BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 13 - 01:20 PM

Bring 'em on!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jul 13 - 01:36 PM

OK, GWB.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 04:54 AM

nobody is "demonizing all cyclists".

OK Greg, I am very glad to hear that you are not and some other people on this thread are not but a substantial number of drivers are very anti-cyclist as some of the surveys referenced show.

What about Don's comment.

any cyclist causing a collision and lucky enough to avoid injury, will inevitably piss off

Not some cyclists or a substantial number of cyclists but any cyclist will inevitably piss off. There have been similar phrases elsewhere but it is a lovely day, for a change, and I think I'll go for a bike ride instead of looking for them :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 09:57 AM

So now you want to argue the fine points of semantics, Dave?

You'll have to argue 'em with yourself. I'll stick to the actual topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 10:26 AM

I don't think it is just semantics, Greg. How so? You said 'nobody is demonising all cyclists' but I just found an example that was. I think it is quite crucial to the argument.

I am, as ever, always willing to learn though. Explain how this is just semantics and I will listen.

The overall point though is people are making sweeping statements about various groups that do nothing to engender harmony between all. Can we not just do a bit of give and take? I don't believe anyone on here has said that all cyclists are angels or demons. Don came closest with the example I quoted but I suspect that was heat of the moment and not well thought through. Since everyone, in the main, seems to be in agreement that some cyclists are idiots and so are some pedestrians and some drivers, what on earth is the issue?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 11:05 AM

Like I said Dave, have fun talking to yourself.

You absolutely SURE that you're not a member of the National Rifle Association?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 01:41 PM

My question. don't think it is just semantics, Greg. How so?

Greg's answer - You absolutely SURE that you're not a member of the National Rifle Association?

Is it just me or does that make no sense at all? Come on, Greg, I know you are not stupid. Maybe I am! Please explain how and why you think I have anything to do with the NRA. Apart from the fact that I don't, never have and never will own a firearm, what in heavens has my views on cycling got to do with right wing American nutters?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 07:07 PM

Cyclists need somewhere safe to ride! Against a background of falling road casualties, GB cycling casualties continue to increase.

Just released; Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: Main results 2012

The number of people killed in road accidents reported to the police decreased to 1,754 in 2012 from 1,901 in 2011. This is the lowest number of people killed in road accidents on record.

The number of pedal cyclists killed rose by 10% from 107 in 2011 to 118 in 2012. There is a well-established upward trend in pedal cyclist casualties; this is eighth year that the number of seriously injured cyclist casualties has increased.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 03:46 AM

Very weird! I posted a response here yesterday and it disappeared!

Cycling is going to increase as oil becomes unaffordable; cities should be planning for this.

I don't think I've ever read a report of a pedestrian killed by a cyclist, while deaths and devastating injuries are far too common for cyclists. (A friend of mine was dragged screaming under a 4x4 in Dublin for 100 metres, with her bicycle, while desperate pedestrians and drivers tried to alert the oblivious driver.)

Some cities that are successfully giving cyclists good facilities and separating them from the dangerous cars, vans and trucks.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 09:09 AM

Cyclists need somewhere safe to ride!

And I 'need' somewhere to exercise my pet African elelephant. But unfortunately, I have to deal with what exisxts- not what I wish existed.

The number of pedal cyclists killed rose by 10% from 107 in 2011 to 118 in 2012.

Hmm - 11 person difference. And how did the numbers of bicyclists using the roads - often narrow roads with no shoulders and limited sight distances change during that period- was there more or less than a 10% increase in the number of cyclists??

And what CAUSED these road fatalities - actions by the driver of the motor vehicle, or actions of the bicyclist?

Here we go again with the the poor oppressed, martyred bicycling community.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 09:20 AM

The Times, April 16th 2013

"cycling organisations reacted with dismay to the publication of official figures showing that cycle use remained unchanged last year despite an apparent surge in interest after the success of Team GB at the London Olympics.
Cycling accounts for 2 per cent of all journeys, the same proportion as for train travel, but funding for bicycle schemes is dwarfed by the £4 billion taxpayers pay to run the railway every year.
Government data published yesterday showed that cities and boroughs where local authorities have prioritised investment in cycle infrastructure over a number of years have succeeded in encouraging the highest proportion of cyclists."

So that 10% increase in deaths represents a real increase in the risk and dangers faced by cyclists.

