Disbelief at yet another near death experience

Oxford Mail: James Styring James Styring

Getting run over – or almost – by drivers making illegal left turns is becoming unwelcome.

Last time it was a car turning left from Cowley Road into Iffley Road next to the clear-for-all-to-see No Left Turn sign. I went over her bonnet.

This time, it was a van turning left from High Street into Longwall Street, again clearly signed No Left Turn and the kerb designed at a sharp 90 degrees angle to make a turn nigh impossible. Undeterred, the guy edged forward in the heavy traffic made worse by the closure of Abingdon and Botley Roads.

I followed behind slowly in the cycle lane – then, without indication, no warning at all, he just jammed on his brakes and swung a sharp left. Due to the weather, I was out with enough lurid Lycra and mega-headlights to blind anyone looking directly at me. Quite how he missed me is a mystery. Perhaps he did see me.

I jammed on my brakes and stopped just in time not to get dragged under the van as it roared up Longwall Street. I stopped and looked around incredulously. The taxi driver following the van shrugged his shoulders and gesticulated, “Wow, lucky you stopped, that was crazy”. I had a second to choose – chase the guy down and “have a word”, or go home and put my toddler to bed. Glad I’d managed to save my life, I rode home to read a bedtime story.

Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters.

Cyclists are not a danger on the roads – they are all too often in danger. Staying safe on a bike means anticipating drivers’ next moves, steering clear of speeders and especially of people using their mobile while driving.

That’s fine, and I take the same precautions when I drive, but it’s impossible to anticipate random and flagrant breaches of the law.

Later, I noticed an email detailing plans by the county council to ban left turns by bicycles from High Street into Longwall Street. “Rich,” I thought – actually stopping motor vehicles turning left would be more like it.

The idea is to improve traffic light sequencing by not having pedestrians wait for potential left-turning bikes, which makes sense. But to do this, the council intends to remove the short left-turn filter lane for bikes and to remove a triangular refuge which is supposed to make the left-turn too acute for motor vehicles. The triangular refuge does not always work, but to remove it completely will create a free-for-all where vans and cars can and will turn left willy-nilly, at great cost to pedestrians and cyclists.

A much more effective and cheaper idea would be to keep the cycle filter lane and the triangular refuge, but to add a rumble strip on the cycle lane with a Give Way sign, so that the odd left-turning cyclist can give way to pedestrians crossing Longwall Street.

Comments (98)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:17am Tue 21 Jan 14

BigAlBiker says...

OK so the lorry was wrong to turn into a No Left turn road, but guess what, if he is in front of you and indicating left don't ride up the inside.

That's just being daft.
OK so the lorry was wrong to turn into a No Left turn road, but guess what, if he is in front of you and indicating left don't ride up the inside. That's just being daft. BigAlBiker
  • Score: -28

10:25am Tue 21 Jan 14

museli says...

It would be so easy to enforce some of these abused junctions with cameras accompanied by a clear notice that those breaking the no left turn etc laws will be prosecuted - it's almost like the authorities find it easier to turn a blind eye.

I am cautious at both these junctions due to near misses with motorists illegally turning - they are dangerous potential killers so why are the authorities not dealing with them. I wonder how many prosecutions there were last year of those making these illegal turns?
It would be so easy to enforce some of these abused junctions with cameras accompanied by a clear notice that those breaking the no left turn etc laws will be prosecuted - it's almost like the authorities find it easier to turn a blind eye. I am cautious at both these junctions due to near misses with motorists illegally turning - they are dangerous potential killers so why are the authorities not dealing with them. I wonder how many prosecutions there were last year of those making these illegal turns? museli
  • Score: 22

10:33am Tue 21 Jan 14

natox78 says...

BigAlBiker, I think it seems clear the van was in front and then suddenly slowed down. This has happened to me too. I was knocked off by a left turner who was in front of me but didn't check his left mirror to look behind him. I was never along side the car, well, until the moment it T-boned me. Then you could say I was 'in' the side of the car.
BigAlBiker, I think it seems clear the van was in front and then suddenly slowed down. This has happened to me too. I was knocked off by a left turner who was in front of me but didn't check his left mirror to look behind him. I was never along side the car, well, until the moment it T-boned me. Then you could say I was 'in' the side of the car. natox78
  • Score: 23

10:35am Tue 21 Jan 14

HeadingtonRabbit says...

BigAlBiker wrote:
OK so the lorry was wrong to turn into a No Left turn road, but guess what, if he is in front of you and indicating left don't ride up the inside.

That's just being daft.
"then, without indication, no warning at all, he just jammed on his brakes and swung a sharp left"

From actually reading the article, I deduced that he wasn't indicating left...
[quote][p][bold]BigAlBiker[/bold] wrote: OK so the lorry was wrong to turn into a No Left turn road, but guess what, if he is in front of you and indicating left don't ride up the inside. That's just being daft.[/p][/quote]"then, without indication, no warning at all, he just jammed on his brakes and swung a sharp left" From actually reading the article, I deduced that he wasn't indicating left... HeadingtonRabbit
  • Score: 35

10:35am Tue 21 Jan 14

howardl says...

How do you end up over a bonnet at that junction?
You must have been going at speed.
How do you end up over a bonnet at that junction? You must have been going at speed. howardl
  • Score: -18

10:35am Tue 21 Jan 14

museli says...

BigAlBiker wrote:
OK so the lorry was wrong to turn into a No Left turn road, but guess what, if he is in front of you and indicating left don't ride up the inside.

That's just being daft.
In a city which runs almost all it's cycle lanes up the inside of traffic then it inevitable that cycles will end up on the left of motor vehicles wanting to turn across them - this is more often than not a result of the driver not considering that it is pretty daft to start passing a cycle when they are about to turn. Describing it as daft is just victim blaming.
[quote][p][bold]BigAlBiker[/bold] wrote: OK so the lorry was wrong to turn into a No Left turn road, but guess what, if he is in front of you and indicating left don't ride up the inside. That's just being daft.[/p][/quote]In a city which runs almost all it's cycle lanes up the inside of traffic then it inevitable that cycles will end up on the left of motor vehicles wanting to turn across them - this is more often than not a result of the driver not considering that it is pretty daft to start passing a cycle when they are about to turn. Describing it as daft is just victim blaming. museli
  • Score: 38

10:50am Tue 21 Jan 14

tierneysj45 says...

"Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters."


Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow.

And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute.
"Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters." Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow. And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute. tierneysj45
  • Score: 21

10:57am Tue 21 Jan 14

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe says...

Will you now, Oxford Mail, be publishing a balancing story from a car driving employee who has probably had experiences of cyclists being complete idiots too ?
Will you now, Oxford Mail, be publishing a balancing story from a car driving employee who has probably had experiences of cyclists being complete idiots too ? Sandy Wimpole-Smythe
  • Score: 0

11:02am Tue 21 Jan 14

HeadingtonRabbit says...

tierneysj45 wrote:
"Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters."


Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow.

And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute.
I have to agree tierneysj45. This was one of the paragraphs I didn't agree with. Anyone not abiding by the rules/laws of the road is a danger to themselves, pedestrians and others using the road.

I am a cyclist and I have encountered many cyclists without lights cycling towards me in cycle lanes on the wrong side of the road and hopping off pavements into the road without looking behind them first.
[quote][p][bold]tierneysj45[/bold] wrote: "Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters." Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow. And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute.[/p][/quote]I have to agree tierneysj45. This was one of the paragraphs I didn't agree with. Anyone not abiding by the rules/laws of the road is a danger to themselves, pedestrians and others using the road. I am a cyclist and I have encountered many cyclists without lights cycling towards me in cycle lanes on the wrong side of the road and hopping off pavements into the road without looking behind them first. HeadingtonRabbit
  • Score: 27

11:12am Tue 21 Jan 14

Oxonian says...

A van turning left from the High Street into Longwall is similar to "unlit cyclists and red-light jumpers". Both are dangerous and illegal. One wrong doesn't make a right.
A van turning left from the High Street into Longwall is similar to "unlit cyclists and red-light jumpers". Both are dangerous and illegal. One wrong doesn't make a right. Oxonian
  • Score: 13

11:12am Tue 21 Jan 14

museli says...

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
Will you now, Oxford Mail, be publishing a balancing story from a car driving employee who has probably had experiences of cyclists being complete idiots too ?
It is not about who the biggest idiot is - it is about who the most dangerous one is and that is obviously the motorist. There can be no 'balancing story' - can you give just one example of a motorist in their vehicle being injured by a cyclist?
[quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: Will you now, Oxford Mail, be publishing a balancing story from a car driving employee who has probably had experiences of cyclists being complete idiots too ?[/p][/quote]It is not about who the biggest idiot is - it is about who the most dangerous one is and that is obviously the motorist. There can be no 'balancing story' - can you give just one example of a motorist in their vehicle being injured by a cyclist? museli
  • Score: 12

11:48am Tue 21 Jan 14

Nelix192 says...

When cyclists pay road tax then they can actually complain. Until then, if they all abide by the covenants of the Highway Code and not dodge in and out of traffic and pedestrians, jump curbs either onto the FOOTPATH or the road in front of said pedestrians or moving traffic. Then they can have a complaint to actually make and it can be listened to until then; READ THE HIGHWAY CODE.
When cyclists pay road tax then they can actually complain. Until then, if they all abide by the covenants of the Highway Code and not dodge in and out of traffic and pedestrians, jump curbs either onto the FOOTPATH or the road in front of said pedestrians or moving traffic. Then they can have a complaint to actually make and it can be listened to until then; READ THE HIGHWAY CODE. Nelix192
  • Score: -32

12:09pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Sandy Wimpole-Smythe says...

museli wrote:
Sandy Wimpole-Smythe wrote:
Will you now, Oxford Mail, be publishing a balancing story from a car driving employee who has probably had experiences of cyclists being complete idiots too ?
It is not about who the biggest idiot is - it is about who the most dangerous one is and that is obviously the motorist. There can be no 'balancing story' - can you give just one example of a motorist in their vehicle being injured by a cyclist?
It's not about how many are killed the story is about motorists doing stupid and often illegal maneuvers something cyclists are just as guilty of. Cyclists can be just as dangerous as motorists.
[quote][p][bold]museli[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandy Wimpole-Smythe[/bold] wrote: Will you now, Oxford Mail, be publishing a balancing story from a car driving employee who has probably had experiences of cyclists being complete idiots too ?[/p][/quote]It is not about who the biggest idiot is - it is about who the most dangerous one is and that is obviously the motorist. There can be no 'balancing story' - can you give just one example of a motorist in their vehicle being injured by a cyclist?[/p][/quote]It's not about how many are killed the story is about motorists doing stupid and often illegal maneuvers something cyclists are just as guilty of. Cyclists can be just as dangerous as motorists. Sandy Wimpole-Smythe
  • Score: 3

12:12pm Tue 21 Jan 14

museli says...

Nelix192 wrote:
When cyclists pay road tax then they can actually complain. Until then, if they all abide by the covenants of the Highway Code and not dodge in and out of traffic and pedestrians, jump curbs either onto the FOOTPATH or the road in front of said pedestrians or moving traffic. Then they can have a complaint to actually make and it can be listened to until then; READ THE HIGHWAY CODE.
What 'road tax' is that then? My half of the £1,400 Council Tax that pays for the damage caused by motorists? The VED on our car which I'm not selfish enough to drive about town?

The current situation is that motorists are heavily subsidised, about £9.6 billion/year according to the Sustainable Development Commission. That's not even taking into account their profligate waste of oil, a valuable and definitely finite resource we should be preserving for future generations who may find a way to use it safely. Not is any contribution made by motorists which might go some way towards compensating for the cost of adapting to the climate change they hasten.

Motorists are in no position whatsoever to go moaning about cyclists not paying their way!
[quote][p][bold]Nelix192[/bold] wrote: When cyclists pay road tax then they can actually complain. Until then, if they all abide by the covenants of the Highway Code and not dodge in and out of traffic and pedestrians, jump curbs either onto the FOOTPATH or the road in front of said pedestrians or moving traffic. Then they can have a complaint to actually make and it can be listened to until then; READ THE HIGHWAY CODE.[/p][/quote]What 'road tax' is that then? My half of the £1,400 Council Tax that pays for the damage caused by motorists? The VED on our car which I'm not selfish enough to drive about town? The current situation is that motorists are heavily subsidised, about £9.6 billion/year according to the Sustainable Development Commission. That's not even taking into account their profligate waste of oil, a valuable and definitely finite resource we should be preserving for future generations who may find a way to use it safely. Not is any contribution made by motorists which might go some way towards compensating for the cost of adapting to the climate change they hasten. Motorists are in no position whatsoever to go moaning about cyclists not paying their way! museli
  • Score: 33

1:15pm Tue 21 Jan 14

train passenger says...

tierneysj45 wrote:
"Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters."


Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow.

And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute.
The pavement by Said Business School is one place where I cycle too, my assessment being it is wide enough (10 metres) to do so without impeding anyone. Have you considered how else cyclists can safely get to the train station? If you do you I think you will understand why people do this. I would happily take another route into the station if there was a safe one. The UK has a road layout and rules that forces cyclists and cars into the same space and hence does not suit safety of cyclists at all.
[quote][p][bold]tierneysj45[/bold] wrote: "Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters." Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow. And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute.[/p][/quote]The pavement by Said Business School is one place where I cycle too, my assessment being it is wide enough (10 metres) to do so without impeding anyone. Have you considered how else cyclists can safely get to the train station? If you do you I think you will understand why people do this. I would happily take another route into the station if there was a safe one. The UK has a road layout and rules that forces cyclists and cars into the same space and hence does not suit safety of cyclists at all. train passenger
  • Score: -10

1:18pm Tue 21 Jan 14

MrMurf says...

"Cyclists are not a danger on the roads – they are all too often in danger"

They may not be a danger to motorists but they sure as hell are to pedestrians. I was crossing Parks Road near the junction with South Parks Road one evening last week. I was at the pedestrian crossing the traffic lights were red and the green man was lit. The cars to my right all stopped as they should but as I crossed I sensed a movement to my left and stopped at which point a cyclist travelling at a fair rate of knots shot in front of me through the red light. All I can say is I'm very glad i stopped walking as I would probably have been very seriously injured by the idiot if I hadn't.
"Cyclists are not a danger on the roads – they are all too often in danger" They may not be a danger to motorists but they sure as hell are to pedestrians. I was crossing Parks Road near the junction with South Parks Road one evening last week. I was at the pedestrian crossing the traffic lights were red and the green man was lit. The cars to my right all stopped as they should but as I crossed I sensed a movement to my left and stopped at which point a cyclist travelling at a fair rate of knots shot in front of me through the red light. All I can say is I'm very glad i stopped walking as I would probably have been very seriously injured by the idiot if I hadn't. MrMurf
  • Score: 18

1:19pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Andrew:Oxford says...

For every cyclist who is surprised by a driver performing an illegal manouvre in Oxford, there are also a few pedestrians surprised too.

The Cowley Road into Iffley Road is a classic.

As a pedestrian, when you see a car coming from Cowley Road onto the roundabout, that should be an indication to the pedestrian that it is likely to be safe to step forward onto the road and progress to the island.

Clearly not the case.

If this country ever had serious financial problems, thousands could be raised daily by stationing a traffic officer at The Plain rounabout or the junction with Longwall. Not to mention money that could be raised at the "Tesco Roundabout" or "Redbridge Roundabout" for ignoring lane markings.
For every cyclist who is surprised by a driver performing an illegal manouvre in Oxford, there are also a few pedestrians surprised too. The Cowley Road into Iffley Road is a classic. As a pedestrian, when you see a car coming from Cowley Road onto the roundabout, that should be an indication to the pedestrian that it is likely to be safe to step forward onto the road and progress to the island. Clearly not the case. If this country ever had serious financial problems, thousands could be raised daily by stationing a traffic officer at The Plain rounabout or the junction with Longwall. Not to mention money that could be raised at the "Tesco Roundabout" or "Redbridge Roundabout" for ignoring lane markings. Andrew:Oxford
  • Score: 11

1:26pm Tue 21 Jan 14

mytaxes says...

Perhaps cyclists should learn to walk when they are on the pavement? Yet again one bumped into me yesterday under the bridge at the train station. I do not have eyes in the back of my head and it is obvious they expect me to get out of their way. The road is dangerous there but how long does it take to get off and walk? If you think you have problems cycling try being a pedestrian.
Perhaps cyclists should learn to walk when they are on the pavement? Yet again one bumped into me yesterday under the bridge at the train station. I do not have eyes in the back of my head and it is obvious they expect me to get out of their way. The road is dangerous there but how long does it take to get off and walk? If you think you have problems cycling try being a pedestrian. mytaxes
  • Score: -2

1:39pm Tue 21 Jan 14

tierneysj45 says...

tierneysj45 wrote:
"Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters."


Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow.

And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute.
The pavement by Said Business School is one place where I cycle too, my assessment being it is wide enough (10 metres) to do so without impeding anyone. Have you considered how else cyclists can safely get to the train station? If you do you I think you will understand why people do this. I would happily take another route into the station if there was a safe one. The UK has a road layout and rules that forces cyclists and cars into the same space and hence does not suit safety of cyclists at all.


Hi Train Passenger. Note the word 'pavement'. Now look that up in the highway code.

The stretch of "pavement' is also wide enough to drive a tank on there but like riding a bike on there it is illegal.

The train station is a hub for transport, there are plenty of "roads" for cycles to use to get to and from.
tierneysj45 wrote: "Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters." Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow. And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute. The pavement by Said Business School is one place where I cycle too, my assessment being it is wide enough (10 metres) to do so without impeding anyone. Have you considered how else cyclists can safely get to the train station? If you do you I think you will understand why people do this. I would happily take another route into the station if there was a safe one. The UK has a road layout and rules that forces cyclists and cars into the same space and hence does not suit safety of cyclists at all. Hi Train Passenger. Note the word 'pavement'. Now look that up in the highway code. The stretch of "pavement' is also wide enough to drive a tank on there but like riding a bike on there it is illegal. The train station is a hub for transport, there are plenty of "roads" for cycles to use to get to and from. tierneysj45
  • Score: 12

1:54pm Tue 21 Jan 14

LouiseOxford says...

MrMurf wrote:
"Cyclists are not a danger on the roads – they are all too often in danger"

They may not be a danger to motorists but they sure as hell are to pedestrians. I was crossing Parks Road near the junction with South Parks Road one evening last week. I was at the pedestrian crossing the traffic lights were red and the green man was lit. The cars to my right all stopped as they should but as I crossed I sensed a movement to my left and stopped at which point a cyclist travelling at a fair rate of knots shot in front of me through the red light. All I can say is I'm very glad i stopped walking as I would probably have been very seriously injured by the idiot if I hadn't.
We all have anecdotal evidence ... for instance, in the last week, as a pedestrian, I was nearly hit twice by cars ignoring red lights at a pedestrian crossing - both times at one of the crossings on st clements where the Oxford Tube stops are actually. And this red light was a long time red; green man flashing, I was halfway across the road. Both went through at well above the speed limit, and I think certainly the first one had no idea that he was even jumping a red light, he clearly had not noticed the crossing at all. Very scary given the amount of junctions and traffic lights in that area! Also, and though I agree cyclists should stop, I am much less bothered by them because they are way more manoeuvrable and don't take up half the road like a car i.e. if a cyclist goes through a red light they can weave around me, but a car at 30mph through a red light? I'm dead.
[quote][p][bold]MrMurf[/bold] wrote: "Cyclists are not a danger on the roads – they are all too often in danger" They may not be a danger to motorists but they sure as hell are to pedestrians. I was crossing Parks Road near the junction with South Parks Road one evening last week. I was at the pedestrian crossing the traffic lights were red and the green man was lit. The cars to my right all stopped as they should but as I crossed I sensed a movement to my left and stopped at which point a cyclist travelling at a fair rate of knots shot in front of me through the red light. All I can say is I'm very glad i stopped walking as I would probably have been very seriously injured by the idiot if I hadn't.[/p][/quote]We all have anecdotal evidence ... for instance, in the last week, as a pedestrian, I was nearly hit twice by cars ignoring red lights at a pedestrian crossing - both times at one of the crossings on st clements where the Oxford Tube stops are actually. And this red light was a long time red; green man flashing, I was halfway across the road. Both went through at well above the speed limit, and I think certainly the first one had no idea that he was even jumping a red light, he clearly had not noticed the crossing at all. Very scary given the amount of junctions and traffic lights in that area! Also, and though I agree cyclists should stop, I am much less bothered by them because they are way more manoeuvrable and don't take up half the road like a car i.e. if a cyclist goes through a red light they can weave around me, but a car at 30mph through a red light? I'm dead. LouiseOxford
  • Score: 6

3:29pm Tue 21 Jan 14

train passenger says...

tierneysj45 wrote:
tierneysj45 wrote:
"Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters."


Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow.

And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute.
The pavement by Said Business School is one place where I cycle too, my assessment being it is wide enough (10 metres) to do so without impeding anyone. Have you considered how else cyclists can safely get to the train station? If you do you I think you will understand why people do this. I would happily take another route into the station if there was a safe one. The UK has a road layout and rules that forces cyclists and cars into the same space and hence does not suit safety of cyclists at all.


Hi Train Passenger. Note the word 'pavement'. Now look that up in the highway code.

The stretch of "pavement' is also wide enough to drive a tank on there but like riding a bike on there it is illegal.

The train station is a hub for transport, there are plenty of "roads" for cycles to use to get to and from.
I didn't suggest it was legal, I am just arguing it is understandable. In the same way that I understand that you as a pedestrian on your commute will quite possibly cross Rewley Road while the pedestrian light is on red in that very same spot (about 95% of people do this because there is little traffic, about 3% stupidly do so even when there is traffic) and in the same way that 90% of drivers do not indicate to turn left on an empty street. Both are equally illegal but also fairly understandable (and if we can give such understanding to pedestrians and drivers then why not to cyclists?). But maybe you are among the 5% of pedestrians who do obey every single light and the 10% of drivers who always indicate, in which case you have my respect.
[quote][p][bold]tierneysj45[/bold] wrote: tierneysj45 wrote: "Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters." Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow. And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute. The pavement by Said Business School is one place where I cycle too, my assessment being it is wide enough (10 metres) to do so without impeding anyone. Have you considered how else cyclists can safely get to the train station? If you do you I think you will understand why people do this. I would happily take another route into the station if there was a safe one. The UK has a road layout and rules that forces cyclists and cars into the same space and hence does not suit safety of cyclists at all. Hi Train Passenger. Note the word 'pavement'. Now look that up in the highway code. The stretch of "pavement' is also wide enough to drive a tank on there but like riding a bike on there it is illegal. The train station is a hub for transport, there are plenty of "roads" for cycles to use to get to and from.[/p][/quote]I didn't suggest it was legal, I am just arguing it is understandable. In the same way that I understand that you as a pedestrian on your commute will quite possibly cross Rewley Road while the pedestrian light is on red in that very same spot (about 95% of people do this because there is little traffic, about 3% stupidly do so even when there is traffic) and in the same way that 90% of drivers do not indicate to turn left on an empty street. Both are equally illegal but also fairly understandable (and if we can give such understanding to pedestrians and drivers then why not to cyclists?). But maybe you are among the 5% of pedestrians who do obey every single light and the 10% of drivers who always indicate, in which case you have my respect. train passenger
  • Score: -4

3:31pm Tue 21 Jan 14

toots89 says...

''Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters."

What an irresponsible thing to say! 'bleating' about unlit cyclists!? You said yourself you are a driver too, so I am sure you can appreciate how dangerous it is for a cyclist to be riding with no lights on, and even worse, wearing all black! The amount of times me and my boyfriend have suddenly noticed a dark figure cycling right in front of us, who had gone completely unnoticed until the last moment. How is that not dangerous to a motorist!? As well as all the other things for a driver to be watching out for (street signs, road markings, traffic lights etc...) you think they should also be watching out for unlit cyclists and swerving round them at the last moment?

And are you assuming that it would have absoulutely no emotional impact on a driver if they were to run over said unlit cyclist, injuring or even killing them? I know for a fact that I would be completely devestated and shaken if I were to collide with a cyclist!

Dont make your self look like one of those self righteous cyclists that all Oxford drivers hate! Most of what you said I completely agree with, yes you should be able to cycle, at whatever speed you like, without worrying about drivers making illegal turns. But to make out like cyclists are of no danger to anyone is absurd! All road users should be abiding the high way code and using the roads safely, regardless of weather you are using a car, van, moped, bike, trike...
''Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters." What an irresponsible thing to say! 'bleating' about unlit cyclists!? You said yourself you are a driver too, so I am sure you can appreciate how dangerous it is for a cyclist to be riding with no lights on, and even worse, wearing all black! The amount of times me and my boyfriend have suddenly noticed a dark figure cycling right in front of us, who had gone completely unnoticed until the last moment. How is that not dangerous to a motorist!? As well as all the other things for a driver to be watching out for (street signs, road markings, traffic lights etc...) you think they should also be watching out for unlit cyclists and swerving round them at the last moment? And are you assuming that it would have absoulutely no emotional impact on a driver if they were to run over said unlit cyclist, injuring or even killing them? I know for a fact that I would be completely devestated and shaken if I were to collide with a cyclist! Dont make your self look like one of those self righteous cyclists that all Oxford drivers hate! Most of what you said I completely agree with, yes you should be able to cycle, at whatever speed you like, without worrying about drivers making illegal turns. But to make out like cyclists are of no danger to anyone is absurd! All road users should be abiding the high way code and using the roads safely, regardless of weather you are using a car, van, moped, bike, trike... toots89
  • Score: 5

3:32pm Tue 21 Jan 14

museli says...

train passenger wrote:
tierneysj45 wrote:
tierneysj45 wrote:
"Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters."


Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow.

And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute.
The pavement by Said Business School is one place where I cycle too, my assessment being it is wide enough (10 metres) to do so without impeding anyone. Have you considered how else cyclists can safely get to the train station? If you do you I think you will understand why people do this. I would happily take another route into the station if there was a safe one. The UK has a road layout and rules that forces cyclists and cars into the same space and hence does not suit safety of cyclists at all.


Hi Train Passenger. Note the word 'pavement'. Now look that up in the highway code.

The stretch of "pavement' is also wide enough to drive a tank on there but like riding a bike on there it is illegal.

The train station is a hub for transport, there are plenty of "roads" for cycles to use to get to and from.
I didn't suggest it was legal, I am just arguing it is understandable. In the same way that I understand that you as a pedestrian on your commute will quite possibly cross Rewley Road while the pedestrian light is on red in that very same spot (about 95% of people do this because there is little traffic, about 3% stupidly do so even when there is traffic) and in the same way that 90% of drivers do not indicate to turn left on an empty street. Both are equally illegal but also fairly understandable (and if we can give such understanding to pedestrians and drivers then why not to cyclists?). But maybe you are among the 5% of pedestrians who do obey every single light and the 10% of drivers who always indicate, in which case you have my respect.
While I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying train passenger neither it is not illegal for a pedestrian to cross against a red man or for a motorist to turn without indicating except where the situation requires it.
[quote][p][bold]train passenger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tierneysj45[/bold] wrote: tierneysj45 wrote: "Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters." Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow. And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute. The pavement by Said Business School is one place where I cycle too, my assessment being it is wide enough (10 metres) to do so without impeding anyone. Have you considered how else cyclists can safely get to the train station? If you do you I think you will understand why people do this. I would happily take another route into the station if there was a safe one. The UK has a road layout and rules that forces cyclists and cars into the same space and hence does not suit safety of cyclists at all. Hi Train Passenger. Note the word 'pavement'. Now look that up in the highway code. The stretch of "pavement' is also wide enough to drive a tank on there but like riding a bike on there it is illegal. The train station is a hub for transport, there are plenty of "roads" for cycles to use to get to and from.[/p][/quote]I didn't suggest it was legal, I am just arguing it is understandable. In the same way that I understand that you as a pedestrian on your commute will quite possibly cross Rewley Road while the pedestrian light is on red in that very same spot (about 95% of people do this because there is little traffic, about 3% stupidly do so even when there is traffic) and in the same way that 90% of drivers do not indicate to turn left on an empty street. Both are equally illegal but also fairly understandable (and if we can give such understanding to pedestrians and drivers then why not to cyclists?). But maybe you are among the 5% of pedestrians who do obey every single light and the 10% of drivers who always indicate, in which case you have my respect.[/p][/quote]While I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying train passenger neither it is not illegal for a pedestrian to cross against a red man or for a motorist to turn without indicating except where the situation requires it. museli
  • Score: 4

3:52pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Madi50n says...

Nelix192 wrote:
When cyclists pay road tax then they can actually complain. Until then, if they all abide by the covenants of the Highway Code and not dodge in and out of traffic and pedestrians, jump curbs either onto the FOOTPATH or the road in front of said pedestrians or moving traffic. Then they can have a complaint to actually make and it can be listened to until then; READ THE HIGHWAY CODE.
The ignorance here is breath-taking. "Road Tax" hasn't existed since the 1930s, Winston Churchill got rid of it because it was beleived, quite rightly based on your ignorant comment, that it would give motorists a sense of entitlement.

Road are for Public Use, and are funded from general taxation, you know income tax, council tax, VAT and VED. Some cars don't incur any tax at all, band a cars, electric & hybrid vehicles. Where roads have no pavements people are entitled to walk along them, they don't pay VED. neither do horse riders.

So your "pay road tax" comment is just ridiculous, please check your fact before spouting ignorant rubbish.
[quote][p][bold]Nelix192[/bold] wrote: When cyclists pay road tax then they can actually complain. Until then, if they all abide by the covenants of the Highway Code and not dodge in and out of traffic and pedestrians, jump curbs either onto the FOOTPATH or the road in front of said pedestrians or moving traffic. Then they can have a complaint to actually make and it can be listened to until then; READ THE HIGHWAY CODE.[/p][/quote]The ignorance here is breath-taking. "Road Tax" hasn't existed since the 1930s, Winston Churchill got rid of it because it was beleived, quite rightly based on your ignorant comment, that it would give motorists a sense of entitlement. Road are for Public Use, and are funded from general taxation, you know income tax, council tax, VAT and VED. Some cars don't incur any tax at all, band a cars, electric & hybrid vehicles. Where roads have no pavements people are entitled to walk along them, they don't pay VED. neither do horse riders. So your "pay road tax" comment is just ridiculous, please check your fact before spouting ignorant rubbish. Madi50n
  • Score: 19

4:06pm Tue 21 Jan 14

tierneysj45 says...

I didn't suggest it was legal, I am just arguing it is understandable. In the same way that I understand that you as a pedestrian on your commute will quite possibly cross Rewley Road while the pedestrian light is on red in that very same spot (about 95% of people do this because there is little traffic, about 3% stupidly do so even when there is traffic) and in the same way that 90% of drivers do not indicate to turn left on an empty street. Both are equally illegal but also fairly understandable (and if we can give such understanding to pedestrians and drivers then why not to cyclists?). But maybe you are among the 5% of pedestrians who do obey every single light and the 10% of drivers who always indicate, in which case you have my respect.



I would disagree it was understandable, and reiterate that it is illegal to cycle on a footpath.

As do I find your it's understandable (oh its okay for me to do it) attitude. I don't need respect.

No, do not assume in any way, either through your made up percentages figures (as they do not add up to 100 they look like they are plucked out of thin air) how I traverse to work each day.

As a parent of two young children, both who cycle (including me) I teach them the rules of the road. Little gems like wait for the green man. And do not cycle on the footpath.
I didn't suggest it was legal, I am just arguing it is understandable. In the same way that I understand that you as a pedestrian on your commute will quite possibly cross Rewley Road while the pedestrian light is on red in that very same spot (about 95% of people do this because there is little traffic, about 3% stupidly do so even when there is traffic) and in the same way that 90% of drivers do not indicate to turn left on an empty street. Both are equally illegal but also fairly understandable (and if we can give such understanding to pedestrians and drivers then why not to cyclists?). But maybe you are among the 5% of pedestrians who do obey every single light and the 10% of drivers who always indicate, in which case you have my respect. I would disagree it was understandable, and reiterate that it is illegal to cycle on a footpath. As do I find your it's understandable (oh its okay for me to do it) attitude. I don't need respect. No, do not assume in any way, either through your made up percentages figures (as they do not add up to 100 they look like they are plucked out of thin air) how I traverse to work each day. As a parent of two young children, both who cycle (including me) I teach them the rules of the road. Little gems like wait for the green man. And do not cycle on the footpath. tierneysj45
  • Score: 5

4:11pm Tue 21 Jan 14

Madi50n says...

I've yet to ever hear anyone come up with a valid reason for hating someone based on their choice to ride a bicycle.

They don't cause traffic jams, they don't increase pollution, they don't kill or seriously injure thousands of people every year.

They reduce the traffic and pollution and increase fitness leading to less of a burden on health services.

The number of injuries or deaths caused by cyclists is far outnumbered by motorists.

Cyclists break rules as much or as little as motorists do, both are wrong and both should be punished.

But as the fact that many, many more deaths and injuries are caused by motorists than cyclist prove, the consequences for a cyclist breaking the rules vs the consequences for a motorist are completely different.

I am in no way condoning cyclists breaking the rules, I am both a motorist and a cyclist and at all times I do everything I can to reduce the chances of me being in or causing an accident.

However, I am baffled that bad cycling causes far more outrgae than bad driving. That cyclists are blamed for their injuries or deaths simply because they were cyclists. I can find no earthly reason why this should be the case.

The only thing that I have evr been able to come up with for motorists hatred of cyclists is the fact that cyclist force drivers to be more responsible and they don't like it.

They want to be able to play with their stereos, read an sms, talk on their phone, eat, speed, take illegal left turns, not indicate, speed up on an amber light in stead of slowing down, stop or undertake in a cyle lane; unfortunately, doing all of this puts cyclists at risk, so instead of admitting that the problem is with them and the fact that they don't want to drive carefully and responsibly, they deflect it onto the cyclists.

We should be flooding these comments boards with outrage for every traffic jam, accident, injury or death caused by motorists, but we don't. Why not?

This is why I don't cycle as much I would like, I certainly don't commute as I have little one to take to nursery, I tried it on a bike, and on 3 occasions was nearly hit by cars. So now I sit in my car adding to the traffic jams. Think on that, would you rather there were 50 more cycles and 50 fewer cars? ofr a hundred or two hundred. How much quicker would your journey be if there weren't 200 cars in front of you on the Banbury, Woodstock, Abingdon or Botley roads?
I've yet to ever hear anyone come up with a valid reason for hating someone based on their choice to ride a bicycle. They don't cause traffic jams, they don't increase pollution, they don't kill or seriously injure thousands of people every year. They reduce the traffic and pollution and increase fitness leading to less of a burden on health services. The number of injuries or deaths caused by cyclists is far outnumbered by motorists. Cyclists break rules as much or as little as motorists do, both are wrong and both should be punished. But as the fact that many, many more deaths and injuries are caused by motorists than cyclist prove, the consequences for a cyclist breaking the rules vs the consequences for a motorist are completely different. I am in no way condoning cyclists breaking the rules, I am both a motorist and a cyclist and at all times I do everything I can to reduce the chances of me being in or causing an accident. However, I am baffled that bad cycling causes far more outrgae than bad driving. That cyclists are blamed for their injuries or deaths simply because they were cyclists. I can find no earthly reason why this should be the case. The only thing that I have evr been able to come up with for motorists hatred of cyclists is the fact that cyclist force drivers to be more responsible and they don't like it. They want to be able to play with their stereos, read an sms, talk on their phone, eat, speed, take illegal left turns, not indicate, speed up on an amber light in stead of slowing down, stop or undertake in a cyle lane; unfortunately, doing all of this puts cyclists at risk, so instead of admitting that the problem is with them and the fact that they don't want to drive carefully and responsibly, they deflect it onto the cyclists. We should be flooding these comments boards with outrage for every traffic jam, accident, injury or death caused by motorists, but we don't. Why not? This is why I don't cycle as much I would like, I certainly don't commute as I have little one to take to nursery, I tried it on a bike, and on 3 occasions was nearly hit by cars. So now I sit in my car adding to the traffic jams. Think on that, would you rather there were 50 more cycles and 50 fewer cars? ofr a hundred or two hundred. How much quicker would your journey be if there weren't 200 cars in front of you on the Banbury, Woodstock, Abingdon or Botley roads? Madi50n
  • Score: 21

4:27pm Tue 21 Jan 14

train passenger says...

tierneysj45 wrote:
I didn't suggest it was legal, I am just arguing it is understandable. In the same way that I understand that you as a pedestrian on your commute will quite possibly cross Rewley Road while the pedestrian light is on red in that very same spot (about 95% of people do this because there is little traffic, about 3% stupidly do so even when there is traffic) and in the same way that 90% of drivers do not indicate to turn left on an empty street. Both are equally illegal but also fairly understandable (and if we can give such understanding to pedestrians and drivers then why not to cyclists?). But maybe you are among the 5% of pedestrians who do obey every single light and the 10% of drivers who always indicate, in which case you have my respect.



I would disagree it was understandable, and reiterate that it is illegal to cycle on a footpath.

As do I find your it's understandable (oh its okay for me to do it) attitude. I don't need respect.

No, do not assume in any way, either through your made up percentages figures (as they do not add up to 100 they look like they are plucked out of thin air) how I traverse to work each day.

As a parent of two young children, both who cycle (including me) I teach them the rules of the road. Little gems like wait for the green man. And do not cycle on the footpath.
Exactly, the only folks who consistently wait for the man to go green are those with kids and that is how I teach mine as well, so we are in complete agreement. If, however you feel that what these other pedestrians do (cross when there is a red man) is not understandable, why don't you tell us here and now? If you feel that drivers should indicate when turning left, why not tell us here and now? What is making it difficult for you to apply the same judgments to all types of road users?
[quote][p][bold]tierneysj45[/bold] wrote: I didn't suggest it was legal, I am just arguing it is understandable. In the same way that I understand that you as a pedestrian on your commute will quite possibly cross Rewley Road while the pedestrian light is on red in that very same spot (about 95% of people do this because there is little traffic, about 3% stupidly do so even when there is traffic) and in the same way that 90% of drivers do not indicate to turn left on an empty street. Both are equally illegal but also fairly understandable (and if we can give such understanding to pedestrians and drivers then why not to cyclists?). But maybe you are among the 5% of pedestrians who do obey every single light and the 10% of drivers who always indicate, in which case you have my respect. I would disagree it was understandable, and reiterate that it is illegal to cycle on a footpath. As do I find your it's understandable (oh its okay for me to do it) attitude. I don't need respect. No, do not assume in any way, either through your made up percentages figures (as they do not add up to 100 they look like they are plucked out of thin air) how I traverse to work each day. As a parent of two young children, both who cycle (including me) I teach them the rules of the road. Little gems like wait for the green man. And do not cycle on the footpath.[/p][/quote]Exactly, the only folks who consistently wait for the man to go green are those with kids and that is how I teach mine as well, so we are in complete agreement. If, however you feel that what these other pedestrians do (cross when there is a red man) is not understandable, why don't you tell us here and now? If you feel that drivers should indicate when turning left, why not tell us here and now? What is making it difficult for you to apply the same judgments to all types of road users? train passenger
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Tue 21 Jan 14

museli says...

colinharry wrote:
The driver is obviously in the wrong for turning left....must say tho that I
,ve lost count of the cyclists who cant be arsed to signal when turning left.that really p1sses me off!!
Unfortunately a minority of motorists think that it is safe to turn left at the same time as a cyclist presumably because they unaware that 2 wheelers need the full lane to turn into. Most experienced cyclists will avoid signalling left if they think a vehicle close behind also want to turn as it's inviting trouble.
[quote][p][bold]colinharry[/bold] wrote: The driver is obviously in the wrong for turning left....must say tho that I ,ve lost count of the cyclists who cant be arsed to signal when turning left.that really p1sses me off!![/p][/quote]Unfortunately a minority of motorists think that it is safe to turn left at the same time as a cyclist presumably because they unaware that 2 wheelers need the full lane to turn into. Most experienced cyclists will avoid signalling left if they think a vehicle close behind also want to turn as it's inviting trouble. museli
  • Score: 4

6:22pm Tue 21 Jan 14

caz1111 says...

HeadingtonRabbit wrote:
BigAlBiker wrote:
OK so the lorry was wrong to turn into a No Left turn road, but guess what, if he is in front of you and indicating left don't ride up the inside.

That's just being daft.
"then, without indication, no warning at all, he just jammed on his brakes and swung a sharp left"

From actually reading the article, I deduced that he wasn't indicating left...
The writer stated that the van WA|S NOT indicating.

