# Cycling Safety Survey



## russellsg (4 Jun 2016)

Hi everyone,

I am currently conducting some private research on cycling safety and how cyclists conduct themselves on the highway. This has no commercial basis and I have no commercial interests in cycling or cycling products. I trust that people using this webstie will treat this in good faith and respond to this research by completing a short Cycling Safety Survey from the attached link. It will only take a few minutes and your input is very much appreciated.

http://goo.gl/forms/97TyELFKC3K8mKDT2

Many thanks


----------



## summerdays (4 Jun 2016)

The survey isn't the best in the world.... I'm sure I was asked more than once if I had had an accident.... Well On my definition of accident I suspect most people have, I've come off my bike on multiple occasions usually my own fault reading the road surface incorrectly (ice, leaves, pothole). 

It will be interesting to see if he posts the results of the survey back here. And what it will actually tell us (if anything).


----------



## russellsg (4 Jun 2016)

I am sorry that you feel that way. The purpose of the survey is to detect correlations between peoples attitudes to road rules and safety. If you have cycled in many countries of the world you will start to see such correlations. Anyway please support research and try not to look down on things which are attempting to make it a safer place for cyclists.


----------



## russellsg (4 Jun 2016)

And yes I will definitely post the results and any correlational analysis that comes out of it


----------



## JtB (4 Jun 2016)

I had to stop halfway through. It asked if I used lights at night, and there is no option to respond that I don't ride at night.


----------



## Hugh Manatee (4 Jun 2016)

Strictly speaking I wasn't on my bike when I had the accident. I had been on it very recently but it was the coming off it that caused the pain.

You definitely repeated some of the questions.


----------



## russellsg (4 Jun 2016)

Thanks for your comments - the questions may appear to repeat but there are subtle differences. These are there for a reason which I can not go into until the completion of the survey. It assists with the integrity of the analysis.


----------



## russellsg (4 Jun 2016)

JtB said:


> I had to stop halfway through. It asked if I used lights at night, and there is no option to respond that I don't ride at night.



I will fix this up - thanks


----------



## summerdays (4 Jun 2016)

I ended up saying I did cycle on the pavement as there are two places where I do for all of 3ft but it is pavement (one of them cuts out 2 right turns onto and off a busy A road, and 2 sets of traffic lights). But I don't actually cycle along a footpath next to a road anywhere, however it did say be honest.


----------



## summerdays (4 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> I am sorry that you feel that way. The purpose of the survey is to detect correlations between peoples attitudes to road rules and safety. If you have cycled in many countries of the world you will start to see such correlations. Anyway please support research and try not to look down on things which *are attempting to make it a safer place for cyclists.*


How is it going to make it safer for cyclists?

I don't think that your questions will have established enough about me to know whether I'm a safe cyclist or not, or the types of roads that I cycle on. I'm not even sure what a safe cyclist is?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (4 Jun 2016)

Unsubtly repetitive & we all get the psychometric bit. 

Asking the same questions near as dammit word for word?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (4 Jun 2016)

summerdays said:


> How is it going to make it safer for cyclists?
> 
> I don't think that your questions will have established enough about me to know whether I'm a safe cyclist or not, or the types of roads that I cycle on. I'm not even sure what a safe cyclist is?


 It puts a whole new slant on this and I'd be intrigued to know how our OP intends such a grand and self important aim when the statistics are unequivocally clear that the vast majority of safety problems cyclists face are predicated on the people in the mobile metal boxes not on their personal attitude to red lights, hi vis and riding primary or in the gutter to help drivers get past


----------



## summerdays (4 Jun 2016)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Seems that reply has been deleted. It puts a whole new slant on this and I'd be intrigued to know how our OP intends such a grand and self important aim when the statistics are unequivocally clear that the vast majority of safety problems cyclists face are predicated on the people in the mobile metal boxes not on their personal attitude to red lights, hi vis and riding primary or in the gutter to help drivers get past


But to be fair... The vast majority of my "accidents", don't usually involve another vehicle, just me, and some of them don't involve roads or traffic lights either.

As I've said I will be interested to see what conclusions can be drawn from those questions.

Just remembered I answered I don't go through red lights and yet I crossed the line 3 weeks ago when I skidded in the rain.... Again those road surface problems!


