SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[BloodOmen]

 

[DaGaffer]

Of course you can.

It's a terrible idea. It would cost way more to setup and administer than would be worth it. And we're talking two deaths a year.

Also, we're trying to attract people to cycling, not put them off it.

Well well, someone's playing politician with their stats eh Scouse? The death rate against pedestrians is kind of irrelevant. A more cogent point is simply how many accidents do cyclists contribute to (both in absolute terms and as a percentage of all cyclists) and what type of accident. There are actually pretty good stats for reported incidents from UKGov with contributory factor analysis (and interestingly the document says the one category that's definitely under-reported is cyclists...). Bottom line is cyclists are about as bad in absolute terms as motorcyclists in terms of number of accidents but they're a bit better in terms of being at fault; basically 53% of cyclists involved in an accident are at fault for some reason, 59% of motorists and 64% of bikers.

Irrespective, the number of cyclists at fault in accidents is statistically and absolutely significant, and almost certainly under-reported, and yet somehow they're not worth tracking...

Data for 2011 can be found here (pdf) - Table RAS50005: Contributory factors reported for vehicles1,2 in reported accidents by
vehicle type: GB 2011

 

[Overdriven]

1:10, the veins in the eyes. Mental.

 

[Scouse]

Well well, someone's playing politician with their stats eh Scouse? The death rate against pedestrians is kind of irrelevant.

Not at all. I just found the statistcs and quoted them. And the death rate against pedestrians is very relevant - because we're rynnor wants to start up a whole new beauracracy to regulate a practically non-existent problem.

As for under-reporting. I doubt "serious" cases are underreported - because serious cases end up with a person in hospital, or at the doctors. And then they get reported.

Irrespective, the number of cyclists at fault in accidents is statistically and absolutely significant ... and yet somehow they're not worth tracking...

Actually, it's academic really Gaff. "Not worth tracking" maybe gives the hint - accidents involving cyclists, when they're at fault, don't tend to be that serious. And that's what the evidence shows.

Two ton truck hits you? Bad. Articulated lorry runs you over? Bad. Car hits you? Can be nasty.

Cyclist hits you? Chances are you're both walking away from it and nothing serious has happened.


I'm not an apologist for bad cyclists. All I'm saying is that cyclists are not the "menace" that tabloids would have us all believe whilst they whip us all into a frenzy in an attempt to increase their circulation. The evidence points to an incredibly low death rate (ten times more people drown in their own baths every year) and a very low serious injury rate.

<500 people seriously injured a year by cyclists in a country of pop. 60 million? Why are we even talking about it?

 

[BloodOmen]

Scouse's worse nightmare

 

[Scouse]

Scouse's worse nightmare

Hope they have a licence for that dog

 

[Scouse]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHlz0sCJkqE#at=49

 

[TdC]

the number of cyclists at fault in accidents is statistically and absolutely significant, and almost certainly under-reported

is this because of your insane insurance laws?

 

[TdC]

totally cool until I saw his teeth

 

[BloodOmen]

totally cool until I saw his teeth

Heh, i'm sure they can fix the teeth if they wanted I think the main focus is on the exterior for now, I bet realistic hair will be hard for them to do, it'll get tricky with 1000s of strands of hair all moving at the same time.

 

[TdC]

I bet realistic hair will be hard for them to do, it'll get tricky with 1000s of strands of hair all moving at the same time.

actually iirc that's been solved enough to fool a human. not uber closeup, but enough

 

[Punishment]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHlz0sCJkqE#at=49

 

[soze]

Actually, it's academic really Gaff. "Not worth tracking" maybe gives the hint - accidents involving cyclists, when they're at fault, don't tend to be that serious. And that's what the evidence shows.

I always wondered if an accident caused by a cyclist but not involving it get included in these stats. A few times I have seen cyclists join the main road in situations where they should have waited. For example driving down a single lane road doing 60 and a cyclist pulls out of a side road and proceeded to ride uphill at next to no speed. The car I was following slams his breaks on and he can't go round because of traffic on the other side of the road so he has to mount the kerb to avoid the cyclist.

He ended up in an ambulance (faking whiplash most likely) and his car had two destroyed front wheels. That could have need so much worse but the cyclist was not aware or did not care as he just rode off. Now that probably goes down as a car accident when in reality without the bike it does not happen.

 

[rynnor]

Not at all. I just found the statistcs and quoted them. And the death rate against pedestrians is very relevant - because we're rynnor wants to start up a whole new beauracracy to regulate a practically non-existent problem.

No new depts. needed - the DVLA can do it.

<500 people seriously injured a year by cyclists in a country of pop. 60 million? Why are we even talking about it?

Hmm - sounds quite a lot to me - if that happened at a single event that would be national news.

How many dead/injured does it take before it fits the Scouse filter for doing something about it?

 

[Raven]

erg

 

[Scouse]

No new depts. needed - the DVLA can do it.

For free?

doing something about it?

