[LCC City] City of London Cycle Accident Assessment Study

[spindrift]

>From the London Cycling Campaign:

Figure 10: All accidents caused by cyclists by contributing factor
2.6.2 The main contributing factors of accidents caused by cyclists
were
overtaking on the nearside (19%)"

And no mention of whether there was a cycle lane?

So a cyclist could be using a cycle lane, collide with a vehicle, and
the cyclist is held at fault?

I don't understand this at all.

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >From the London Cycling Campaign:
>
> Figure 10: All accidents caused by cyclists by contributing factor
> 2.6.2 The main contributing factors of accidents caused by cyclists
> were
> overtaking on the nearside (19%)"
>
> And no mention of whether there was a cycle lane?
>
> So a cyclist could be using a cycle lane, collide with a vehicle,
and
> the cyclist is held at fault?
>
> I don't understand this at all.

Thanks to a recent posting on the London cycling Camapign's Planning
and Engineering mailing list I now know that the "STATS 19" form,
that the police fill out after accidents, has a section for adding
code numbers for "contributing factors". Code no 220 is "Overtaking
on the Nearside Injudciously". I thnk they are allowed to add more
than one code, but there is some maximum number. There doesn't seem
to be a code for "presence of a bike lane"

Jeremy Parker
>

 

[spindrift]

" There doesn't seem to be a code for "presence of a bike lane"
>
> Jeremy Parker"


Which kind of skews the results.

It's very hard to see how a cyclist can be blamed when they are using a
cycle lane correctly.

This is like the kind of misleading guff that proven liar and perverter
of justice Paul Smith would come out with.

 

[smeggy]

> " There doesn't seem to be a code for "presence of a bike lane"
>>
>> Jeremy Parker"
>
>
>Which kind of skews the results.
>
>It's very hard to see how a cyclist can be blamed when they are using a
>cycle lane correctly.
>
>This is like the kind of misleading guff that proven liar and perverter
>of justice Paul Smith would come out with.

Wow, I'm not kill-filing you because you really are a hoot. I must be
the only one hear who still reads your posts.

Prove that PS perverts

Prove that PS lies

I have given you ample opportunity in your previous threads to do just
that.

 

[spindrift]

Smith's hopeless floundering around a subject he has zero training in
is one thing.

Advocating the most despicable intrusion on a grieving family is quite
another, let alone Smith's blatant dishonesty and misunderstanding,
deliberate or accidental, of proper, peer-reviewed researchers' data.

A family struggle to come to terms with someone they love dying, then
Smith's speeding tickets addressed to the dead person plop through the
letterbox, and you defend this "smeggy"?

Incidentally "smeggy", are you the same "smeggy" who blames children
and parents rather than the driver when a child RTA takes place?:


http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6799&highlight=smeggy

Everyone else's fault, isn't it "smeggy"?

If a child gets killed as you speed past the school it's the dumbass
parents' fault for being stupid, eh?

How about another "smeggers" pearl of wisdom, and this one even outdoes
proven liar and perverter of justice Paul Smith:

Crash risk is linked to speeding:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4944834.stm

Smeggers



Posted - 26/04/2006 : 13:33:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The biggest load of rot I have read in a long long time...

Ask i any statician and its all anbout probabilities...

The more miles you drive, the more likely you are to crash and more
likely you are to get caught by a speed camera.

Nothing whatseover to do with speed unless you're some reckless boy
racer who gets flashed and does little mileage per annum. "






That's seriously your considered opinion is it "smeggy"?

That breaking the law is inevitable when you drive?

You can't help it, is that right?


Beyond belief.

Recidivists dredge up any and every excuse for their behaviour that
they can find.

Rapists claim the woman led them on.

Paedophiles blame the child.

Smeggy and Paul Smith also blame the child, or the parents, or claim
that speeding is "inevitable", or lie about what the road rafety
research says, or issue dishonest press releases, or condone death
threats to woman.

Beneath contempt.

 

[smeggy]

> Advocating the most despicable intrusion on a grieving family is quite
> another, let alone Smith's blatant dishonesty and misunderstanding,
> deliberate or accidental, of proper, peer-reviewed researchers' data.
>
> A family struggle to come to terms with someone they love dying, then
> Smith's speeding tickets addressed to the dead person plop through the
> letterbox, and you defend this "smeggy"?

Who said I did? Who said PS did? So far you have not given proof of
anything, your claimed account of this event is entirely at your posted
word!

> Incidentally "smeggy", are you the same "smeggy" who blames children
> and parents rather than the driver when a child RTA takes place?:
>
> http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6799&highlight=smeggy
>

I have never blamed the children, you are putting words into my mouth
(AGAIN!!!). My exact words (full quote of post): "I would say that
children are statistically far far more likely to be killed or hurt if
their parents neglect to ensure they know how to cross the road and
recognise the related dangers."

Yes, the parents are likely to be to blame for any accident involving
their offspring (assuming the driver was controlling the vehicle in a
way that a pedestrian could reasonably expect to correctly judge the
vehicle's eta). It is they who are their legal guardians, it is they
who have responsibility of life education.

> Everyone else's fault, isn't it "smeggy"?
>
> If a child gets killed as you speed past the school it's the dumbass
> parents' fault for being stupid, eh?

Did I say that? Of course if the driver's speed is unreasonable then
it's they who would be at fault, the key here is defining 'reasonable'.
This has been my opinion since day 1.

>
> How about another "smeggers" pearl of wisdom, and this one even outdoes
> proven liar and perverter of justice Paul Smith:
>
> Crash risk is linked to speeding:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4944834.stm
>
> Smeggers
>
>
>
> Posted - 26/04/2006 : 13:33:15
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "The biggest load of rot I have read in a long long time...
>
> Ask i any statician and its all anbout probabilities...
>
> The more miles you drive, the more likely you are to crash and more
> likely you are to get caught by a speed camera.
>
> Nothing whatseover to do with speed unless you're some reckless boy
> racer who gets flashed and does little mileage per annum. "
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That's seriously your considered opinion is it "smeggy"?

No!

That wasn't my opinion; those are not my words, I have never made a
post to that effect - did you make that all up? (or did you post that
somewhere for me? wouldn't surprise me given all your other lies [and
no truths]).

My actual full opinion can be found here:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6914&

Feel free to join and discuss as opposed to cowardly bringing this up
in a cycling forum.

>
> That breaking the law is inevitable when you drive?
>
> You can't help it, is that right?
>
>
> Beyond belief.
>
> Recidivists dredge up any and every excuse for their behaviour that
> they can find.
>
> Rapists claim the woman led them on.
>
> Paedophiles blame the child.
>
> Smeggy and Paul Smith also blame the child, or the parents, or claim
> that speeding is "inevitable", or lie about what the road rafety
> research says, or issue dishonest press releases, or condone death
> threats to woman.
>
> Beneath contempt.

WOW, you are such a liar!
* I do not blame the child
* speeding is inevitable in these days of artificially low limits (but
I don't think I previously said that either)
* what lies have I given about road safety policies?
* and how did I condone death threats?

you are so full of ****! I challenge you to prove any of your points -
but I know you wont, just like you haven't with your other libellous
posts - all claims but no substance at all - and again you still dodge
your original issue for which you claimed would be the undoing of PS by
throwing another new set of lies into the pot. You are proving very
easy to outwit! All you've actually accomplished is getting killfiled
by exactly those who you thought would be your comrades
haa haa haa :c)

 

[Jon Senior]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:41:29 -0700, smeggy wrote:
<snip - enormous rant from what could well be a sock puppet!>

> * speeding is inevitable in these days of artificially low limits (but

The hell? Is there some kind of air gap separating your brain from you
fingers? How exactly is speeding inevitable? And what is an "artifically
low limit"?

Jon

 

[smeggy]

> <snip - enormous rant from what could well be a sock puppet!>
So I'm not allowed to defend myself now from baseless accusations or
what?

Anyway, who asked you? ;c)

> > * speeding is inevitable in these days of artificially low limits (but
>
> The hell? Is there some kind of air gap separating your brain from you
> fingers? How exactly is speeding inevitable? And what is an "artifically
> low limit"?

One which has been set well below what is safe for the great majority
of drivers for the great majority of the time.

Let's take a motorway very local to me, the M275 - it used to be 70,
now it's down to 50. We were told it was for a new slip road - 8 months
ago; absolutely nothing has happened. Unsurprisingly very few abide by
the new limit.

As it is the great majority of drivers believe the current motorway
speed limit of 70 is needlessly low.

 

[Jon Senior]

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 16:50:20 -0700, smeggy wrote:
>> <snip - enormous rant from what could well be a sock puppet!>
> So I'm not allowed to defend myself now from baseless accusations or
> what?

Go ahead. I'm just beginning to wonder if "smeggy" and "spindrift" aren't
alter-egos of the same person who is just trying to keep
themselves entertained.

> Anyway, who asked you? ;c)

You did, when you published your opinions in a public forum rather than by
private email.

> One which has been set well below what is safe for the great majority of
> drivers for the great majority of the time.

There is however, more to a speed limit than the immediate safety of the
drivers on the road. But you already know this.

> Let's take a motorway very local to me, the M275 - it used to be 70, now
> it's down to 50. We were told it was for a new slip road - 8 months ago;
> absolutely nothing has happened. Unsurprisingly very few abide by the
> new limit.
>
> As it is the great majority of drivers believe the current motorway
> speed limit of 70 is needlessly low.

I'm sure they do. Sadly, the great majority of drivers have often
demonstrated that their knowledge of road safety and good practice amounts
to a particularly small hill of beans. There are of course many reasons
why 50 might me a more appropriate limit. If nothing else it would curb
the tendency of drivers to exceed the more modest limits that they often
encounter shortly after leaving the motorway.

And you still have explained the inevitability. That would imply that it
was in some way beyond the control of the drivers concerned.

Jon

 

[Tony Raven]

Jon Senior wrote:
>
> Go ahead. I'm just beginning to wonder if "smeggy" and "spindrift" aren't
> alter-egos of the same person who is just trying to keep
> themselves entertained.
>

I'm just wondering why you keep dragging them both out of everyone
else's kill files and parading them.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[smeggy]

> >> <snip - enormous rant from what could well be a sock puppet!>
> > So I'm not allowed to defend myself now from baseless accusations or
> > what?
>
> Go ahead. I'm just beginning to wonder if "smeggy" and "spindrift" aren't
> alter-egos of the same person who is just trying to keep
> themselves entertained.

Yeah, focus on the personalities rather than the issues at hand - says
a lot for you! The fact that a well established troll is being soundly
beaten by a relative newcomer doesn't answer that question for you?

> > Anyway, who asked you? ;c)
>
> You did, when you published your opinions in a public forum rather than by
> private email.

I was addressing spindrift directly, not you. My wink was with
reference to the 'sock puppet' comment ;c)

> > One which has been set well below what is safe for the great majority of
> > drivers for the great majority of the time.
>
> There is however, more to a speed limit than the immediate safety of the
> drivers on the road. But you already know this.

Of course, but it's difficult to justify such a drop on a motorway
which has no problems/roadworks/other types of road user.

> > Let's take a motorway very local to me, the M275 - it used to be 70, now
> > it's down to 50. We were told it was for a new slip road - 8 months ago;
> > absolutely nothing has happened. Unsurprisingly very few abide by the
> > new limit.
> >
> > As it is the great majority of drivers believe the current motorway
> > speed limit of 70 is needlessly low.
>
> I'm sure they do. Sadly, the great majority of drivers have often
> demonstrated that their knowledge of road safety and good practice amounts
> to a particularly small hill of beans. There are of course many reasons
> why 50 might me a more appropriate limit. If nothing else it would curb
> the tendency of drivers to exceed the more modest limits that they often
> encounter shortly after leaving the motorway.

But surely that's what your speedo is for, right? Besides, there is a
40 limit at the end of the motorway before it reaches town (no bad
thing). Besides (2) - the northbound carriageway joins a motorway/NSL
but has the same restriction, so that argument isn't applicable.

> And you still have explained the inevitability. That would imply that it
> was in some way beyond the control of the drivers concerned.

Yes it does, are you being deliberately obtuse? Few people will respect
any restrictive law which is clearly being misapplied without good
reason; speed limits aren't the only example.

 

[Jon Senior]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:11:06 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:
> I'm just wondering why you keep dragging them both out of everyone
> else's kill files and parading them.

Boredom? Personal entertainment? Given my fairly standard quoting
practice, you could surely filter "smeggy wrote:" and "spindrift wrote:"
and thus eliminate the followups as well. ;-)

Jon

 

[Jon Senior]

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 03:12:08 -0700, smeggy wrote:
> Yeah, focus on the personalities rather than the issues at hand - says
> a lot for you! The fact that a well established troll is being soundly
> beaten by a relative newcomer doesn't answer that question for you?

