Two thirds of fatal cycle crashes are the cyclist's fault

"Boris Johnson has caused outrage by accusing two-thirds of the cyclists
killed and seriously injured in London of causing the crashes by breaking
the laws of the road."

Good to hear the truth being spoken.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-7786179.html

On 25/05/2012 11:04, Mrcheerful wrote:

"Boris Johnson has caused outrage by accusing two-thirds of the cyclists
killed and seriously injured in London of causing the crashes by breaking
the laws of the road."

Good to hear the truth being spoken.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-7786179.html

Oddly enough, he doesn't "accuse" anyone.

He says (and I quote verbatim):

"I have seen a figure of I think 62 per cent... of cyclist KSIs [people
killed and seriously injured] are associated with some infraction by the
cyclist themselves of the rules of the road."

Only someone familiar with London but devoid of eyesights could possibly demur.

What possible good would it do for anyone, if blame were placed in the wrong
quarter?

Even more cyclists would set off tomorrow morning (OK, Monday) "safe" in the
"knowledge" that if they are involved in a collision, it can't possibly be
their fault.

BTW: "Mr Cavenett (?? - shrug) admitted that some cyclists do jump red lights
and commit other offences."

"Some"?

What a peculiar way to spell "the majority of".

On Friday, 25 May 2012 11:04:56 UTC+1, Mrcheerful wrote:
"Boris Johnson has caused outrage by accusing two-thirds of the cyclists
killed and seriously injured in London of causing the crashes by breaking
the laws of the road."

Good to hear the truth being spoken.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-7786179.html

He'll be pleased that one person in the world takes him seriously.

wrote:
On Friday, 25 May 2012 11:04:56 UTC+1, Mrcheerful wrote:
"Boris Johnson has caused outrage by accusing two-thirds of the
cyclists killed and seriously injured in London of causing the
crashes by breaking the laws of the road."

Good to hear the truth being spoken.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-7786179.html

He'll be pleased that one person in the world takes him seriously.

strange that the majority of voters think he is OK

On Friday, 25 May 2012 12:42:00 UTC+1, Mrcheerful wrote:
northwalesyorkie wrote:
On Friday, 25 May 2012 11:04:56 UTC+1, Mrcheerful wrote:
"Boris Johnson has caused outrage by accusing two-thirds of the
cyclists killed and seriously injured in London of causing the
crashes by breaking the laws of the road."

Good to hear the truth being spoken.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-7786179.html

He'll be pleased that one person in the world takes him seriously.

strange that the majority of voters think he is OK

No, a small majority of Londoners think he's not quite as bad as Ken Livingstone.

On May 25, 11:38*am, JNugent wrote:
On 25/05/2012 11:04, Mrcheerful wrote:

"Boris Johnson has caused outrage by accusing two-thirds of the cyclists
killed and seriously injured in London of causing the crashes by breaking
the laws of the road."
Good to hear the truth being spoken.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...shes-are-cycli...

Oddly enough, he doesn't "accuse" anyone.

He says (and I quote verbatim):

"I have seen a figure of I think 62 per cent... of cyclist KSIs [people
killed and seriously injured] are associated with some infraction by the
cyclist themselves of the rules of the road."

Only someone familiar with London but devoid of eyesights could possibly demur.

What possible good would it do for anyone, if blame were placed in the wrong
quarter?

Even more cyclists would set off tomorrow morning (OK, Monday) "safe" in the
"knowledge" that if they are involved in a collision, it can't possibly be
their fault.

BTW: "Mr Cavenett (?? - shrug) admitted that some cyclists do jump red lights
and commit other offences."

"Some"?

What a peculiar way to spell "the majority of".

Did you even look at his source for the "statistics"?
I give up, if even you can't be bothered.

"he had been "told it by a member of the public" at a mayoral hustings
meeting."
Jesus. He's the mayor, and allegedly a cyclist.

On 25/05/2012 18:15, Squashme wrote:

wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:

"Boris Johnson has caused outrage by accusing two-thirds of the cyclists
killed and seriously injured in London of causing the crashes by breaking
the laws of the road."
Good to hear the truth being spoken.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...shes-are-cycli...

Oddly enough, he doesn't "accuse" anyone.
He says (and I quote verbatim):

"I have seen a figure of I think 62 per cent... of cyclist KSIs [people
killed and seriously injured] are associated with some infraction by the
cyclist themselves of the rules of the road."