How does the implementation of a tax stop accidents?

What you're suggesting doesn't "do" anything about the accidents. It's just pointless beauracracy for a pointless end.

 

[DaGaffer]

Not at all. I just found the statistcs and quoted them. And the death rate against pedestrians is very relevant - because we're rynnor wants to start up a whole new beauracracy to regulate a practically non-existent problem.

As for under-reporting. I doubt "serious" cases are underreported - because serious cases end up with a person in hospital, or at the doctors. And then they get reported.




Actually, it's academic really Gaff. "Not worth tracking" maybe gives the hint - accidents involving cyclists, when they're at fault, don't tend to be that serious. And that's what the evidence shows.

Two ton truck hits you? Bad. Articulated lorry runs you over? Bad. Car hits you? Can be nasty.

Cyclist hits you? Chances are you're both walking away from it and nothing serious has happened.


I'm not an apologist for bad cyclists. All I'm saying is that cyclists are not the "menace" that tabloids would have us all believe whilst they whip us all into a frenzy in an attempt to increase their circulation. The evidence points to an incredibly low death rate (ten times more people drown in their own baths every year) and a very low serious injury rate.

<500 people seriously injured a year by cyclists in a country of pop. 60 million? Why are we even talking about it?

Actually the phrase "not worth tracking" was me paraphrasing you. It obviously is worth tracking as bikes are involved in a similar number of reported accidents as motorcycles. The point is that the statisticians say in their preamble that they believe cycle accidents are under-reported even in the case of serious injury. (One reason might be that if you go to hospital and say you were in an RTA you can get billed, as I once found out after a motorbike accident even though I didn't use a fucking ambulance, and another is likely the lack of insurance).

Your logic seems to be that the numbers involved are so small its not worth the effort. That's a pretty specious argument because by the same logic you may as well say stop licensing motorbikes (similar contributory accident rate), PSVs and HGVs (much lower accident rate). Its a ludicrous argument. Bottom line is there are enough cyclists involved in accidents where its their fault to suggest at least that there should be some form of compulsory third-party insurance. Its an obligation for other much smaller categories of risk (horses for example), so why not bikes?

 

[Lamp]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUdMEe4DmyQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[old.Tohtori]

This been posted before? Probably.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twqM56f_cVo

 

[Scouse]

Your logic seems to be that the numbers involved are so small its not worth the effort.

Actually no. I'm glad that accidents are tracked. However, my argument is that the outcomes involving cycle accidents tend to be inconsequential (again, supported by the evidence) meaning that there are a lot better targets to go after - as long as people really give a shit about safety, rather than simply punishing people they don't like.

The stats I provided - the mortality and injury statistics of accidents - show that in 2010 of ~2000 deaths caused by "transport accidents" 0.001% of them were caused by cycles.

0.001%.

The other 99.999% of deaths are caused by cars/HGV's/LGV's etc.


But lets go after that 0.001% because they stream past our cars when we're on our way home from work, pissing us off, then have the temerity to safely cross at red lights, making us fume with jealousy eh?

 

[soze]

But lets go after that 0.001% because they stream past our cars when we're on our way home from work, pissing us off, then have the temerity to safely cross at red lights, making us fume with jealousy eh?

I think the reason for the dislike is more the Cyclist demand to be treated the same as drivers and have the same rights on the road but then do not want to have to follow the same rules. They want to mount the pavement when it suites go through red lights when it suites but still expect cars to be ever aware of where there are and what they are doing. Bikes are such a pain in the arse because depending on the rider they could go anywhere and do anything. Cars are much easier to keep an eye on and a lot less worrying.

 

[DaGaffer]

Actually no. I'm glad that accidents are tracked. However, my argument is that the outcomes involving cycle accidents tend to be inconsequential (again, supported by the evidence) meaning that there are a lot better targets to go after - as long as people really give a shit about safety, rather than simply punishing people they don't like.

The stats I provided - the mortality and injury statistics of accidents - show that in 2010 of ~2000 deaths caused by "transport accidents" 0.001% of them were caused by cycles.

0.001%.

The other 99.999% of deaths are caused by cars/HGV's/LGV's etc.


But lets go after that 0.001% because they stream past our cars when we're on our way home from work, pissing us off, then have the temerity to safely cross at red lights, making us fume with jealousy eh?

Once again you're being selective with the stats. The mortality rate is only one measure; its the damage and accident rate overall that matters. 99% of car insurance claims aren't because you've wiped out a busload of nuns, they're fender-benders, that at the moment, cyclists don't take any responsibility for.

 

[Scouse]

I think the reason for the dislike is more the Cyclist demand to be treated the same as drivers and have the same rights on the road but then do not want to have to follow the same rules.

Cyclists DO have the "same rights" whether drivers like it or not.

Drivers nominally follow the same rules as cars but they are different than 2 ton hunks of metal and can safely bend them - whereas cars can't.


Drivers (and I am one, remember?) get pissed off at cyclists because they're jealous. Nothing more...

