If there was compulsory training for cyclists, would that put you off cycling?

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

Esuhl - saying that somebody is a troll is not the same thing as engaging in a reasoned debate.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to label you a troll. I've yet to see any reasonable debate from you.

You say that some cyclists see the "primary position" as a licence to annoy drivers. Well, some drivers see it as a licence to intimidate cyclists and break laws regarding dangerous and careless driving.

Drivers feel completely above the law -- as you can tell by reading the motoring forum here. "Everyone drives illegally", seems to be the mantra, "so no one has a right to object to dangerous driving; it's just the way it is".

Look at how sensible safety measures are scuppered by the motoring lobby. Look at how speed cameras are associated with "revenue generation" rather than enforcing the law! Look at how councils have been forced to abandon the use of CCTV to issue parking fines. Just because motorists want to dump their vehicles right on the highway, selfishly inconveniencing everyone. But it's underhand that CCTV should be used. After all, there's no one for the driver to punch.

Some drivers are idiots; some cyclists are idiots; some black people are idiots; some white people are idiots. So what's new? Apart from trolling, what mind-blowing insights do you have into add to any debate whatsoever?!

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

Brat - what is the point of your opening mis-quote?

Apologies for the misquote. Although, unlike your recent misquote (for which there was no apology), mine didn't affect the meaning of the quote.

modsandmockers wrote: »

My meaning was crystal clear.

You haven't defined it. "Newly-born cyclists"?
As far as I can adduce, you mean a cyclist who has taken up regular cycling with absolutely no previous road experience.

modsandmockers wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with primary positioning as described in CycleCraft. But I have several times tried to start a reasoned debate about how many newly-born cyclists have actually read the book. I believe that many of them have taken on board the advice of people like yourself, and interpreted it as a licence to engage in the activity which I call lane-hogging.

People cycle using the experience and the knowledge they have. They are allowed to do that, as long as they don't cycle carelessly or dangerously, drunk etc. It is a motorists's responsibility to accommodate and deal with what he sees.
Cyclecraft is not a 'must read' It puts into words what assertive cyclists have understood for aeons.

Perhaps it would help if you can highlight where you have garnered the misunderstanding that some people think of the primary position as "lane-hogging".
When a vehicle is approaching from behind, it is about taking control of the lane you're in when necessary for the purpose of personal safety. Is that what you mean by "lane-hogging"? Or does the use of the word "hogging" imply some malevolence, bloody mindedness? If so, I challenge you to find any such suggestion in my posts.

I think that, if and when driverless vehicles become viable, they will immediately replace Boris Bikes, and the roadspace which is currently dedicated to cyclists will rapidly become part of a whole new infrastructure for the exclusive use of driverless vehicles.

Your pleas that you are not a troll simply fall on deaf ears because you write !!!!!! like this.

Mr_Singleton

brat wrote: »

This is because, like pedestrians, cyclists don't add risk to the road.

Sorry but your statement isn't borne out by the facts.

Cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers.

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars#ixzz3V8Mru0Gr

brat

Mr_Singleton wrote: »

Sorry but your statement isn't borne out by the facts.

Cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers.

Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/57065/cyclists-almost-likely-injure-pedestrians-cars#ixzz3V8Mru0Gr

Are you comparing like with like? Cyclists and pedestrians share space much more than pedestrians and motorists, whose segregation is almost total.

frisbeej

brat wrote: »

Are you comparing like with like? Cyclists and pedestrians share space much more than pedestrians and motorists, whose segregation is almost total.

It's a feeble article that plays around with statistics to support an argument (and does it poorly).


Extracting the key facts from the article:


1 pedestrian was killed by a cyclist, 78 seriously injured. 253 and 4426 by cars.


20 pedestrian serious injuries occurred on paths. The rest on roads, the article states that most of these were due to the pedestrian stepping into the road without making proper observations.

brat

frisbeej wrote: »

It's a feeble article that plays around with statistics to support an argument (and does it poorly).


Extracting the key facts from the article:


1 pedestrian was killed by a cyclist, 78 seriously injured. 253 and 4426 by cars.


20 pedestrian serious injuries occurred on paths. The rest on roads, the article states that most of these were due to the pedestrian stepping into the road without making proper observations.

And why should the poster limit the effect of the car to pedestrian injury alone? Many cyclists, drivers and passengers are killed and injured by motor vehicle momentum. How many car drivers and passengers are killed by cyclists?

And we've not even taken into account that 5,000 per annum (nearly three times the number that are killed on the roads) are killed annually by the effects of vehicle emissions.

If the bicycle was granted the same level of segregation from pedestrians that the motorist enjoys, my statement would be very difficult to challenge on any sensible level.

esuhl

brat wrote: »

You haven't defined it. "Newly-born cyclists"?
As far as I can adduce, you mean a cyclist who has taken up regular cycling with absolutely no previous road experience.

I assumed mods meant "young cyclists"... like a five-year-old? Far from being crystal clear, I think he's inventing bizarre phrases after huffing too much petrol vapour...

Either that, or he just makes up random terms to hide the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about! It's hard to debate with him because he can't even follow his own argument, let alone anyone else's!

armyknife

esuhl wrote: »

I assumed mods meant "young cyclists"... like a five-year-old? Far from being crystal clear, I think he's inventing bizarre phrases after huffing too much petrol vapour...

Either that, or he just makes up random terms to hide the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about! It's hard to debate with him because he can't even follow his own argument, let alone anyone else's!

Can you imagine the poor women who know only have to give birth to a child, but also a small perfectly formed steel learner bike.

silverwhistle

brat wrote: »

Your pleas that you are not a troll simply fall on deaf ears because you write !!!!!! like this.

Thank you; you've saved me composing a reply.

M&M is the person in the pub who you avoid and sidle away from, whilst thinking "it's great that they're out in the community, but where's their care assistant?"

Let's face it, the internet is great for people to socially interact, but I think said poster should heed the words of (I think it was) Tobster's: 'we are engaging with you because other people might read the thread and understand'...

modsandmockers

esuhl wrote: »

I assumed mods meant "young cyclists"... like a five-year-old?

Check it out - you're wrong again. Even Brat managed to understand my meaning...