Author Topic: DOTD  (Read 92880 times)

Re: DOTD
« Reply #400 on: November 12, 2015, 08:58:39 pm »
The POBs with no lights who ride on psyclepaths, taking random sides.  FFS get some blinkies and keep left.  Also, the peds who invariably walk on the bike side and mobile phone users who can't even hear the ringing of a bell.  I had to tap one such phone user on the shoulder to clear a path on the way home and even then I'm not sure she really noticed, although she did move.  Cycle paths just don't work.
Never tell me the odds.

Kim

  • 2nd in the world
Re: DOTD
« Reply #401 on: November 12, 2015, 09:08:06 pm »
Shared-use paths don't work.

Cycle paths I'm suspending judgement on until I actually meet one...
To ride the Windcheetah, first, you must embrace the cantilever...

Re: DOTD
« Reply #402 on: November 13, 2015, 10:01:42 am »
This is one shared-use I use, and it's fine, because the number of pedestrians is low.  Do occasionally meet the oblivious runners with headphones though...
"an inordinate fondness for beetles"

Guy

  • Left-Wing Moonbat Green NAZI
Re: DOTD
« Reply #403 on: November 19, 2015, 11:11:24 am »
Chap on a hybrid with bright red light on the back of his lid, a bright red light on the back of his rucksack, a bright flashy red light on his seat pillar, and a bright flashy red light on the back fork. Don't you think a front light might come in handy at that undogly hour on a cloudy dark morning?
What duck?

Re: DOTD
« Reply #404 on: November 19, 2015, 11:15:12 am »
Talking of effing runners, walking across Hammersmith Bridge the other night and one decided Mrs Ham was in his way so pushed her aside. Unfortunately behind me and I didn't notice otherwise I think I might have provided a more immovable barrier to progress. I vote runners can be included in DOTD, as they likely have at least the lycra and road bike at home.

Guy

  • Left-Wing Moonbat Green NAZI
Re: DOTD
« Reply #405 on: November 19, 2015, 11:25:04 am »
I vote runners can be included in DOTD, as they likely have at least the lycra and road bike at home.
Seconded
What duck?

Kim

  • 2nd in the world
Re: DOTD
« Reply #406 on: November 19, 2015, 01:37:10 pm »
Nahh, runners are obviously poor people who can't afford bicycles.
To ride the Windcheetah, first, you must embrace the cantilever...

Re: DOTD
« Reply #407 on: November 19, 2015, 01:45:14 pm »
I doubt non- runners & cyclists distinguish, we're probably all yoghurt knitting health freaks to them.  Your bullying runner blends right in with those red light jumpers.

I reckon shared use isn't so bad, IF there is plenty of space for all the users.  Not as fast as blasting down the road if you have to share with people on foot.  Then again it sometimes isn't as fast to drive the car when sharing the road with lorries. & cyclists.

Re: DOTD
« Reply #408 on: November 25, 2015, 01:56:35 pm »

Re: DOTD
« Reply #409 on: November 25, 2015, 02:09:55 pm »
I really dislike sugar, but he is making a valid point. His "99%" figure is obviously wrong, but suggesting avoiding going down the inside of large vehicles, etc, is sensible.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Re: DOTD
« Reply #410 on: November 25, 2015, 02:12:30 pm »
He's got a point. Reading the road and surrounding hazards will reduce accidents. That works whatever mode of transport you use including your feet.

I seriously doubt that it would eliminate 99% of accidents though. Maybe (moistens finger and sticks it in the air) 10 to 20%.

99%? Not a chance. Years of bimbling up and down the M1 on a motorcycle made me super-aware of what most drivers were going to do before they signalled - but some remained unpredictable.
We have two ears and one mouth for a reason. We should do twice as much listening as talking.

Re: DOTD
« Reply #411 on: November 25, 2015, 02:37:12 pm »
It's all fine being more aware of my situation and believe me I am!! It's the other roads users that aren't aware of THEIR situations which makes it dangerous for everyone. Lord Sugar is wrong to put all the onus onto cyclists.

red marley

Re: DOTD
« Reply #412 on: November 25, 2015, 02:46:19 pm »
No-one's going to object to showing good awareness on the roads being a desirable thing.

But it is wrong to suggest that (a) lack of awareness from cyclists is a principal factor in incidents; (b) that everyone bears equal responsibility to improve their awareness.

