mattleonard Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Thats interesting, so you consider an opinion from an home secretary about cycling to be a dictate to the police  Well, it is when it's a dictate to the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 In other words, no, fair enough if the so called "facts" dont exist im sure you can always invent them. So you think that I already know the obvious "facts" but for some reason I just want to irritate you by asking for them? Well I dont, and I admit it, otherwise I wouldnt have asked for them, but I gather from your reply you dont have them either  Here you go: a report on cyclists' safety in numbers with references to the research it's based on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squiggs Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 You don't have to cycle on the pavement/busy shared path - you can get off your bike and walk with it to get round a dangerous section. Why put pedestrians at risk simply to arrive at your destination a minute or two earlier? That is as bad as the drivers who make bad overtaking manoeuvres around cyclists to make their progress a tiny bit quicker. Â My comment is on the infrastructure. When a driver has to get out and push because of the infrastructure, then you have a point. Until then, you don't. Â Also you will notice that I chose to use the road instead. In highlighting that the cycle path was poor, I suggested that the road was the better place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 So presumably we can assume that all your ignorant, irrational posts are "obvs just bants" then.  If you like, but my other posts only related to the significant minority (borderline majority) of cyclists that run red lights, which I backed up with not one, but two studies which found this to be the case. Yes of course car drivers run red lights too, I see that often too, but proportionately it is much lower.  So, my answer posed in the title to this thread, is that the animosity is down to the very real perception that so many cyclists choose to ignore such a fundamental rule of the road. I'm sorry if you or anyone else don't like that!  ---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 21:55 ----------  I guess you didn't notice the join date? You're finding enough time to post on here yourself...  I did notice the join date. Your average posts per day is still phenomenal and you clearly spend a LOT of time on here. This is none of my business, unless you work in a public sector job, which you've confirmed you don't. So, as I said, if you're self employed and can afford to spend so much time on an internet forum and looking out of the window studying cars, good on you, a nice cushy number! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteM01 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 My comment is on the infrastructure. When a driver has to get out and push because of the infrastructure, then you have a point. Until then, you don't.  Bicycles are simple to dismount and push; if you are not capable of that, you probably shouldn't be riding around on one, on road, or off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) Bicycles are simple to dismount and push; if you are not capable of that, you probably shouldn't be riding around on one, on road, or off.  Wasn't this about on a shared section of pavement though?  ---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 22:16 ----------  In other words, no, fair enough if the so called "facts" dont exist im sure you can always invent them. So you think that I already know the obvious "facts" but for some reason I just want to irritate you by asking for them? Well I dont, and I admit it, otherwise I wouldnt have asked for them, but I gather from your reply you dont have them either No, I've really got fed up of providing them time and time again. You've clearly not looked at all the earlier threads where the evidence is provided, it's not my job to educate you. You continue to argue from your position of ignorance and I know exactly how much credibility to give to anything you say on the subject.  Thats interesting, so you consider an opinion from an home secretary about cycling to be a dictate to the police instead of what should have been a law change and a statement from the PM as to why we were going to war was merely an opinion?  Given that it was an instruction to the police, it's understandable why I consider it to be an instruction to the police... Why don't you?  Something that's just a statement, is just that, it wasn't the change of a law, it wasn't an instruction to the army, it was just some rhetoric which he used to support his decision to go to war. The bit where he actually took us to war, that was an official act, although he didn't change the law to achieve it.  ---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 22:17 ----------  To the above two posters, it is evident it is pointless discussing anything more with you. You have your views and rightly so, I have mine. We will agree to disagree, I do not however understand why you both feel the need to edit your posts AFTER I have replied, especially you Cyclone, the statement I wrote about the puzzled look was directed at the emoticon you posted, blue face and scratching head = confused, scratches head as you well know. Why you then edited your post to try and make I was writing about the roll eyes one I don't know.  But, I have enjoyed shooting the breeze but I will now bow out and bid you all a good evening  I didn't edit anything. If I did the posts would show as edited.  The huh was because you started talking about people leaping out of shops, something entirely irrelevant to road safety. Edited June 3, 2015 by Cyclone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteM01 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Wasn't this about on a shared section of pavement though? Â It was about a silly comparison with pushing cars...not really an option, but easy for cyclists on a very busy shared section of pavement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 It was about a silly comparison with pushing cars...not really an option, but easy for cyclists on a very busy shared section of pavement. Â And doesn't the fact that the shared pavement can't be used as intended rather imply that the infrastructure has failed? When do car drivers find themselves equally inconvenienced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezzyjj Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) Have you read my posts where I clearly state that I have been reading numerous cycling based threads and me posting on this one is pretty random to be honest, it could have been any of them?This explains your general confusion as it seems like you do not even know what thread you are partaking in. Name calling? No, simply an accurate description of the attitudes of the anti-cycling hate mob. No interest in facts or reason, just simple hatred and dislike of an entire group of people en masse. Bigotry pure and simple. You have just answered the question in the thread title.Indeed, motorists animosity is based on bigotry .  What are the figures for people jumping out of shops and killing pedestrians? I guess it's pretty low so by your own standards they are doing no wrong and therefore shouldn't be brought into the mix. Nobody said anything about people jumping out of shops and killing people. You are now taking comments completely out of context and applying them to completely different arguments, possible from different people. Edited June 3, 2015 by jezzyjj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) If you like, but my other posts only related to the significant minority (borderline majority) of cyclists that run red lights, which I backed up with not one, but two studies which found this to be the case. Yes of course car drivers run red lights too, I see that often too, but proportionately it is much lower. Â You do realise that at least one of those "studies" was a self-selected SurveyMonkey form on a motoring organisation's website? No problem if you do, but it's kind of dressing up mutton as lamb to call it a survey. If you are OK with that though, then you might be interested in the similar "study" which found that 82% of motorists admit to speeding. Â There is a difference though. Of the cyclists who run red lights, they do so knowingly and intentionally. It's idiotic I know. The problem with motorists is that many of them (including you i suspect) believe that if they go through a light within about 3 seconds of them changing to red, then it doesn't count. They don't even realise that they do it. Edited June 3, 2015 by mattleonard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts