Cyclist Assaults Lorry Driver

amigafan2003 said:
I can't find a single instance of a third party being killed in the UK by a cyclist doing the above, whereas I can find hundreds of instances where a third party has been killed when a car/motorbike does the same.
Click to expand...

So being left disabled is not a big deal, What about physiological trauma of the death of a cyclist? your point has more holes than a sieve.
 
amigafan2003 said:
You do realise 95% of all cyclists on the roads also hold a valid driving license, so are already well versed in " the rules of the road".
Click to expand...

What rubbish, you either have a car or have a cycle and you can't have both because the Universe would explode.
And also cyclists have never drove cars either so can't see it from a drivers perspective.
 
amigafan2003 said:
I can't find a single instance of a third party being killed in the UK by a cyclist doing the above, whereas I can find hundreds of instances where a third party has been killed when a car/motorbike does the same.
Click to expand...

Ten pedestrians were killed by cyclists and 262 seriously injured between 2005 and 2009, official figures say.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13034162
Click to expand...

I see this sort of stuff everyday, saw a man get knocked over once because a boris bike pleb didn't stop at a red, (but the man just crossed the road as soon as it turned red rather than wait to see if anyone jumps the light.)

http://metro.co.uk/2009/08/12/cyclist-is-jailed-for-killing-by-1861-law-335527/
 
Millwall.FC said:
So being left disabled is not a big deal
Click to expand...

Never said that and you know it. I can find one instance of someone being disabled - a poor 9 yr old girl on a zebra crossing hit by a cyclist racing down a hill - who got a year jail term.

However, that's the only instance I can find, compared hundreds involving cars. One aberration does not justify bringing in the same controls for cycles as there are for cars. The cost/benefit ratio simply doesn't make sense.

What about physiological trauma of the death of a cyclist?
Click to expand...

Really? What about a cyclist that runs over a ped? Shall we make all peds take "walking and crossing the road" tests? But that swings round to my other point anyway - 95% of all cyclists on the road also hold a valid driving license, so they are quite aware of the rules of the road.
 
lemonade said:
I see this sort of stuff everyday, saw a man get knocked over once because a boris bike pleb didn't stop at a red, (but the man just crossed the road as soon as it turned red rather than wait to see if anyone jumps the light.)

http://metro.co.uk/2009/08/12/cyclist-is-jailed-for-killing-by-1861-law-335527/
Click to expand...

Thanks for making the point for me.

Pedestrians killed/seriously injured by cars or cycles 2008-2012 (all locations, single vehicle
collisions)
Pedestrians killed in collisions with ANY MOTOR VEHICLE 1,999
Click to expand...

So, there were 2468% more peds killed by motor vehicles than cyclists in a similar 4 year period, but you advocate the same restrictions for both motorists and cyclists? As I said, the numbers don't justify that kind of response.

How about this last fact?

In 2012, the vast majority - 98% - of serious or fatal pedestrian injuries in urban areas (i.e.
where pedestrians are most likely to be) - were due to collisions with motor vehicles;
Click to expand...

And before someone jumps all over me for being a "hippy cyclist", I shall just point out that I own 5 cars and two of my cars are a Westfield and a Cosworth - I love cars and I love driving. However I do not think myself of being above cyclists and I give them respect and room on the road. Nor do I demand their respect as a condition of ensuring I do not put them in harms way when I'm driving.

Can't we all just get along?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
amigafan2003 said:
Never said that and you know it. I can find one instance of someone being disabled - a poor 9 yr old girl on a zebra crossing hit by a cyclist racing down a hill - who got a year jail term.

However, that's the only instance I can find, compared hundreds involving cars. One aberration does not justify bringing in the same controls for cycles as there are for cars. The cost/benefit ratio simply doesn't make .
Click to expand...

I feel your experiences are based on Google.

amigafan2003 said:
Really? What about a cyclist that runs over a ped? Shall we make all peds take "walking and crossing the road" tests? But that swings round to my other point anyway - 95% of all cyclists on the road also hold a valid driving license, so they are quite aware of the rules of the road.
Click to expand...

You've gone off on a tangent. As cyclists killing pedestrians is so rare who cares?
 
amigafan2003 said:
Thanks for making the point for me.