Blaming the roads is fatuous. Vehicles kill you not the road they drive on.

And what CAUSED these road fatalities - actions by the driver of the motor vehicle, or actions of the bicyclist?
Overwhelmingly the drivers, as has been shown by research figures posted earlier, remember?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 09:26 AM

4 in every 5 accidents involving a cyclist and a car are caused by driver of the car, according to the linked Australian study.

Just going by my hometown, which doesn't have good cycling infrastructure (plenty of cycle lanes, but only one is separated physically from cars, and drivers tend to ignore the existing cycle lanes), most fatal accidents involve cyclists and vans or trucks. Typical would be the Chinese student who was crushed to death by a truck that turned left (we drive and cycle on the left here), and the driver didn't see him.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 09:34 AM

Here we go again with the the poor oppressed, martyred bicycling community

Sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: GUEST,SPB at work
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 09:55 AM

From: GUEST,henryp
Date: 07 Jul 13 - 07:07 PM

"Cyclists need somewhere safe to ride! Against a background of falling road casualties, GB cycling casualties continue to increase."

Pedestrians need somewhere safe to walk.

"Just released; Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: Main results 2012

The number of people killed in road accidents reported to the police decreased to 1,754 in 2012 from 1,901 in 2011. This is the lowest number of people killed in road accidents on record.

The number of pedal cyclists killed rose by 10% from 107 in 2011 to 118 in 2012. There is a well-established upward trend in pedal cyclist casualties; this is eighth year that the number of seriously injured cyclist casualties has increased."

Of these, how many were proficient cyclists - I see kids riding their bikes on the road where I live - treating the road as a playground - riding on both sides of the road, the pavement, swerving of the pavement without looking, etc. Luckily none have got themselves killed. I've lost count of the number of cyclists who ignore red lights - whether they are endangering themselves by crossing the path of a moving vehicle (including buses - a few time I've been on a bus where the driver has had to do an emergency stop.), or riding in the path of pedestrians.

I suppose another answer - roads for motor vehicles, pavements of cyclists, and peoples front gardens seized to make way for pathways!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 10:02 AM

Well, Keith - your cut-and paste contradicts itself in several places, saying that bicycle use has increased in one breath, and hasn't increased in another. Have you any un-garbled information to shae?

Blaming the roads is fatuous. Vehicles kill you not the road they drive on.

Not one-half as fatuous as your statement, or as fatuous as cyclists who seem to think they can ride wherever and however they choose without taking appropriate precautions and with total safety and impunity, whether they comply with rules & regs or not.

Now, back to your ode to the downtrodden masses of bicyclists.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 10:06 AM

Well, Keith - your cut-and paste contradicts itself in several places, saying that bicycle use has increased in one breath, and hasn't increased in another.

No it does not.
Read it again or just read it Greg.

"publication of official figures showing that cycle use remained unchanged last year despite..."

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 10:43 AM

2004 to 2012, Keith. Not the last calendar year.

And: Government data published yesterday showed that cities and boroughs where local authorities have prioritised investment in cycle infrastructure over a number of years have succeeded in encouraging the highest proportion of cyclists.

Both you & Dave would do well to read THIS BOOK.

His thesis goes a long way toward explaining the Bicyclist Genocide.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 11:32 AM

:-) Nice try Greg, but no cigar.

You should know by now that I will not be wound up by someone who I know little and care for even less. Unlike your good self who appears to be on route to a coronary incident. Chill out man, get on your bike and smell some fresh air instead of getting so tense.

No answer to my why you believe I am a member of some American organisation yet?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 11:39 AM

Not a wind-up at all, Dave - a serious suggestion. Its a serious book - not a joke.

Why don't you read the book first, and then condemn it afterward?

I do realize that dismissing it out of hand saves considerable time for you and for the cause of The Oppressed Millions.....

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 11:52 AM

What makes you think I was talking about the book? You are making a lot of false assumptions here, Greg. I have never mentioned a book or any oppressed persons have I? Maybe you should do a bit of reading and save us all a lot of time? :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 12:00 PM

You are making a lot of false assumptions here, Greg

Am I, indeed? Then I'm in most excellent company, Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 12:20 PM

succeeded in encouraging the highest proportion of cyclists.

So you read it again but still can not understand.
No shame Greg.
I will explain.
The figures show NO INCREASE.
OK so far?