I am a pedestrian & driver & never ride a bike but both my husband & son-in-law have been knocked off their bikes when being in the correct place. I do think that more should be done to encourage cyclists to watch out for car/lorry drivers, for their own sakes, but how can they be expected to be psychic & realise when a driver is going to break the law. I get furious at cyclists who are stupid - e.g. wear no safety equipment or lights in fog - but when they are in the right place, doing the right thing, what else can they do. They are vulnerable & I'm very glad that this cyclist had good brakes & was therefore safe on this occasion. I agree that people who brake the law should be charged, the fines could then be used to pay for improved safety for ALL.
[quote][p][bold]HeadingtonRabbit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BigAlBiker[/bold] wrote: OK so the lorry was wrong to turn into a No Left turn road, but guess what, if he is in front of you and indicating left don't ride up the inside. That's just being daft.[/p][/quote]"then, without indication, no warning at all, he just jammed on his brakes and swung a sharp left" From actually reading the article, I deduced that he wasn't indicating left...[/p][/quote]The writer stated that the van WA|S NOT indicating. I am a pedestrian & driver & never ride a bike but both my husband & son-in-law have been knocked off their bikes when being in the correct place. I do think that more should be done to encourage cyclists to watch out for car/lorry drivers, for their own sakes, but how can they be expected to be psychic & realise when a driver is going to break the law. I get furious at cyclists who are stupid - e.g. wear no safety equipment or lights in fog - but when they are in the right place, doing the right thing, what else can they do. They are vulnerable & I'm very glad that this cyclist had good brakes & was therefore safe on this occasion. I agree that people who brake the law should be charged, the fines could then be used to pay for improved safety for ALL. caz1111
  • Score: 8

11:18pm Tue 21 Jan 14

MrSooty says...

I remember a cyclist dying at this junction about 15 years ago due to left a left turning vehicle.
I remember a cyclist dying at this junction about 15 years ago due to left a left turning vehicle. MrSooty
  • Score: 6

9:33am Wed 22 Jan 14

livid99 says...

tierneysj45 wrote:
"Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters."


Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow.

And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute.
Exactly.
The first paragraph of this guy's moan does absolutely nothing to improve the image of cyclists in Oxford. So "bleating" about cyclists with no lights or those who ignore red lights is pathetic is it ?? The arrogance of some of these cyclists is amazing.
So the next time I see a woman on a bike go straight through a red light at the crossing outside Tesco in Cowley Road, where pedestrians were about to cross, because she was looking at her phone while cycling (!!!!), like I saw on Saturday, I will not think anything bad about her because...well she is a cyclist and it would be "pathetic" to complain, right ?
When cyclists like the writer of this article have the nerve to write and complain about a driver making a dodgy manoeuvre, while many of his fellow cyclists are showing complete disregard for road rules across the city day after day, all you can do is be amazed at the attitude of these people and for having the nerve to make such comments........
[quote][p][bold]tierneysj45[/bold] wrote: "Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters." Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow. And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute.[/p][/quote]Exactly. The first paragraph of this guy's moan does absolutely nothing to improve the image of cyclists in Oxford. So "bleating" about cyclists with no lights or those who ignore red lights is pathetic is it ?? The arrogance of some of these cyclists is amazing. So the next time I see a woman on a bike go straight through a red light at the crossing outside Tesco in Cowley Road, where pedestrians were about to cross, because she was looking at her phone while cycling (!!!!), like I saw on Saturday, I will not think anything bad about her because...well she is a cyclist and it would be "pathetic" to complain, right ? When cyclists like the writer of this article have the nerve to write and complain about a driver making a dodgy manoeuvre, while many of his fellow cyclists are showing complete disregard for road rules across the city day after day, all you can do is be amazed at the attitude of these people and for having the nerve to make such comments........ livid99
  • Score: -1

9:42am Wed 22 Jan 14

livid99 says...

toots89 wrote:
''Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters."

What an irresponsible thing to say! 'bleating' about unlit cyclists!? You said yourself you are a driver too, so I am sure you can appreciate how dangerous it is for a cyclist to be riding with no lights on, and even worse, wearing all black! The amount of times me and my boyfriend have suddenly noticed a dark figure cycling right in front of us, who had gone completely unnoticed until the last moment. How is that not dangerous to a motorist!? As well as all the other things for a driver to be watching out for (street signs, road markings, traffic lights etc...) you think they should also be watching out for unlit cyclists and swerving round them at the last moment?

And are you assuming that it would have absoulutely no emotional impact on a driver if they were to run over said unlit cyclist, injuring or even killing them? I know for a fact that I would be completely devestated and shaken if I were to collide with a cyclist!

Dont make your self look like one of those self righteous cyclists that all Oxford drivers hate! Most of what you said I completely agree with, yes you should be able to cycle, at whatever speed you like, without worrying about drivers making illegal turns. But to make out like cyclists are of no danger to anyone is absurd! All road users should be abiding the high way code and using the roads safely, regardless of weather you are using a car, van, moped, bike, trike...
Totally agree with this.
Unfortunately, the fact that some readers (cyclists presumably who, on principle would automatically disagree) have chosen to give this a thumbs-down vote shows the kind of people who are out there on 2 wheels.
[quote][p][bold]toots89[/bold] wrote: ''Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters." What an irresponsible thing to say! 'bleating' about unlit cyclists!? You said yourself you are a driver too, so I am sure you can appreciate how dangerous it is for a cyclist to be riding with no lights on, and even worse, wearing all black! The amount of times me and my boyfriend have suddenly noticed a dark figure cycling right in front of us, who had gone completely unnoticed until the last moment. How is that not dangerous to a motorist!? As well as all the other things for a driver to be watching out for (street signs, road markings, traffic lights etc...) you think they should also be watching out for unlit cyclists and swerving round them at the last moment? And are you assuming that it would have absoulutely no emotional impact on a driver if they were to run over said unlit cyclist, injuring or even killing them? I know for a fact that I would be completely devestated and shaken if I were to collide with a cyclist! Dont make your self look like one of those self righteous cyclists that all Oxford drivers hate! Most of what you said I completely agree with, yes you should be able to cycle, at whatever speed you like, without worrying about drivers making illegal turns. But to make out like cyclists are of no danger to anyone is absurd! All road users should be abiding the high way code and using the roads safely, regardless of weather you are using a car, van, moped, bike, trike...[/p][/quote]Totally agree with this. Unfortunately, the fact that some readers (cyclists presumably who, on principle would automatically disagree) have chosen to give this a thumbs-down vote shows the kind of people who are out there on 2 wheels. livid99
  • Score: 1

9:57am Wed 22 Jan 14

Madi50n says...

There are 5 stories on today's OM news page about accidents on the road, every single one of them involves motor vehicles (2 this morning alone).

Yes it's patently obvious that cyclists are the problem!

The second most commented story is about a motorist convicted of killing a cyclist, some of the comments on that page actively defending the motorist and blaming the cyclist.

The anti-cycling culture in this culture is, quite frankly, unbelievable. The constant banging on that cyclists have fewer rights than motorists, that the consequences of their actions are as serious as those of motorists.

I repeat, some cyclists and some motorists break the rules, both are wrong and both should be punished.

However, if you think cyclists are as big a problem as motorists, you are ignoring the basic facts.

Motorists cause thousands of injuries and deaths every single year, cyclists do not.

If a motorist hits you, you'll probably die or be seriously injured.

If a cyclist hits you probably won't (i'm not saying you won't, but probably won't, again I repeat, it does mean I condone it or that any one should condone it)

The OM's news page alone should be enough to show even the most narrow-minded people that the BIG problem is motor vehicles, but apparently not.

The scourge that is cyclists are clearly killing and injuring men, women, children, old people and little fluffy bunnies with impunity; whilst the nice law-abiding, never do anything wrong, kind-to-his mam motorist is unfairly treated like a criminal.
There are 5 stories on today's OM news page about accidents on the road, every single one of them involves motor vehicles (2 this morning alone). Yes it's patently obvious that cyclists are the problem! The second most commented story is about a motorist convicted of killing a cyclist, some of the comments on that page actively defending the motorist and blaming the cyclist. The anti-cycling culture in this culture is, quite frankly, unbelievable. The constant banging on that cyclists have fewer rights than motorists, that the consequences of their actions are as serious as those of motorists. I repeat, some cyclists and some motorists break the rules, both are wrong and both should be punished. However, if you think cyclists are as big a problem as motorists, you are ignoring the basic facts. Motorists cause thousands of injuries and deaths every single year, cyclists do not. If a motorist hits you, you'll probably die or be seriously injured. If a cyclist hits you probably won't (i'm not saying you won't, but probably won't, again I repeat, it does mean I condone it or that any one should condone it) The OM's news page alone should be enough to show even the most narrow-minded people that the BIG problem is motor vehicles, but apparently not. The scourge that is cyclists are clearly killing and injuring men, women, children, old people and little fluffy bunnies with impunity; whilst the nice law-abiding, never do anything wrong, kind-to-his mam motorist is unfairly treated like a criminal. Madi50n
  • Score: 7

10:12am Wed 22 Jan 14

Madi50n says...

Oxford is grinding to a halt, I have lived here for 9 years now, and generally I like it.

But every single year the traffic gets worse and worse, the OCC does nothing about it and pretty soon we'll hit gridlock if they still haven't done anything about it in the next few years.

There are no incentives to get on a bus, services are patchy, late, cast a lot and who wants to stand in the rain, cold, snow if there are alternatives.

There's not a chance in hell they'll build a tramway or any other innovative idea to get people in and out of the city.

They won't build houses close enough to reduce the numbers commuting.

They won't improve the cycle infrastructure, their current half-ar53d attitude to it right now proves that.

So it's up to motorists to sort it out themselves, and one of the ways we can do that is to realise that the bicycle in the cycle lane or in front of you is a lot smaller than a car so it's taking up a lot less space. If it's only going at 5 to 10 miles an hour, at least it's moving, not stationary because of the other 50 cars in front of you. It's also not pouring out fumes on residential streets. Take a more relaxed attitude and give them a bit more space and treat them as equals then maybe more people will get on their bikes. For every cycle on the road, that's one less car, 50 fewer and that's 50 fewer cars; imagine 100 or 200 fewer cars on the Botley road in the morning? Every regular cyclist is one fewer needing NHS treatment for weight-related health problems.

Come on, seriously? Is that at least part of the solution?
Oxford is grinding to a halt, I have lived here for 9 years now, and generally I like it. But every single year the traffic gets worse and worse, the OCC does nothing about it and pretty soon we'll hit gridlock if they still haven't done anything about it in the next few years. There are no incentives to get on a bus, services are patchy, late, cast a lot and who wants to stand in the rain, cold, snow if there are alternatives. There's not a chance in hell they'll build a tramway or any other innovative idea to get people in and out of the city. They won't build houses close enough to reduce the numbers commuting. They won't improve the cycle infrastructure, their current half-ar53d attitude to it right now proves that. So it's up to motorists to sort it out themselves, and one of the ways we can do that is to realise that the bicycle in the cycle lane or in front of you is a lot smaller than a car so it's taking up a lot less space. If it's only going at 5 to 10 miles an hour, at least it's moving, not stationary because of the other 50 cars in front of you. It's also not pouring out fumes on residential streets. Take a more relaxed attitude and give them a bit more space and treat them as equals then maybe more people will get on their bikes. For every cycle on the road, that's one less car, 50 fewer and that's 50 fewer cars; imagine 100 or 200 fewer cars on the Botley road in the morning? Every regular cyclist is one fewer needing NHS treatment for weight-related health problems. Come on, seriously? Is that at least part of the solution? Madi50n
  • Score: 9

10:13am Wed 22 Jan 14

livid99 says...

I don't see many denying that cars are more dangerous than bicycles ? That is obvious to even the most ignorant person. What I do see is cyclists ignoring the basic rules of the road, which apply to ALL road users, as if they dont apply to them. And then complaining like hell when anyone criticises them for this attitude. THAT is what annoys people.
I don't see many denying that cars are more dangerous than bicycles ? That is obvious to even the most ignorant person. What I do see is cyclists ignoring the basic rules of the road, which apply to ALL road users, as if they dont apply to them. And then complaining like hell when anyone criticises them for this attitude. THAT is what annoys people. livid99
  • Score: 4

10:31am Wed 22 Jan 14

Madi50n says...

livid99 wrote:
I don't see many denying that cars are more dangerous than bicycles ? That is obvious to even the most ignorant person. What I do see is cyclists ignoring the basic rules of the road, which apply to ALL road users, as if they dont apply to them. And then complaining like hell when anyone criticises them for this attitude. THAT is what annoys people.
I'm not complaining that people criticise cyclists for breaking the rules, they shouldn't break them, they are there to help keep them and others safe.

The complaint is about the disproportionate amount of anger at cyclist compared to motorists.

Cyclist stories on OM attract dozens of comments, a good percentage of which are about how dangerous they are.

Motorist stories on OM attract far fewer comments and where accidents have occurred a good percentage of those comments try to absolve the motorist of blame.

Where accidents involving cyclists & anyone else appear the number of comments victim-blaming and generally berating cyclists for their attitude is ludicrous, yet stories involving motorists causing accidents attract few if any comments.

The very first comment on this story described the cyclist as daft, even though the driver made an illegal maneuver.

Cyclists so stupid things, motorists do stupid things. When the word cyclist appears in a positive or negative context there is a massive amount of negativity. When the word motorist appears in any context, there is a deafening silence. That is my complaint.
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: I don't see many denying that cars are more dangerous than bicycles ? That is obvious to even the most ignorant person. What I do see is cyclists ignoring the basic rules of the road, which apply to ALL road users, as if they dont apply to them. And then complaining like hell when anyone criticises them for this attitude. THAT is what annoys people.[/p][/quote]I'm not complaining that people criticise cyclists for breaking the rules, they shouldn't break them, they are there to help keep them and others safe. The complaint is about the disproportionate amount of anger at cyclist compared to motorists. Cyclist stories on OM attract dozens of comments, a good percentage of which are about how dangerous they are. Motorist stories on OM attract far fewer comments and where accidents have occurred a good percentage of those comments try to absolve the motorist of blame. Where accidents involving cyclists & anyone else appear the number of comments victim-blaming and generally berating cyclists for their attitude is ludicrous, yet stories involving motorists causing accidents attract few if any comments. The very first comment on this story described the cyclist as daft, even though the driver made an illegal maneuver. Cyclists so stupid things, motorists do stupid things. When the word cyclist appears in a positive or negative context there is a massive amount of negativity. When the word motorist appears in any context, there is a deafening silence. That is my complaint. Madi50n
  • Score: 8

10:43am Wed 22 Jan 14

natox78 says...

The cyclists should band together and start commenting on stories about car accidents with comments like 'when will these drivers learn' and 'they don't even pay non-existant road tax'.
The cyclists should band together and start commenting on stories about car accidents with comments like 'when will these drivers learn' and 'they don't even pay non-existant road tax'. natox78
  • Score: 3

11:22am Wed 22 Jan 14

sablond oxford says...

Thanks Oxford Mail for posting a picture of James Styring, when i'm a pedestrian i'll make sure i stay out of his way, especially around red lights which he cleary thinks don't apply to him! As from all his previous posts i know he considers pedestrians a nuisance to cyclists and deserve to be run into.

He does not represent the view of the majority of cyclists in Oxford.

Two wrongs do not make a right. yes this is a terrible thing to happen to anyone but as a cyclist (and i include myself in this) it is down to us to make ourselves as safe as possible. this includes using lights and obeying the rules of the road. just because one idiot driver doesn't does not mean that we shouldn't.

We also NEED to use lights when its dark. I think many cyclist do not realise how little car drivers can see cyclists in the dark without lights. Yes they should be looking but we should do all we can do protect ourselves by making ourselves as visiable as possible!

His comments " Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters."
I think he is the one that needs to grow up and take responsiblity for HIS actions on the roads. We all use them we should all obey by the law! (which includes Red Lights)

as for "Cyclists are not a danger on the roads" comment, Everyone is a danger on the roads if they are an idiot!
Thanks Oxford Mail for posting a picture of James Styring, when i'm a pedestrian i'll make sure i stay out of his way, especially around red lights which he cleary thinks don't apply to him! As from all his previous posts i know he considers pedestrians a nuisance to cyclists and deserve to be run into. He does not represent the view of the majority of cyclists in Oxford. Two wrongs do not make a right. yes this is a terrible thing to happen to anyone but as a cyclist (and i include myself in this) it is down to us to make ourselves as safe as possible. this includes using lights and obeying the rules of the road. just because one idiot driver doesn't does not mean that we shouldn't. We also NEED to use lights when its dark. I think many cyclist do not realise how little car drivers can see cyclists in the dark without lights. Yes they should be looking but we should do all we can do protect ourselves by making ourselves as visiable as possible! His comments " Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters." I think he is the one that needs to grow up and take responsiblity for HIS actions on the roads. We all use them we should all obey by the law! (which includes Red Lights) as for "Cyclists are not a danger on the roads" comment, Everyone is a danger on the roads if they are an idiot! sablond oxford
  • Score: 7

11:26am Wed 22 Jan 14

sablond oxford says...

Madi50n wrote:
livid99 wrote:
I don't see many denying that cars are more dangerous than bicycles ? That is obvious to even the most ignorant person. What I do see is cyclists ignoring the basic rules of the road, which apply to ALL road users, as if they dont apply to them. And then complaining like hell when anyone criticises them for this attitude. THAT is what annoys people.
I'm not complaining that people criticise cyclists for breaking the rules, they shouldn't break them, they are there to help keep them and others safe.

The complaint is about the disproportionate amount of anger at cyclist compared to motorists.

Cyclist stories on OM attract dozens of comments, a good percentage of which are about how dangerous they are.

Motorist stories on OM attract far fewer comments and where accidents have occurred a good percentage of those comments try to absolve the motorist of blame.

Where accidents involving cyclists & anyone else appear the number of comments victim-blaming and generally berating cyclists for their attitude is ludicrous, yet stories involving motorists causing accidents attract few if any comments.

The very first comment on this story described the cyclist as daft, even though the driver made an illegal maneuver.

Cyclists so stupid things, motorists do stupid things. When the word cyclist appears in a positive or negative context there is a massive amount of negativity. When the word motorist appears in any context, there is a deafening silence. That is my complaint.
Alot of the stories on here about motorist don't have a comment section.

Wouldn't life be simpler if everyone stuck to the rules and not act like idiots, the we could all use the roads safely!
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: I don't see many denying that cars are more dangerous than bicycles ? That is obvious to even the most ignorant person. What I do see is cyclists ignoring the basic rules of the road, which apply to ALL road users, as if they dont apply to them. And then complaining like hell when anyone criticises them for this attitude. THAT is what annoys people.[/p][/quote]I'm not complaining that people criticise cyclists for breaking the rules, they shouldn't break them, they are there to help keep them and others safe. The complaint is about the disproportionate amount of anger at cyclist compared to motorists. Cyclist stories on OM attract dozens of comments, a good percentage of which are about how dangerous they are. Motorist stories on OM attract far fewer comments and where accidents have occurred a good percentage of those comments try to absolve the motorist of blame. Where accidents involving cyclists & anyone else appear the number of comments victim-blaming and generally berating cyclists for their attitude is ludicrous, yet stories involving motorists causing accidents attract few if any comments. The very first comment on this story described the cyclist as daft, even though the driver made an illegal maneuver. Cyclists so stupid things, motorists do stupid things. When the word cyclist appears in a positive or negative context there is a massive amount of negativity. When the word motorist appears in any context, there is a deafening silence. That is my complaint.[/p][/quote]Alot of the stories on here about motorist don't have a comment section. Wouldn't life be simpler if everyone stuck to the rules and not act like idiots, the we could all use the roads safely! sablond oxford
  • Score: 6

11:46am Wed 22 Jan 14

livid99 says...

sablond oxford wrote:
Thanks Oxford Mail for posting a picture of James Styring, when i'm a pedestrian i'll make sure i stay out of his way, especially around red lights which he cleary thinks don't apply to him! As from all his previous posts i know he considers pedestrians a nuisance to cyclists and deserve to be run into.

He does not represent the view of the majority of cyclists in Oxford.

Two wrongs do not make a right. yes this is a terrible thing to happen to anyone but as a cyclist (and i include myself in this) it is down to us to make ourselves as safe as possible. this includes using lights and obeying the rules of the road. just because one idiot driver doesn't does not mean that we shouldn't.

We also NEED to use lights when its dark. I think many cyclist do not realise how little car drivers can see cyclists in the dark without lights. Yes they should be looking but we should do all we can do protect ourselves by making ourselves as visiable as possible!