The former is supported by analysis of incidents - see, for example http://road.cc/content/news/83104-two-thirds-cyclist-injuries-following-collisions-motor-vehicle-due-driver-says
The latter is the basis for a presumed liability approach to managing responsibility and effecting behaviour change, which recognises as a principle that those with the greatest capacity to do harm are the ones that have the greatest responsibility to avoid that harm.

Re: DOTD
« Reply #413 on: November 25, 2015, 03:54:28 pm »
There is a world of difference between blaming cyclists and saying that if you choose to take extra care you can avoid most accidents.

You certainly can while driving.

Just because you might have been able to avoid an accident by using extra skill does not make it your fault if a driver piles into you.


Re: DOTD
« Reply #414 on: November 25, 2015, 04:28:03 pm »
Lord Beardface of Hackney is a contemptible maggot. If he reckons 99% of RTCs were down to a fault on the part of the rider then with 16 deaths a year you only have to find 2 blameless riders to show the absurdly self-important gobshite is talking pants. The majority of riders were blameless. Risky or illegal cycling is a factor in just 6% of KSI RTCs, Sugar claims almost the opposite of the reality. He's a slime-ball Murdock spiv with "Lord Sugar" written across his crossbar, the stupid big penis. 

Regulator

  • Got a thing for rubber...
Re: DOTD
« Reply #415 on: November 25, 2015, 04:37:15 pm »
JUst wonder what goes through some peoples heads at times.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34584344

One side of the story... which smells a bit fishy.
Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

Re: DOTD
« Reply #416 on: November 25, 2015, 04:54:33 pm »
Lord Beardface of Hackney is a contemptible maggot. If he reckons 99% of RTCs were down to a fault on the part of the rider then with 16 deaths a year you only have to find 2 blameless riders to show the absurdly self-important gobshite is talking pants. The majority of riders were blameless. Risky or illegal cycling is a factor in just 6% of KSI RTCs, Sugar claims almost the opposite of the reality. He's a slime-ball Murdock spiv with "Lord Sugar" written across his crossbar, the stupid big penis.

Not a big fan of him then?

Re: DOTD
« Reply #417 on: November 25, 2015, 05:27:46 pm »


Ghastly man. Nasty, ignorant victim-blaming from..why's he talking about cycling anyway? What's it got to do with beard face, he doesn't cycle in London cos a driver takes him everywhere. Suddenly he's laying the law down about stuff he knows squit about.

Re: DOTD
« Reply #418 on: November 25, 2015, 05:58:51 pm »
Lord Beardface of Hackney is a contemptible maggot. If he reckons 99% of RTCs were down to a fault on the part of the rider then with 16 deaths a year you only have to find 2 blameless riders to show the absurdly self-important gobshite is talking pants. The majority of riders were blameless. Risky or illegal cycling is a factor in just 6% of KSI RTCs, Sugar claims almost the opposite of the reality. He's a slime-ball Murdock spiv with "Lord Sugar" written across his crossbar, the stupid big penis.

Not a big fan of him then?


Ghastly man. Nasty, ignorant victim-blaming from..why's he talking about cycling anyway? What's it got to do with beard face, he doesn't cycle in London cos a driver takes him everywhere. Suddenly he's laying the law down about stuff he knows squit about.

I think that'd be a "no."   ;D
We have two ears and one mouth for a reason. We should do twice as much listening as talking.

Re: DOTD
« Reply #419 on: November 26, 2015, 08:40:47 am »
Lord Beardface of Hackney is a contemptible maggot. If he reckons 99% of RTCs were down to a fault on the part of the rider then with 16 deaths a year you only have to find 2 blameless riders to show the absurdly self-important gobshite is talking pants. The majority of riders were blameless. Risky or illegal cycling is a factor in just 6% of KSI RTCs, Sugar claims almost the opposite of the reality. He's a slime-ball Murdock spiv with "Lord Sugar" written across his crossbar, the stupid big penis.
Oh ffs

yes, he's a contemptible maggot.

However, he did not say that RTCs were the fault of the cyclist. He pretty much said the OPPOSITE!
The thrust of what he was saying was that all cyclists should assume that all car (drivers) near them are trying to kill them, and that hence they should ride very very defensively.

Sugar cycles a lot and at a heck of a speed, according to cycling weekly journalists who have ridden with him.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Re: DOTD
« Reply #420 on: November 26, 2015, 09:38:06 am »
He said:

Quote
"as long as you have that philosophy when you’re riding your bike in central London, I think 99 per cent of the accidents that occurred would have been avoided.”

