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.

On 4 Feb, 18:59, "Brimstone" wrote:

Also, they will start to dominate the ASL areas, which are often
extensions of the bus and cycle lanes. In fact they'd have to use the
ASL area, otherwise they would block cyclists from entering it. So the
thousands of ASL areas nationwide would be rendered potentially
worthless.

So only potentially, not reality

No 'potentially' about it in Glasgow. ASLs are routinely blocked by
motorvehicles, and not always legitimately (by which I mean drivers
finding themselves already in that area when the lights go back to red
and they cannot proceed).

On my way home last night I was stopped at a light controlled
junction. During the green man phase I watched a motorcyclist filter
up between the lanes of cars on the other street and plonk himself at
the front of the cyclists' ASL area. He was a police motorcyclist.
At least now I know why the police ignore abuse of ASLs.

Calum

On 5 Feb, 15:50, Adrian wrote:
spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

This is a statistical fudge similar to helmet compunction in australia
saving lives cos fewer cyclists were hurt cos there were much fewer
cyclists!

Hmmm. Either that was indeed seriously flawed, or you don't understand
the concept of "per million (or whatever) vehicle kilometres"

I know where my money lies.

Wanna Prove it?

£50 to a charity of your choice that vehicle km didn't come into it?


Cyclist numbers vs cyclist injuries in Western Australia

The introduction of mandatory helmet legislation in 1992 heralded a
major downturn in cyclist numbers (approximately 30%) on West
Australian roads by 1996.

Despite this, the number of cyclist hospital admissions per annum
increased after 1992 helmet law enforcement to consecutive record
levels, the increase in hospital admissions in line with the recovery
in cyclist numbers to pre-law levels by 1998/99.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

My charity of choice is the spindrift Kronenbourg Trust, providing
beer to the needy for twenty years.


Get ready for some hasty withdrawal of that oh-so-confident pledge of
money....

On 5 Feb, 15:54, Nick wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Where did I display any prejudice please?

Maybe i should have said the data supports the tenet that you are less
likely to be in an accident the more cyclists there are, sorry about
that, not sure it constitutes the presence of prejudice though.

"calum" wrote in message
...
On 4 Feb, 18:59, "Brimstone" wrote:

Also, they will start to dominate the ASL areas, which are often
extensions of the bus and cycle lanes. In fact they'd have to use the
ASL area, otherwise they would block cyclists from entering it. So the
thousands of ASL areas nationwide would be rendered potentially
worthless.

So only potentially, not reality

No 'potentially' about it in Glasgow. ASLs are routinely blocked by
motorvehicles, and not always legitimately (by which I mean drivers
finding themselves already in that area when the lights go back to red
and they cannot proceed).

On my way home last night I was stopped at a light controlled
junction. During the green man phase I watched a motorcyclist filter
up between the lanes of cars on the other street and plonk himself at
the front of the cyclists' ASL area. He was a police motorcyclist.
At least now I know why the police ignore abuse of ASLs.

Did he stop anyone else using the ASL?

spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

Hmmm. Either that was indeed seriously flawed, or you don't understand
the concept of "per million (or whatever) vehicle kilometres"

I know where my money lies.

Wanna Prove it?

No, not really.

Cyclist numbers vs cyclist injuries in Western Australia

The introduction of mandatory helmet legislation in 1992 heralded a
major downturn in cyclist numbers (approximately 30%) on West
Australian roads by 1996.

Despite this, the number of cyclist hospital admissions per annum
increased after 1992 helmet law enforcement to consecutive record
levels, the increase in hospital admissions in line with the recovery in
cyclist numbers to pre-law levels by 1998/99.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

Some very flaky statistics, including the subtle detail that -
considering they're claiming a huge drop in cyclist figures since 1977,
made worse by the introduction of a helmet law in 1991, there are no
reliable stats from before 1990.

Also no consideration of other factors - that same period coincided with
all the major skin cancer and ozone layer health scares in Australia -
which will have played a major part in discouraging cycling.

Yes, it's a very flawed report. So much so that you really can't give it
any credence whatsoever.

(Oh, and fwiw, I'm not exactly pro-cycle helmet)

Get ready for some hasty withdrawal of that oh-so-confident pledge of
money....

You show me this "pledge"...

On 5 Feb, 16:08, "Brimstone" wrote:
..

Did he stop anyone else using the ASL?- Hide quoted text -


Yes.

The cop positioned himself at the front of lane two for travelling
straight ahead. A cyclist, also intent on travelling straight ahead,
had to position himself to the left of the cop and at the front of
lane one (left turning traffic). He had to wait for the cop to scoot
off before making his way across to lane two where he should have been
in the first place but for the policeman.

Calum

spindrift wrote:

"I think it's pathetic that the most vocally and notoriously anti-
motorist/anti-motorcyclist poster on the whole Internet denies being
anything of the sort. "

You'll have to take his word for the fact that he finds you pathetic.
I dare say he's not the only one. In fact, I know he's not.

On 5 Feb, 16:43, JNugent
wrote:
spindrift wrote:
"I think it's pathetic that the most vocally and notoriously anti-
motorist/anti-motorcyclist poster on the whole Internet denies being
anything of the sort. "

You'll have to take his word for the fact that he finds you pathetic.
I dare say he's not the only one. In fact, I know he's not.

I can take being called pathetic for no reason, not much I can do
about that, but if I'm accused of having an irrational hatred of
anyone it's reasonable to ask for some evidence. Anything, actually.

They're building a maximum security segregated cycle lane on Southwark
Bridge, one of the quietest bridges in London (bridges in London are
particularly dangerous for cyclist, one killed by a moped rider on
London Bridge a couple of years ago). This lane has probablt eaten up
an entire year's cycling budget, and it's pointless and counter-
productive, I think. The limit of 30 on the bridges has never been
enforced bar Tower. Stopping and punishing idiot drivers would make
more difference and that, by the way, is anti idiot motorist, NOT
anti-motorist.

On Feb 5, 2:48 pm, spindrift wrote:
"I think it's pathetic that the most vocally and notoriously anti-
motorist/anti-motorcyclist poster on the whole Internet denies being
anything of the sort. "

I am asking for evidence for this.

I've asked seven times now.

And I've already said that you have declared support for many, many
anti-motorist measures over the years (at least two of which have been
mentioned in this thread), but I've never seen you oppose any. That
is evidence enough, although there is plenty more, not least your
ridiculous hatred of Paul Smith. No-one who genuinely advocated safe
and pleasant cycling, and wasn't anti-motorist, would have such a
pathological obsession with the man.

If my views were as "anti-motorist" as you claim it strikes me a
strange that you can't actually find any examples....

As above. The Internet is littered with your posts supporting anti-
motorist measures, and none (that I've seen) opposing them. Have you
got it yet?

"Can you name any anti-motorist
or anti-motorcyclist measures (which are not also intended to be
anti-
cyclist) which you oppose? "

I'm asking you what these mythical "anti-motorist" measures are.

So that'll be a "no" then. Anyone who thinks that this government
isn't even slightly anti-car, and therefore hasn't implemented or
expanded any anti-car measures, is potty. I don't think even you're
that deluded. I've already given examples of anti-motorist measures,
and there are plenty more which are well known. You know perfectly
well what they all are, as you frequently scour and quote from sites
which discuss them, and you automatically support them exactly because
they're anti-motorist.

Presumably you're reluctant to admit that anti-motorist measures exist
because then you'd also be forced to admit that you happen to support
every single one of them. But you see you might as well, because
everyone knows it anyway. Go on, have some backbone.

Perhaps you missed my question, what on earth made you think any of
the Telegraph quotes are mine please?

I don't remember saying that, certainly not in this thread, but you
are renowned for posting your invective pretty much everywhere that
you possibly can, and that includes the comments sections of relevant
articles. You must have used literally hundreds of different aliases
over the years. Why did you use "yggems" to post on YouTube, by the
way?