Cyclist hit and runs - what is the answer?



p.k. <[email protected]> wrote:

> > You know, in a cycling newsgroup, I would have thought the idea that
> > the road users who pose most danger should take most care would be
> > uncontroversial.

> if that is at the expence of intellectual honesty you forfeit any right to
> credibility when taking arguemnts out into the wider world. Anyone tracking
> your contibutions from (say) the bbc web site to here might well have
> question posed in their mind as to the balance behind your arguments there.

You do keep saying that. It's almost as if you are looking for an
excuse to dismiss opinions which conflict with yours.

Meanwhile back in the real world I'm still waiting for some actual
evidence that lighting increases safety, despite my long-standing and
enthusiastic advocacy of lights.

--
Guy
 
p.k. <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Oh, by the way - you forgot to cite any evidence that use of lights
> > makes cyclists safer. Lots of us would love to see some as backup for
> > our often-stated recommendation to adopt full Christmas tree mode when
> > riding at night.

Still waiting for those citations.

> > You also failed to address a salient point: that Pete Longbottom was
> > held 50% to blame because his light was not legal, whereas now it
> > would presumably be 100% the driver's fault as the light is now legal.

> Too much red wine, guy?

Nope. Real case, well documented.

> Stop gibbering!

Translation: you can't address the issues raised.

--
Guy
 
James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:

> You must spend a lot of time there, given all the vandespam you put in
> sci.environment :) (at least you used to - you are actually in my kf on
> that group).

He's hilarious, he's been destroyed with reference to his own data so
many times now that it's getting much too easy and I rarely bother any
more :)

--
Guy
 
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:03:48 +0000, [email protected] (Just zis Guy, you
know?) wrote:

>Jim Ley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >So: the *fact* as documented by Howard and others is that the "problem"
>> >as you put it is actually *decreasing*, not increasing, despite the
>> >number of pavements designated as shared use in the last decade.
>
>> Shared use facilities remove the incidents on them from the statistics
>> quoted in this thread...
>
>Really? And you can prove that, can you?

Er, the definition of the statistics was pavement cycling, if the
cyclists are allowed there, then it's no longer pavement cycling, so
not covered by the statistics... What's there to prove?

>> Er, they certainly do,
>>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040616/tex
>t/40616w02.htm
>> shows 53 seriously injured people in incidents between 1999 and 2002,
>> that's certainly a risk, and I would certainly say it's an unusual
>> one.
>
>Per mile cyclists pose less risk than drivers,

I believe they pose less risk than rampaging elephants too, which is
as equally relevant to the debate.

Jim.
ing, so not covered by the statistics... What's there to prove?

>> Er, they certainly do,
>>http://www.publications.pp
\F
Subject: Re: shortest points between controls on AUK rides
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:22:38 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
X-Attachment:
X-Original-From: Dave Kahn <[email protected]>
X-Agent
 
Jim Ley wrote:
>
> Er, the definition of the statistics was pavement cycling, if the
> cyclists are allowed there, then it's no longer pavement cycling, so
> not covered by the statistics... What's there to prove?
>

But they are still....errr......pavements they are cycling on.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
Jim Ley <[email protected]> wrote:

> Your repeated failure to condemn, and your repeated attempts to
> justify their behaviour to due a "lack of evidence" that their
> behaviour causes a risk, certainly reads like defending to me and
> others.

Just because we don't choose to join in with what TRL characterise as
"the psychological targeting of an out group" (of which group we happen
to be members) does not mean we support those cyclists who ride on the
pavement, whether it's legal in that place or not. Most of us strongly
advise against it, even where it is granted the legal fig-leaf of a bit
of white paint. Some of us have even been subjected to low-level road
rage attacks as a result of /failing/ to ride on the pavement - seems we
can't win!.

On the other hand, even the DfT recognises that many cyclists are on the
pavement out of "genuine fear of traffic".

Same with lights. I think there is probably not a single one of us here
who would either ride at night unlit, or advocate riding unlit. We
spend fortunes on lights. I spend more on lights for each bike than
most people spend on whole bikes. I was even invited by DfT to
contribute to their consultation on revisions to the lighting regs. But
that does not mean that we accept the implicit transfer of
responsibility from driver to cyclist, as CTC noted when compulsory rear
lights were first introduced.

Just because we believe rear lights are a good thing (albeit without the
benefit of any evidence at this stage) does not mean we accept that it
becomes our fault if a driver fails to drive within the distance they
can see to be clear.

