School bicycle shed crammed with bikes.

On 09/10/2010 09:53, Tony Raven wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:

I do have issues with bad cycling, like the idiot who jumped a red
light at Waterloo yesterday & cycled between me & a man pushing a baby
buggy, we were on the crossing with the green man showing. The other
20 or so cyclists seemed happy to wait until the red had changed.

Yesterday going from Russell Square into Bernard St I had to cycle round
the LGV sat blocking the box junction on a red light

Whic is in most cases against the law.

and then had to
deal with lots of pedestrians crossing on a red man.

Although not against the law, they are at best, being inconsiderate.



The problem is that the few bad cyclists give a bad image for all
cyclists, it is the same for motorists.


Its not about image.

Only the latter cause any significant amount of death or serious injury.
In fact in London, motorists killed or seriously injured 1,055
pedestrians and 433 cyclists last year. That's about ten times the
number of people killed and seriously injured in the 7/7 bombings to put
it in perspective. About a quarter of those pedestrians were killed or
seriously injured on a pedestrian crossing and about 10% on the
pavement. You would struggle to find anyone killed or seriously injured
by a cyclist in London despite all the bluster here.

So the big difference is cyclists may annoy you but its almost certainly
only motorists who are going to kill or seriously injure you. That
asymmetry is the reason to focus on motorists getting their own house in
order before they start criticizing the minor annoyances of some
cyclists. Yet look at all the motorists here with their criticism
campaigns unwilling to accept the beams in their own eyes. Why do they
do it? Trying to assuage their own guilt by blaming someone else?

Tony

While what you say may be true, it was a cyclist that nearly ran me
down, not a motorist.
I have never had a motor drive through a crossing that I was using,
cyclists have done it more than once.
And that particular crossroad has more than its fair share of impatient,
anti social, law breaking cyclists.

--
Tony Dragon

Tony Raven wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:

I do have issues with bad cycling, like the idiot who jumped a red
light at Waterloo yesterday & cycled between me & a man pushing a
baby buggy, we were on the crossing with the green man showing. The
other 20 or so cyclists seemed happy to wait until the red had
changed.

Yesterday going from Russell Square into Bernard St I had to cycle
round the LGV sat blocking the box junction on a red light and then
had to deal with lots of pedestrians crossing on a red man.


The problem is that the few bad cyclists give a bad image for all
cyclists, it is the same for motorists.


Its not about image.

Only the latter cause any significant amount of death or serious
injury. In fact in London, motorists killed or seriously injured
1,055 pedestrians and 433 cyclists last year. That's about ten times
the number of people killed and seriously injured in the 7/7 bombings
to put it in perspective. About a quarter of those pedestrians were
killed or seriously injured on a pedestrian crossing and about 10% on
the pavement. You would struggle to find anyone killed or seriously
injured by a cyclist in London despite all the bluster here.

So the big difference is cyclists may annoy you but its almost
certainly only motorists who are going to kill or seriously injure
you. That asymmetry is the reason to focus on motorists getting
their own house in order before they start criticizing the minor
annoyances of some cyclists. Yet look at all the motorists here with
their criticism campaigns unwilling to accept the beams in their own
eyes. Why do they do it? Trying to assuage their own guilt by
blaming someone else?


1 fatality in 3,651,607,826 miles driven isn't a serious threat to cyclists.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike, like a skateboard, is
a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport.

On 09/10/2010 05:40, Doug wrote:
On 8 Oct, 20:18, Tom wrote:
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 19:36:37 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"

wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
"The Medway wrote:.

Oh. BTW. Its leased to give me the maximum tax advantage as an
allowable
business expense. Even more practical& intelligent.

So what do you drive the rest of the time? I do hope you are not
fiddling your taxes and are paying the appropriate benefit in kind tax
for private use of a business supplied vehicle and fuel.

Vauxhall Corsa owned by my missus.

