What a bore!

Following on from Helen Deborah Vecht's message. . .

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4736916.stm

Bore? Don't you mean "Hooray for people trying to make life outside
cars safe and pleasant"?

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the statuette business went bust
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4736916.stm

Quite. I trust they'll be organising a similar protest at speeding
motorists. Afterall, it would be a tad cowardly to single cyclists out as
the main danger to their children.

"Simon Bennett" <[email hidden]> wrote:
| Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
| > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4736916.stm
|
| Quite. I trust they'll be organising a similar protest at speeding
| motorists. Afterall, it would be a tad cowardly to single cyclists out as
| the main danger to their children.

Now, now, it might well be that at that place cyclists are the main
danger to their children. After all, if "Most cyclists are very
considerate and decent on the roads," but "60% of cyclists ignore
the lights at the junction" it must be a remarkable junction.

Simon Bennett said:

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4736916.stm

Quite. I trust they'll be organising a similar protest at speeding
motorists. Afterall, it would be a tad cowardly to single cyclists out as
the main danger to their children.

Quite possibly they might if, as they claim for cyclists, four children
and one grandmother had been hit by cars on the junction. Otherwise,
it might appear that cyclists are indeed the main danger to their
children at that junction. But why let fact as reported get in the way
of a good moan, eh?

Of course, they could be lying about the four children and one
grandmother...

--
Nobby

Nobody Here said:

Of course, they could be lying about the four children and one
grandmother...

"The group claims that four children and one grandmother were hit by
cyclists on the crossing in 2005." I wonder how many of these collisions
resulted in death or serious injury?

Simon Bennett said:

Nobody Here said:

Of course, they could be lying about the four children and one
grandmother...

"The group claims that four children and one grandmother were hit by
cyclists on the crossing in 2005." I wonder how many of these collisions
resulted in death or serious injury?

That's irrelevant; being hit by a cyclist is a Bad Thing whatever the
outcome - made worse by the possibility that the cyclist shouldn't have
been where he/she was at that moment because the flow control in effect
was against them.

Selfish behaviour seems to abound on our streets and roads these days.
Whilst I accept that the potential for death and harm is greater from
large motorised sources, that shouldn't be used as a device to justify
selfish behaviour from the more benign road users.

Chris said:

Selfish behaviour seems to abound on our streets and roads these days.
Whilst I accept that the potential for death and harm is greater from
large motorised sources, that shouldn't be used as a device to justify
selfish behaviour from the more benign road users.

I am not attempting to justify selfish behaviour. I am pointing out that
this protest has more to do with the media's current taste for
cyclist-bashing than it does with any real concern for road safety. How many
protests do we see objecting to motorists' red light jumping or turning
zig-zaged roads into car parks around school drop-off and pick-up times?

And WTF is Kate Hoey doing getting involved again? Silly [censored].

Simon Bennett said:

Nobody Here said:

Of course, they could be lying about the four children and one
grandmother...

"The group claims that four children and one grandmother were hit by
cyclists on the crossing in 2005." I wonder how many of these collisions
resulted in death or serious injury?

Oh well, so long as noone was killed or seriously hurt, then. Apparently
5 more people were hit by bikes than were hit by cars, though, but apparently
that's acceptable to you?

--
Nobby

Nobody Here said:

Oh well, so long as noone was killed or seriously hurt, then. Apparently
5 more people were hit by bikes than were hit by cars, though, but apparently
that's acceptable to you?

Perhaps you can show where it says that? I looked, but all I found was
the claim of five cyclist collisions, not that there were no car
collisions in the same time frame.

The point being that while it is possible that this junction is an
exception, the figures don't add up to cyclists posing the greatest
threat to pedestrians. I don't condone the behaviour, but at the same
time, I don't really condone drawing attention away from the danger
that _does_ kill a significant number of people per year. I call this
"prioritisation"! ;-)

Jon

Jon is Away! said:

Nobody Here said:

Oh well, so long as noone was killed or seriously hurt, then. Apparently
5 more people were hit by bikes than were hit by cars, though, but apparently
that's acceptable to you?

Perhaps you can show where it says that? I looked, but all I found was
the claim of five cyclist collisions, not that there were no car
collisions in the same time frame.

I'd presume that if there had been 5 dar collisions they'd be protesting
about that, too. While it's true that it doesn't mention car collisions,
and strictly speaking I can't infer anything from that, it seems reasonable
to assume that they're protesting about bikes because they've had at least
the majority of effect on the people using the crossing and possibly the
sole effect. It might seem a little crass to be protesting about 5 minor
injuries if there had been even one serious or fatal collision with a
car on the same crossing in the same timescale.

Quoted message said:

The point being that while it is possible that this junction is an
exception, the figures don't add up to cyclists posing the greatest
threat to pedestrians. I don't condone the behaviour, but at the same
time, I don't really condone drawing attention away from the danger
that _does_ kill a significant number of people per year. I call this
"prioritisation"! ;-)

And perhaps you can show me where in the it says that cyclists pose the
greatest threat to perestrians in general, rather that specifically at
that junction?

Of course it's prioritisation. It's what the protesters are protesting
about. Why should they protest against something else? After all,
malaria kills far more people around the world than cars do each year,
and by your logic we shouldn't therefore be too concerned about a few
thousand deaths on Britain's roads in the light of that because it's
less of a priority. Or perhaps I shouldn't be proactive about safety
in my workplace because I and my employees are far more likely to be
killed on the roads anyway and I should instead worry about that?

--
Nobby

Nobody Here said:

I'd presume that if there had been 5 dar collisions they'd be protesting
about that, too. While it's true that it doesn't mention car collisions,
and strictly speaking I can't infer anything from that, it seems reasonable
to assume that they're protesting about bikes because they've had at least
the majority of effect on the people using the crossing and possibly the
sole effect. It might seem a little crass to be protesting about 5 minor
injuries if there had been even one serious or fatal collision with a
car on the same crossing in the same timescale.

But that's what makes it both interesting and potentially farcical. The
numbers (what few we have) seem abnormal by comparison to the country
as a whole, which leaves a few possibilities.

1) The presence of an obvious human on a bike (People see "cyclists"
and "cars", not "bikes" and "drivers"!) means that these collisions
dwell on people's minds more.
2) The percieved danger of the car prevents people from taking chances
with them that they might do with bikes (The other piece of missing
information is who had priority at the time of the accidents).
3) There is some aspect of this crossing which has led to increased red
light jumping from cyclists but not drivers.

3 seems unlikely, and two might be construed as victim blaming (I'm not
by the way). 1 certainly reflects my experience in the past.

Quoted message said:

And perhaps you can show me where in the it says that cyclists pose the
greatest threat to perestrians in general, rather that specifically at
that junction?

Of course, it doesn't ;-). But see above for reasons why that makes it
interesting.

Quoted message said:

Of course it's prioritisation. It's what the protesters are protesting
about. Why should they protest against something else? After all,
malaria kills far more people around the world than cars do each year,
and by your logic we shouldn't therefore be too concerned about a few
thousand deaths on Britain's roads in the light of that because it's
less of a priority. Or perhaps I shouldn't be proactive about safety
in my workplace because I and my employees are far more likely to be
killed on the roads anyway and I should instead worry about that?

But it's an interesting prioritisation simply because unlike the
examples you've just quoted, cycle accidents and car accidents both
occur in the same environment in a way that malaria is far less likely
to be an issue for these people than cars / bikes hurting people.

Cyclists jumping red lights is getting a lot of attention in the media
at the minute, despite the evidence (RAC Foundation IIRC) that car
drivers are worse offenders at the same thing. When you repeatedly
encounter a level of bias like that in the media, it's fairly natural
to get wound up by such articles.

Jon

On 27/02/2006 07:55, Helen Deborah Vecht said,

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4736916.stm

I wonder how many of those protesting parents drive their kids half a
mile to school, parking all over the place including yellow zig-zags,
blocking visibility and generally making the roads more dangerous for
children who walk to school.

I used to live opposite a school (and I mean opposite - the lollipop
lady used to help me get out of my drive in the mornings by stopping
traffic for me!), so I have a pretty good idea of the effects of school
traffic first-hand!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Nobody Here said:

Of course it's prioritisation. It's what the protesters are
protesting about. Why should they protest against something else?
After all, malaria kills far more people around the world than cars
do each year,

Really? The figures seem to be roughly equal at about 1 million deaths from
each cause worldwide globally. Of course, that was only a cursory search, so
ICBW.
--
Ambrose

Paul Boyd said:

On 27/02/2006 07:55, Helen Deborah Vecht said,

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4736916.stm

I wonder how many of those protesting parents drive their kids half a
mile to school, parking all over the place including yellow zig-zags,
blocking visibility and generally making the roads more dangerous for
children who walk to school.

I used to live opposite a school (and I mean opposite - the lollipop
lady used to help me get out of my drive in the mornings by stopping
traffic for me!), so I have a pretty good idea of the effects of school
traffic first-hand!

Of course, you're right. The possibility that some or even all of them
might break the rules themselves makes their kids fair game for cyclists.
Of course, that also makes red light jumping cyclists fair game for
motorists, too. Not to mention the lollipop lady breaking the rules to
stop traffic to let you out of your drive, that makes you fair game for
anyone with a shoulder-chip.

--
Nobby

On 27/02/2006 18:24, Nobody Here said,

Quoted message said:

Not to mention the lollipop lady breaking the rules to
stop traffic to let you out of your drive

She did get a "telling off" from the headmistress about the same time I
changed my working hours. This was about 15 years or so ago, mind!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Simon Bennett said:

Nobody Here said:

Of course, they could be lying about the four children and one
grandmother...

"The group claims that four children and one grandmother were hit by
cyclists on the crossing in 2005." I wonder how many of these collisions
resulted in death or serious injury?

Every year between 60 and 80 pedestrians are killed on pedestrian
crossings alone by motor vehicles whereas two are killed on the road
network in total by cyclists (Source: Hansard)

--
Tony

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

Simon Bennett said:

Nobody Here said:

Of course, they could be lying about the four children and one
grandmother...

"The group claims that four children and one grandmother were hit by
cyclists on the crossing in 2005." I wonder how many of these collisions
resulted in death or serious injury?

Every year between 60 and 80 pedestrians are killed on pedestrian
crossings alone by motor vehicles whereas two are killed on the road
network in total by cyclists (Source: Hansard)

--
Tony

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

Nobody Here said:

Paul Boyd said:

On 27/02/2006 07:55, Helen Deborah Vecht said,

Quoted message said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4736916.stm

I wonder how many of those protesting parents drive their kids half a
mile to school, parking all over the place including yellow zig-zags,
blocking visibility and generally making the roads more dangerous for
children who walk to school.

I used to live opposite a school (and I mean opposite - the lollipop
lady used to help me get out of my drive in the mornings by stopping
traffic for me!), so I have a pretty good idea of the effects of
school traffic first-hand!

Of course, you're right. The possibility that some or even all of
them might break the rules themselves makes their kids fair game for
cyclists.

Well, the possibility that some of them may be considering the kids of the
other parents fair game for their car wings while protesting about the
absolute idiots who ride bikes dangerously in the vicinity does spring to
mind.

Also, it's not unlikely that the ones who are most likely to be getting
wound up about the selfish gits who do jump the lights on their bikes are
the ones who don't have a pedestrian road sense that has been honed by a
daily 10 minute walk each way to school, but that would be speculation.

--
Ambrose

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Nobody Here said:

Paul Boyd said:

On 27/02/2006 07:55, Helen Deborah Vecht said,
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4736916.stm

I wonder how many of those protesting parents drive their kids half a
mile to school, parking all over the place including yellow zig-zags,
blocking visibility and generally making the roads more dangerous for
children who walk to school.

I used to live opposite a school (and I mean opposite - the lollipop
lady used to help me get out of my drive in the mornings by stopping
traffic for me!), so I have a pretty good idea of the effects of
school traffic first-hand!

Of course, you're right. The possibility that some or even all of
them might break the rules themselves makes their kids fair game for
cyclists.

Well, the possibility that some of them may be considering the kids of the
other parents fair game for their car wings while protesting about the
absolute idiots who ride bikes dangerously in the vicinity does spring to
mind.

Also, it's not unlikely that the ones who are most likely to be getting
wound up about the selfish gits who do jump the lights on their bikes are
the ones who don't have a pedestrian road sense that has been honed by a
daily 10 minute walk each way to school, but that would be speculation.

*Sigh*

The overwhelming opinion of the group, or at least those who have
participated in this thread seems to range from "boring" to "who
cares" to "so what" to "it probably serves them right" to "they're
probably at fault because they don't have any road sense". Not to
mention "why don't they protest about something someone gives a toss
about?".

WTF does that say about you lot? Replace "bikes" with "cars" and
"pedestrians" with "cyclists" in the story and you'd all be bleating
on about how unfair it all is and few of you would think of blaming
the victims in any way. It happens anytime some unfortunate on a bike
gets run over - immediately, and without knowing any of the facts, many
of you automatically assume that it's all the fault of the car driver,
and we get the usual feeding frenzy of invective which is in sharp
contrast to the understanding and, frankly, sympathy often shown for the
law-breaking cyclist.

You'd think that as members of an endangered minority you'd at least
try to cultivate understanding of your POV from the road-using public
in general by showing some sort of sense of moderation and fairness.
However, that's sadly rarely the case, but few of you seem to think that
being as blinkered in you views and polerised in your opinions as the
average cager does nothing whatsoever to further the cause of cyclist
safety in this country. Indeed, if anything, it hinders it. Jeremy
Clarkson's got his equivalents all over the place.

I think it's very sad.

--
Nobby