----------



## shouldbeinbed (4 Jun 2016)

summerdays said:


> But to be fair... The vast majority of my "accidents", don't usually involve another vehicle, just me, and some of them don't involve roads or traffic lights either.
> 
> As I've said I will be interested to see what conclusions can be drawn from those questions.


Agree, me too, but the thrust of the questions seems to be aimed at interaction with other road users, do we ride to keep out of the way to let vehicles pass etc.

I think a certain standpoint has been taken from which the questions have been constructed, I'm not sure that standpoint is rooted in quite the right place, the rather high handed bit of our questioners post that you emboldened doesn't fill me with a warm feeling for their grasp of the realities of cycling safety in and around others.


----------



## jefmcg (4 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Thanks for your comments - the questions may appear to repeat but there are subtle differences. These are there for a reason which I can not go into until the completion of the survey. It assists with the integrity of the analysis.


Sounds like you want to check if we are lying.

Well, whatever the reason you have so many questions, I had a look at your survey, decided there were too many questions, and moved on.


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

How can I rate myself...If I rate myself good then I'd be smug.I'd need other people to rate me.Same with other cyclists I guess.


----------



## raleighnut (4 Jun 2016)

I've just realised I don't break any laws these days, the only one I used to break (regularly) was speeding and I can't get the trike going fast enough for that.
I need a Tadpole.


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

Those cycling traffic lights on the CS's are good as they change before the motorists ones and gives you less change of getting left hooked by a motorist whose a bit thick or couldn't give a toss.Well hopefully,I'm sure they'd manage it somehow.

(edited missed a bit out)


----------



## Dave Davenport (4 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I am currently conducting some private research on cycling safety


Why?


----------



## classic33 (4 Jun 2016)

raleighnut said:


> I've just realised I don't break any laws these days, the only one I used to break (regularly) was speeding and I can't get the trike going fast enough for that.
> I need a Tadpole.


Can't be done for speeding on a pedal cycle.


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> Can't be done for speeding on a pedal cycle.



True I guess but I'm sure there is a charge for that.


----------



## swansonj (4 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> Can't be done for speeding on a pedal cycle.


Yeah, exactly. I got to this question:



> Do you break certain road rules when riding a bike that you would not do if driving a car? *
> Yes
> Sometimes
> Only certain ones
> ...



The literally correct answer has to be the last one, because it is fact that we don't have to obey all the same rules cars do. But one supposes selecting the last answer would be interpreted as condoning RLJing.


----------



## JtB (4 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> I will fix this up - thanks


I have finished filling in the survey now.


----------



## Hilaryt (4 Jun 2016)

Done


----------



## classic33 (4 Jun 2016)

I'd to stop at " Do you break certain road rules when riding a bike that you would not do if driving a car?", never driven on the roads, I wouldn't know. Maybe if I did drive on the roads, they'd be safer. There'd be less traffic around me.

I'd like to know what the link with the facebook page is for myself


----------



## classic33 (4 Jun 2016)

Lonestar said:


> True I guess but I'm sure there is a charge for that.


_As such, cyclists who breach the speed limit may not be prosecuted for a speeding offence but they can, however, be prosecuted for “cycling furiously” or “wanton and furious cycling.”
&
A cyclist cannot actually be stopped for “wanton and furious cycling” as the offence only applies if an injury is suffered. A bike is considered a carriage under highways law, and The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948) states:

“Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.”
_

http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media...imit-or-does-the-law-only-apply-to-motorists/


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> _As such, cyclists who breach the speed limit may not be prosecuted for a speeding offence but they can, however, be prosecuted for “cycling furiously” or “wanton and furious cycling.”
> &
> A cyclist cannot actually be stopped for “wanton and furious cycling” as the offence only applies if an injury is suffered. A bike is considered a carriage under highways law, and The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948) states:
> 
> ...




It is also open to the police to prosecute cyclists for ‘careless and inconsiderate riding’. For example, in the Box Hill area of Surrey so popular with cyclists, the police have posted leaflets warning cyclists against antisocial cycling.


----------



## glenn forger (4 Jun 2016)

What a stupid survey. After the questions kept repeating themselves I answered differently to give contradictory responses. Waste my time I'll waste yours.