So you're halfway to obtaining your dream of being a *true cyclist*,
as defined by Doug. You don't actually own a motor vehicle.

I wouldn't say halfway even. If he regularly and mainly uses a car at
all then he is just a "pretend cyclist". After all, we all know what
motorists think of cyclists don't we. This newsgroup is evidence
enough.

What about me Doug, am I a true cyclist?

On Oct 9, 8:08*am, Doug wrote:
On 9 Oct, 07:55, "mileburner" wrote:



Paul - xxx wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

I wouldn't say halfway even. If he regularly and mainly uses a car at
all then he is just a "pretend cyclist". After all, we all know what
motorists think of cyclists don't we. This newsgroup is evidence
enough.

********.

It would be interesting to know what motorists on the whole think of
cyclists. I find that in casual conversation views are quite polarised. On
one hand drivers respect us because they realise we are more vulnerable, on
the other hand there are those who think we are fair game to harrass and
intimidate.

No they don't respect us. They sometimes merely take care in our
presence because of the risk to their insurance premium and the
possibility of prosecution. Those that don't take care *can always use
the excuse that the vulnerable victim was to blame, which their
insurance company will support energetically, as will some of the
police who themselves are motorists..





But as a general rule on the roads, I find that most drivers pass wide,
drive courteously and offer mutual respect. It is only a very few who drive
as if they have an issue with cyclists get too close, pass too close and
generally drive as if they have had no training. Ironically, these tend to
be taxi drivers, van drivers, pick up drivers and those who are likely to
spend more time driving.

See above.

A cycling group is likely to attract those who do not cycle, but they have
issues about cycling. Hence we get rants from Medway, Cheerfull and the
dreaded JMS (not forgetting nuxxy but he only seems to pop in now and then,
under (yet another) fake ID, has a pop at Guy and then clears off again).
The others tend to be a lot more obsessed with cycling as a whole.
Therefore, the views on this group tend to be rather skewed from the norm.

You don't say? It reads more like a motoring group than a cycling
group.

Doug.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Complete rubbish! I would not wish to run down a cyclist, a pedestrian
or collide with another motorist when I am driving my car. Neither do
I wish to be knocked over by a motor vehicle when riding my bike.

This is called being part of a caring and responsible community, but
you (Doug) being a bitter and twisted vegan, motorist-hating,
anarchist wouldn't understand that principle!

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On 9 Oct, 07:55, "mileburner" wrote:

It would be interesting to know what motorists on the whole think of
cyclists. I find that in casual conversation views are quite polarised.
On
one hand drivers respect us because they realise we are more vulnerable,
on
the other hand there are those who think we are fair game to harrass and
intimidate.

No they don't respect us. They sometimes merely take care in our
presence because of the risk to their insurance premium and the
possibility of prosecution.

I think you need to remember that many of these motorists are cyclists too.
OK, not "pure" cyclists in the Doug sense (is Doug sense an oxymoron?) but
they understand and respect cycling because they cycle or know others who
cycle.

Those that don't take care can always use
the excuse that the vulnerable victim was to blame, which their
insurance company will support energetically, as will some of the
police who themselves are motorists..

They fall into two camps. Those who do not care and those who do not
understand. At least those who do not understand usually take some care but
those who do not care (often borne out of the fact that they do not
understand) are the real problem, but thankfully are the minority.

On 09/10/2010 10:19, Marc wrote:
On 09/10/2010 05:40, Doug wrote:
On 8 Oct, 20:18, Tom wrote:
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 19:36:37 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"

wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:
"The Medway wrote:.

Oh. BTW. Its leased to give me the maximum tax advantage as an
allowable
business expense. Even more practical& intelligent.

So what do you drive the rest of the time? I do hope you are not
fiddling your taxes and are paying the appropriate benefit in kind tax
for private use of a business supplied vehicle and fuel.

Vauxhall Corsa owned by my missus.