Some places have more cyclists than other places, but there has been NO INCREASE.

I could only make it simpler for you by drawing little pictures, so you had better ask a grown up if you still don't get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 12:29 PM

If you can draw that conclusion, Keith, from the info as stated, even little pictures wouldn't be of assistance to you.

Nothing as stated claims that there has been no increase in the # of cyclists in the last decade- you are making that up yourself.

Your childish insults show a definite lack of skill in any case, and are not a substitute for data or fact.


But ta, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 12:39 PM

Then I'm in most excellent company, Dave.

Absolutely, my friend, absolutely. Always remember that 1 and 1 do not necessarily make 2 :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 01:39 PM

Greg.
The number of pedal cyclists killed rose by 10% from 107 in 2011 to 118 in 2012.

That was the statement in henryp's post and quoted back by you.

You then said " And how did the numbers of bicyclists using the roads - often narrow roads with no shoulders and limited sight distances change during that period- was there more or less than a 10% increase in the number of cyclists??"

The answer is 0% in that period.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 01:48 PM

The larger context, Keith. And take a refresher course on the use of statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 02:31 PM

Your context was first that my quote was self-contradictory, but it was not.
Remember Greg?

Then, when that folly was exposed, you claimed that you were discussing some 10 year period never mentioned.

You have made a twat of yourself again Greg.
Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 05:22 PM

De nada, Keith.

Oh, and in addition, you might learn to read- for comprehension.
Kinda like that Juastice Holmes business, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 05:39 PM

I do need help with comprehension sometimes.
"De nada,"
I have no idea.
Anyone else?

"that Juastice Holmes business"
Who?
What?
Anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 05:50 PM

"De nada," I have no idea.

Spanish for "You're Welcome", genius.

"that Justice Holmes business" Who? What? Anyone?

You really ARE an idiot!

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 08 Jul 13 - 11:50 PM

De Nada as I've understood it, translate's literally as "It's Nothing."

By happenstance, I was out on the road early today and passed an area that I know well but other drivers seldom seem to notice. A crosswalk light (push the button and wait for the light) with nice ramps and a smooth crossing is CONSPICUOUSLY MARKED with the standard "handicapped" sign and also with a prominent sign indicating "BLIND PEDESTRIAN AREA." When someone pushes the button to get the crossing light, an audible signal is provided to tell them the light has changed. And most "users" without at least some, but limited, vision are generally accompanied by an "attendant."

A little down the road, however, I noted a somewhat similar crosswalk, with light and ramp conspicuously marked with a Handicapped Crossing sign, and an additional slightly different warning indicating "wheelchair traffic."

The first curious feature was that there was a post with button beside the ramp on one side of the road. The ramp beside the signal light post appeared to meet all requirements of the normal ADA regulations, but I noted (and went around the block to confirm) that THERE WAS NO %@#%$! RAMP AT THE OTHER END OF THE CROSSWALK to let anyone get a wheelchair OUT OF THE STREET, making it perhaps academic that there was no post/button to permit a wheelchair user even start to cross going in the opposite direction.

This was quite clearly NOT a "new construction in progress."

Obvously not a "6P" design, but that seems to happen fairly often when "minority" vehicles need to mix with the ordinary.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 03:02 AM

The Americans have a greater affinity for Spanish, Keith. John quite rightly points out it actually translates to 'It's Nothing'. Pretty much like the French 'de rien' or the Australian 'no probs, Bruce'. Justice Holmes is, apparently, some significant member of the American judiciary. Why anyone would expect someone outside the US to understand that without Google is yet another example of the firm belief that America IS the world :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 08:35 AM

In Czech, To Neni Nic - it is nothing neni zac (c has accent and in prounced ch) You're Welcome

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 09:59 AM

"Juastice Holmes".    Misspelled by Greg, it appears.

This really need not be a cause for-- yet another-- international misunderstanding.

It is reasonable to ask Greg what he means by this reference, and not reasonable on his part if he, rather than answer the question, makes a snarky remark.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 10:19 AM

Guess you, oh Simple Seeker, as well as Keith, have no comprehension of the discussion in the "First Ammendment" thread.

And shit - as well as occasional typos- happen. Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 10:22 AM

De Nada as I've understood it, translate's literally as "It's Nothing."

Absolutely correct, John - and customarily used in concersation in response to "Gracias", i.e. "Thank you".

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 10:31 AM

Ah, Greg's back in the gutter--- and refusing to give a an answer to a reasonable question.

All's right with the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 10:32 AM

"refusing to give an answer..."

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 10:38 AM

The answer is elucidated at some length in the above referenced thread, Oh Simple Seeker After Truth And Ultimate Authority On Everything In The World Worth Knowing. Try reading it for fuck's sake instead of being 'cute'.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 11:18 AM

Why should us Brits be less insular than you Yanks, Greg? Why would I need to know anything about the first amendment let alone someone who has no bearing on the UK whatsoever? I think asking what 'de nada' means and who Justice Whatshisface is. are both reasonable questions for a non Spanish speaking Englishman.

Do you know the names of the English Judiciary or the phrase for 'it was nothing' in all languages?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jul 13 - 11:24 AM

Nor should it be required on a thread about bicycles to read another thread in order to comprehend a posting.

No wonder Greg is so--universally --beloved.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 12:53 PM

Actually, Dave, if you'd read the other thread - to which Keith was a major contributor and should himself have been familiar with - you'd have understood that the US 1st Ammendment DOES have a bearing on similar British law. Why should you Poms be MORE insular than us Yanks?


As for Simple Seeker: Sod off.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 01:07 PM

Why should you Poms be MORE insular than us Yanks?

Obvious - because we are older! Do you know nowt?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 01:16 PM

Obvious - because we are older!

Oh - well, OK, then.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 03:25 PM

''so--universally--beloved".   

And every day he gives us more reasons to love him more.   It's so heartwarming.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 03:43 PM

And we're so proud of you, Greg--looks like you're learning a second language--you'll soon be just as at home in British gutters as in American gutters.

You're so talented--well, at least in Gassesprache.

But for some reason can't quite manage to actually answer the question posed about "Juastice" (your quaint spelling) Holmes--and what it has to do with bicycles--remember them?

Nor can you manage to actually read what you yourself write, and correct any problems. Evidently you are by definition right in everything you say.   So it seems it is not I but you who are the Ultimate Authority on Everything. I after all recognize my own errors and often try to correct them.   But since you're perfect, you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 03:48 PM

And "typos" won't cut it.    If we have no idea what you are talking about, we have no idea if what you say is clumsy typing or something you actually claim to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 06:12 PM

You say I'M perfect? Absolutely pricelesss, Simple Seeker And Omniscient Source of All Knowledge.

"We"? Who are WE, Simple? You mean you & the other idiot? Others seem to have no difficulty with comprehension.

Once again, Sod Off.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 08:39 PM

""any cyclist causing a collision and lucky enough to avoid injury, will inevitably piss off

Not some cyclists or a substantial number of cyclists but any cyclist will inevitably piss off. There have been similar phrases elsewhere but it is a lovely day, for a change, and I think I'll go for a bike ride instead of looking for them :-)""

In the words of the immortal Benny Hill, ""WHY YOU NO RISTEN,....BREEDIN IRIOT!""

Any cyclist cusing accidents may be assumed to be one of the irresponsible minority, so it is implicit in my statement that only those are included, and they are precisely the group that DOES piss off quick to avoid respopnsibility for their actions.

So, EMPHATICALLY NOT the blanket condemnation of all cyclists that you would prefer it to be, so that you would feel smugly justified in dismissing anything I say on the subject.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Bicycles on the sidewalk
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jul 13 - 08:57 PM

""Typical would be the Chinese student who was crushed to death by a truck that turned left (we drive and cycle on the left here), and the driver didn't see him.""

Which is precisely why cyclists shouldn't ride up between truck and kerb at the traffic lights.

It is most likely that the driver couldn't (rather than just didn't, which implies negligence) see the cyclist in the majority of such cases.

Do you have any idea of the view that a truck driver in a right hand seat has, of the road through the left hand mirror.

You can hide a car in there, never mind a bike, and even with the new blind spot mirrors (so called), a driver is looking at a very small area of mirror from a distance of about seven feet, which makes the image absolutely tiny.

This is also the reason for collisions and near misses when left hand drive foreign trucks suddenly change lanes on our motorways, not having seen an overtaking car in that blind spot.

The highway code sets this out for cyclists, many of whom apparently, not having to answer questions on it for a test, don't even bother to buy a copy.

Don T.