----------



## jefmcg (4 Jun 2016)

Lonestar said:


> posted leaflets warning cyclists against antisocial cycling.


What is that? I've just googled it, and after reading a few council sites, it seems to be riding on the pavement and going through pedestrian crossing. Are either a problem on Box Hill? If not, then what?


----------



## Lonestar (4 Jun 2016)

jefmcg said:


> What is that? I've just googled it, and after reading a few council sites, it seems to be riding on the pavement and going through pedestrian crossing. Are either a problem on Box Hill? If not, then what?



Don't know but I thought "speeding" would be classed as some sort of same charge as motorists get I.E cycling without due care?

Must be sort of a different enforced law there.


----------



## raleighnut (4 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> Can't be done for speeding on a pedal cycle.


I know, it's just fun setting the Speed Cameras/ 'Slow Down' signs off though, I had 3 or 4 I could regularly 'trigger'


----------



## russellsg (5 Jun 2016)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Agree, me too, but the thrust of the questions seems to be aimed at interaction with other road users, do we ride to keep out of the way to let vehicles pass etc.
> 
> I think a certain standpoint has been taken from which the questions have been constructed, I'm not sure that standpoint is rooted in quite the right place, the rather high handed bit of our questioners post that you emboldened doesn't fill me with a warm feeling for their grasp of the realities of cycling safety in and around others.



Again these are all interesting points and this is great feedback. Please believe me there is no standpoint in this survey. I have been riding on the public roads in many countries for 40 years now. I am also a car driver and so I understand both perspectives. I see all kinds of crazy things go on with both cyclists and drivers and my curiosity is more to do with the thought processes going on and how we can interpret behavior and subsequent actions from this.


----------



## theclaud (5 Jun 2016)

Wot Glenn said. It's a terrible survey and you need to work on your manners.


----------



## russellsg (5 Jun 2016)

theclaud said:


> Wot Glenn said. It's a terrible survey and you need to work on your manners.


I really do not understand this comment. You are entitled to an opinion on the survey but I fail to understand why I have to work on my manners. Making comments in forums is a little bit like people on the road - why is that once there is a bit of anonymity through the computer or behind the wheel of a car that people become more aggressive. Interesting concept but that is for another study.


----------



## theclaud (5 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> I really do not understand this comment. You are entitled to an opinion on the survey but I fail to understand why I have to work on my manners. Making comments in forums is a little bit like people on the road - why is that once there is a bit of anonymity through the computer or behind the wheel of a car that people become more aggressive. Interesting concept but that is for another study.



Your response to Summerdays in post #3 was patronizing and passive-aggressive. Your survey design is so poor as to be insulting and you are asking people for something without explaining why you want it or what you are going to do with it.

I am readily identifiable to anyone with a few minutes to spare and a bit of Google-fu. I've no idea who you are, though, and I won't be participating in your 'study'.


----------



## theclaud (5 Jun 2016)

The questions are ridiculously loaded. I reckon TMN is on the right track.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (5 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Again these are all interesting points and this is great feedback. Please believe me there is no standpoint in this survey. I have been riding on the public roads in many countries for 40 years now. I am also a car driver and so I understand both perspectives. *I see all kinds of crazy things go on with both cyclists and drivers and my curiosity is more to do with the thought processes going on and how we can interpret behavior and subsequent actions from this*.



*taking you at face value and not a troll with an agenda*

Likewise, but to be honest from how you've interacted, the construction of your survey and your casual underestimation of our experience/understanding of psychometric (ykwim) testing, I had you pegged as an enthusiastic 6th form or Further Ed student who thinks they have just had a life changing revelation.

You need to do your research on your target audience & the reams of near as dammit identical research already carried out before floating this, to either find the answers you want are already out there time and time over OR find a way of making yours stand out for the right reasons if you want a less jaded appraisal of it.

*the answer is simple: Because we as a society can and do get away with it every single day *& we've more chance of turning base metals into gold without massive political buy-in over several generations, to engineer physically and mentally a transport model that works for all and reduces conflict.

It is also the nature of society not strictly a transport choice: Some people are paragons of virtue, some are total a**eholes in every walk of life, most are just trying to get by with a dozen other bits of day to day living whizzing round their head.

in transport terms, the casual acceptance of speeding all round is easiest eg of what I mean.

A few paragons people drive everywhere at speed limit -20%.
A few a**eholes people cannot anywhere drive without a screaming engine note and their foot flat to the floor.
The rest of us by and large are just going with the flow from A to B with our mind more on they day we've had or whats for tea or singing along to the song on the radio.

Officialdom don't make speeding so onerous a penalty it has a true deterrent
Manufacturers and civil engineers don't combine to impose roadside instructions to in-car systems to override an unduly light or heavy foot on the accelerator.
People nowadays invariably accept speeding penalties as an occupational hazard rather than a true wake-up call to modify their habits.
Tweak speeding and put in red light jumping (cars or bikes) or whatever other optional/contentious transport issues you choose an it works just as well.

We don't need another; not very well made; survey to tell us this, particularly not as the emphasis seems to be 'tell us how bad or hypocritical a cyclist you are'

I'm not going to spoil your survey by giving different answers to obviously the same question but I'm not going to complete it either.


----------



## boydj (5 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> I am sorry that you feel that way. The purpose of the survey is to detect correlations between peoples attitudes to road rules and safety. If you have cycled in many countries of the world you will start to see such correlations. Anyway please support research and try not to look down on things which are attempting to make it a safer place for cyclists.



If you want to make the roads safer for cyclists, then you should be working on the attitudes of the drivers of motorised vehicles.


----------



## raleighnut (5 Jun 2016)

boydj said:


> If you want to make the roads safer for cyclists, then you should be working on the attitudes of the drivers of motorised vehicles.


But they don't pay Rego. ...............................................................................


----------



## classic33 (6 Jun 2016)

theclaud said:


> Your response to Summerdays in post #3 was patronizing and passive-aggressive. Your survey design is so poor as to be insulting and you are asking people for something without explaining why you want it or what you are going to do with it.
> 
> I am readily identifiable to anyone with a few minutes to spare and a bit of Google-fu. I've no idea who you are, though, and I won't be participating in your 'study'.


He's identifable in just the same way. He's read an e-mail, and replied. Confirming details found before the reply.

Can I suggest that all who actually went to the survey, check their computers. Facebook link attached to it.


----------



## classic33 (6 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Again these are all interesting points and this is great feedback. Please believe me there is no standpoint in this survey. I have been riding on the public roads in many countries for 40 years now. I am also a car driver and so I understand both perspectives. I see all kinds of crazy things go on with both cyclists and drivers and my curiosity is more to do with the thought processes going on and how we can interpret behavior and subsequent actions from this.


Why the interest in driving habits on a "cycling based survey"?


----------



## theclaud (6 Jun 2016)

I don't really care who he is - my post was a reaction to his silly claim that I was 'hiding'. I just don't buy the idea that his crap survey is part of a legitimate study of anything, so I'm curious as to what it is for. I suspect it is what TMN suggests, in which case I recommend not filling it in.


----------



## russellsg (6 Jun 2016)

Wow! - I am not sure what all the aggression is about. I simply asked people to do a survey. If you don't want to or don't have time then that is fine. But some of the answers here would have taken considerably longer to type that just doing the survey. I have to say I am quite surprised at the comments on this forum as I have not had similar responses in other places. Anyway thanks to those that have participated.


----------



## russellsg (6 Jun 2016)

theclaud said:


> Your response to Summerdays in post #3 was patronizing and passive-aggressive. Your survey design is so poor as to be insulting and you are asking people for something without explaining why you want it or what you are going to do with it.
> 
> I am readily identifiable to anyone with a few minutes to spare and a bit of Google-fu. I've no idea who you are, though, and I won't be participating in your 'study'.





theclaud said:


> Your response to Summerdays in post #3 was patronizing and passive-aggressive. Your survey design is so poor as to be insulting and you are asking people for something without explaining why you want it or what you are going to do with it.
> 
> I am readily identifiable to anyone with a few minutes to spare and a bit of Google-fu. I've no idea who you are, though, and I won't be participating in your 'study'.



I am sorry you took it that way - there was no intention to be patronising


----------



## Dave Davenport (6 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Wow! - I am not sure what all the aggression is about. I simply asked people to do a survey. If you don't want to or don't have time then that is fine. But some of the answers here would have taken considerably longer to type that just doing the survey. I have to say I am quite surprised at the comments on this forum as I have not had similar responses in other places. Anyway thanks to those that have participated.