So you're halfway to obtaining your dream of being a *true cyclist*,
as defined by Doug. You don't actually own a motor vehicle.

I wouldn't say halfway even. If he regularly and mainly uses a car at
all then he is just a "pretend cyclist". After all, we all know what
motorists think of cyclists don't we. This newsgroup is evidence
enough.

What about me Doug, am I a true cyclist?


More to the point is that Doug is not a 'pure/true cyclist' due to the
form of transport he uses.

--
Tony Dragon

Tony Dragon wrote:

While what you say may be true, it was a cyclist that nearly ran me
down, not a motorist.
I have never had a motor drive through a crossing that I was using,
cyclists have done it more than once.
And that particular crossroad has more than its fair share of impatient,
anti social, law breaking cyclists.


And clearly not a risk to you. Nobody seems to have been killed or
injured on a pedestrian crossing by a cyclist - indeed its very rare to
find anyone at all who has been injured or killed by a cyclist at all.

If we're having a general gripe about Waterloo, I have never yet used
the green cycle path up the ramp without there being several people
walking in it. I have almost never been in the ASL box at the Waterloo
Bridge roundabout without it being filled with cars, taxis or buses.
And the transgression rate for that is far greater than the 1 cyclist in
20 that bothered you.

My journey last night had several people walking on the green cycle path
including one stood in the middle having a smoke, a 4x4 in the ASL, one
bus blocking the cycle lane off Waterloo Bridge onto Aldwych, one taxi
trying to pull into the kerb at Aldwych while alongside me, one car
turning right across my path on Southampton Row with a squeal of his
wheels because he knew he was chancing it, another pulling out in front
of me there and the truck blocking the box junction on Russell Square.

Would any of them have killed or injure me - very unlikely given. Were
they inconsiderate. Definitely. Am I going to go onto uk.wreck.driving
and whinge about it every time it happens. No.

You need to relax more and get on with life. Those few inconsiderate
cyclists are not going to kill or seriously injure you but that raised
blood pressure might.

Tony

P.S. the requirement is not that you do not drive through a crossing
with pedestrians on it - indeed I see drivers do just that all the time
as soon as the pedestrians have cleared their path. Its that you must
give way to them. You may consider a cyclist going in front of or
behind you as being inconsiderate but its not illegal. Just like those
pedestrians crossing on a red man in fact. Crossings with a red light
are different.

On 09/10/2010 11:22, Tony Raven wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:

While what you say may be true, it was a cyclist that nearly ran me
down, not a motorist.
I have never had a motor drive through a crossing that I was using,
cyclists have done it more than once.
And that particular crossroad has more than its fair share of
impatient, anti social, law breaking cyclists.


And clearly not a risk to you.

Well both me & the man pushing the buggy had to avoid the cyclist, so he
was clearly a risk to us.

Nobody seems to have been killed or
injured on a pedestrian crossing by a cyclist - indeed its very rare to
find anyone at all who has been injured or killed by a cyclist at all.

So does that make it OK?


If we're having a general gripe about Waterloo, I have never yet used
the green cycle path up the ramp without there being several people
walking in it. I have almost never been in the ASL box at the Waterloo
Bridge roundabout without it being filled with cars, taxis or buses. And
the transgression rate for that is far greater than the 1 cyclist in 20
that bothered you.

I will have to trust you about that, as I do not walk that way on my way
to work.


My journey last night had several people walking on the green cycle path
including one stood in the middle having a smoke,

Is that illegal, it is clearly stupid & incondiderate.

a 4x4 in the ASL,

Maybe illegal, maybe not, depends how & when he got there.

one
bus blocking the cycle lane off Waterloo Bridge onto Aldwych,

What sort of cycle lane?

one taxi
trying to pull into the kerb at Aldwych while alongside me,

A taxi, does this surprise you.

one car
turning right across my path on Southampton Row with a squeal of his
wheels because he knew he was chancing it, another pulling out in front
of me there and the truck blocking the box junction on Russell Square.

Again obviously idiots. (although there may be good reasons)


Would any of them have killed or injure me - very unlikely given. Were
they inconsiderate. Definitely. Am I going to go onto uk.wreck.driving
and whinge about it every time it happens. No.

My post was a reply to Mileburner's post asking what motorist think of
cyclists. You picked on an example I gave & missed the rest of my post
where I was clearly not whinging about cyclists.


You need to relax more and get on with life. Those few inconsiderate
cyclists are not going to kill or seriously injure you but that raised
blood pressure might.

When any vehicle comes on a collision course with me, I would expect my
blood pressure to rise, it's the bodies natural reaction.


Tony

P.S. the requirement is not that you do not drive through a crossing
with pedestrians on it - indeed I see drivers do just that all the time
as soon as the pedestrians have cleared their path. Its that you must
give way to them. You may consider a cyclist going in front of or behind
you as being inconsiderate but its not illegal. Just like those
pedestrians crossing on a red man in fact. Crossings with a red light
are different.

And the case I quoted was with a red light against traffic as I made
clear, so please do not attempt to misrepresent what I posted, it does
not seem to be your style.


--
Tony Dragon

On Sat, 09 Oct 2010 02:37:56 +0100, Phil W Lee
wrote:

"Simon Mason" considered Thu, 7 Oct
2010 12:46:32 +0100 the perfect time to write:


"Justin Lewis" wrote in message
. ..


Its not huge suppressed demand you ****, its voiciferous cyclist pressure
groups. Cycling acounts for only 2% ojourneys & push bikes are cheap as
chips - if more wanted to cycle they could - but they don't.
What research have you undertaken to support this conclusion?

It's was 12% of journeys around here in 2001 and in the next census it is
expected to be much higher.

Isn't it just commuting to work that was counted in the last census?


Don't ask him embarrassing questions.


--

Per billion passenger kilometres

Car KSI 18
Cycle KSI 541
Pedestrian 358

(KSI : Killed or Seriously Injured)
Dft 2008 FIgures

Who says cycling is safer than walking?

Tony Dragon wrote:
On 09/10/2010 11:22, Tony Raven wrote:

And clearly not a risk to you.

Well both me & the man pushing the buggy had to avoid the cyclist, so he
was clearly a risk to us.


Maybe a perceived risk but not a real risk. If it were a real risk we
would see it in the accident figures and we don't.


Nobody seems to have been killed or
injured on a pedestrian crossing by a cyclist - indeed its very rare to
find anyone at all who has been injured or killed by a cyclist at all.

So does that make it OK?


No, but it puts it in the annoyance rather than the danger category.


a 4x4 in the ASL,

Maybe illegal, maybe not, depends how & when he got there.

Well since every* time I have watched them pull into the ASL while I'm
waiting at the red light, definitely illegal. Should I post a complaint
to uk.wreck.driving every time it happens?

*I can say that because the phasing of the lights mean I always arrive
at the ASL on a red light before any motor vehicles.


one taxi
trying to pull into the kerb at Aldwych while alongside me,

A taxi, does this surprise you.

No. But should I whinge about it every time on uk.wreck.driving as many
many motorists feel the need to do here with cyclists?


My post was a reply to Mileburner's post asking what motorist think of
cyclists. You picked on an example I gave & missed the rest of my post
where I was clearly not whinging about cyclists.


I am not Mileburner so your post which started with

On 09/10/2010 09:53, Tony Raven wrote:

could only have been in reply to me. I think you are getting confused
with an earlier reply of yours.



And the case I quoted was with a red light against traffic as I made
clear, so please do not attempt to misrepresent what I posted, it does
not seem to be your style.


Do you exclusively use crossings with lights then because what you
actually said was:

I have never had a motor drive through a crossing that I was using, cyclists have done it more than once.

I added a caveat about red lights anyway so what's your problem?

Tony