His comments " Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters."
I think he is the one that needs to grow up and take responsiblity for HIS actions on the roads. We all use them we should all obey by the law! (which includes Red Lights)

as for "Cyclists are not a danger on the roads" comment, Everyone is a danger on the roads if they are an idiot!
Good post - at last a cyclist with the right attitude.
[quote][p][bold]sablond oxford[/bold] wrote: Thanks Oxford Mail for posting a picture of James Styring, when i'm a pedestrian i'll make sure i stay out of his way, especially around red lights which he cleary thinks don't apply to him! As from all his previous posts i know he considers pedestrians a nuisance to cyclists and deserve to be run into. He does not represent the view of the majority of cyclists in Oxford. Two wrongs do not make a right. yes this is a terrible thing to happen to anyone but as a cyclist (and i include myself in this) it is down to us to make ourselves as safe as possible. this includes using lights and obeying the rules of the road. just because one idiot driver doesn't does not mean that we shouldn't. We also NEED to use lights when its dark. I think many cyclist do not realise how little car drivers can see cyclists in the dark without lights. Yes they should be looking but we should do all we can do protect ourselves by making ourselves as visiable as possible! His comments " Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters." I think he is the one that needs to grow up and take responsiblity for HIS actions on the roads. We all use them we should all obey by the law! (which includes Red Lights) as for "Cyclists are not a danger on the roads" comment, Everyone is a danger on the roads if they are an idiot![/p][/quote]Good post - at last a cyclist with the right attitude. livid99
  • Score: 6

12:25pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Richard of Wantage says...

Madi50n wrote:
livid99 wrote:
I don't see many denying that cars are more dangerous than bicycles ? That is obvious to even the most ignorant person. What I do see is cyclists ignoring the basic rules of the road, which apply to ALL road users, as if they dont apply to them. And then complaining like hell when anyone criticises them for this attitude. THAT is what annoys people.
I'm not complaining that people criticise cyclists for breaking the rules, they shouldn't break them, they are there to help keep them and others safe.

The complaint is about the disproportionate amount of anger at cyclist compared to motorists.

Cyclist stories on OM attract dozens of comments, a good percentage of which are about how dangerous they are.

Motorist stories on OM attract far fewer comments and where accidents have occurred a good percentage of those comments try to absolve the motorist of blame.

Where accidents involving cyclists & anyone else appear the number of comments victim-blaming and generally berating cyclists for their attitude is ludicrous, yet stories involving motorists causing accidents attract few if any comments.

The very first comment on this story described the cyclist as daft, even though the driver made an illegal maneuver.

Cyclists so stupid things, motorists do stupid things. When the word cyclist appears in a positive or negative context there is a massive amount of negativity. When the word motorist appears in any context, there is a deafening silence. That is my complaint.
The stories involving motor vehicles usual involve the death or someone with life changing injuries and therefore most people don't feel it's appropriate to comment in respect to those involved. Whereas minor wrongdoings by cyclists, it’s open season!
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: I don't see many denying that cars are more dangerous than bicycles ? That is obvious to even the most ignorant person. What I do see is cyclists ignoring the basic rules of the road, which apply to ALL road users, as if they dont apply to them. And then complaining like hell when anyone criticises them for this attitude. THAT is what annoys people.[/p][/quote]I'm not complaining that people criticise cyclists for breaking the rules, they shouldn't break them, they are there to help keep them and others safe. The complaint is about the disproportionate amount of anger at cyclist compared to motorists. Cyclist stories on OM attract dozens of comments, a good percentage of which are about how dangerous they are. Motorist stories on OM attract far fewer comments and where accidents have occurred a good percentage of those comments try to absolve the motorist of blame. Where accidents involving cyclists & anyone else appear the number of comments victim-blaming and generally berating cyclists for their attitude is ludicrous, yet stories involving motorists causing accidents attract few if any comments. The very first comment on this story described the cyclist as daft, even though the driver made an illegal maneuver. Cyclists so stupid things, motorists do stupid things. When the word cyclist appears in a positive or negative context there is a massive amount of negativity. When the word motorist appears in any context, there is a deafening silence. That is my complaint.[/p][/quote]The stories involving motor vehicles usual involve the death or someone with life changing injuries and therefore most people don't feel it's appropriate to comment in respect to those involved. Whereas minor wrongdoings by cyclists, it’s open season! Richard of Wantage
  • Score: 3

12:40pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Madi50n says...

The stories involving motor vehicles usual involve the death or someone with life changing injuries and therefore most people don't feel it's appropriate to comment in respect to those involved. Whereas minor wrongdoings by cyclists, it’s open season!

Yes?

Like the 27 comments on the cyclist killed by a motorist on OM's 2nd most commented story right now. A good portion of which try to explain how really it wasn't the motorist's fault but the cyclist's, and anyway, it was an accident so doesn't warrant a stiff sentence.

Sorry, but I've seen stories on OM where cyclists have been seriously injured or killed and the victim-blaming, all-cyclists break the law and one less cyclist is a good thing comments are rife.

When the level of hatred & generalised negativity aimed at a person based on his/her mode of transport reaches the level it has with cyclists, you tend to get a tad defensive.

I don't cycle anymore because it's too dangerous, but I take great delight in driving responsibly, letting cyclists out at junctions, driving slowly behind them and passing with plenty of space, making sure I don't turn in to them turning left all the things you're supposed to do, mainly because I know behind me is usually a self-entitlement, "I pay road tax", "bl**dy cyclists" driver frothing at the mouth and shouting that I'm not putting them in danger so he/she can get to work 15 seconds earlier.

So I'm now a ex-cyclist, in a car, in front of other cars &, by the way, my car is a band A car so I don't pay "Road Tax" on that either.
The stories involving motor vehicles usual involve the death or someone with life changing injuries and therefore most people don't feel it's appropriate to comment in respect to those involved. Whereas minor wrongdoings by cyclists, it’s open season! Yes? Like the 27 comments on the cyclist killed by a motorist on OM's 2nd most commented story right now. A good portion of which try to explain how really it wasn't the motorist's fault but the cyclist's, and anyway, it was an accident so doesn't warrant a stiff sentence. Sorry, but I've seen stories on OM where cyclists have been seriously injured or killed and the victim-blaming, all-cyclists break the law and one less cyclist is a good thing comments are rife. When the level of hatred & generalised negativity aimed at a person based on his/her mode of transport reaches the level it has with cyclists, you tend to get a tad defensive. I don't cycle anymore because it's too dangerous, but I take great delight in driving responsibly, letting cyclists out at junctions, driving slowly behind them and passing with plenty of space, making sure I don't turn in to them turning left all the things you're supposed to do, mainly because I know behind me is usually a self-entitlement, "I pay road tax", "bl**dy cyclists" driver frothing at the mouth and shouting that I'm not putting them in danger so he/she can get to work 15 seconds earlier. So I'm now a ex-cyclist, in a car, in front of other cars &, by the way, my car is a band A car so I don't pay "Road Tax" on that either. Madi50n
  • Score: 6

1:45pm Wed 22 Jan 14

locodogz says...

train passenger wrote:
tierneysj45 wrote:
tierneysj45 wrote:
"Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters."


Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow.

And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute.
The pavement by Said Business School is one place where I cycle too, my assessment being it is wide enough (10 metres) to do so without impeding anyone. Have you considered how else cyclists can safely get to the train station? If you do you I think you will understand why people do this. I would happily take another route into the station if there was a safe one. The UK has a road layout and rules that forces cyclists and cars into the same space and hence does not suit safety of cyclists at all.


Hi Train Passenger. Note the word 'pavement'. Now look that up in the highway code.

The stretch of "pavement' is also wide enough to drive a tank on there but like riding a bike on there it is illegal.

The train station is a hub for transport, there are plenty of "roads" for cycles to use to get to and from.
I didn't suggest it was legal, I am just arguing it is understandable. In the same way that I understand that you as a pedestrian on your commute will quite possibly cross Rewley Road while the pedestrian light is on red in that very same spot (about 95% of people do this because there is little traffic, about 3% stupidly do so even when there is traffic) and in the same way that 90% of drivers do not indicate to turn left on an empty street. Both are equally illegal but also fairly understandable (and if we can give such understanding to pedestrians and drivers then why not to cyclists?). But maybe you are among the 5% of pedestrians who do obey every single light and the 10% of drivers who always indicate, in which case you have my respect.
Hi Train Passenger - you might want to give a source for the stats quoted above (I'm particularly amazed by the "90% of drivers do not indicate to turn left on an empty street"?

Otherwise people may suspect that you've simply invented them to illustrate a point.
[quote][p][bold]train passenger[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tierneysj45[/bold] wrote: tierneysj45 wrote: "Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters." Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow. And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute. The pavement by Said Business School is one place where I cycle too, my assessment being it is wide enough (10 metres) to do so without impeding anyone. Have you considered how else cyclists can safely get to the train station? If you do you I think you will understand why people do this. I would happily take another route into the station if there was a safe one. The UK has a road layout and rules that forces cyclists and cars into the same space and hence does not suit safety of cyclists at all. Hi Train Passenger. Note the word 'pavement'. Now look that up in the highway code. The stretch of "pavement' is also wide enough to drive a tank on there but like riding a bike on there it is illegal. The train station is a hub for transport, there are plenty of "roads" for cycles to use to get to and from.[/p][/quote]I didn't suggest it was legal, I am just arguing it is understandable. In the same way that I understand that you as a pedestrian on your commute will quite possibly cross Rewley Road while the pedestrian light is on red in that very same spot (about 95% of people do this because there is little traffic, about 3% stupidly do so even when there is traffic) and in the same way that 90% of drivers do not indicate to turn left on an empty street. Both are equally illegal but also fairly understandable (and if we can give such understanding to pedestrians and drivers then why not to cyclists?). But maybe you are among the 5% of pedestrians who do obey every single light and the 10% of drivers who always indicate, in which case you have my respect.[/p][/quote]Hi Train Passenger - you might want to give a source for the stats quoted above (I'm particularly amazed by the "90% of drivers [who] do not indicate to turn left on an empty street"? Otherwise people may suspect that you've simply invented them to illustrate a point. locodogz
  • Score: 4

2:45pm Wed 22 Jan 14

robbo81 says...

tierneysj45 wrote:
"Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters."


Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow.

And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute.
actually it's not even that big a problem for pedestrians. It's the driver who hits and kills the unlit unsafe cyclist then has to live with that for the rest of their lives that is the problem. It's the police officer telling the family of the idiot who jumped a red that they've been squashed by a lorry or the ambulance team who desperately try in vain to save their life. Or the thousands of people who are late that morning but don't know why because of the traffic. Many people are affected by others stupidity.
[quote][p][bold]tierneysj45[/bold] wrote: "Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters." Actually no buddy. You are wrong. Cyclist jumping red lights especially at crossings may not be a problem for people in cars, but it is for pedestrians crossing perhaps with our toddlers in tow. And also avoiding them as they cycle on pavements daily by the Said Business School and Hythe Bridge Street during my daily commute.[/p][/quote]actually it's not even that big a problem for pedestrians. It's the driver who hits and kills the unlit unsafe cyclist then has to live with that for the rest of their lives that is the problem. It's the police officer telling the family of the idiot who jumped a red that they've been squashed by a lorry or the ambulance team who desperately try in vain to save their life. Or the thousands of people who are late that morning but don't know why because of the traffic. Many people are affected by others stupidity. robbo81
  • Score: -2

3:17pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Bairdl says...

Although I agree with the sentiments with regards to the turning in front of cyclists who can be seen, my husband and I left the Churchill at around 4.30pm last Wednesday so it was getting quite dark and just in the distance from there to the JR, we actually lost count of the amount of cyclists (a) dressed completely in dark clothing and (b) with no lighting at all on their cycles - not helpful at all to drivers....
Although I agree with the sentiments with regards to the turning in front of cyclists who can be seen, my husband and I left the Churchill at around 4.30pm last Wednesday so it was getting quite dark and just in the distance from there to the JR, we actually lost count of the amount of cyclists (a) dressed completely in dark clothing and (b) with no lighting at all on their cycles - not helpful at all to drivers.... Bairdl
  • Score: 1

7:54pm Wed 22 Jan 14

Madi50n says...

Watch out for these dangerous cyclists, causing death & destruction on a minute-by-minute basis, gosh they are frightening.

http://www.sustrans.
org.uk/change-your-t
ravel/children-and-f
amilies/cycling-kids
Watch out for these dangerous cyclists, causing death & destruction on a minute-by-minute basis, gosh they are frightening. http://www.sustrans. org.uk/change-your-t ravel/children-and-f amilies/cycling-kids Madi50n
  • Score: 4

9:24pm Wed 22 Jan 14

grandconjuration says...

What a surprise. An article describing just one of the dangers that a cyclist has to face on a daily basis and the haters are out if force, frothing at the mouth while shouting "Road Tax". I'm amazed that we're 47 comments in and Lycra hasn't been mentioned yet.

The article isn't about bad cycling, it's about bad driving. Most of the comments posted here prove Mr Styring right when he says that "it's pathetic to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers"; since rather than comments discussing how cycling can be made safer in Oxford, rather than focussing on combating the poor driving that results in pedestrian/cyclist injuries and deaths, we have the usual anti-cyclist bile rubbish based on anecdotes and misinformation.

It is about time that the OM either stopped allowing comments on cycling-related articles or introduced some form of moderation, where any arguments related to cycling have to actually be backed up by evidence and statistics.

I'll make a start...

Several comments have stated that "cyclists are dangerous" or similar. No they are not and here is my argument. In 2012 the vast majority (98%) of killed or seriously injured pedestrians in UK urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. No motorists were killed by cyclists. From 2003-2012 inclusive, less than 1% of pedestrian fatalities and around 1% of serious pedestrian injuries involved cyclists, while cars were involved in 68% of pedestrian fatalities and 82% of serious injuries. In 2012, mile for mile in urban areas, motor vehicles were more likely than a cycle to seriously injure a pedestrian and 5 times more likely to kill them.

In 2012, there were 2 pedestrians killed in a collision with a cyclist, compared to the 420 deaths from collision with a motor vehicle. Meanwhile, within the UK in 2010, 8 people died as a result of insects and 99 people died falling out of bed (Office for National Statistics). I consider neither bees nor sleeping a dangerous activity, therefore I do not consider cyclists to be dangerous.

There are the usual comments about cyclists being a danger to pedestrians from riding on the pavement and running red lights. Now, I do not advocate either of these activities. However, the data shows that cyclists represent little danger to pedestrians...

Between 1998 and 2007, 12 pedestrians in London were killed by motorists jumping red lights. No pedestrians were killed by a cyclist going through a red light in the same period. During this 10 year time period, 4% of pedestrian injuries were due to red light jumping by cyclists, compared to 13% by motorcycle, 71% by cars and 6% by goods vehicles.

In Great Britain, 2 pedestrians were killed in collision with a cycle in 2012, while 82 were seriously injured, in any location (road, footway etc). In the same year, 27 pedestrians were killed in collision with a motor vehicle and 430 seriously injured while on a foot way or verge. In London, between 1998 and 2007, no pedestrian was killed by a cyclist on the footway while 23 were seriously injured; during the same period 54 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles and 779 seriously injured. So, if you're a pedestrian, you should be much more concerned about motorists than cyclists.

All the above data with further references can be found at www.ctc.org.uk/sites
/default/files/file_
public/pedestriansbr
f.pdf

Another pervading view is that collisions are usually the fault of the cyclist. Guess what! The data doesn't show that...

Transport for London data (2012) demonstrates that drivers are wholly at fault in 68% of collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists. Cyclists were at fault in 20% of collisions and were breaking the law in only 2% of cases.

I have no doubt that the cyclist haters will carry on hating; after all, everyone has a right to an opinion. But please, if you are going to make a comment, include some data to back up your claims.
What a surprise. An article describing just one of the dangers that a cyclist has to face on a daily basis and the haters are out if force, frothing at the mouth while shouting "Road Tax". I'm amazed that we're 47 comments in and Lycra hasn't been mentioned yet. The article isn't about bad cycling, it's about bad driving. Most of the comments posted here prove Mr Styring right when he says that "it's pathetic to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers"; since rather than comments discussing how cycling can be made safer in Oxford, rather than focussing on combating the poor driving that results in pedestrian/cyclist injuries and deaths, we have the usual anti-cyclist bile rubbish based on anecdotes and misinformation. It is about time that the OM either stopped allowing comments on cycling-related articles or introduced some form of moderation, where any arguments related to cycling have to actually be backed up by evidence and statistics. I'll make a start... Several comments have stated that "cyclists are dangerous" or similar. No they are not and here is my argument. In 2012 the vast majority (98%) of killed or seriously injured pedestrians in UK urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. No motorists were killed by cyclists. From 2003-2012 inclusive, less than 1% of pedestrian fatalities and around 1% of serious pedestrian injuries involved cyclists, while cars were involved in 68% of pedestrian fatalities and 82% of serious injuries. In 2012, mile for mile in urban areas, motor vehicles were more likely than a cycle to seriously injure a pedestrian and 5 times more likely to kill them. In 2012, there were 2 pedestrians killed in a collision with a cyclist, compared to the 420 deaths from collision with a motor vehicle. Meanwhile, within the UK in 2010, 8 people died as a result of insects and 99 people died falling out of bed (Office for National Statistics). I consider neither bees nor sleeping a dangerous activity, therefore I do not consider cyclists to be dangerous. There are the usual comments about cyclists being a danger to pedestrians from riding on the pavement and running red lights. Now, I do not advocate either of these activities. However, the data shows that cyclists represent little danger to pedestrians... Between 1998 and 2007, 12 pedestrians in London were killed by motorists jumping red lights. No pedestrians were killed by a cyclist going through a red light in the same period. During this 10 year time period, 4% of pedestrian injuries were due to red light jumping by cyclists, compared to 13% by motorcycle, 71% by cars and 6% by goods vehicles. In Great Britain, 2 pedestrians were killed in collision with a cycle in 2012, while 82 were seriously injured, in any location (road, footway etc). In the same year, 27 pedestrians were killed in collision with a motor vehicle and 430 seriously injured while on a foot way or verge. In London, between 1998 and 2007, no pedestrian was killed by a cyclist on the footway while 23 were seriously injured; during the same period 54 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles and 779 seriously injured. So, if you're a pedestrian, you should be much more concerned about motorists than cyclists. All the above data with further references can be found at www.ctc.org.uk/sites /default/files/file_ public/pedestriansbr f.pdf Another pervading view is that collisions are usually the fault of the cyclist. Guess what! The data doesn't show that... Transport for London data (2012) demonstrates that drivers are wholly at fault in 68% of collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists. Cyclists were at fault in 20% of collisions and were breaking the law in only 2% of cases. I have no doubt that the cyclist haters will carry on hating; after all, everyone has a right to an opinion. But please, if you are going to make a comment, include some data to back up your claims. grandconjuration
  • Score: 9

11:08pm Wed 22 Jan 14

fairy godmother says...

Cant be bothered to read a comment thats more that about 4 lines but if bikes slow down a bit they would actually notice when lorries cars ect slow down and start to move over to the left the chances are they are turning left....
Cant be bothered to read a comment thats more that about 4 lines but if bikes slow down a bit they would actually notice when lorries cars ect slow down and start to move over to the left the chances are they are turning left.... fairy godmother
  • Score: -10

6:50am Thu 23 Jan 14

museli says...

fairy godmother wrote:
Cant be bothered to read a comment thats more that about 4 lines but if bikes slow down a bit they would actually notice when lorries cars ect slow down and start to move over to the left the chances are they are turning left....
No lorries usually swing out away from the kerb (ie right) before a left turn - thanks for you contribution anyway!
[quote][p][bold]fairy godmother[/bold] wrote: Cant be bothered to read a comment thats more that about 4 lines but if bikes slow down a bit they would actually notice when lorries cars ect slow down and start to move over to the left the chances are they are turning left....[/p][/quote]No lorries usually swing out away from the kerb (ie right) before a left turn - thanks for you contribution anyway! museli
  • Score: 11

7:34am Thu 23 Jan 14

livid99 says...

grandconjuration wrote:
What a surprise. An article describing just one of the dangers that a cyclist has to face on a daily basis and the haters are out if force, frothing at the mouth while shouting "Road Tax". I'm amazed that we're 47 comments in and Lycra hasn't been mentioned yet.

The article isn't about bad cycling, it's about bad driving. Most of the comments posted here prove Mr Styring right when he says that "it's pathetic to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers"; since rather than comments discussing how cycling can be made safer in Oxford, rather than focussing on combating the poor driving that results in pedestrian/cyclist injuries and deaths, we have the usual anti-cyclist bile rubbish based on anecdotes and misinformation.

It is about time that the OM either stopped allowing comments on cycling-related articles or introduced some form of moderation, where any arguments related to cycling have to actually be backed up by evidence and statistics.

I'll make a start...

Several comments have stated that "cyclists are dangerous" or similar. No they are not and here is my argument. In 2012 the vast majority (98%) of killed or seriously injured pedestrians in UK urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. No motorists were killed by cyclists. From 2003-2012 inclusive, less than 1% of pedestrian fatalities and around 1% of serious pedestrian injuries involved cyclists, while cars were involved in 68% of pedestrian fatalities and 82% of serious injuries. In 2012, mile for mile in urban areas, motor vehicles were more likely than a cycle to seriously injure a pedestrian and 5 times more likely to kill them.