Maybe if you just explained why you're doing this and exactly what you intend to do with the results...........


----------



## russellsg (6 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> He's identifable in just the same way. He's read an e-mail, and replied. Confirming details found before the reply.
> 
> Can I suggest that all who actually went to the survey, check their computers. Facebook link attached to it.


Yes I am identifiable and happy to correspond with anyone who has questions


----------



## raleighnut (6 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Wow! - I am not sure what all the aggression is about. I simply asked people to do a survey. If you don't want to or don't have time then that is fine. But some of the answers here would have taken considerably longer to type that just doing the survey. I have to say I am quite surprised at the comments on this forum as I have not had similar responses in other places. Anyway thanks to those that have participated.


You don't come across as a cyclist yourself though. Do you ride much?


----------



## Dave Davenport (6 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Yes I am identifiable and happy to correspond with anyone who has questions


How about answering mine for starters?


----------



## theclaud (6 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Wow! - I am not sure what all the aggression is about. I simply asked people to do a survey. If you don't want to or don't have time then that is fine. But some of the answers here would have taken considerably longer to type that just doing the survey. I have to say I am quite surprised at the comments on this forum as* I have not had similar responses in other places*. Anyway thanks to those that have participated.


Which other places have you posted it?


----------



## raleighnut (6 Jun 2016)

Well that's 4 questions and no answers and it isn't like he's not watching this thread.


----------



## russellsg (6 Jun 2016)

raleighnut said:


> You don't come across as a cyclist yourself though. Do you ride much?


Yes I have been riding for over 45 years. I ride to work and back everyday on busy Singapore highways travelling about 18 kms round trip. I used to do the same in Sydney and also in Leeds in the UK and Hong Kong. I would consider myself a very experienced road cyclist.


----------



## summerdays (6 Jun 2016)

Assuming then that you have posted in more than one place, what conclusions are you starting to draw?


----------



## russellsg (6 Jun 2016)

Dave Davenport said:


> Maybe if you just explained why you're doing this and exactly what you intend to do with the results...........


Sure happy to answer this. I am doing this out of interest - that is all. I am happy to post the results here and let anyone take from it what they wish. I have no agenda other than trying to find out answers to things that interest me.


----------



## russellsg (6 Jun 2016)

raleighnut said:


> Well that's 4 questions and no answers and it isn't like he's not watching this thread.


Yes I am watching this thread as I am happy to answer any questions you give me. I hope I have now answered them all. Please let me know if I have missed any.


----------



## russellsg (6 Jun 2016)

summerdays said:


> Assuming then that you have posted in more than one place, what conclusions are you starting to draw?


I will let you know once I get a statistically significant number or responses.


----------



## theclaud (6 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Sure happy to answer this. I am doing this out of interest - that is all. I am happy to post the results here and let anyone take from it what they wish. I have no agenda other than trying to find out answers to things that interest me.


Why not just start a discussion thread?


----------



## russellsg (6 Jun 2016)

I seem to have one now


----------



## theclaud (6 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> I seem to have one now


What you have is a discussion about the motivation behind your survey, not a discussion of cyclist behaviour or 'safeness'.


----------



## russellsg (6 Jun 2016)

theclaud said:


> Which other places have you posted it?


Here is one example - yes some polite criticism from here 
http://www.cyclingforums.com/threads/cycling-safety-survey.452950/


----------



## theclaud (6 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> I will let you know once I get a statistically significant number or responses.


One minute it's a straw poll, the next it's a serious piece of research. Any danger of making up your mind?


----------



## russellsg (6 Jun 2016)

I work for a Bank so there certainly can't be any commercial incentive for me to do this


----------



## theclaud (6 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Here is one example - yes some polite criticism from here
> http://www.cyclingforums.com/threads/cycling-safety-survey.452950/


They look similarly wary to me.


----------



## theclaud (6 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> I work for a Bank so there certainly can't be any commercial incentive for me to do this


No one has suggested commercial motives. I was wondering more about the leading form of the questions.


----------



## jonny jeez (6 Jun 2016)

I thought it was a pretty good survey. It asked about injuries and accidents, not the same thing.

One or two questions didn't have an answer that was completely appropriate to me but I managed to offer the nearest suggestion.

Good luck, hope it helps.


----------



## russellsg (6 Jun 2016)

That is understandable but you can see from the time an effort that I am making to answer each question that I am not a spammer.


----------



## russellsg (6 Jun 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> I thought it was a pretty good survey. It asked about injuries and accidents, not the same thing.
> 
> One or two questions didn't have an answer that was completely appropriate to me but I managed to offer the nearest suggestion.
> 
> Good luck, hope it helps.


Thank you - I knew if I waited long enough I would get at least one positive comment


----------



## jonny jeez (6 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Thank you - I knew if I waited long enough I would get at least one positive comment


To be fair to the other members, we get a lot of this kind of thing and can suffer a little from survey fatigue meaning that we will naturally become a little suspicious. I can see their point but am giving this one the benefit of the doubt. (I was at the other end of this spectrum earlier this week and was very suspicious of a new poster...see how that works)


----------



## shouldbeinbed (6 Jun 2016)

Questions:


As you've previously alluded to both bad driving and cycling you witness, have you created a commensurate vehicle driver safety & attitudes survey?


Can we have that one if it exists given we're largely drivers too?


If there isn't such a survey, why not?


What is your understanding of the nature and causes of accidents and injuries occurring to or involving cyclists in a road situation?


Do any officially published statistics on causes and responsibility differ significantly in the different areas you have lived and regularly cycled?


Have you researched your questions and interests elsewhere to see if (that) the information you wish to gather exists already and could save you plenty of time and hassle?


What do you intend to use the data for once gathered? Post 57 noted


To that end, what organisations, web places or individuals will it be shared with? whether for commercial ends or from altruism or interest? (Edit: your employee status noted too, can we assume you have some sort of contract stipulation preventing you working as a paid pollster?)


Are you asking your survey in different legal jurisdictions & tailoring it accordingly to individual mandated/prohibited activities? If so how? if not, how do you mitigate for skew in your answers for e.g. mandated helmets in Australia but not UK etc?


----------



## classic33 (6 Jun 2016)

Why the hidden facebook link?


----------



## classic33 (6 Jun 2016)

jonny jeez said:


> To be fair to the other members, we get a lot of this kind of thing and can suffer a little from survey fatigue meaning that we will naturally become a little suspicious. I can see their point but am giving this one the benefit of the doubt. (I was at the other end of this spectrum* earlier this week* and was very suspicious of a new poster...see how that works)


It's only Monday!!


----------



## shouldbeinbed (6 Jun 2016)

User said:


> He has lots of mood swings


I read that as moob swings, I thought that was just me


----------



## jonny jeez (6 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> It's only Monday!!


My weeks a blur already!


----------



## shouldbeinbed (9 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> That is understandable but you can see from *the time an effort that I am making to answer each question* that I am not a spammer.





shouldbeinbed said:


> *Questions*:
> 
> 
> As you've previously alluded to both bad driving and cycling you witness, have you created a commensurate vehicle driver safety & attitudes survey?
> ...



Has returned to the site several times since my questions were posted but seemingly unwilling to expend the time and effort, even for the yes / no answers.


----------



## classic33 (9 Jun 2016)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Has returned to the site several times since my questions were posted but seemingly unwilling to expend the time and effort, even for the yes / no answers.


Similar situation on the other site.


----------



## russellsg (9 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> Similar situation on the other site.


I am happy to answer your questions. I just don't understand the aggression towards me. You have even gone to the effort to monitor when I return to the site. I am not sure why you have to do this. I would assume most people would have something better to do with their time. 

The first answer is that no I have not done a commensurate vehicle drive attitude study. As I have stated this is conducted out of interest. Please take what you want from it.


----------



## classic33 (9 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> I am happy to answer your questions. I just don't understand the aggression towards me. You have even gone to the effort to monitor when I return to the site. I am not sure why you have to do this. I would assume most people would have something better to do with their time.
> 
> The first answer is that no I have not done a commensurate vehicle drive attitude study. As I have stated this is conducted out of interest. Please take what you want from it.


You said you'd answer questions, when the questions remain unanswered it's a case of have you been back. Clearly you have, but choose to not answer.
The other site, for me, is easier check who's been & when.