The issues have been done to death over the last few years, and since
neither yourself nor TrollB has managed to introduce either new ideas or
new facts into the debate, this leaves only the personalities to play with.

> I was addressing spindrift directly, not you. My wink was with reference
> to the 'sock puppet' comment ;c)

Then send it by email, or prefix it with a name.

> Of course, but it's difficult to justify such a drop on a motorway which
> has no problems/roadworks/other types of road user.

Except in the generalising sense that reducing the speed will naturally
reduce a) the likelihood of accidents. b) the severity of any that do
occur.

> But surely that's what your speedo is for, right? Besides, there is a 40
> limit at the end of the motorway before it reaches town (no bad thing).
> Besides (2) - the northbound carriageway joins a motorway/NSL but has
> the same restriction, so that argument isn't applicable.

The reality is that drivers are not aware enough of relative speed.
Travelling at 70mph (More likely 85mph if we're being honest) makes 30mph
feel very slow. The difference isn't as profound after travelling at 50mph.

> Yes it does, are you being deliberately obtuse? Few people will respect
> any restrictive law which is clearly being misapplied without good
> reason; speed limits aren't the only example.

No it doesn't. What it says is that drivers are too stupid / arrogant
(delete as applicable) to keep their speed under a simple limit. It does
not say that speeding will be inevitable, because that would imply an
external factor which forces the speed up (Approaching tsunami... descent
of an insanely steep hill...).

Jon

 

[smeggy]

> > I was addressing spindrift directly, not you. My wink was with reference
> > to the 'sock puppet' comment ;c)
>
> Then send it by email, or prefix it with a name.

No! I shouldn't let spindrift to publicly appear to win the debate
(specifically 'the public humiliation of Paul Smith') under false
pretences. Spindrift is publicly lying, I'm publicaly asking for proof
(again and again). That's why I mustn't PM.

> > Of course, but it's difficult to justify such a drop on a motorway which
> > has no problems/roadworks/other types of road user.
>
> Except in the generalising sense that reducing the speed will naturally
> reduce a) the likelihood of accidents. b) the severity of any that do
> occur.

a) is completely unproven. While b) is true it could be argued that
slower drivers are become complacent because of b), hence reversing the
trend of a)

Before you reply to that, this issue is specifically about spindrift's
claims. Start a new thread if you want to raise a new issue (preferably
not on a cycling newsgroup; not many cyclists on motorways).

> > But surely that's what your speedo is for, right? Besides, there is a 40
> > limit at the end of the motorway before it reaches town (no bad thing).
> > Besides (2) - the northbound carriageway joins a motorway/NSL but has
> > the same restriction, so that argument isn't applicable.
>
> The reality is that drivers are not aware enough of relative speed.
> Travelling at 70mph (More likely 85mph if we're being honest) makes 30mph
> feel very slow. The difference isn't as profound after travelling at 50mph.

So do you want to limit all motorways/DCs to 50mph? Be careful with
your answer.
Besides, part (2) of my previous post pre-negates your response.

> No it doesn't. What it says is that drivers are too stupid / arrogant
> (delete as applicable) to keep their speed under a simple limit.

A motorway limit of 50/40/30/20 mph would be 'a simple limit' huh?

> not say that speeding will be inevitable, because that would imply an
> external factor which forces the speed up (Approaching tsunami... descent
> of an insanely steep hill...).

Yes it does. Here's the external factor for you - people's tendency to
reject abuse.

 

[spindrift]

smeggy wrote:
I'm publicaly asking for proof
> (again and again).

Which I've provided.

Paul Smith of Safespeed is a liar.

Check the links I provided.

Paul Smith recommends the perversion of justic.

Check the links I provided.

I've publicaly provided the proof smegma, over to you.

I'm realistic enough to know that I will have trouble persuading a man
who blames children for being killed by cars and who thinks that
breaking the law is inevitable every time he gets behind the wheel but
Paul Smith of Safespeed is a liar with blood on his hands.

Refute my evidence or go back to mowing children down and blamimg them.

 

[smeggy]

> I'm publicaly asking for proof
> > (again and again).
>
> Which I've provided.