Which is complete bollocks and implies that the dead or injured cyclists only had to follow his stupid advice to avoid the collision. the reality is almost the complete opposite, the cyclist's behaviour is rarely the causal factor. He's explicitly saying that the cyclists in collisions could have followed his advice and been ok. He doesn't cycle in London. He claimed his split helmet was proof they work. He has form for flapping his gums about stuff he knows nothing about and it gets press attention because in this country it's assumed that celebrities are sources of wisdom. It's all dangerous stuff, the LTDA got wind of the Standard poll and have flooded it with votes saying the undertaking cyclist was at fault in that collision. Mmmm, so cabbies are anxious to blame cyclists for collisions, and self-important windbag Sugar declares that he has the answer to road safety, and it's CYCLISTS TAKE CARE.

Re: DOTD
« Reply #421 on: November 26, 2015, 09:51:11 am »
He could, and should, have equally easily said : -

Quote
And as long as you have that philosophy when you’re riding your bike driving your vehicle in central London, I think 99 per cent of the accidents that occurred would have been avoided.
Rust never sleeps

Re: DOTD
« Reply #422 on: November 26, 2015, 10:00:05 am »
He said:

Quote
"as long as you have that philosophy when you’re riding your bike in central London, I think 99 per cent of the accidents that occurred would have been avoided.”

Which is complete bollocks and implies that the dead or injured cyclists only had to follow his stupid advice to avoid the collision. the reality is almost the complete opposite, the cyclist's behaviour is rarely the causal factor. He's explicitly saying that the cyclists in collisions could have followed his advice and been ok. He doesn't cycle in London. He claimed his split helmet was proof they work. He has form for flapping his gums about stuff he knows nothing about and it gets press attention because in this country it's assumed that celebrities are sources of wisdom. It's all dangerous stuff, the LTDA got wind of the Standard poll and have flooded it with votes saying the undertaking cyclist was at fault in that collision. Mmmm, so cabbies are anxious to blame cyclists for collisions, and self-important windbag Sugar declares that he has the answer to road safety, and it's CYCLISTS TAKE CARE.

You do realise that your rant about Sugar says more about you than it does about him?

That's bye the bye. Let's try it with driving.

Do you think that it is true that when driving, with application of skill you can significantly change the probability of being involved in  a road traffic accident? That by developing and applying observational and positional techniques you can ensure for the most part that if an accident happens you won't be involved? It's true whether you believe it or not. You may choose to read that as "if you have an accident it is then your own fault", personally I wouldn't because while more people would be capable of developing those techniques many probably aren't. For example, if a car joins a motorway and ploughs into the side of someone driving along happily in the inside lane, it isn't the fault of the driver of that car as he has right of way. However, I'd like to think it wouldn't have happened to me, as either (a) I wouldn't have been in that lane or (b) I would have been alert to the possibility at that position of risk.

It's the same with bikes.

Re: DOTD
« Reply #423 on: November 26, 2015, 10:10:32 am »
If the Oddjob freak had said the answer is for EVERYONE to take care it would have been helpful, but because he pulled that 99% statistic right out of his stupid Hackney arse he reinforces victim-blaming. Being "situationally aware" doesn't work against lorry drivers playing with phones.

Re: DOTD
« Reply #424 on: November 26, 2015, 11:31:20 am »
If the Oddjob freak had said the answer is for EVERYONE to take care it would have been helpful, but because he pulled that 99% statistic right out of his stupid Hackney arse he reinforces victim-blaming. Being "situationally aware" doesn't work against lorry drivers playing with phones.

Unfortunately the only person that I know  who will listen to what I say is me, and even he doesn't sometimes. So, "Everyone Take Care" is aspirational, but bloody useless at keeping me alive.

And I'm afraid that being situationally aware DOES work against lorry drivers playing with phones. Not in all circumstances in all ways, but in most of those circumstances that I have observed or read about resulting in cyclist injury it does.

Take the case of the lorry that turned left at Holborn, from the wrong position in the road. The cyclist crushed against the railings was not at fault in the slightest, but if they had observed the signal (which the lorry was actually making) they could have chosen not have been where they were.

You CAN ride to keep yourself alive, it doesn't make it your fault if you fail to do so.