Only someone familiar with London but devoid of eyesights could possibly demur.
What possible good would it do for anyone, if blame were placed in the wrong
quarter?
Even more cyclists would set off tomorrow morning (OK, Monday) "safe" in the
"knowledge" that if they are involved in a collision, it can't possibly be
their fault.
BTW: "Mr Cavenett (?? - shrug) admitted that some cyclists do jump red lights
and commit other offences."
"Some"?
What a peculiar way to spell "the majority of".

Did you even look at his source for the "statistics"?
I give up, if even you can't be bothered.

"he had been "told it by a member of the public" at a mayoral hustings
meeting."
Jesus. He's the mayor, and allegedly a cyclist.

Which precise bit of what I quoted ("I have seen a figure of I think 62 per
cent... of cyclist KSIs [people killed and seriously injured] are associated
with some infraction by the cyclist themselves of the rules of the road") was
in any way quoted inaccurately?

You have missed the point *completely*.

There isn't a single word of "accusation" in it, yet it was reported -
falsely - as an "accusation".

And further down the article (clearly written as an attack on Boris) was a
grudging admission (admittedly from someone unimportant) that "some" cyclists
jump red lights and commit other offences.

The word "some" was a niggardly understatement. The correct proportion is
*well* in excess of 50%, as we all know. The less dishonest posters who
cannot bring themselves to deny that nevertheless still cannot admit the
sheer self-centredness of it - so they nowadays try to justify it on weasel
grounds (eg, "It's the only way to stay safe")

Come *on*...

On May 25, 7:52*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 25/05/2012 18:15, Squashme wrote:









*wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
"Boris Johnson has caused outrage by accusing two-thirds of the cyclists
killed and seriously injured in London of causing the crashes by breaking
the laws of the road."
Good to hear the truth being spoken.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...shes-are-cycli....
Oddly enough, he doesn't "accuse" anyone.
He says (and I quote verbatim):

"I have seen a figure of I think 62 per cent... of cyclist KSIs [people
killed and seriously injured] are associated with some infraction by the
cyclist themselves of the rules of the road."
Only someone familiar with London but devoid of eyesights could possibly demur.
What possible good would it do for anyone, if blame were placed in the wrong
quarter?
Even more cyclists would set off tomorrow morning (OK, Monday) "safe" in the
"knowledge" that if they are involved in a collision, it can't possibly be
their fault.
BTW: "Mr Cavenett (?? - shrug) admitted that some cyclists do jump red lights
and commit other offences."
"Some"?
What a peculiar way to spell "the majority of".
Did you even look at his source for the "statistics"?
I give up, if even you can't be bothered.
"he had been "told it by a member of the public" at a mayoral hustings
meeting."
Jesus. He's the mayor, and allegedly a cyclist.

Which precise bit of what I quoted ("I have seen a figure of I think 62 per
cent... of cyclist KSIs [people killed and seriously injured] are associated
with some infraction by the cyclist themselves of the rules of the road") was
in any way quoted inaccurately?

You have missed the point *completely*.

There isn't a single word of "accusation" in it, yet it was reported -
falsely - as an "accusation".

And further down the article (clearly written as an attack on Boris) was a
grudging admission (admittedly from someone unimportant) that "some" cyclists
jump red lights and commit other offences.

The word "some" was a niggardly understatement. The correct proportion is
*well* in excess of 50%, as we all know. The less dishonest posters who
cannot bring themselves to deny that nevertheless still cannot admit the
sheer self-centredness of it - so they nowadays try to justify it on weasel
grounds (eg, "It's the only way to stay safe")

Come *on*...

BJ "I have seen a figure of I think 62 per cent... of cyclist KSIs
[people
killed and seriously injured] are associated with some infraction by
the
cyclist themselves of the rules of the road."

"A spokesperson for the Mayor of London said: "When attending a recent
Mayoral hustings event the Mayor was told that figures indicated a
high proportion of cyclists killed or seriously injured were either
committing an offence or in the process of doing so. He has asked his
team to look into whether that statistic can be confirmed as part of
getting the most accurate assessment to tackle the issue
successfully.""

And you accept it as gospel.

And what does "either committing an offence or in the process of doing
so." mean?