 

[Scouse]

fender-benders, that at the moment, cyclists don't take any responsibility for.

If I ever hit a car, on a bike, I'd have to stop. Probably because I fell off because I'd hit the car with my steering mechanism - either my handlebars or front tyre.

Then I'd be on foot (or more likely on my arse and in pain) with the driver looming over me.


I could, of course presuming I'm not injured, jump up and ride off as fast as my feet would carry me from the vastly-faster vehicle, but chances are I won't. Unlike the woman who knocked my mate off his bike, breaking his clavicle before driving away.

It's simply not a big enough problem to get worked up over Gaff...

Once again you're being selective with the stats.

And again, no. I'm showing the important stats - deaths caused by bikes - at 0.001% of all transport accidents combined.

 

[Tom]

Thats a lot of noise but fundamentally using the roads is a privilege not a right and all users should conform to basic standards like identifiability and 3rd party insurance (which would be dirt cheap).

Using the road is a privilege only if you do so with a motorised vehicle. For everyone else, using the road is a common law right that cannot ever be revoked, except by imprisonment.

 

[soze]

Cyclists DO have the "same rights" whether drivers like it or not.

Drivers nominally follow the same rules as cars but they are different than 2 ton hunks of metal and can safely bend them - whereas cars can't.


Drivers (and I am one, remember?) get pissed off at cyclists because they're jealous. Nothing more...

I am not jealous. When i go past a cyclist doing 10mph bathed in sweat trudging down the road and I am going 60 in a air conditioned car I am anything but jealous. I am pissed off when I can't go round them because they are so slow and riding so far out that I have to wait for a gap in traffic go round them. But again 100% not jealous.

 

[Scouse]

I am pissed off when I can't go round them because they are so slow and riding so far out that I have to wait for a gap in traffic go round them.

Tough shit. That's what road use is.

Or is it too hard to wait 30 seconds before the gap in the traffic appears and you have to apply slightly more pressure to your right foot to overtake a slower road-user?

I take it back - drivers aren't jealous - they're impatient, selfish arseholes

 

[DaGaffer]

I take it back - drivers people aren't jealous - they're impatient, selfish arseholes

Fixed

 

[DaGaffer]

If I ever hit a car, on a bike, I'd have to stop. Probably because I fell off because I'd hit the car with my steering mechanism - either my handlebars or front tyre.

Then I'd be on foot (or more likely on my arse and in pain) with the driver looming over me.


I could, of course presuming I'm not injured, jump up and ride off as fast as my feet would carry me from the vastly-faster vehicle, but chances are I won't. Unlike the woman who knocked my mate off his bike, breaking his clavicle before driving away.

It's simply not a big enough problem to get worked up over Gaff...




And again, no. I'm showing the important stats - deaths caused by bikes - at 0.001% of all transport accidents combined.

You are blatantly using the stats that suit your argument. And cyclists scrape cars and fuck off all the damn time.

 

[Tom]

I think the reason for the dislike is more the Cyclist demand to be treated the same as drivers and have the same rights on the road but then do not want to have to follow the same rules. They want to mount the pavement when it suites go through red lights when it suites but still expect cars to be ever aware of where there are and what they are doing. Bikes are such a pain in the arse because depending on the rider they could go anywhere and do anything. Cars are much easier to keep an eye on and a lot less worrying.

No, I've been cycling for years and the hate is because cyclists don't have to worry about traffic jams. We don't get frustrated at roadworks because they're not a barrier. We're not piloting 1.5 tonnes of not-particularly-manoeuverable metal down potholed roads filled with similarly-minded people desperate to get away from their shit jobs.

I sometimes go through red lights, but only technically. For instance, I'll ignore the STOP line at many junctions because setting off earlier is safer for me. There are junctions where, as a cyclist, stopping on red is ludicrous - T-junctions from the side, for instance, regularly demonstrate extremely poor planning.

Your point of view probably highlights what a poor driver you are, if you find driving around vulnerable road users difficult. I've never, ever struggled to move my car around pedestrians and cyclists, horses even. But then again, I don't treat driving my car as a god-given right.

If I was in charge of things, I'd change our streets. I'd make the pedestrian king - pavements continue across side junctions, so cars are forced to give way. Turning radii at junctions into housing estates would be tightened right up, so cars had to slow right down to make the turn. Cycle lanes would continue across those junctions, like the pavement, they would have priority. Cars found parked on the pavement would be removed and their owners fined for their return. Housing estates with individual parking provision would have no on-street parking. Town centres pedestrianised. Segregated cycle lanes built from housing estates direct to schools, town centres, industrial estates, so that single digit age children could use them with complete safety.

I'd also remove VED and put the difference on fuel duty. Third-party insurance would be paid for by the state; no more uninsured drivers, anywhere.

I enjoy driving my car but I do so out of necessity. We really need to put an end to lazy fuckers driving 2 miles to work and back each day.