So, there were 2468% more peds killed by motor vehicles than cyclists in a similar 4 year period, but you advocate the same restrictions for both motorists and cyclists? As I said, the number don't justify that.

How about this last fact?
Click to expand...

I haven't advocated any restrictions, I'm actually not sure what you two are debating over, but I saw your post about you saying there is 0 cases of cyclists killing or injuring pedestrians which is not true.

I bet you though the number of casualties involved between a pedestrian and a motorbike is probably a lot lower than with cars or any large mass vehicle, so should those restrictions or whatever you guys are talking about be taken off from motorbikes too?
 
lemonade said:
I haven't advocated any restrictions, I'm actually not sure what you two are debating over, but I saw your post about you saying there is 0 cases of cyclists killing or injuring pedestrians which is not true.

I bet you though the number of casualties involved between a pedestrian and a motorbike is probably a lot lower than with cars or any large mass vehicle, so should those restrictions or whatever you guys are talking about be taken off from motorbikes too?
Click to expand...

amigafan2003 said:
A cyclist is a risk to no one other than their selves.
Click to expand...

That bold as brass statement.
 
Last edited:
There seems to be more and more idiotic, aggressive militant cyclists on the roads these days.

I had a fight with one myself after he thought it was a good idea to punch the side of my car and then push me when i got out to have a word. Lets just say he won't be doing that again in a hurry.
 
lemonade said:
I bet you though the number of casualties involved between a pedestrian and a motorbike is probably a lot lower than with cars or any large mass vehicle, so should those restrictions or whatever you guys are talking about be taken off from motorbikes too?
Click to expand...

I don't know - how many pedestrians were killed by motorcyclists over the same period?
 
lemonade said:
Millwall.FC said:
amigafan2003 said:
A cyclist is a risk to no one other than their selves

Ah okay, well I think the fact that even 1 person has been killed because of a cyclist blows that one over. One too many if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, fair enough.

How about:-

Cyclists are a far, far lower risk to other road users than motorists are. This therefore makes introducing restrictions for cyclists similar to those for motorists as unappealing - the cost/benefit ratio doesn't make sense.

Millwall.FC said:
I'm failing to make my point that its attitudes that lead to lack of judgment when driving any sort of wheeled device.
Click to expand...

I concur - it's not the cycle, car or motorbike that's a **** - it's the person in control of that machine that's a ****. They'd be the same **** in the park, down the pub or on the train.

However, the difference is the **** in the pub is annoying, the **** in the park can me moved away from, the **** on the cycles is annoying, a possible danger to themselves and a slight danger to other road users - but the **** in the car is a potential killer.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Millwall.FC said:
You've gone off on a tangent. As cyclists killing pedestrians is so rare who cares?
Click to expand...

Not true!

Admittedly this is fairly old data but....!

The only reason why KSI's from pedal cyclists do not feature larger in the overall stats is because it is a minority activity involving relatively short journeys. NOT because cyclists are fundamentally less dangerous for pedestrians!

If more people cycled and they cycled longer distances then the KSI cycling figures would represent a rather greater proportion of overall casualties.

(Of course, the impressive thing from these stats is how "White Van Man" actually turns out to be, pretty much, the least dangerous vehicle class despite WVM's fearsome reputation!)
 
lemonade said:
Yeh that's why I said I don't know about the whole of the country maybe Cosmic knows something I don't, so go play your silly pedantic semantics elsewhere, it doesn't make you look any more intelligent. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Which was exactly why I questioned Cosmic's assertion about 'the majority of children' in the first place. Well done, you got there in the end. It just took you a little longer, that's all.
 
Cyclists are a far, far lower risk to other road users than motorists are. This therefore makes introducing restrictions for cyclists similar to those for motorists as unappealing - the cost/benefit ratio doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

What do you mean or refer to by restrictions?
 
amigafan2003 said:
I concur - it's not the cycle, car or motorbike that's a **** - it's the person in control of that machine that's a ****. They'd be the same **** in the
park, down the pub or on the train.

However, the difference is the **** in the pub is annoying, the **** in the park can me moved away from, the **** on the cycles is annoying, a possible danger to themselves and a slight danger to other road users - but the **** in the car is a potential killer.
Click to expand...

Yay! :) That was my point and I apologise for not making it clearer at the start!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom