Suicidal Cyclist

Altarf

Strider590 wrote: »

Some one way streets in certain parts of the country are cyclist contraflows and I think it's gradually spreading as local councils increasingly use them to keep cyclists away from busy ring roads and roundabouts.

There are plenty in Camden, and unfortunately most of the motorists using the roads (particularly black cab drivers) are too stupid to be able to read or understand the signs indicating this is the case.

Tilt

Crabman wrote: »

Today, a cyclist decided to ride (at speed) the wrong way down a one way road. It was 5:30pm, so already dark.

I braked hard and stopped in the road to avoid a head-on collision. For my troubles I received a middle finger from the cyclist as he rode past...

I had one of these too. It was a narrow one-way street and the idiot had got a child on the crossbar as well! He simply went onto the footpath (which is also narrow) to avoid me while forcing a pedestrian off the pavement into the road! Priceless.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

I had one of these too. It was a narrow one-way street and the idiot had got a child on the crossbar as well! He simply went onto the footpath (which is also narrow) to avoid me while forcing a pedestrian off the pavement into the road! Priceless.

You forgot to add that the copper stood on the pavement with his nose in a bag of do-nuts, and did sod all... :rotfl:

Anecdotes are valueless Tilt. They don't support any argument. Most readers simply dismiss them as bias confirmatory untruths.
Best to stick with fact.

One such fact is that of the coach driver who decided he would continue to drive along a straight road with the sun blinding him. Despite admitting he couldn't see enough distance in front of him to be able to stop, he drove over two cyclist brothers, killing them both.
When asked who was to blame, he replied
"I would not like to say whether it was my fault, their fault or a combination of both." #boggle!

But you fuss that we should get our knickers in a twist over a cyclist who you allege could have done something bad, but didn't.

Let's try to channel our energies to address the real risk, and the real killers on the roads.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

You forgot to add that the copper stood on the pavement with his nose in a bag of do-nuts, and did sod all... :rotfl:

Can I have a pint of what ever you've been drinking please :cool:

brat wrote: »

Anecdotes are valueless Tilt. They don't support any argument. Most readers simply dismiss them as bias confirmatory untruths.
Best to stick with fact.

Obviously your intelligence if FAR superior to mine because I simply don't understand what you are on about. The facts were; I was driving the correct way along a narrow one-way street. Cyclist with small child on cross bar is cycling towards me travelling in the WRONG direction along said street. To avoid a collision, cyclist mounts the pavement in close proximity to a pedestrian who steps into the road as the pavement is only wide enough for single file walking. I didn't see the policeman stuffing his face with doughnuts. :think:

brat wrote: »

One such fact is that of the coach driver who decided he would continue to drive along a straight road with the sun blinding him. Despite admitting he couldn't see enough distance in front of him to be able to stop, he drove over two cyclist brothers, killing them both.
When asked who was to blame, he replied
"I would not like to say whether it was my fault, their fault or a combination of both." #boggle!

I'm sure this must be relevant to my comment. :think:

brat wrote: »

But you fuss that we should get our knickers in a twist over a cyclist who you allege could have done something bad, but didn't.

Ah right. So riding a bike the wrong way along a narrow one-way street while carrying a child on the cross bar isn't "something bad" then? Hmm, wonder if you would be saying the same had the cyclist had come across a bus instead of a car and had found himself looking at it's chassis while it crushes the child to death?

brat wrote: »

Let's try to channel our energies to address the real risk, and the real killers on the roads.

Yeah lets. But should we be ignoring these reckless group of cyclists who constantly put themselves in danger as well as others? Or is it too much paperwork to fill in to pull them over as opposed to a motorist?

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Obviously your intelligence if FAR superior to mine because I simply don't understand what you are on about.

I guess it's not your fault - nature, nurture, genes etc.:)

But you'd do well to understand the concept of proportionality. Motor vehicles are about 5000 times the killers that cyclists are. So, if you had a genuine concern for road safety, rather than a prejudice against cyclists, one would think that the threat of the motor vehicle would feature a little more in your rants and rails.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

I guess it's not your fault - nature, nurture, genes etc.:)

But you'd do well to understand the concept of proportionality. Motor vehicles are about 5000 times the killers that cyclists are. So, if you had a genuine concern for road safety, rather than a prejudice against irresponsible cyclists, one would think that the threat of the motor vehicle would feature a little more in your rants and rails.

Fixed that for you.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

Not exactly. You accepted your prejudice and failed to respond to my point.
Hardly fixed...;)

Tilt

brat wrote: »

Not exactly. You accepted your prejudice and failed to respond to my point.
Hardly fixed...;)

Oh, sorry... my response: If I am prejudiced at all, it's against irresponsible and reckless cyclists. Just as I am with the same category of motorists (hence the comments on the other thread about parking on zig zags). I have nothing at all against responsible cyclists who ride correctly and observe the rules of the road.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Oh, sorry... my response: If I am prejudiced at all, it's against irresponsible and reckless cyclists. Just as I am with the same category of motorists (hence the comments on the other thread about parking on zig zags). I have nothing at all against responsible cyclists who ride correctly and observe the rules of the road.

It's not only me that recognises your prejudice. You generalise about cyclists through unsupported anecdote, calling them fools and idiots, while claiming faux concern for their safety.

I can explain why you feel this way. It's well recognised in psychology, but I don't know that you're ready for it. Strider has tried, but I think his efforts sailed over your head.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

It's not only me that recognises your prejudice. You generalise about cyclists through unsupported anecdote, calling them fools and idiots, while claiming faux concern for their safety.

I can explain why you feel this way. It's well recognised in psychology, but I don't know that you're ready for it. Strider has tried, but I think his efforts sailed over your head.

Your problem is that you seem to have let the fact that my problem is merely with irresponsible and reckless cyclists, sail over YOUR head. And yes, they are indeed fools and idiots.