spindrift wrote:
On 5 Feb, 14:00, Nick wrote:


In the real world, where people , um, DO walk, the evidence shows that
increased numbers reduces accidents.


Again. It does not reduce the number of accidents it reduces the rate of
accident per cyclist per mile cycled.

As you know the raw accident figures in London have gone up with more
cyclists.



It's thought that the mindset of drivers changes since:

1/

they are more used to encountering cyclists and

2/

the drivers cycle themselves


The "them and us" attitude displayed by your probably subconscious
decision to cast motorists as lions and vulnerable road users as
antelopes is telling. In reality cyclists own cars at the rate of 85%-
higher than the general population- and so they are well acquainted
with responsible driving.

I tried to chose an example that would allow you to step outside of your
prejudice.

FWIW. I am a cyclist. I commute 25 miles round trip into London each
day. I support much tougher controls on cars, speed limits, presumption
of liability in an accident etc.

I'm quite happy to see cyclists riding on the pavements in a responsible
manner or going through red lights when it is safe to do so.

All in all I'm more towards the militant end of the cycling spectrum
even if I'm too lazy to attend critical mass or such like.

However I also work with statistics and I particularly dislike people
like yourself who distort the meaning of statistics to try and prove
their own particular theory.