In 2012, there were 2 pedestrians killed in a collision with a cyclist, compared to the 420 deaths from collision with a motor vehicle. Meanwhile, within the UK in 2010, 8 people died as a result of insects and 99 people died falling out of bed (Office for National Statistics). I consider neither bees nor sleeping a dangerous activity, therefore I do not consider cyclists to be dangerous.

There are the usual comments about cyclists being a danger to pedestrians from riding on the pavement and running red lights. Now, I do not advocate either of these activities. However, the data shows that cyclists represent little danger to pedestrians...

Between 1998 and 2007, 12 pedestrians in London were killed by motorists jumping red lights. No pedestrians were killed by a cyclist going through a red light in the same period. During this 10 year time period, 4% of pedestrian injuries were due to red light jumping by cyclists, compared to 13% by motorcycle, 71% by cars and 6% by goods vehicles.

In Great Britain, 2 pedestrians were killed in collision with a cycle in 2012, while 82 were seriously injured, in any location (road, footway etc). In the same year, 27 pedestrians were killed in collision with a motor vehicle and 430 seriously injured while on a foot way or verge. In London, between 1998 and 2007, no pedestrian was killed by a cyclist on the footway while 23 were seriously injured; during the same period 54 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles and 779 seriously injured. So, if you're a pedestrian, you should be much more concerned about motorists than cyclists.

All the above data with further references can be found at www.ctc.org.uk/sites

/default/files/file_

public/pedestriansbr

f.pdf

Another pervading view is that collisions are usually the fault of the cyclist. Guess what! The data doesn't show that...

Transport for London data (2012) demonstrates that drivers are wholly at fault in 68% of collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists. Cyclists were at fault in 20% of collisions and were breaking the law in only 2% of cases.

I have no doubt that the cyclist haters will carry on hating; after all, everyone has a right to an opinion. But please, if you are going to make a comment, include some data to back up your claims.
You don't get it do you ? People do not HATE cyclists - all they want is for them to obey the rules everyone else has to. I hate the attitude of some cyclists, I don't hate cyclists !
As for "There are the usual comments about cyclists being a danger to pedestrians from riding on the pavement and running red lights. Now, I do not advocate either of these activities. However, the data shows that cyclists represent little danger to pedestrians..." That is complete rubbish. If I step out to cross the road on a pedestrian crossing (designed as a safe place for pedestrians to cross the road), and am in collision with a cyclist who has decided to ignore the red light telling him to stop, then that cyclist is a clear danger to pedestrians. To say otherwise would be clear proof of the problem - the attitude that if you are on 2 wheels its ok to ignore the stop lights, ignore the rules saying you cannot ride on pavements, ignore the obvious safety hazard of not being able to be seen by not having lights when it is dark, etc, etc
Are you, by saying statistics show that cyclists are not a danger to pedestrians, suggesting those of us who see these clear violations all the time are imagining it ??
No-one is perfect on the road, and no-one is denying that accidents involving motor vehicles are often more serious, but the way many cyclists react so defensively and almost seem to be in denial when their faults are pointed out to them is clear to see. Criticism of an attitude towards breaking the rules is not hatred.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: What a surprise. An article describing just one of the dangers that a cyclist has to face on a daily basis and the haters are out if force, frothing at the mouth while shouting "Road Tax". I'm amazed that we're 47 comments in and Lycra hasn't been mentioned yet. The article isn't about bad cycling, it's about bad driving. Most of the comments posted here prove Mr Styring right when he says that "it's pathetic to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers"; since rather than comments discussing how cycling can be made safer in Oxford, rather than focussing on combating the poor driving that results in pedestrian/cyclist injuries and deaths, we have the usual anti-cyclist bile rubbish based on anecdotes and misinformation. It is about time that the OM either stopped allowing comments on cycling-related articles or introduced some form of moderation, where any arguments related to cycling have to actually be backed up by evidence and statistics. I'll make a start... Several comments have stated that "cyclists are dangerous" or similar. No they are not and here is my argument. In 2012 the vast majority (98%) of killed or seriously injured pedestrians in UK urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. No motorists were killed by cyclists. From 2003-2012 inclusive, less than 1% of pedestrian fatalities and around 1% of serious pedestrian injuries involved cyclists, while cars were involved in 68% of pedestrian fatalities and 82% of serious injuries. In 2012, mile for mile in urban areas, motor vehicles were more likely than a cycle to seriously injure a pedestrian and 5 times more likely to kill them. In 2012, there were 2 pedestrians killed in a collision with a cyclist, compared to the 420 deaths from collision with a motor vehicle. Meanwhile, within the UK in 2010, 8 people died as a result of insects and 99 people died falling out of bed (Office for National Statistics). I consider neither bees nor sleeping a dangerous activity, therefore I do not consider cyclists to be dangerous. There are the usual comments about cyclists being a danger to pedestrians from riding on the pavement and running red lights. Now, I do not advocate either of these activities. However, the data shows that cyclists represent little danger to pedestrians... Between 1998 and 2007, 12 pedestrians in London were killed by motorists jumping red lights. No pedestrians were killed by a cyclist going through a red light in the same period. During this 10 year time period, 4% of pedestrian injuries were due to red light jumping by cyclists, compared to 13% by motorcycle, 71% by cars and 6% by goods vehicles. In Great Britain, 2 pedestrians were killed in collision with a cycle in 2012, while 82 were seriously injured, in any location (road, footway etc). In the same year, 27 pedestrians were killed in collision with a motor vehicle and 430 seriously injured while on a foot way or verge. In London, between 1998 and 2007, no pedestrian was killed by a cyclist on the footway while 23 were seriously injured; during the same period 54 pedestrians were killed by motor vehicles and 779 seriously injured. So, if you're a pedestrian, you should be much more concerned about motorists than cyclists. All the above data with further references can be found at www.ctc.org.uk/sites /default/files/file_ public/pedestriansbr f.pdf Another pervading view is that collisions are usually the fault of the cyclist. Guess what! The data doesn't show that... Transport for London data (2012) demonstrates that drivers are wholly at fault in 68% of collisions between motor vehicles and cyclists. Cyclists were at fault in 20% of collisions and were breaking the law in only 2% of cases. I have no doubt that the cyclist haters will carry on hating; after all, everyone has a right to an opinion. But please, if you are going to make a comment, include some data to back up your claims.[/p][/quote]You don't get it do you ? People do not HATE cyclists - all they want is for them to obey the rules everyone else has to. I hate the attitude of some cyclists, I don't hate cyclists ! As for "There are the usual comments about cyclists being a danger to pedestrians from riding on the pavement and running red lights. Now, I do not advocate either of these activities. However, the data shows that cyclists represent little danger to pedestrians..." That is complete rubbish. If I step out to cross the road on a pedestrian crossing (designed as a safe place for pedestrians to cross the road), and am in collision with a cyclist who has decided to ignore the red light telling him to stop, then that cyclist is a clear danger to pedestrians. To say otherwise would be clear proof of the problem - the attitude that if you are on 2 wheels its ok to ignore the stop lights, ignore the rules saying you cannot ride on pavements, ignore the obvious safety hazard of not being able to be seen by not having lights when it is dark, etc, etc Are you, by saying statistics show that cyclists are not a danger to pedestrians, suggesting those of us who see these clear violations all the time are imagining it ?? No-one is perfect on the road, and no-one is denying that accidents involving motor vehicles are often more serious, but the way many cyclists react so defensively and almost seem to be in denial when their faults are pointed out to them is clear to see. Criticism of an attitude towards breaking the rules is not hatred. livid99
  • Score: -4

8:28am Thu 23 Jan 14

grandconjuration says...

You fail to understand my point livid99. My point is about proportionality.

Yes, I've seen cyclists go through red lights and ride on the pavement. I've also seen motorists go through red lights and drive on the pavement. However, the statistics show that the real danger comes from motorists.

You only appear to write negative comments on cycling articles; I have never seen you comment on motoring articles. Your response is disproportionate to the actual problem. You're not the only one, there are plenty of other individuals and sections of the media that require lessons in data interpretation and statistics.

Since you anger appears to be aimed solely at cyclists then you do hate cyclists. When you start to post comments on motoring articles about the problems associated with drivers jumping red lights, driving on pavements and all other illegal acts that result in 2000 deaths per year, then I will believe that your outlook is proportional to the problem and you don't specifically hate cyclists.

This article is not about bad cycling, it is about bad driving.

fairy godmother - you appear to have not read the Highway Code, is this because it is greater than 4 lines long? Please learn to read then apply this new found knowledge to understanding how motor vehicles should turn left across a cycle lane.
You fail to understand my point livid99. My point is about proportionality. Yes, I've seen cyclists go through red lights and ride on the pavement. I've also seen motorists go through red lights and drive on the pavement. However, the statistics show that the real danger comes from motorists. You only appear to write negative comments on cycling articles; I have never seen you comment on motoring articles. Your response is disproportionate to the actual problem. You're not the only one, there are plenty of other individuals and sections of the media that require lessons in data interpretation and statistics. Since you anger appears to be aimed solely at cyclists then you do hate cyclists. When you start to post comments on motoring articles about the problems associated with drivers jumping red lights, driving on pavements and all other illegal acts that result in 2000 deaths per year, then I will believe that your outlook is proportional to the problem and you don't specifically hate cyclists. This article is not about bad cycling, it is about bad driving. fairy godmother - you appear to have not read the Highway Code, is this because it is greater than 4 lines long? Please learn to read then apply this new found knowledge to understanding how motor vehicles should turn left across a cycle lane. grandconjuration
  • Score: 8

9:09am Thu 23 Jan 14

livid99 says...

grandconjuration wrote:
You fail to understand my point livid99. My point is about proportionality.

Yes, I've seen cyclists go through red lights and ride on the pavement. I've also seen motorists go through red lights and drive on the pavement. However, the statistics show that the real danger comes from motorists.

You only appear to write negative comments on cycling articles; I have never seen you comment on motoring articles. Your response is disproportionate to the actual problem. You're not the only one, there are plenty of other individuals and sections of the media that require lessons in data interpretation and statistics.

Since you anger appears to be aimed solely at cyclists then you do hate cyclists. When you start to post comments on motoring articles about the problems associated with drivers jumping red lights, driving on pavements and all other illegal acts that result in 2000 deaths per year, then I will believe that your outlook is proportional to the problem and you don't specifically hate cyclists.

This article is not about bad cycling, it is about bad driving.

fairy godmother - you appear to have not read the Highway Code, is this because it is greater than 4 lines long? Please learn to read then apply this new found knowledge to understanding how motor vehicles should turn left across a cycle lane.
I give up. You seem to have not read the last paragraph of my post. I do not need a lesson in data interpretation. Unlike you, my comments are based on observation and opinion, not statistics. Statistics are not everything.
And this - "Since you anger appears to be aimed solely at cyclists then you do hate cyclists. " - totally wrong I'm afraid. As I've said, I hate the ATTITUDE of SOME cyclists. Big difference.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: You fail to understand my point livid99. My point is about proportionality. Yes, I've seen cyclists go through red lights and ride on the pavement. I've also seen motorists go through red lights and drive on the pavement. However, the statistics show that the real danger comes from motorists. You only appear to write negative comments on cycling articles; I have never seen you comment on motoring articles. Your response is disproportionate to the actual problem. You're not the only one, there are plenty of other individuals and sections of the media that require lessons in data interpretation and statistics. Since you anger appears to be aimed solely at cyclists then you do hate cyclists. When you start to post comments on motoring articles about the problems associated with drivers jumping red lights, driving on pavements and all other illegal acts that result in 2000 deaths per year, then I will believe that your outlook is proportional to the problem and you don't specifically hate cyclists. This article is not about bad cycling, it is about bad driving. fairy godmother - you appear to have not read the Highway Code, is this because it is greater than 4 lines long? Please learn to read then apply this new found knowledge to understanding how motor vehicles should turn left across a cycle lane.[/p][/quote]I give up. You seem to have not read the last paragraph of my post. I do not need a lesson in data interpretation. Unlike you, my comments are based on observation and opinion, not statistics. Statistics are not everything. And this - "Since you anger appears to be aimed solely at cyclists then you do hate cyclists. " - totally wrong I'm afraid. As I've said, I hate the ATTITUDE of SOME cyclists. Big difference. livid99
  • Score: -4

10:27am Thu 23 Jan 14

You're making me angry says...

https://www.gov.uk/r
ules-for-cyclists-59
-to-82
Please refer to RULE 64 and RULE 69 and RULE 71. I'm pretty sure they are called RULEs for a reason...
https://www.gov.uk/r ules-for-cyclists-59 -to-82 Please refer to RULE 64 and RULE 69 and RULE 71. I'm pretty sure they are called RULEs for a reason... You're making me angry
  • Score: -1

10:30am Thu 23 Jan 14

natox78 says...

The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.
The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population. natox78
  • Score: 5

10:37am Thu 23 Jan 14

livid99 says...

natox78 wrote:
The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.
I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant
[quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.[/p][/quote]I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant livid99
  • Score: -8

10:43am Thu 23 Jan 14

livid99 says...

I wonder how Mr James Styring would respond if an elderly person or a child was knocked down and seriously injured by a red light jumping cyclist, considering his opinion of "how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters".
Wouldn't that matter to the person knocked over ? THIS is exactly the kind of attitude I am talking about.
I wonder how Mr James Styring would respond if an elderly person or a child was knocked down and seriously injured by a red light jumping cyclist, considering his opinion of "how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters". Wouldn't that matter to the person knocked over ? THIS is exactly the kind of attitude I am talking about. livid99
  • Score: -7

10:48am Thu 23 Jan 14

natox78 says...

livid99 wrote:
natox78 wrote:
The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.
I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant
Not really, You got the same places in your life and see the same pieces of infrastructure. You can't observe every cyclist in the UK. Statistics can observe much more than your eyes can. In order to make the same observations that the statistics make, you would have to spend all day for several years watching the habits of cyclists. You are doing a qualitative study which is most often of use to back-up or further examine quantitative results.
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.[/p][/quote]I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant[/p][/quote]Not really, You got the same places in your life and see the same pieces of infrastructure. You can't observe every cyclist in the UK. Statistics can observe much more than your eyes can. In order to make the same observations that the statistics make, you would have to spend all day for several years watching the habits of cyclists. You are doing a qualitative study which is most often of use to back-up or further examine quantitative results. natox78
  • Score: 3

11:02am Thu 23 Jan 14

livid99 says...

natox78 wrote:
livid99 wrote:
natox78 wrote:
The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.
I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant
Not really, You got the same places in your life and see the same pieces of infrastructure. You can't observe every cyclist in the UK. Statistics can observe much more than your eyes can. In order to make the same observations that the statistics make, you would have to spend all day for several years watching the habits of cyclists. You are doing a qualitative study which is most often of use to back-up or further examine quantitative results.
Yes, if I was referring to all cyclists I would agree. I am not. As I said, my comments are based on observations in Oxford. This is not some statistical experiment - its a comment on the behaviour of some cyclists in Oxford, which can be seen clearly on a daily basisi by anyone who stands near crossings on Cowley Road or Botley Road or Banbury Road. You don't need to be a statistician - you just need to wait and watch.
[quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.[/p][/quote]I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant[/p][/quote]Not really, You got the same places in your life and see the same pieces of infrastructure. You can't observe every cyclist in the UK. Statistics can observe much more than your eyes can. In order to make the same observations that the statistics make, you would have to spend all day for several years watching the habits of cyclists. You are doing a qualitative study which is most often of use to back-up or further examine quantitative results.[/p][/quote]Yes, if I was referring to all cyclists I would agree. I am not. As I said, my comments are based on observations in Oxford. This is not some statistical experiment - its a comment on the behaviour of some cyclists in Oxford, which can be seen clearly on a daily basisi by anyone who stands near crossings on Cowley Road or Botley Road or Banbury Road. You don't need to be a statistician - you just need to wait and watch. livid99
  • Score: -6

11:19am Thu 23 Jan 14

locodogz says...

grandconjuration wrote:
You fail to understand my point livid99. My point is about proportionality.

Yes, I've seen cyclists go through red lights and ride on the pavement. I've also seen motorists go through red lights and drive on the pavement. However, the statistics show that the real danger comes from motorists.

You only appear to write negative comments on cycling articles; I have never seen you comment on motoring articles. Your response is disproportionate to the actual problem. You're not the only one, there are plenty of other individuals and sections of the media that require lessons in data interpretation and statistics.

Since you anger appears to be aimed solely at cyclists then you do hate cyclists. When you start to post comments on motoring articles about the problems associated with drivers jumping red lights, driving on pavements and all other illegal acts that result in 2000 deaths per year, then I will believe that your outlook is proportional to the problem and you don't specifically hate cyclists.

This article is not about bad cycling, it is about bad driving.

fairy godmother - you appear to have not read the Highway Code, is this because it is greater than 4 lines long? Please learn to read then apply this new found knowledge to understanding how motor vehicles should turn left across a cycle lane.
And you seem to be using proportionality as a lame excuse for cycling misdemeanors.

The fact that more people are injured by cars doesn't de facto make cycling law infringements OK or make it " pathetic ... to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers" - a premise of this article.

By your logic - given that you are statistically far more likely to be the victim of street crime in downtown Baghdad than you are in London - there's no need to try to crack down on these crimes in London.

As for your perception of "anti cycling" bias in the OM - reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare?

Oh and in case you're wondering - yes I'm a very keen cyclists - just tired of fellow riders giving us all a bad name with their "it doesn’t matter what we do because car drivers are more dangerous" tosh!
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: You fail to understand my point livid99. My point is about proportionality. Yes, I've seen cyclists go through red lights and ride on the pavement. I've also seen motorists go through red lights and drive on the pavement. However, the statistics show that the real danger comes from motorists. You only appear to write negative comments on cycling articles; I have never seen you comment on motoring articles. Your response is disproportionate to the actual problem. You're not the only one, there are plenty of other individuals and sections of the media that require lessons in data interpretation and statistics. Since you anger appears to be aimed solely at cyclists then you do hate cyclists. When you start to post comments on motoring articles about the problems associated with drivers jumping red lights, driving on pavements and all other illegal acts that result in 2000 deaths per year, then I will believe that your outlook is proportional to the problem and you don't specifically hate cyclists. This article is not about bad cycling, it is about bad driving. fairy godmother - you appear to have not read the Highway Code, is this because it is greater than 4 lines long? Please learn to read then apply this new found knowledge to understanding how motor vehicles should turn left across a cycle lane.[/p][/quote]And you seem to be using proportionality as a lame excuse for cycling misdemeanors. The fact that more people are injured by cars doesn't de facto make cycling law infringements OK or make it " pathetic ... to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers" - a premise of this article. By your logic - given that you are statistically far more likely to be the victim of street crime in downtown Baghdad than you are in London - there's no need to try to crack down on these crimes in London. As for your perception of "anti cycling" bias in the OM - reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare? Oh and in case you're wondering - yes I'm a very keen cyclists - just tired of fellow riders giving us all a bad name with their "it doesn’t matter what we do because car drivers are more dangerous" tosh! locodogz
  • Score: -5

11:42am Thu 23 Jan 14

grandconjuration says...

livid99 wrote:
natox78 wrote:
The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.
I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant
You are not criticising those who break the rules; this article is about drivers making illegal left turns and you have at no point in this comments section criticised them.

The vast majority of comments you make here are on articles related to cycling. You make no criticisms of any other road users. Throughout this thread you have failed to provide any facts to support your argument. Your comments are gross generalisations. You hate cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.[/p][/quote]I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant[/p][/quote]You are not criticising those who break the rules; this article is about drivers making illegal left turns and you have at no point in this comments section criticised them. The vast majority of comments you make here are on articles related to cycling. You make no criticisms of any other road users. Throughout this thread you have failed to provide any facts to support your argument. Your comments are gross generalisations. You hate cyclists. grandconjuration
  • Score: 7

11:51am Thu 23 Jan 14

grandconjuration says...

locodogz says "And you seem to be using proportionality as a lame excuse for cycling misdemeanors."

No I'm not.

I'm asking why an article about drivers making an illegal left turn results in more than 60 comments, most of them containing the same old anti-cyclist diatribe that are not supported by any statistics.

I'm asking why the word 'cyclist' in any news article triggers disproportional bitterness and rage.
locodogz says "And you seem to be using proportionality as a lame excuse for cycling misdemeanors." No I'm not. I'm asking why an article about drivers making an illegal left turn results in more than 60 comments, most of them containing the same old anti-cyclist diatribe that are not supported by any statistics. I'm asking why the word 'cyclist' in any news article triggers disproportional bitterness and rage. grandconjuration
  • Score: 10

11:53am Thu 23 Jan 14

grandconjuration says...

livid99 wrote:
natox78 wrote:
livid99 wrote:
natox78 wrote:
The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.
I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant
Not really, You got the same places in your life and see the same pieces of infrastructure. You can't observe every cyclist in the UK. Statistics can observe much more than your eyes can. In order to make the same observations that the statistics make, you would have to spend all day for several years watching the habits of cyclists. You are doing a qualitative study which is most often of use to back-up or further examine quantitative results.
Yes, if I was referring to all cyclists I would agree. I am not. As I said, my comments are based on observations in Oxford. This is not some statistical experiment - its a comment on the behaviour of some cyclists in Oxford, which can be seen clearly on a daily basisi by anyone who stands near crossings on Cowley Road or Botley Road or Banbury Road. You don't need to be a statistician - you just need to wait and watch.
Please perform a study and publish your statistics in a peer-reviewed journal.
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.[/p][/quote]I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant[/p][/quote]Not really, You got the same places in your life and see the same pieces of infrastructure. You can't observe every cyclist in the UK. Statistics can observe much more than your eyes can. In order to make the same observations that the statistics make, you would have to spend all day for several years watching the habits of cyclists. You are doing a qualitative study which is most often of use to back-up or further examine quantitative results.[/p][/quote]Yes, if I was referring to all cyclists I would agree. I am not. As I said, my comments are based on observations in Oxford. This is not some statistical experiment - its a comment on the behaviour of some cyclists in Oxford, which can be seen clearly on a daily basisi by anyone who stands near crossings on Cowley Road or Botley Road or Banbury Road. You don't need to be a statistician - you just need to wait and watch.[/p][/quote]Please perform a study and publish your statistics in a peer-reviewed journal. grandconjuration
  • Score: 8

11:56am Thu 23 Jan 14

livid99 says...

grandconjuration wrote:
livid99 wrote:
natox78 wrote:
The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.
I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant
You are not criticising those who break the rules; this article is about drivers making illegal left turns and you have at no point in this comments section criticised them.

The vast majority of comments you make here are on articles related to cycling. You make no criticisms of any other road users. Throughout this thread you have failed to provide any facts to support your argument. Your comments are gross generalisations. You hate cyclists.
Fine, if you think I hate cyclists that's up to you. You obviously know best. The fact is I don't. And if it makes you happier, of course I condemn motorists who make dangerous turns. I would have thought it was obvious. However, the fact that you don't seem to understand, or choose to ignore, the reasons for the criticism aimed at SOME cyclists does kind of prove the point I am trying to make though.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.[/p][/quote]I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant[/p][/quote]You are not criticising those who break the rules; this article is about drivers making illegal left turns and you have at no point in this comments section criticised them. The vast majority of comments you make here are on articles related to cycling. You make no criticisms of any other road users. Throughout this thread you have failed to provide any facts to support your argument. Your comments are gross generalisations. You hate cyclists.[/p][/quote]Fine, if you think I hate cyclists that's up to you. You obviously know best. The fact is I don't. And if it makes you happier, of course I condemn motorists who make dangerous turns. I would have thought it was obvious. However, the fact that you don't seem to understand, or choose to ignore, the reasons for the criticism aimed at SOME cyclists does kind of prove the point I am trying to make though. livid99
  • Score: -7

12:01pm Thu 23 Jan 14

livid99 says...

grandconjuration wrote:
locodogz says "And you seem to be using proportionality as a lame excuse for cycling misdemeanors."

No I'm not.

I'm asking why an article about drivers making an illegal left turn results in more than 60 comments, most of them containing the same old anti-cyclist diatribe that are not supported by any statistics.

I'm asking why the word 'cyclist' in any news article triggers disproportional bitterness and rage.
This quote from the guy who wrote the article should give you a clue...."Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters. "
This clearly provocative and arrogant comment is probably the reason you are looking for. If you are looking for the reason why people get so wound up, it is the attitude of this guy and others like him. Look to the cause rather than the reaction.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: locodogz says "And you seem to be using proportionality as a lame excuse for cycling misdemeanors." No I'm not. I'm asking why an article about drivers making an illegal left turn results in more than 60 comments, most of them containing the same old anti-cyclist diatribe that are not supported by any statistics. I'm asking why the word 'cyclist' in any news article triggers disproportional bitterness and rage.[/p][/quote]This quote from the guy who wrote the article should give you a clue...."Just a quick nod to the writers of all those “I hate cyclists” letters published continually in the Oxford Mail. Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters. " This clearly provocative and arrogant comment is probably the reason you are looking for. If you are looking for the reason why people get so wound up, it is the attitude of this guy and others like him. Look to the cause rather than the reaction. livid99
  • Score: -6

1:44pm Thu 23 Jan 14

xenarthra says...

I commute 10 miles by bicycle each day, passing through the centre of Oxford. I also own and drive a car. My observation is that a far higher proportion of cyclists in Oxford are careless and inconsiderate towards other road users than is the case for vehicle drivers. However, I feel far more threatened by the behaviour of a small minority of drivers, who use their two tonnes of metal to bully cyclists, than I do by other cyclists. Many cyclists in Oxford are clueless, but it's the small number of dangerous drivers that worries me more.
I commute 10 miles by bicycle each day, passing through the centre of Oxford. I also own and drive a car. My observation is that a far higher proportion of cyclists in Oxford are careless and inconsiderate towards other road users than is the case for vehicle drivers. However, I feel far more threatened by the behaviour of a small minority of drivers, who use their two tonnes of metal to bully cyclists, than I do by other cyclists. Many cyclists in Oxford are clueless, but it's the small number of dangerous drivers that worries me more. xenarthra
  • Score: 9

3:40pm Thu 23 Jan 14

locodogz says...

grandconjuration wrote:
livid99 wrote:
natox78 wrote:
The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.
I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant
You are not criticising those who break the rules; this article is about drivers making illegal left turns and you have at no point in this comments section criticised them.

The vast majority of comments you make here are on articles related to cycling. You make no criticisms of any other road users. Throughout this thread you have failed to provide any facts to support your argument. Your comments are gross generalisations. You hate cyclists.
"Your comments are gross generalisations. You hate cyclists."

Oh the irony...........
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.[/p][/quote]I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant[/p][/quote]You are not criticising those who break the rules; this article is about drivers making illegal left turns and you have at no point in this comments section criticised them. The vast majority of comments you make here are on articles related to cycling. You make no criticisms of any other road users. Throughout this thread you have failed to provide any facts to support your argument. Your comments are gross generalisations. You hate cyclists.[/p][/quote]"Your comments are gross generalisations. You hate cyclists." Oh the irony........... locodogz
  • Score: -6

4:52pm Thu 23 Jan 14

grandconjuration says...

locodogz wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
livid99 wrote:
natox78 wrote:
The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.
I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant
You are not criticising those who break the rules; this article is about drivers making illegal left turns and you have at no point in this comments section criticised them.

The vast majority of comments you make here are on articles related to cycling. You make no criticisms of any other road users. Throughout this thread you have failed to provide any facts to support your argument. Your comments are gross generalisations. You hate cyclists.
"Your comments are gross generalisations. You hate cyclists."

Oh the irony...........
About 98% of livid99's comments in the OM are anti-cyclist. This strongly suggests that he/she has something against cyclists.

I don't understand the irony. Please point out my gross generalisations.
[quote][p][bold]locodogz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.[/p][/quote]I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant[/p][/quote]You are not criticising those who break the rules; this article is about drivers making illegal left turns and you have at no point in this comments section criticised them. The vast majority of comments you make here are on articles related to cycling. You make no criticisms of any other road users. Throughout this thread you have failed to provide any facts to support your argument. Your comments are gross generalisations. You hate cyclists.[/p][/quote]"Your comments are gross generalisations. You hate cyclists." Oh the irony...........[/p][/quote]About 98% of livid99's comments in the OM are anti-cyclist. This strongly suggests that he/she has something against cyclists. I don't understand the irony. Please point out my gross generalisations. grandconjuration
  • Score: 7

7:39am Fri 24 Jan 14

livid99 says...

grandconjuration wrote:
locodogz wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
livid99 wrote:
natox78 wrote:
The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.
I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant
You are not criticising those who break the rules; this article is about drivers making illegal left turns and you have at no point in this comments section criticised them.

The vast majority of comments you make here are on articles related to cycling. You make no criticisms of any other road users. Throughout this thread you have failed to provide any facts to support your argument. Your comments are gross generalisations. You hate cyclists.
"Your comments are gross generalisations. You hate cyclists."

Oh the irony...........
About 98% of livid99's comments in the OM are anti-cyclist. This strongly suggests that he/she has something against cyclists.

I don't understand the irony. Please point out my gross generalisations.
You seem to think you have the ability see into my mind and know exactly what I think, and yet at the same time choose to completely ignore some of the points I have made here to keep your accusations intact. I therefore conclude that you are either not quite as smart as you think you are, or you are a troll.......
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]locodogz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]natox78[/bold] wrote: The sample size is very small if you use observation as your main source. It is hard to generalise across the population.[/p][/quote]I'm not generalising. I'm criticising those who break the rules. Sample size is irrelevant[/p][/quote]You are not criticising those who break the rules; this article is about drivers making illegal left turns and you have at no point in this comments section criticised them. The vast majority of comments you make here are on articles related to cycling. You make no criticisms of any other road users. Throughout this thread you have failed to provide any facts to support your argument. Your comments are gross generalisations. You hate cyclists.[/p][/quote]"Your comments are gross generalisations. You hate cyclists." Oh the irony...........[/p][/quote]About 98% of livid99's comments in the OM are anti-cyclist. This strongly suggests that he/she has something against cyclists. I don't understand the irony. Please point out my gross generalisations.[/p][/quote]You seem to think you have the ability see into my mind and know exactly what I think, and yet at the same time choose to completely ignore some of the points I have made here to keep your accusations intact. I therefore conclude that you are either not quite as smart as you think you are, or you are a troll....... livid99
  • Score: -4

9:42am Fri 24 Jan 14

grandconjuration says...

livid99 - wow, that's the first time I've ever been called a troll; an term that is becoming increasingly overused, usually by someone losing an argument.

Comments on this thread have (stereotypically) claimed that cyclists are dangerous to others, particularly pedestrians, and are a danger to themselves. In a post above, a presented my argument that none of these claims are true and provided data to support my argument. Furthermore, I provided the source of these statistics.

These are not the actions of an internet troll.

You however, have failed to provide any basis for your obvious dislike of cyclists. I agree that there are some idiots on bicycles and this may be more evident in places such as Oxford due to the high density of students and historical high use of bicycles. I would like to see bad cyclists corrected in some way, either through punishment (fines etc) or training. However, if you were heading the Police, what would you prioritise for enforcement - speeding drivers that kill around 400 people a year (RoSPA statistics) or red light running cyclists that kill 0.

In the grand scheme of things, no matter how irritating you find them, cyclists are relatively harmless and the comments that you make come across as disproportionate and irrational hatred.
livid99 - wow, that's the first time I've ever been called a troll; an term that is becoming increasingly overused, usually by someone losing an argument. Comments on this thread have (stereotypically) claimed that cyclists are dangerous to others, particularly pedestrians, and are a danger to themselves. In a post above, a presented my argument that none of these claims are true and provided data to support my argument. Furthermore, I provided the source of these statistics. These are not the actions of an internet troll. You however, have failed to provide any basis for your obvious dislike of cyclists. I agree that there are some idiots on bicycles and this may be more evident in places such as Oxford due to the high density of students and historical high use of bicycles. I would like to see bad cyclists corrected in some way, either through punishment (fines etc) or training. However, if you were heading the Police, what would you prioritise for enforcement - speeding drivers that kill around 400 people a year (RoSPA statistics) or red light running cyclists that kill 0. In the grand scheme of things, no matter how irritating you find them, cyclists are relatively harmless and the comments that you make come across as disproportionate and irrational hatred. grandconjuration
  • Score: 7

10:36am Fri 24 Jan 14

livid99 says...

You seem to be trying to read far too much into my comments. With these words...."You however, have failed to provide any basis for your obvious dislike of cyclists. I agree that there are some idiots on bicycles and this may be more evident in places such as Oxford due to the high density of students and historical high use of bicycles. I would like to see bad cyclists corrected in some way, either through punishment (fines etc) or training." ....you have summed up what I have been saying all along. The idiots ones should be fined or retrained, like motorists are !! I have never said that ALL cyclists are bad, I have never said I hate cyclists - that is your accusation. However, your insistance that a cyclist jumping a red light is not a danger to pedestrians, based purely on the statistical fact that no-one has (so far) died is bizarre to say the least. A cyclist doesn't have to kill someone to be a danger. Surely you can see past your reliance on statistics to see that !
And if you think I am losing the argument, fine. You win. Hope you feel good about it. I'm off to enjoy the weekend.
You seem to be trying to read far too much into my comments. With these words...."You however, have failed to provide any basis for your obvious dislike of cyclists. I agree that there are some idiots on bicycles and this may be more evident in places such as Oxford due to the high density of students and historical high use of bicycles. I would like to see bad cyclists corrected in some way, either through punishment (fines etc) or training." ....you have summed up what I have been saying all along. The idiots ones should be fined or retrained, like motorists are !! I have never said that ALL cyclists are bad, I have never said I hate cyclists - that is your accusation. However, your insistance that a cyclist jumping a red light is not a danger to pedestrians, based purely on the statistical fact that no-one has (so far) died is bizarre to say the least. A cyclist doesn't have to kill someone to be a danger. Surely you can see past your reliance on statistics to see that ! And if you think I am losing the argument, fine. You win. Hope you feel good about it. I'm off to enjoy the weekend. livid99
  • Score: -5

10:41am Fri 24 Jan 14

Oxonian says...

grandconjuration wrote:
livid99 - wow, that's the first time I've ever been called a troll; an term that is becoming increasingly overused, usually by someone losing an argument.

Comments on this thread have (stereotypically) claimed that cyclists are dangerous to others, particularly pedestrians, and are a danger to themselves. In a post above, a presented my argument that none of these claims are true and provided data to support my argument. Furthermore, I provided the source of these statistics.

These are not the actions of an internet troll.

You however, have failed to provide any basis for your obvious dislike of cyclists. I agree that there are some idiots on bicycles and this may be more evident in places such as Oxford due to the high density of students and historical high use of bicycles. I would like to see bad cyclists corrected in some way, either through punishment (fines etc) or training. However, if you were heading the Police, what would you prioritise for enforcement - speeding drivers that kill around 400 people a year (RoSPA statistics) or red light running cyclists that kill 0.

In the grand scheme of things, no matter how irritating you find them, cyclists are relatively harmless and the comments that you make come across as disproportionate and irrational hatred.
Grand Conjuration,

You say "Comments on this thread have (stereotypically) claimed that cyclists are dangerous to others, particularly pedestrians, and are a danger to themselves. In a post above, a presented my argument that none of these claims are true and provided data to support my argument."

Yet you said in an earlier post: "From 2003-2012 inclusive, less than 1% of pedestrian fatalities and around 1% of serious pedestrian injuries involved cyclists". So pedestrian fatalities and injuries ARE caused by cyclists, so why do you now deny it?

Your argument seems to be that far more accidents are caused by motorists than cyclists, which I would never deny, but two wrongs don't make a right. Cyclists can and do injure people by careless behaviour (just like careless motorists).

This thread started because James Styring made the foolish comment that it is pathetic "to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers", whereas it is hardly sillier than bleating about car accidents. In both cases, the aim should surely be to declare oneself against illegal and inconsiderate behaviour, and to support attempts to reduce accidents of all kinds (which Thames Police seem to be doing).
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: livid99 - wow, that's the first time I've ever been called a troll; an term that is becoming increasingly overused, usually by someone losing an argument. Comments on this thread have (stereotypically) claimed that cyclists are dangerous to others, particularly pedestrians, and are a danger to themselves. In a post above, a presented my argument that none of these claims are true and provided data to support my argument. Furthermore, I provided the source of these statistics. These are not the actions of an internet troll. You however, have failed to provide any basis for your obvious dislike of cyclists. I agree that there are some idiots on bicycles and this may be more evident in places such as Oxford due to the high density of students and historical high use of bicycles. I would like to see bad cyclists corrected in some way, either through punishment (fines etc) or training. However, if you were heading the Police, what would you prioritise for enforcement - speeding drivers that kill around 400 people a year (RoSPA statistics) or red light running cyclists that kill 0. In the grand scheme of things, no matter how irritating you find them, cyclists are relatively harmless and the comments that you make come across as disproportionate and irrational hatred.[/p][/quote]Grand Conjuration, You say "Comments on this thread have (stereotypically) claimed that cyclists are dangerous to others, particularly pedestrians, and are a danger to themselves. In a post above, a [I presume you mean "I"] presented my argument that none of these claims are true and provided data to support my argument." Yet you said in an earlier post: "From 2003-2012 inclusive, less than 1% of pedestrian fatalities and around 1% of serious pedestrian injuries involved cyclists". So pedestrian fatalities and injuries ARE caused by cyclists, so why do you now deny it? Your argument seems to be that far more accidents are caused by motorists than cyclists, which I would never deny, but two wrongs don't make a right. Cyclists can and do injure people by careless behaviour (just like careless motorists). This thread started because James Styring made the foolish comment that it is pathetic "to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers", whereas it is hardly sillier than bleating about car accidents. In both cases, the aim should surely be to declare oneself against illegal and inconsiderate behaviour, and to support attempts to reduce accidents of all kinds (which Thames Police seem to be doing). Oxonian
  • Score: -5

12:02pm Fri 24 Jan 14

grandconjuration says...

Oxonian

You have (deliberately?) misinterpreted the statistics.

You say - Yet you said in an earlier post: "From 2003-2012 inclusive, less than 1% of pedestrian fatalities and around 1% of serious pedestrian injuries involved cyclists". So pedestrian fatalities and injuries ARE caused by cyclists, so why do you now deny it?

Firstly, the stats do not apportion blame to the cyclist. Secondly, I do not deny that collisions occur between pedestrians and cyclists. However, the data does show that such collisions are extremely rare.

I do not argue it's OK for cyclists to break the law. Please show me where I have.

You are ignoring the one single point that I (and madi50n) are making. Greater than 99% of pedestrians casualties arise from collisions with motor vehicles while less than 1% from collisions with cycles. Yet, from reading a comments thread like this, you would think it the other way around!

James Styring comments are clumsy. However, he has a point. Where is the bleating about bad driving? A recent comments thread on here relating to motorists breaking a 20 mph speed limit comprised mainly of drivers trying to justify their law breaking and claiming it was nothing more than a tax. Meanwhile, 400 people every year die because of speeding motorists. Let's get our priorities straight!
Oxonian You have (deliberately?) misinterpreted the statistics. You say - Yet you said in an earlier post: "From 2003-2012 inclusive, less than 1% of pedestrian fatalities and around 1% of serious pedestrian injuries involved cyclists". So pedestrian fatalities and injuries ARE caused by cyclists, so why do you now deny it? Firstly, the stats do not apportion blame to the cyclist. Secondly, I do not deny that collisions occur between pedestrians and cyclists. However, the data does show that such collisions are extremely rare. I do not argue it's OK for cyclists to break the law. Please show me where I have. You are ignoring the one single point that I (and madi50n) are making. Greater than 99% of pedestrians casualties arise from collisions with motor vehicles while less than 1% from collisions with cycles. Yet, from reading a comments thread like this, you would think it the other way around! James Styring comments are clumsy. However, he has a point. Where is the bleating about bad driving? A recent comments thread on here relating to motorists breaking a 20 mph speed limit comprised mainly of drivers trying to justify their law breaking and claiming it was nothing more than a tax. Meanwhile, 400 people every year die because of speeding motorists. Let's get our priorities straight! grandconjuration
  • Score: 7

3:03pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Madi50n says...

Actually Oxonian I think you'll find this thread started when one of the OM's regular cyclist bashers BigAlBiker made a comment with out having read the article, calling James Styring "Daft" in the process.

Then a few posts in, it starts with the comments RE Mr Styring's attitude to Drivers "Bleating" on about cyclists running reds or no lights. Again, most people by-passed the point that he was making about being little or no threat to drivers and brought pedestrians into it.

Then the usual, "cyclists run reds", "use pavements", the classic "Pay no road tax" myth reared it's little head, "ride with no lights", "in dark clothes" etc. started.

All, strangely, on an article about how a driver made an illegal maneuver putting another human being in danger, and even more strangely, where no comment criticising that driver appeared, NOT ONE!

When it was attempted to point out that there are a lot of statistics out there, and has been a fair amount of research into the number of accidents involving various modes of transport, and all of it shows cyclists cause very very few accidents, and even fewer accidents where serious injury or or death occurs to anyone (pedestrians, other cyclists and motorists) with links for people to go and see for themselves; then the anecdotal, la-la-la, fingers in ears I can't hear you approach is employed. One person even saying, proudly it seems, that they have formed their views on what they see and their opinion rather than the facts.

All of this is, essentially, proof, that some people posting on here have a dis-proportionally negative response to cyclist stories on the OM website. As I & GrandConjuration have both pointed out, stories involving motorists never generate the number of comments cyclist stories do. They certainly do not generate the sort of negativity, mass generalisation &, at time, sheer nastiness that cyclist stories do.

There is a story on the OM's most commented with a driver convicted of causing a cyclist's death with comments making out that the driver is as much a victim as the poor man he killed.

Motorists kill people on a daily basis (pedestrians, cyclists, other motorists), they seriously injure people on a daily basis (pedestrians, cyclists, other motorists). Motor vehicles are the cause of congestion and every accident that snarls up Oxford on a daily basis.

And yet, any story involving them is ignored (even the ones where comments are allowed)

Neither GrandConjuration nor I condone cyclists breaking the rules, but we'd like some sense of proportion from people.

Unfortunately, we are not likely to get it. So, for that rwson, i don't cycle any more. I use my car, adding to the congestion, adding to the fumes. But, and I've said this before, I make it my business to give every cyclist the space they need to be safe, even if that means doing mile after mile at 10 miles an hour, because A. it keeps them safe & B. it drives the driver behind me, who would probably tailgate them like they are tailgating me and pass them with inches to spare, absolutely, frothing at the mouth crazy.
Actually Oxonian I think you'll find this thread started when one of the OM's regular cyclist bashers BigAlBiker made a comment with out having read the article, calling James Styring "Daft" in the process. Then a few posts in, it starts with the comments RE Mr Styring's attitude to Drivers "Bleating" on about cyclists running reds or no lights. Again, most people by-passed the point that he was making about being little or no threat to drivers and brought pedestrians into it. Then the usual, "cyclists run reds", "use pavements", the classic "Pay no road tax" myth reared it's little head, "ride with no lights", "in dark clothes" etc. started. All, strangely, on an article about how a driver made an illegal maneuver putting another human being in danger, and even more strangely, where no comment criticising that driver appeared, NOT ONE! When it was attempted to point out that there are a lot of statistics out there, and has been a fair amount of research into the number of accidents involving various modes of transport, and all of it shows cyclists cause very very few accidents, and even fewer accidents where serious injury or or death occurs to anyone (pedestrians, other cyclists and motorists) with links for people to go and see for themselves; then the anecdotal, la-la-la, fingers in ears I can't hear you approach is employed. One person even saying, proudly it seems, that they have formed their views on what they see and their opinion rather than the facts. All of this is, essentially, proof, that some people posting on here have a dis-proportionally negative response to cyclist stories on the OM website. As I & GrandConjuration have both pointed out, stories involving motorists never generate the number of comments cyclist stories do. They certainly do not generate the sort of negativity, mass generalisation &, at time, sheer nastiness that cyclist stories do. There is a story on the OM's most commented with a driver convicted of causing a cyclist's death with comments making out that the driver is as much a victim as the poor man he killed. Motorists kill people on a daily basis (pedestrians, cyclists, other motorists), they seriously injure people on a daily basis (pedestrians, cyclists, other motorists). Motor vehicles are the cause of congestion and every accident that snarls up Oxford on a daily basis. And yet, any story involving them is ignored (even the ones where comments are allowed) Neither GrandConjuration nor I condone cyclists breaking the rules, but we'd like some sense of proportion from people. Unfortunately, we are not likely to get it. So, for that rwson, i don't cycle any more. I use my car, adding to the congestion, adding to the fumes. But, and I've said this before, I make it my business to give every cyclist the space they need to be safe, even if that means doing mile after mile at 10 miles an hour, because A. it keeps them safe & B. it drives the driver behind me, who would probably tailgate them like they are tailgating me and pass them with inches to spare, absolutely, frothing at the mouth crazy. Madi50n
  • Score: 6

3:26pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Floflo says...

I agree with James on this one. I've never felt that my life has been threatened by a cyclist when I have been driving.

I'm also saddened to hear that the Longwall street junction is going to be redesigned so that it's easier for a driver to make left turns from High Street.

As it is I've had a car turn across my path, illegally, without indicating or warning and knock me off my bike at this junction. Fortunately I was only bruised, while the person who knocked me off decided that leaving me and my broken bike on the floor was a better option than taking responsibility for what they had done.

I'm not quite sure why it's so controversial suggest that the planned change of design is unhelpful and potentially dangerous.
I agree with James on this one. I've never felt that my life has been threatened by a cyclist when I have been driving. I'm also saddened to hear that the Longwall street junction is going to be redesigned so that it's easier for a driver to make left turns from High Street. As it is I've had a car turn across my path, illegally, without indicating or warning and knock me off my bike at this junction. Fortunately I was only bruised, while the person who knocked me off decided that leaving me and my broken bike on the floor was a better option than taking responsibility for what they had done. I'm not quite sure why it's so controversial suggest that the planned change of design is unhelpful and potentially dangerous. Floflo
  • Score: 9

4:49pm Fri 24 Jan 14

locodogz says...

grandconjuration wrote:
livid99 - wow, that's the first time I've ever been called a troll; an term that is becoming increasingly overused, usually by someone losing an argument.

Comments on this thread have (stereotypically) claimed that cyclists are dangerous to others, particularly pedestrians, and are a danger to themselves. In a post above, a presented my argument that none of these claims are true and provided data to support my argument. Furthermore, I provided the source of these statistics.

These are not the actions of an internet troll.

You however, have failed to provide any basis for your obvious dislike of cyclists. I agree that there are some idiots on bicycles and this may be more evident in places such as Oxford due to the high density of students and historical high use of bicycles. I would like to see bad cyclists corrected in some way, either through punishment (fines etc) or training. However, if you were heading the Police, what would you prioritise for enforcement - speeding drivers that kill around 400 people a year (RoSPA statistics) or red light running cyclists that kill 0.

In the grand scheme of things, no matter how irritating you find them, cyclists are relatively harmless and the comments that you make come across as disproportionate and irrational hatred.
"Comments on this thread have (stereotypically) claimed that cyclists are dangerous to others, particularly pedestrians, and are a danger to themselves. In a post above, a presented my argument that none of these claims are true and provided data to support my argument."

You did nothing of the sort. You argued that car drivers can be more dangerous (hardly Nobel prize winning stuff). Cyclists can be, and are on occasions dangerous to pedestrians - can you really not understand this?
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: livid99 - wow, that's the first time I've ever been called a troll; an term that is becoming increasingly overused, usually by someone losing an argument. Comments on this thread have (stereotypically) claimed that cyclists are dangerous to others, particularly pedestrians, and are a danger to themselves. In a post above, a presented my argument that none of these claims are true and provided data to support my argument. Furthermore, I provided the source of these statistics. These are not the actions of an internet troll. You however, have failed to provide any basis for your obvious dislike of cyclists. I agree that there are some idiots on bicycles and this may be more evident in places such as Oxford due to the high density of students and historical high use of bicycles. I would like to see bad cyclists corrected in some way, either through punishment (fines etc) or training. However, if you were heading the Police, what would you prioritise for enforcement - speeding drivers that kill around 400 people a year (RoSPA statistics) or red light running cyclists that kill 0. In the grand scheme of things, no matter how irritating you find them, cyclists are relatively harmless and the comments that you make come across as disproportionate and irrational hatred.[/p][/quote]"Comments on this thread have (stereotypically) claimed that cyclists are dangerous to others, particularly pedestrians, and are a danger to themselves. In a post above, a presented my argument that none of these claims are true and provided data to support my argument." You did nothing of the sort. You argued that car drivers can be more dangerous (hardly Nobel prize winning stuff). Cyclists can be, and are on occasions dangerous to pedestrians - can you really not understand this? locodogz
  • Score: -4

5:11pm Fri 24 Jan 14

Madi50n says...

Right, thank you, you finally admit it "can be and on occasions are dangerous to pedestrians" not always, not very, but on occasion & to pedestrians.

So now we've got that out of you, will you admit that the amount of criticism levelled at cyclists is disproportionate the amount of criticism levelled at motorists who can be and regularly are far more dangerous dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists & other motorists.
Right, thank you, you finally admit it "can be and on occasions are dangerous to pedestrians" not always, not very, but on occasion & to pedestrians. So now we've got that out of you, will you admit that the amount of criticism levelled at cyclists is disproportionate the amount of criticism levelled at motorists who can be and regularly are far more dangerous dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists & other motorists. Madi50n
  • Score: 9

10:32am Mon 27 Jan 14

locodogz says...

Madi50n wrote:
Right, thank you, you finally admit it "can be and on occasions are dangerous to pedestrians" not always, not very, but on occasion & to pedestrians.

So now we've got that out of you, will you admit that the amount of criticism levelled at cyclists is disproportionate the amount of criticism levelled at motorists who can be and regularly are far more dangerous dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists & other motorists.
Wow - you really have spectacularly missed the point. I was replying to GC's post in which he says "Comments on this thread have (stereotypically) claimed that cyclists are dangerous to others, particularly pedestrians..... In a post above, a presented my argument that none of these claims are true"

My point being (as I state) that cyclists "can be and on occasions are dangerous to pedestrians". That’s all I said no very's, always or whatever else you're seeking to weave into my post. Hopefully simple enough for you to understand.

At no point have I attempted to say or even intimate that cyclists are as dangerous to pedestrians as motorists can be. Indeed in my second post on this thread I stated "The fact that more people are injured by cars doesn't de facto make cycling law infringements OK or make it " pathetic ... to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers" - a premise of this article."

See – my use of the word more relating to cars?!?!

Sadly I think you’ll just continue to read what you want to see and accuse me of an anti-cycling bias – ironic given I’ve just spent a small fortune on a Gran Fondo.

I also said earlier "As for your perception of "anti cycling" bias in the OM - reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare?" Any thoughts?
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: Right, thank you, you finally admit it "can be and on occasions are dangerous to pedestrians" not always, not very, but on occasion & to pedestrians. So now we've got that out of you, will you admit that the amount of criticism levelled at cyclists is disproportionate the amount of criticism levelled at motorists who can be and regularly are far more dangerous dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists & other motorists.[/p][/quote]Wow - you really have spectacularly missed the point. I was replying to GC's post in which he says "Comments on this thread have (stereotypically) claimed that cyclists are dangerous to others, particularly pedestrians..... In a post above, a presented my argument that none of these claims are true" My point being (as I state) that cyclists "can be and on occasions are dangerous to pedestrians". That’s all I said no very's, always or whatever else you're seeking to weave into my post. Hopefully simple enough for you to understand. At no point have I attempted to say or even intimate that cyclists are as dangerous to pedestrians as motorists can be. Indeed in my second post on this thread I stated "The fact that more people are injured by cars doesn't de facto make cycling law infringements OK or make it " pathetic ... to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers" - a premise of this article." See – my use of the word more relating to cars?!?! Sadly I think you’ll just continue to read what you want to see and accuse me of an anti-cycling bias – ironic given I’ve just spent a small fortune on a Gran Fondo. I also said earlier "As for your perception of "anti cycling" bias in the OM - reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare?" Any thoughts? locodogz
  • Score: -1

11:20am Mon 27 Jan 14

grandconjuration says...

Recent article in OM (Saturday 25th Jan) - "51 drivers caught in St Giles speed check".

In 2 hours, the Police caught 51 drivers exceeding the speed limit, one doing nearly double the limit. They also caught 14 drivers using their mobile phone or not wearing a seat belt.

Comments to date = 8. Most thinking that this is funny, an unfair tax, or that 38 mph in a 20 mph zone is acceptable.

This article - an article about an illegal right turn being a danger for cyclists attracts 78 comments, with a significant number of them whinging about cyclists.

Looks like Mr Styring was right.
Recent article in OM (Saturday 25th Jan) - "51 drivers caught in St Giles speed check". In 2 hours, the Police caught 51 drivers exceeding the speed limit, one doing nearly double the limit. They also caught 14 drivers using their mobile phone or not wearing a seat belt. Comments to date = 8. Most thinking that this is funny, an unfair tax, or that 38 mph in a 20 mph zone is acceptable. This article - an article about an illegal right turn being a danger for cyclists attracts 78 comments, with a significant number of them whinging about cyclists. Looks like Mr Styring was right. grandconjuration
  • Score: 3

11:57am Mon 27 Jan 14

livid99 says...

Yesterday evening, I was waiting in my car, while my better half was shopping for about 15 minutes in Cowley Road. It was dark, raining and in that time I counted 8 cyclists with no lights on, and wearing dark clothing.
Now whatever the apologists say, these people are either too lazy to buy lights, too stupid to realise they cannot be seen easily, or completely unconcerned for their own safety or that of people who may not see them coming along the road ?? These people do themselves no favours at all with this behaviour., and yet I will no doubt be criticised once again for "anti-cyclist" comments, or dismissed because what I saw doesn't fit in with a certain set of statistics.
However, the worst thing I saw was a poorly lit cyclist towing a small, flimsy 2 wheeled covered trailer containing what appeared to be a baby or a very tiny child. I was astonished that someone would take the risk of putting their most precious thing into such a dangerous and vulnerable contraption in the dark and in the rain.
Yesterday evening, I was waiting in my car, while my better half was shopping for about 15 minutes in Cowley Road. It was dark, raining and in that time I counted 8 cyclists with no lights on, and wearing dark clothing. Now whatever the apologists say, these people are either too lazy to buy lights, too stupid to realise they cannot be seen easily, or completely unconcerned for their own safety or that of people who may not see them coming along the road ?? These people do themselves no favours at all with this behaviour., and yet I will no doubt be criticised once again for "anti-cyclist" comments, or dismissed because what I saw doesn't fit in with a certain set of statistics. However, the worst thing I saw was a poorly lit cyclist towing a small, flimsy 2 wheeled covered trailer containing what appeared to be a baby or a very tiny child. I was astonished that someone would take the risk of putting their most precious thing into such a dangerous and vulnerable contraption in the dark and in the rain. livid99
  • Score: 0

1:17pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Madi50n says...

I also said earlier "As for your perception of "anti cycling" bias in the OM - reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare?" Any thoughts?

Talk about someone not getting it.

IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ABOUT CYCLING VS MOTORING, IT IS THE NUMBER OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS THOSE REPORTS RECEIVE.

Is that any clearer, the OM is just reporting on stuff, it's the commentators who focus on the cycling stories claiming them to be a menace who completely ignore the driving stories. Even though, and I quote from you.

"reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare"

This statement pretty much proves that motorists are the worst offenders, but as a group they receive little criticism. Can you not see that is what we are talking about.

Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity
Motorists = very very dangerous = receives almost no criticism

Is that simple enough for you?
I also said earlier "As for your perception of "anti cycling" bias in the OM - reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare?" Any thoughts? Talk about someone not getting it. IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ABOUT CYCLING VS MOTORING, IT IS THE NUMBER OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS THOSE REPORTS RECEIVE. Is that any clearer, the OM is just reporting on stuff, it's the commentators who focus on the cycling stories claiming them to be a menace who completely ignore the driving stories. Even though, and I quote from you. "reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare" This statement pretty much proves that motorists are the worst offenders, but as a group they receive little criticism. Can you not see that is what we are talking about. Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity Motorists = very very dangerous = receives almost no criticism Is that simple enough for you? Madi50n
  • Score: 1

1:45pm Mon 27 Jan 14

locodogz says...

Madi50n wrote:
I also said earlier "As for your perception of "anti cycling" bias in the OM - reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare?" Any thoughts?

Talk about someone not getting it.

IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ABOUT CYCLING VS MOTORING, IT IS THE NUMBER OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS THOSE REPORTS RECEIVE.

Is that any clearer, the OM is just reporting on stuff, it's the commentators who focus on the cycling stories claiming them to be a menace who completely ignore the driving stories. Even though, and I quote from you.

"reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare"

This statement pretty much proves that motorists are the worst offenders, but as a group they receive little criticism. Can you not see that is what we are talking about.

Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity
Motorists = very very dangerous = receives almost no criticism

Is that simple enough for you?
Ah bless Madi50n - love the CAPS - really demonstrates your cutting intellect...

The plethora of articles about driving misdemeanours probably something to do with the lower average response rate? That and the fact that I've yet to see one that trots out the line that "whinging about what drivers do wrong is pathetic 'cos cyclists do worse things".

Personally I see a similar number of crackpots on either side of the argument and a majority of 'moderates' who can see that both cycling and motoring misdemeanours are WRONG (hope you like that?) and neither a subject that its "pathetic" to complain about
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: I also said earlier "As for your perception of "anti cycling" bias in the OM - reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare?" Any thoughts? Talk about someone not getting it. IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ABOUT CYCLING VS MOTORING, IT IS THE NUMBER OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS THOSE REPORTS RECEIVE. Is that any clearer, the OM is just reporting on stuff, it's the commentators who focus on the cycling stories claiming them to be a menace who completely ignore the driving stories. Even though, and I quote from you. "reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare" This statement pretty much proves that motorists are the worst offenders, but as a group they receive little criticism. Can you not see that is what we are talking about. Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity Motorists = very very dangerous = receives almost no criticism Is that simple enough for you?[/p][/quote]Ah bless Madi50n - love the CAPS - really demonstrates your cutting intellect... The plethora of articles about driving misdemeanours probably something to do with the lower average response rate? That and the fact that I've yet to see one that trots out the line that "whinging about what drivers do wrong is pathetic 'cos cyclists do worse things". Personally I see a similar number of crackpots on either side of the argument and a majority of 'moderates' who can see that both cycling and motoring misdemeanours are WRONG (hope you like that?) and neither a subject that its "pathetic" to complain about locodogz
  • Score: 1

1:50pm Mon 27 Jan 14

locodogz says...

Madi50n wrote:
I also said earlier "As for your perception of "anti cycling" bias in the OM - reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare?" Any thoughts?

Talk about someone not getting it.

IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ABOUT CYCLING VS MOTORING, IT IS THE NUMBER OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS THOSE REPORTS RECEIVE.

Is that any clearer, the OM is just reporting on stuff, it's the commentators who focus on the cycling stories claiming them to be a menace who completely ignore the driving stories. Even though, and I quote from you.

"reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare"

This statement pretty much proves that motorists are the worst offenders, but as a group they receive little criticism. Can you not see that is what we are talking about.

Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity
Motorists = very very dangerous = receives almost no criticism

Is that simple enough for you?
interesting your assertion that "Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity"

I don't imagine you're a regular reader of the Times but you might want to take in the article on page 13 today which starts "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows"? Now please don't shoot the messenger....
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: I also said earlier "As for your perception of "anti cycling" bias in the OM - reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare?" Any thoughts? Talk about someone not getting it. IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ABOUT CYCLING VS MOTORING, IT IS THE NUMBER OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS THOSE REPORTS RECEIVE. Is that any clearer, the OM is just reporting on stuff, it's the commentators who focus on the cycling stories claiming them to be a menace who completely ignore the driving stories. Even though, and I quote from you. "reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare" This statement pretty much proves that motorists are the worst offenders, but as a group they receive little criticism. Can you not see that is what we are talking about. Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity Motorists = very very dangerous = receives almost no criticism Is that simple enough for you?[/p][/quote]interesting your assertion that "Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity" I don't imagine you're a regular reader of the Times but you might want to take in the article on page 13 today which starts "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows"? Now please don't shoot the messenger.... locodogz
  • Score: 1

2:12pm Mon 27 Jan 14

grandconjuration says...

locodogz wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
I also said earlier "As for your perception of "anti cycling" bias in the OM - reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare?" Any thoughts?

Talk about someone not getting it.

IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ABOUT CYCLING VS MOTORING, IT IS THE NUMBER OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS THOSE REPORTS RECEIVE.

Is that any clearer, the OM is just reporting on stuff, it's the commentators who focus on the cycling stories claiming them to be a menace who completely ignore the driving stories. Even though, and I quote from you.

"reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare"

This statement pretty much proves that motorists are the worst offenders, but as a group they receive little criticism. Can you not see that is what we are talking about.

Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity
Motorists = very very dangerous = receives almost no criticism

Is that simple enough for you?
interesting your assertion that "Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity"

I don't imagine you're a regular reader of the Times but you might want to take in the article on page 13 today which starts "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows"? Now please don't shoot the messenger....
The Times statistics are the same as those I've posted previously. You need to read beyond the headline.
[quote][p][bold]locodogz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: I also said earlier "As for your perception of "anti cycling" bias in the OM - reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare?" Any thoughts? Talk about someone not getting it. IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ABOUT CYCLING VS MOTORING, IT IS THE NUMBER OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS THOSE REPORTS RECEIVE. Is that any clearer, the OM is just reporting on stuff, it's the commentators who focus on the cycling stories claiming them to be a menace who completely ignore the driving stories. Even though, and I quote from you. "reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare" This statement pretty much proves that motorists are the worst offenders, but as a group they receive little criticism. Can you not see that is what we are talking about. Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity Motorists = very very dangerous = receives almost no criticism Is that simple enough for you?[/p][/quote]interesting your assertion that "Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity" I don't imagine you're a regular reader of the Times but you might want to take in the article on page 13 today which starts "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows"? Now please don't shoot the messenger....[/p][/quote]The Times statistics are the same as those I've posted previously. You need to read beyond the headline. grandconjuration
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Mon 27 Jan 14

grandconjuration says...

Three people convicted of drink-driving in today's 'The Scales of Justice' and no comments.
Three people convicted of drink-driving in today's 'The Scales of Justice' and no comments. grandconjuration
  • Score: 1

2:35pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Floflo says...

locodogz wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
I also said earlier "As for your perception of "anti cycling" bias in the OM - reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare?" Any thoughts?

Talk about someone not getting it.

IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ABOUT CYCLING VS MOTORING, IT IS THE NUMBER OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS THOSE REPORTS RECEIVE.

Is that any clearer, the OM is just reporting on stuff, it's the commentators who focus on the cycling stories claiming them to be a menace who completely ignore the driving stories. Even though, and I quote from you.

"reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare"

This statement pretty much proves that motorists are the worst offenders, but as a group they receive little criticism. Can you not see that is what we are talking about.

Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity
Motorists = very very dangerous = receives almost no criticism

Is that simple enough for you?
interesting your assertion that "Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity"

I don't imagine you're a regular reader of the Times but you might want to take in the article on page 13 today which starts "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows"? Now please don't shoot the messenger....
Do you often see pedestrians on A roads, or motorways?

That's quite a stunning statistic you have found. Most miles being driven are in a completely pedestrian free environment, yet per mile drivers still injure more pedestrians than cyclists injure pedestrians!

James is completely right here. More attention need to be given to designing our streets to make it safer for both cyclists and pedestrians.
[quote][p][bold]locodogz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: I also said earlier "As for your perception of "anti cycling" bias in the OM - reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare?" Any thoughts? Talk about someone not getting it. IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ABOUT CYCLING VS MOTORING, IT IS THE NUMBER OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS THOSE REPORTS RECEIVE. Is that any clearer, the OM is just reporting on stuff, it's the commentators who focus on the cycling stories claiming them to be a menace who completely ignore the driving stories. Even though, and I quote from you. "reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare" This statement pretty much proves that motorists are the worst offenders, but as a group they receive little criticism. Can you not see that is what we are talking about. Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity Motorists = very very dangerous = receives almost no criticism Is that simple enough for you?[/p][/quote]interesting your assertion that "Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity" I don't imagine you're a regular reader of the Times but you might want to take in the article on page 13 today which starts "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows"? Now please don't shoot the messenger....[/p][/quote]Do you often see pedestrians on A roads, or motorways? That's quite a stunning statistic you have found. Most miles being driven are in a completely pedestrian free environment, yet per mile drivers still injure more pedestrians than cyclists injure pedestrians! James is completely right here. More attention need to be given to designing our streets to make it safer for both cyclists and pedestrians. Floflo
  • Score: 1

2:40pm Mon 27 Jan 14

locodogz says...

Genuinely fascinating

You use these stats to "prove" that cyclist are not dangerous to others (see quote below)

"Comments on this thread have (stereotypically) claimed that cyclists are dangerous to others, particularly pedestrians, and are a danger to themselves. In a post above, a presented my argument that none of these claims are true and provided data to support my argument."

Whilst the Times uses the same data to assert that "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians"

Funny old world isn't it?!?!

On a lighter note I went back and re-read your initial (and well argued) post on this and couldn't help but note that you also don't consider bees dangerous. I look forward to hearing how you maintain your hives without all that pesky safety clothing most beekeepers consider essential!?!

I'm beginning to think Disraeli had it right about statistics.......
Genuinely fascinating You use these stats to "prove" that cyclist are not dangerous to others (see quote below) "Comments on this thread have (stereotypically) claimed that cyclists are dangerous to others, particularly pedestrians, and are a danger to themselves. In a post above, a presented my argument that none of these claims are true and provided data to support my argument." Whilst the Times uses the same data to assert that "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians" Funny old world isn't it?!?! On a lighter note I went back and re-read your initial (and well argued) post on this and couldn't help but note that you also don't consider bees dangerous. I look forward to hearing how you maintain your hives without all that pesky safety clothing most beekeepers consider essential!?! I'm beginning to think Disraeli had it right about statistics....... locodogz
  • Score: -2

2:45pm Mon 27 Jan 14

locodogz says...

grandconjuration wrote:
Three people convicted of drink-driving in today's 'The Scales of Justice' and no comments.
Insane isn't it? Where are all the posts saying these poor people should have been let off because they've seen someone cycling on the pavement earlier?

Where's the pro motorist lobby when you need it? Or maybe, just maybe, most readers will have observed justice to have been done.....
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: Three people convicted of drink-driving in today's 'The Scales of Justice' and no comments.[/p][/quote]Insane isn't it? Where are all the posts saying these poor people should have been let off because they've seen someone cycling on the pavement earlier? Where's the pro motorist lobby when you need it? Or maybe, just maybe, most readers will have observed justice to have been done..... locodogz
  • Score: 1

2:46pm Mon 27 Jan 14

grandconjuration says...

Floflo wrote:
locodogz wrote:
Madi50n wrote:
I also said earlier "As for your perception of "anti cycling" bias in the OM - reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare?" Any thoughts?

Talk about someone not getting it.

IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ABOUT CYCLING VS MOTORING, IT IS THE NUMBER OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS THOSE REPORTS RECEIVE.

Is that any clearer, the OM is just reporting on stuff, it's the commentators who focus on the cycling stories claiming them to be a menace who completely ignore the driving stories. Even though, and I quote from you.

"reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare"

This statement pretty much proves that motorists are the worst offenders, but as a group they receive little criticism. Can you not see that is what we are talking about.

Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity
Motorists = very very dangerous = receives almost no criticism

Is that simple enough for you?
interesting your assertion that "Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity"

I don't imagine you're a regular reader of the Times but you might want to take in the article on page 13 today which starts "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows"? Now please don't shoot the messenger....
Do you often see pedestrians on A roads, or motorways?

That's quite a stunning statistic you have found. Most miles being driven are in a completely pedestrian free environment, yet per mile drivers still injure more pedestrians than cyclists injure pedestrians!

James is completely right here. More attention need to be given to designing our streets to make it safer for both cyclists and pedestrians.
The stats used by The Times come from the Cyclist Touring Club (CTC) and I posted a link to them earlier. They compare collisions only in an urban setting, so don't include major A roads or motorways.

The really interesting points are that (i) the majority of cycle-pedestrian collisions occur on the road (ii) the vast majority of serious collisions with pedestrians on a pavement involves motor vehicles.

You are of course entirely correct that more should be done in designing our streets with pedestrians and cyclists in mind. And that is coming from someone who spends far too much of their time driving a car.
[quote][p][bold]Floflo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]locodogz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: I also said earlier "As for your perception of "anti cycling" bias in the OM - reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare?" Any thoughts? Talk about someone not getting it. IT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF REPORTS ABOUT CYCLING VS MOTORING, IT IS THE NUMBER OF NEGATIVE COMMENTS THOSE REPORTS RECEIVE. Is that any clearer, the OM is just reporting on stuff, it's the commentators who focus on the cycling stories claiming them to be a menace who completely ignore the driving stories. Even though, and I quote from you. "reports of people convicted of 'car driving' misdemeanors seem to appear on an almost daily basis whilst articles on cycling convictions are far more rare" This statement pretty much proves that motorists are the worst offenders, but as a group they receive little criticism. Can you not see that is what we are talking about. Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity Motorists = very very dangerous = receives almost no criticism Is that simple enough for you?[/p][/quote]interesting your assertion that "Cyclists = not dangerous = receives large amount of negativity" I don't imagine you're a regular reader of the Times but you might want to take in the article on page 13 today which starts "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows"? Now please don't shoot the messenger....[/p][/quote]Do you often see pedestrians on A roads, or motorways? That's quite a stunning statistic you have found. Most miles being driven are in a completely pedestrian free environment, yet per mile drivers still injure more pedestrians than cyclists injure pedestrians! James is completely right here. More attention need to be given to designing our streets to make it safer for both cyclists and pedestrians.[/p][/quote]The stats used by The Times come from the Cyclist Touring Club (CTC) and I posted a link to them earlier. They compare collisions only in an urban setting, so don't include major A roads or motorways. The really interesting points are that (i) the majority of cycle-pedestrian collisions occur on the road (ii) the vast majority of serious collisions with pedestrians on a pavement involves motor vehicles. You are of course entirely correct that more should be done in designing our streets with pedestrians and cyclists in mind. And that is coming from someone who spends far too much of their time driving a car. grandconjuration
  • Score: 6

2:51pm Mon 27 Jan 14

livid99 says...

grandconjuration wrote:
Three people convicted of drink-driving in today's 'The Scales of Justice' and no comments.
"James is completely right here. More attention need to be given to designing our streets to make it safer for both cyclists and pedestrians."

Completely agree, and a good start would be barriers with flashing lights at pedestrian crossings (like railway crossings) so that cyclists are forced to stop when they are supposed to, rather than treating the red light as optional or a pretty street decoration.
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: Three people convicted of drink-driving in today's 'The Scales of Justice' and no comments.[/p][/quote]"James is completely right here. More attention need to be given to designing our streets to make it safer for both cyclists and pedestrians." Completely agree, and a good start would be barriers with flashing lights at pedestrian crossings (like railway crossings) so that cyclists are forced to stop when they are supposed to, rather than treating the red light as optional or a pretty street decoration. livid99
  • Score: -3

3:31pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Madi50n says...

You see what's happened here is I've gone & bashed my head against a brick wall & found that it makes more sense to do so than continue to argue with cyclist haters.

So long have fun, & if you end up behind a band A car giving a lot of space & consideration to cyclists, that'll be me, not paying VED, driving you frothing at the mouth crazy, & loving every minute of it.
You see what's happened here is I've gone & bashed my head against a brick wall & found that it makes more sense to do so than continue to argue with cyclist haters. So long have fun, & if you end up behind a band A car giving a lot of space & consideration to cyclists, that'll be me, not paying VED, driving you frothing at the mouth crazy, & loving every minute of it. Madi50n
  • Score: -1

3:32pm Mon 27 Jan 14

Madi50n says...

You see, what's happened here is I've gone & bashed my head against a brick wall & found that it makes more sense to do so than continue to argue with cyclist haters.

So long have fun, & if you end up behind a band A car giving a lot of space & consideration to cyclists, that'll be me, not paying VED, driving you frothing at the mouth crazy, & loving every minute of it.
You see, what's happened here is I've gone & bashed my head against a brick wall & found that it makes more sense to do so than continue to argue with cyclist haters. So long have fun, & if you end up behind a band A car giving a lot of space & consideration to cyclists, that'll be me, not paying VED, driving you frothing at the mouth crazy, & loving every minute of it. Madi50n
  • Score: -1

3:51pm Mon 27 Jan 14

locodogz says...

Madi50n wrote:
You see, what's happened here is I've gone & bashed my head against a brick wall & found that it makes more sense to do so than continue to argue with cyclist haters.

So long have fun, & if you end up behind a band A car giving a lot of space & consideration to cyclists, that'll be me, not paying VED, driving you frothing at the mouth crazy, & loving every minute of it.
And if I'm the cyclist you're passing you'll get a friendly wave of thanks for your consideration.

Whats with the strange business of driving people crazy and loving it all about!?!?!
[quote][p][bold]Madi50n[/bold] wrote: You see, what's happened here is I've gone & bashed my head against a brick wall & found that it makes more sense to do so than continue to argue with cyclist haters. So long have fun, & if you end up behind a band A car giving a lot of space & consideration to cyclists, that'll be me, not paying VED, driving you frothing at the mouth crazy, & loving every minute of it.[/p][/quote]And if I'm the cyclist you're passing you'll get a friendly wave of thanks for your consideration. Whats with the strange business of driving people crazy and loving it all about!?!?! locodogz
  • Score: -2

3:52pm Mon 27 Jan 14

grandconjuration says...

livid99 wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
Three people convicted of drink-driving in today's 'The Scales of Justice' and no comments.
"James is completely right here. More attention need to be given to designing our streets to make it safer for both cyclists and pedestrians."

Completely agree, and a good start would be barriers with flashing lights at pedestrian crossings (like railway crossings) so that cyclists are forced to stop when they are supposed to, rather than treating the red light as optional or a pretty street decoration.
Generalisation. No data to support your argument.
[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: Three people convicted of drink-driving in today's 'The Scales of Justice' and no comments.[/p][/quote]"James is completely right here. More attention need to be given to designing our streets to make it safer for both cyclists and pedestrians." Completely agree, and a good start would be barriers with flashing lights at pedestrian crossings (like railway crossings) so that cyclists are forced to stop when they are supposed to, rather than treating the red light as optional or a pretty street decoration.[/p][/quote]Generalisation. No data to support your argument. grandconjuration
  • Score: 3

3:57pm Mon 27 Jan 14

livid99 says...

grandconjuration wrote:
livid99 wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
Three people convicted of drink-driving in today's 'The Scales of Justice' and no comments.
"James is completely right here. More attention need to be given to designing our streets to make it safer for both cyclists and pedestrians."

Completely agree, and a good start would be barriers with flashing lights at pedestrian crossings (like railway crossings) so that cyclists are forced to stop when they are supposed to, rather than treating the red light as optional or a pretty street decoration.
Generalisation. No data to support your argument.
My eyes support my argument. Your eyes are firmly shut
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: Three people convicted of drink-driving in today's 'The Scales of Justice' and no comments.[/p][/quote]"James is completely right here. More attention need to be given to designing our streets to make it safer for both cyclists and pedestrians." Completely agree, and a good start would be barriers with flashing lights at pedestrian crossings (like railway crossings) so that cyclists are forced to stop when they are supposed to, rather than treating the red light as optional or a pretty street decoration.[/p][/quote]Generalisation. No data to support your argument.[/p][/quote]My eyes support my argument. Your eyes are firmly shut livid99
  • Score: -1

4:48pm Mon 27 Jan 14

grandconjuration says...

locodogz wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
Three people convicted of drink-driving in today's 'The Scales of Justice' and no comments.
Insane isn't it? Where are all the posts saying these poor people should have been let off because they've seen someone cycling on the pavement earlier?

Where's the pro motorist lobby when you need it? Or maybe, just maybe, most readers will have observed justice to have been done.....
You'd think so. Here's a classic OM thread. Original story about speeding motorists; comments thread ranting about cyclists...

http://www.oxfordmai
l.co.uk/news/1070821
5.Police_to_get_stri
ct_on_enforcing_20mp
h_limits/
[quote][p][bold]locodogz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: Three people convicted of drink-driving in today's 'The Scales of Justice' and no comments.[/p][/quote]Insane isn't it? Where are all the posts saying these poor people should have been let off because they've seen someone cycling on the pavement earlier? Where's the pro motorist lobby when you need it? Or maybe, just maybe, most readers will have observed justice to have been done.....[/p][/quote]You'd think so. Here's a classic OM thread. Original story about speeding motorists; comments thread ranting about cyclists... http://www.oxfordmai l.co.uk/news/1070821 5.Police_to_get_stri ct_on_enforcing_20mp h_limits/ grandconjuration
  • Score: 2

5:45pm Mon 27 Jan 14

robbo81 says...

most people on the road are pretty dangerous. Oxford is a funny one.

Take Marston Road - it's got a double double cycle lane (as in there is a north/south route on both sides of the road situated on the pavement for pretty much the length of the road) yet most cyclists still use the road!

There's a pavement from St Clements all the way in to town, yet most pedestrians still walk in the road.

There's a 'no left' from cowley rd to iffley rd on the st clems roundabout but most drivers still try to make it!!

I deduce from this that it is the council at fault in the main. If you want cyclists to use lanes why not colour them differently from the road/pavement and advertise that they exist. If you don't want people walking in the road, widen pavements or pedestrianise areas. if you don't want drivers making illegal turns either make it impossible for them to do so or put cameras up and fine them!

Oxford always appears to me to be a city which hates the car, heavily fines drivers and makes it difficult to own and operate a vehicle in the city but does nothing to assist cyclists in making their life safer. It's almost at odds with its own policy!
most people on the road are pretty dangerous. Oxford is a funny one. Take Marston Road - it's got a double double cycle lane (as in there is a north/south route on both sides of the road situated on the pavement for pretty much the length of the road) yet most cyclists still use the road! There's a pavement from St Clements all the way in to town, yet most pedestrians still walk in the road. There's a 'no left' from cowley rd to iffley rd on the st clems roundabout but most drivers still try to make it!! I deduce from this that it is the council at fault in the main. If you want cyclists to use lanes why not colour them differently from the road/pavement and advertise that they exist. If you don't want people walking in the road, widen pavements or pedestrianise areas. if you don't want drivers making illegal turns either make it impossible for them to do so or put cameras up and fine them! Oxford always appears to me to be a city which hates the car, heavily fines drivers and makes it difficult to own and operate a vehicle in the city but does nothing to assist cyclists in making their life safer. It's almost at odds with its own policy! robbo81
  • Score: 5

10:40am Tue 28 Jan 14

locodogz says...

grandconjuration wrote:
locodogz wrote:
grandconjuration wrote:
Three people convicted of drink-driving in today's 'The Scales of Justice' and no comments.
Insane isn't it? Where are all the posts saying these poor people should have been let off because they've seen someone cycling on the pavement earlier?

Where's the pro motorist lobby when you need it? Or maybe, just maybe, most readers will have observed justice to have been done.....
You'd think so. Here's a classic OM thread. Original story about speeding motorists; comments thread ranting about cyclists...

http://www.oxfordmai

l.co.uk/news/1070821

5.Police_to_get_stri

ct_on_enforcing_20mp

h_limits/
Is that it?

To be honest I could only be bothered to get about 10 comments down - by which time I'd seen one anti-cycling crackpot (yabbadaaabbadoo) get jumped on by 3 pro cycling crackpots (GC, Cityview and Robert of Wantage).

Robert - one idiot with an anticycling agenda hardly qualifies as the "brigade" you cite as being out in force?

Like I say a few crackpots on each side of the line....
[quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]locodogz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]grandconjuration[/bold] wrote: Three people convicted of drink-driving in today's 'The Scales of Justice' and no comments.[/p][/quote]Insane isn't it? Where are all the posts saying these poor people should have been let off because they've seen someone cycling on the pavement earlier? Where's the pro motorist lobby when you need it? Or maybe, just maybe, most readers will have observed justice to have been done.....[/p][/quote]You'd think so. Here's a classic OM thread. Original story about speeding motorists; comments thread ranting about cyclists... http://www.oxfordmai l.co.uk/news/1070821 5.Police_to_get_stri ct_on_enforcing_20mp h_limits/[/p][/quote]Is that it? To be honest I could only be bothered to get about 10 comments down - by which time I'd seen one anti-cycling crackpot (yabbadaaabbadoo) get jumped on by 3 pro cycling crackpots (GC, Cityview and Robert of Wantage). Robert - one idiot with an anticycling agenda hardly qualifies as the "brigade" you cite as being out in force? Like I say a few crackpots on each side of the line.... locodogz
  • Score: -3

10:35am Thu 30 Jan 14

EMBOX2 says...

"Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters. "

No, but a driver will have to live with the consequences of someone else's action. My fault or not, I imagine I would be very upset and affected by the death of someone who I hit.

It is YOU who should grow up, James, and see ALL road users for what they are - human, fallible, stupid, etc, and then realise it is education & insurance for ALL road users that will solve this problem.

Ranting in the local press will just perpetuate it.
"Near-death incidents bring home just how pathetic it is to bleat about unlit cyclists and red light jumpers. They won’t kill or even hurt a driver, so grow up and fret about something that actually matters. " No, but a driver will have to live with the consequences of someone else's action. My fault or not, I imagine I would be very upset and affected by the death of someone who I hit. It is YOU who should grow up, James, and see ALL road users for what they are - human, fallible, stupid, etc, and then realise it is education & insurance for ALL road users that will solve this problem. Ranting in the local press will just perpetuate it. EMBOX2
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree