Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.

[thebackrow]

you've got a point. cyclists on the pavement, cyclists going through red lights, cyclists going the wrong way up one way streets, they are dangerous and anti-social. thus disarming the critique. never happened. not once. it's all cyclists kill very few people, like that's er a killer metric. it's a bit annoying. when you're walking down the canal and under a bridge and a cyclist comes full pelt at you it's more than a bit annoying.

because, as you've already been shown in various ways....the reality is that as dangers go, those are very low risks.
Cyclists going the wrong way up one way streets is in many cases legal Two-way cycling in one-way streets
going through a red light is not a significant cause of pedestrian injuries, and nor is cyclists one the pavement.

A decade of pedestrian injuries on the pavement and just 2% involved cycles. You're 10 times more likely to be hit by a bus.

 

[teuchter]

soz just read it with more attention - i see you qualify your position, red lights at pedestrian crossings. the problem isn't only at pedestrian crossings, but at junctions too. not some red lights, all red lights.
e2a for clarity by pedestrian crossings, i mean those ones where there's a button which actually changes the lights. where there's a set rotation at a junction the position should be no different. we all know no means no. but cyclists (and indeed car drivers) should know red means stop.

In the post which I have quoted for you, I say

Cyclists should show the same consideration to pedestrians as they would like drivers to show to them.

If you want to read that and decide that it's still not really clear whether maybe I think it's fine for cyclists to go charging through red lights at junctions where there are certain types of pedestrian crossing then that's your problem.

Anyway, you are furiously trying to distract from what you originally said. You talk about "disarming critique" but the "critique" here is not simply someone saying that cyclists shouldn't be on pavements or cyclists shouldn't be going through red lights. The "critique" from you was the following idiotic statement:

we indulge dangerous cyclists far far more than we indulge dangerous drivers.

And you've entirely failed to provide anything to back it up with.

 

[Pickman's model]

In the post which I have quoted for you, I say

Cyclists should show the same consideration to pedestrians as they would like drivers to show to them.

If you want to read that and decide that it's still not really clear whether maybe I think it's fine for cyclists to go charging through red lights at junctions where there are certain types of pedestrian crossing then that's your problem.

Anyway, you are furiously trying to distract from what you originally said. You talk about "disarming critique" but the "critique" here is not simply someone saying that cyclists shouldn't be on pavements or cyclists shouldn't be going through red lights. The "critique" from you was the following idiotic statement:



And you've entirely failed to provide anything to back it up with.

By no means. We all see dangerous cyclists every day. We see there are no consequences, and why should there be when the police refuse to investigate vast swathes of crime beyond the bare minimum if that. Very occasionally you'll see cops pull over a cyclist when they have one of their periodic action days, if they still do them. Dangerous cyclists are indulged, their offence compared to drivers, the metric used deaths rather than annoyance, alarm, distress. The indulgence is clear in the lack of consequences for the danger and alarm they pose.

 

[teuchter]

Dangerous cyclists are indulged, their offence compared to drivers, the metric used deaths rather than annoyance, alarm, distress.

Please can you rewrite this sentence in comprehensible english.

 

[platinumsage]

because, as you've already been shown in various ways....the reality is that as dangers go, those are very low risks.
Cyclists going the wrong way up one way streets is in many cases legal Two-way cycling in one-way streets
going through a red light is not a significant cause of pedestrian injuries, and nor is cyclists one the pavement.

A decade of pedestrian injuries on the pavement and just 2% involved cycles. You're 10 times more likely to be hit by a bus.

View attachment 336522

Given the proportion of cyclist-caused injuries that are serious, there was obviously massive under-reporting of cyclist-caused injuries compared to other types.

Anyway those figures are hopelessly out of date, especially given the huge increase in cycling in London since 2007.

 

[thebackrow]

the metric used deaths rather than annoyance,

so the primary metric for Police prioritisation should be 'annoyance' rather than risk of death or injury.

...right....

 

[thebackrow]

Given the proportion of cyclist-caused injuries that are serious, there was obviously massive under-reporting of cyclist-caused injuries compared to other types.

Anyway those figures are hopelessly out of date, especially given the huge increase in cycling in London since 2007.

Your basis for the first comment is what? the proportion of serious to slight for cyclists is 0.3, for cars its 0.25 so not that different

on the second, this is more recent data, though not specific to London

 

[Pickman's model]

Please can you rewrite this sentence in comprehensible english.

Yes. I will try to use short words so you get the message

 

[Pickman's model]

so the primary metric for Police prioritisation should be 'annoyance' rather than risk of death or injury.

...right....

That’s not what I said. It's about what posters here use as a measure. Obviously. Maybe if you read the thread you'll understand.

 

[Artaxerxes]

so the primary metric for Police prioritisation should be 'annoyance' rather than risk of death or injury.

...right....

Hey, it works for the Police Crime and Sentencing Bill and all those efforts to make protest illegal.

 

[Orang Utan]

Good work activists!

'Tyre extinguishers' claim to have disarmed 85 SUVs across Leeds overnight by deflating tyres

A group of so-called 'tyre extinguishers' claim to have deflated the tyres on 85 SUVs across Leeds overnight.

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk

 

[teuchter]

That’s not what I said. It's about what posters here use as a measure. Obviously. Maybe if you read the thread you'll understand.

Let's ignore fatalities and serious injuries and use "annoyance, alarm and distress" as the measure.

Do you claim that behaviour that causes similar levels of annoyance, alarm and distress is indulged far far more when it is perpetrated by cyclists than when it is perpetrated by drivers?

You say that you would like the police to take more action against cyclists on pavements. Can you give an example of some kind of behaviour from drivers, which creates a similar level of annoyance, alarm and distress to pedestrians, which is policed more actively?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

By no means. We all see dangerous cyclists every day. We see there are no consequences, and why should there be when the police refuse to investigate vast swathes of crime beyond the bare minimum if that. Very occasionally you'll see cops pull over a cyclist when they have one of their periodic action days, if they still do them. Dangerous cyclists are indulged, their offence compared to drivers, the metric used deaths rather than annoyance, alarm, distress. The indulgence is clear in the lack of consequences for the danger and alarm they pose.

Perhaps we can worry a bit more about people being annoyed and distressed once we’ve dealt with the people being fucking killed?

Christ almighty.

 

[platinumsage]

Perhaps we can worry a bit more about people being annoyed and distressed once we’ve dealt with the people being fucking killed?

Christ almighty.

Yeah we've heard that before. "Why are you going after me, officer, when there's people being raped and murdered?"

 

[edcraw]

Yeah we've heard that before. "Why are you going after me, officer, when there's people being raped and murdered?"

Or “Sure, there are people being raped & murdered but what about all the people dropping litter yeah!!!”

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Yeah we've heard that before. "Why are you going after me, officer, when there's people being raped and murdered?"

In a perfect world - one with a police force that had infinite resources - you’d have a point.

But it isn’t, and you don’t.

 

[Pickman's model]

Perhaps we can worry a bit more about people being annoyed and distressed once we’ve dealt with the people being fucking killed?

Christ almighty.

yeh the issue i was addressing there was who is indulged more, dangerous drivers or dangerous cyclists. which is rather rather different from the one you're trying to make it out to be. and who do you think is indulged more, someone who very rarely enters the criminal justice process or someone who passes through it far more frequently - the dangerous cyclist or the dangerous driver? and on that note off to brave the traffic in central london

 

[liquidindian]

who is indulged more

I've never been bought cake.

 

[teuchter]

yeh the issue i was addressing there was who is indulged more, dangerous drivers or dangerous cyclists.

And we're still waiting for you to provide any kind of justification for the idea that it's dangerous cyclists who are indulged more.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

yeh the issue i was addressing there was who is indulged more, dangerous drivers or dangerous cyclists. which is rather rather different from the one you're trying to make it out to be. and who do you think is indulged more, someone who very rarely enters the criminal justice process or someone who passes through it far more frequently - the dangerous cyclist or the dangerous driver? and on that note off to brave the traffic in central london

Here’s the thing though - the cyclists who are “dangerous”, most often just… aren’t.

 

[T & P]

Here’s the thing though - the cyclists who are “dangerous”, most often just… aren’t.

Erm, the same could be said of the definition of "dangerous'" as applied to drivers by people in this thread.

Just as there is such a thing as a cyclist jumping a red light in a non-dangerous way, there is also such a thing as drivers breaking the speed limit in a non-dangerous way. But it seems ony the former group gets granted that possibility around here...

 

[Pickman's model]

And we're still waiting for you to provide any kind of justification for the idea that it's dangerous cyclists who are indulged more.

I've provided it several times. It's the simple fact that people who drive dangerously routinely end up in court. They get penalty points on their licence. They get fines. They get sent on courses to improve their driving. People who cycle dangerously almost never face any consequences beyond the odd insult. Now I think I've indulged you quite sufficiently on this point

 

[Pickman's model]

Here’s the thing though - the cyclists who are “dangerous”, most often just… aren’t.

Yeh like the cyclists on grays Inn Road who used the pavement outside the old rntne, the ear nose and throat hospital doubtless weren't dangerous, despite the fact many of the hospital users were deaf or hearing impaired and might not hear them coming or any bell ringing as they left. The cyclist I saw earlier who nearly hit a man and his dog. When I cross the road I expect to watch out for vehicles, it'd be daft not to. People shouldn't have to put up with stupid selfish twats cycling on the pavement, often paying no attention to where they're headed, like the cyclists I've seen recently staring at mobile phone screen while meandering down the pavement. It's an entitled attitude of 'only I matter' you'd damn in any other group in society

 

[edcraw]

Yeh like the cyclists on grays Inn Road who used the pavement outside the old rntne, the ear nose and throat hospital doubtless weren't dangerous, despite the fact many of the hospital users were deaf or hearing impaired and might not hear them coming or any bell ringing as they left. The cyclist I saw earlier who nearly hit a man and his dog. When I cross the road I expect to watch out for vehicles, it'd be daft not to. People shouldn't have to put up with stupid selfish twats cycling on the pavement, often paying no attention to where they're headed, like the cyclists I've seen recently staring at mobile phone screen while meandering down the pavement. It's an entitled attitude of 'only I matter' you'd damn in any other group in society

Yes - but what has it got to do with this thread?

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes - but what has it got to do with this thread?

It's only a reply to beesonthewhatnow, don't worry

 

[teuchter]

It's the simple fact that people who drive dangerously routinely end up in court.

That's not a fact. It's an untrue statement.

 

[edcraw]

It's only a reply to beesonthewhatnow, don't worry

You started this here - still don’t understand what the relevance was except proving my point.

 

[liquidindian]

The cyclist I saw earlier who nearly hit a man and his dog.

The word "nearly" gets quite the workout in these discussions.

 

[Pickman's model]

That's not a fact. It's an untrue statement.

Ah. You think I mean every dangerous driver ends up in court, which would indeed be an untrue statement. Many of them sadly get away with it. But it is a fact its routine, it regularly happens, that people charged with dangerous driving end up in court. Or frequently they're dealt with by the police in other ways as I outlined. But it's a rare day indeed when a cyclist appears before the beak. E2a or for that matter interacts in any way with the criminal justice sector

 

[Pickman's model]

You started this here - still don’t understand what the relevance was except proving my point.

View attachment 336573

No, you've made that abundantly clear