only reliable data at all when it comes to cycling accidents is
the data showing the recorded figures are wildly inaccurate.

and proving that the
fault lies with cyclists (normally not at fault in road collisions)
not pedestrians (normally at fault in road collisions).

Most cyclists are also drivers and pedestrians. Yet they make many
mistakes when driving, and many when walking, but few when cycling.
Doesn't that sound a bit improbable?