No you haven't. You've provided hearsay, weblinks to opinion, out of
context quotes and spun your own conclusion. Could you really stand by
your 'evidence' in court? No!

> Paul Smith of Safespeed is a liar.
>
> Check the links I provided.

I did and I commented on their relevance (specifically the lack
thereof), now it's your turn to comment on my comments - or don't
comment at all.

> Paul Smith recommends the perversion of justic.
You've backed off from your previous "The man's a perverter of
justice". Just as well: would I be perverting the course of justice if
I were to reproduce some of those here? Of course not!

> Check the links I provided.

"We do not recommend or condone law breaking", so how does PS
"recommends the perversion of justic"?

You can't find those pages on SS - what does that tell you? Besides,
I'm sure those pages are reproduced without permission. Anyway, that's
so removed from your original issue it's unreal.

> I've publicaly provided the proof smegma, over to you.

Really? Let's step back and have a look:
The crux of your case: your supposed proof of IG being fake I have
clearly refuted (Road Traffic Act 1988).
The significance if IG not posting - he was on holiday you dimwit!
You haven't substantiated how PS employs IG.

:c)

> or go back to mowing children down and blamimg them.

And again you accuse me of blaming the children, I have said no such
thing. Is this another convenient figment of your imagination - just
like my supposed post at "26/04/2006 : 13:33:15 ". How many of your
other 'facts' did you make up spindrift?

I have shown your evidence to be irrelevant, you haven't given me
anything revelant evidence to refute. Take the time to read my
responses and reply WITHOUT FORMATTING YOUR REPLY DODGING ALL MY
POINTS.

..

Here's proof for you, proof as to which way the 'public humiliation' is
going (don't think I didn't notice this):

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk...0ba4c?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2&hl=en#d48cd0d13940ba4c
(or http://tinyurl.com/g7gv4)

See how your comrads are killfiling you at an alarming rate haa haa
haa, I think I can now consider myself successful with my humiliation
of you :c)

 

[smeggy]

Hey Jon Senior,

I notice you haven't replied to my points or started a new thread as
requested, not that I expected you to do either of those.
If these issues had, as you say, "been done to death" then surely you
would either have an answer for me or you knew I would win the points?

..

Who was it that said "Sharpening one's wit on dull objects rapidly
proves tiring! ;-) " - oh wait, that was you to me LOL

 

[Jon Senior]

On Sun, 07 May 2006 06:13:57 -0700, smeggy wrote:
> Hey Jon Senior,

Hey!

> I notice you haven't replied to my points or started a new thread as
> requested, not that I expected you to do either of those.

I haven't replied to your post as you explicitly requested that I didn't,
except in the form of a new thread. Since this thread was already OT
(Yes... really!) and you stated that you wouldn't answer them in the same
thread, it didn't seem worth the trouble. Sorry.

> If these issues had, as you say, "been done to death" then surely you
> would either have an answer for me or you knew I would win the points?

Assuming that you are generally interested in learning about reality, and
assuming that your address here is valid, we can certainly move this to
email. The issues have been done to death here. Google Groups is your
friend.

> Who was it that said "Sharpening one's wit on dull objects rapidly
> proves tiring! ;-) " - oh wait, that was you to me LOL

Quite right... I got tired!

Jon

 

[smeggy]

> I haven't replied to your post as you explicitly requested that I didn't

No, I said you should start a new thread if you wish to continue with
the unrelated topic.

> Since this thread was already OT (Yes... really!)

Yeah, I admit I'm to blame, but I'm not going to let that little lying
troll get away with the **** he posts.

> Assuming that you are generally interested in learning about reality, and
> assuming that your address here is valid, we can certainly move this to
> email. The issues have been done to death here. Google Groups is your
> friend.

TBH, I don't see why the discussion should be moved offline. I have
nothing to hide and others may have something to add. Surely that's the
point of of this place?

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
smeggy ('[email protected]') wrote:

[scythe]
Right, that does it.

I have now killfiled the whole of Google groups. If anyone on that system
ever posts anything even remotely sensible, well, I'll just have to live
without it.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
.::;===r==\
/ /___||___\____
//==\- ||- | /__\( MS Windows IS an operating environment.
//____\__||___|_// \|: C++ IS an object oriented programming language.
\__/ ~~~~~~~~~ \__/ Citroen 2cv6 IS a four door family saloon.