It's not as if this is the first time we've been round this particular
loop. The same arguments come out each time; nobody has yet produced
a satisfactory explanation of the essential physical difference between
an unlit cyclist and an unlit pedestrian, tree or animal. Especially
since the majority of unlit cyclists are on well-lit urban roads,
whereas the highest risk to cyclists is on country roads where motor
traffic drives fast, often failing to recognise that the distance you
can see to be clear on country roads at night is substantially less than
during the day, which doesn't apply to anythign like the same degree on
urban roads. Nor has anybody ever provided a satisfactory physical
distinction between "dangerous" pavements and "perfectly safe" pavements
with a line of white paint on them.

If you want me - or anybody here - to stand up and advocate lights and
keeping off the pavement you will be pushing at an open door, I think.

Ask us to extend that to blanket condemnation of those who do it,
without recognising the possible motives and the real source of danger,
and as you've noticed you face an uphill struggle.

I suppose it's a bit like the old Christian doctrine of "hate the sin,
love the sinner".

--
Guy
 
Jim Ley <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> Shared use facilities remove the incidents on them from the statistics
> >> quoted in this thread...
> >Really? And you can prove that, can you?
> Er, the definition of the statistics was pavement cycling, if the
> cyclists are allowed there, then it's no longer pavement cycling, so
> not covered by the statistics... What's there to prove?

And you can prove that, can you? That these pavements were not
designated shared-use? Because I can't actually see anything in the
Hansard answers or stats which justifies that assumption.

> >Per mile cyclists pose less risk than drivers,
> I believe they pose less risk than rampaging elephants too, which is
> as equally relevant to the debate.

You see a lot of rampaging elephants round your way do you? I find cars
a bit more common, but then I live in Reading, which is a notoriously
dull town...

--
Guy
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> You see a lot of rampaging elephants round your way do you?

But if they are pink it would explain a lot ;-)

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
in message <1h8g923.1itm6se1oyox7tN%[email protected]>, Just zis Guy, you know?
('[email protected]') wrote:

<scythe>

Guy, I'm sorry, I appreciate that you often do have exceedingly positive
and useful things to post. But this persistent troll feeding has become
trollish in itself, so it's the killfile for you.

Apologies again.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If God does not write LISP, God writes some code so similar to
;; LISP as to make no difference.
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:

> Guy, I'm sorry, I appreciate that you often do have exceedingly positive
> and useful things to post. But this persistent troll feeding has become
> trollish in itself, so it's the killfile for you.

Not that you'll see this, but p.k. is not a troll.

Kill the thread if it bothers you..

--
Guy
 
On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 07:34:22 +0000 (UTC), "p.k."
<[email protected]> said in
<[email protected]>:

>If you can't cope with a departure from the Group Orthodoxy and
>an attempt to balance discussion by challenge to some unreasonable parts of
>said Orthodoxy, that is your problem.

Hmmm. That rather presumes that you are right and the rest of the
group wrong. Which is possible, but not terribly likely given that
the group includes people like Tony Raven.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 21:55:07 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
> said in <[email protected]>:
>
>> Is there no brain to intercede between your eyes and your fingers then?
>
> Precious little sometimes, I'm afraid. Especially when the Dosulepin
> kicks in.
>

Sorry to hear you need it. Keep well

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 00:31:15 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
said in <[email protected]>:

[ob. Dosulepin]
>Sorry to hear you need it. Keep well

Garden-variety anxiety depression, no big deal most of the time but
sometimes completely overwhelming.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 00:31:15 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
> said in <[email protected]>:
>
> [ob. Dosulepin]
>>Sorry to hear you need it. Keep well
>
> Garden-variety anxiety depression, no big deal most of the time but
> sometimes completely overwhelming.
>
> Guy

Such is the nature of the beast. It can be a b*gg*r to deal with. Hoping you
have success dealing with it, Guy.

Cheers, helen s
 
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 23:28:20 +0000, p.k. wrote:

>
>
> Being at risk of being killed by a car on the pavement in Wimbledon town
> centre is a non issue. Having to avoid cyclists on the pavement in
> Wimbledon town centre (as they choose the pavement rather than following
> the one way road system) is an every day issue.

Perhaps, then, something needs to be done, for instance allowing cyclists
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Cyclist is killed in hit-and-run
Replies
0
Views
480
UK and Europe
Alex Potter
A
A
Cyclist hit by car - advice please
Replies
33
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Dave Larrington
D
W
Cyclist victim of bus hit-and-run
Replies
1
Views
465
UK and Europe
Tony Raven
T
A
BBC - Cyclist Chased & Hit by Police car
Replies
35
Views
2K
UK and Europe
TooSore
TooSore
I
pedestrian hit by cyclist
Replies
6
Views
508
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
Top Bottom Back