On 26/05/2012 00:36, Squashme wrote:
On May 25, 7:52 pm, wrote:
On 25/05/2012 18:15, Squashme wrote:









wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
"Boris Johnson has caused outrage by accusing two-thirds of the cyclists
killed and seriously injured in London of causing the crashes by breaking
the laws of the road."
Good to hear the truth being spoken.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...shes-are-cycli...
Oddly enough, he doesn't "accuse" anyone.
He says (and I quote verbatim):

"I have seen a figure of I think 62 per cent... of cyclist KSIs [people
killed and seriously injured] are associated with some infraction by the
cyclist themselves of the rules of the road."
Only someone familiar with London but devoid of eyesights could possibly demur.
What possible good would it do for anyone, if blame were placed in the wrong
quarter?
Even more cyclists would set off tomorrow morning (OK, Monday) "safe" in the
"knowledge" that if they are involved in a collision, it can't possibly be
their fault.
BTW: "Mr Cavenett (?? - shrug) admitted that some cyclists do jump red lights
and commit other offences."
"Some"?
What a peculiar way to spell "the majority of".
Did you even look at his source for the "statistics"?
I give up, if even you can't be bothered.
"he had been "told it by a member of the public" at a mayoral hustings
meeting."
Jesus. He's the mayor, and allegedly a cyclist.

Which precise bit of what I quoted ("I have seen a figure of I think 62 per
cent... of cyclist KSIs [people killed and seriously injured] are associated
with some infraction by the cyclist themselves of the rules of the road") was
in any way quoted inaccurately?

You have missed the point *completely*.

There isn't a single word of "accusation" in it, yet it was reported -
falsely - as an "accusation".

And further down the article (clearly written as an attack on Boris) was a
grudging admission (admittedly from someone unimportant) that "some" cyclists
jump red lights and commit other offences.

The word "some" was a niggardly understatement. The correct proportion is
*well* in excess of 50%, as we all know. The less dishonest posters who
cannot bring themselves to deny that nevertheless still cannot admit the
sheer self-centredness of it - so they nowadays try to justify it on weasel
grounds (eg, "It's the only way to stay safe")

Come *on*...

BJ "I have seen a figure of I think 62 per cent... of cyclist KSIs
[people
killed and seriously injured] are associated with some infraction by
the
cyclist themselves of the rules of the road."

"A spokesperson for the Mayor of London said: "When attending a recent
Mayoral hustings event the Mayor was told that figures indicated a
high proportion of cyclists killed or seriously injured were either
committing an offence or in the process of doing so. He has asked his
team to look into whether that statistic can be confirmed as part of
getting the most accurate assessment to tackle the issue
successfully.""

And you accept it as gospel.

You are absolutely wrong.

The accuracy of the figures shown [by someone] to the Mayor of London is
neither here nor there.

I was commenting on the way that he (the Mayor) is alleged to have "accused"
someone of something.

The report contained no justification for such an allegation, as I'm sure
you'll agree. Boris accused no-one of anything.

And what does "either committing an offence or in the process of doing
so." mean?

You tell me.

But it doesn't sound good, does it?

If it applied to a dead driver, you'd say it was all his own fault, wouldn't you?

On May 25, 6:15*pm, Squashme wrote:
On May 25, 11:38*am, JNugent wrote:









On 25/05/2012 11:04, Mrcheerful wrote:

"Boris Johnson has caused outrage by accusing two-thirds of the cyclists
killed and seriously injured in London of causing the crashes by breaking
the laws of the road."
Good to hear the truth being spoken.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...shes-are-cycli....

Oddly enough, he doesn't "accuse" anyone.

He says (and I quote verbatim):

"I have seen a figure of I think 62 per cent... of cyclist KSIs [people
killed and seriously injured] are associated with some infraction by the
cyclist themselves of the rules of the road."

Only someone familiar with London but devoid of eyesights could possibly demur.

What possible good would it do for anyone, if blame were placed in the wrong
quarter?

Even more cyclists would set off tomorrow morning (OK, Monday) "safe" in the
"knowledge" that if they are involved in a collision, it can't possibly be
their fault.

BTW: "Mr Cavenett (?? - shrug) admitted that some cyclists do jump red lights
and commit other offences."

"Some"?

What a peculiar way to spell "the majority of".

Did you even look at his source for the "statistics"?
I give up, if even you can't be bothered.

"he had been "told it by a member of the public" at a mayoral hustings
meeting."
Jesus. He's the mayor, and allegedly a cyclist.

It says...

"He did not disclose the source of his figures at the meeting on
Wednesday."

I seem to remember reading or hearing somewhere that two thirds of
cyclist's KSIs are the fault of motorists. I can well believe it given
the relative vulnerability of both modes of transport. OTOH, I wonder
how many motorist's KSIs are caused by cyclists during a collision?

Boris is obviously shifting his stance in favour of the car-culture,
where he can expect most of his support to come from, and the recent
wide concerns shown about bad cycling provision in London must be
inconvenient for him.

-- .
A driving licence is sometimes a licence to kill.