----------



## russellsg (9 Jun 2016)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Questions:
> 
> 
> As you've previously alluded to both bad driving and cycling you witness, have you created a commensurate vehicle driver safety & attitudes survey?
> ...


Ok answers as follows

1. No
2. N/A
3. No reason - I wasn't interested in it - perhaps you may want to do one
4. Just from my experience of 45 years on the road in many different countries - I can't provide a more concise answer to a general question like this
5. There are so many studies out there how could I possibly answer this
6. No - I don't see why I should have to - what is the issue with an interest study - you need to lighten up here
7. Happy to provide results when I get a significant response volume
8. No commercial sites - maybe no sites at all. Maybe I am just bored and I wanted to find out. I am certainly not a paid pollster - I thought I would ask a few questions and some helpful people would answer - I did not expect an inquisition like this?
9. It's a perception only study - I don't care about the different legal rules - I am interested in peoples attitudes - that is all

See all questions answered.


----------



## ianrauk (9 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> 8. No commercial sites - maybe no sites at all. Maybe I am just bored and I wanted to find out. I am certainly not a paid pollster - I thought I would ask a few questions and some helpful people would answer - I did not expect an inquisition like this?



The reason being is that you only have to look through this section of the forum to see that us members are regularly bombarded with surveys. Most if not all don't give any feedback even though asked to. To some of us that is the ultimate in rude. Shaun has spent a lot of time and effort over the years building this forum to become the community it has, (members can be very protective here), but for those to come along, throw in a survey and expect the members to partake, usually without any sort of feedback, please or thank you. To also be open and honest as to what the survey is for.

So please excuse those that question why and what you are doing with your survey and results but It costs Shaun to run and maintain this forum and you come along expecting to tap into the forums vast knowledge for free so how about you making a voluntary small payment to Shaun/Cycle Chat Forum, perhaps then you wouldn't get such an inquisition from some of the members.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (9 Jun 2016)

thanks, eventually 


russellsg said:


> Ok answers as follows
> 
> 1. No hmm, seems a missed trick IMO given the readily obtainable facts of cycling safety.
> 
> ...


----------



## winjim (9 Jun 2016)

Tough crowd.


----------



## Drago (9 Jun 2016)

I fail to see what most of the questions have to do with safety.


----------



## russellsg (9 Jun 2016)

User13710 said:


> I wouldn't waste time on this rather rude timewaster.


Are you serious? I have tried to be as polite as possible. I have answered every question and you call me a rude timewaster? If you follow this thread you will see that I have tried to be as honest and upfront as possible but you just come on for no reason and say this?


----------



## russellsg (9 Jun 2016)

ianrauk said:


> The reason being is that you only have to look through this section of the forum to see that us members are regularly bombarded with surveys. Most if not all don't give any feedback even though asked to. To some of us that is the ultimate in rude. Shaun has spent a lot of time and effort over the years building this forum to become the community it has, (members can be very protective here), but for those to come along, throw in a survey and expect the members to partake, usually without any sort of feedback, please or thank you. To also be open and honest as to what the survey is for.
> 
> So please excuse those that question why and what you are doing with your survey and results but It costs Shaun to run and maintain this forum and you come along expecting to tap into the forums vast knowledge for free so how about you making a voluntary small payment to Shaun/Cycle Chat Forum, perhaps then you wouldn't get such an inquisition from some of the members.



Like I have repeatedly said - I will post the results once there is sufficient response. I am sure Shaun runs this forum because he enjoys it and has an interest in both cycling and bulletin boards php or whatever. A great job and well done. However you logic does not make sense. The very reason you run a bulletin board is to create interest and get people in discussion which I think this thread has definitely achieved. Many people have taken part in the survey and I appreciate their input. If you choose to be critical and opinionated like this then that is your choice but it would indeed be a very sad internet community if your attitude was shared by everybody.


----------



## Dave Davenport (9 Jun 2016)

I've now looked at the survey, it looks as fishy as a barrel of cod in fish sauce to me.


----------



## beccabikes (9 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I am currently conducting some private research on cycling safety and how cyclists conduct themselves on the highway. This has no commercial basis and I have no commercial interests in cycling or cycling products. I trust that people using this webstie will treat this in good faith and respond to this research by completing a short Cycling Safety Survey from the attached link. It will only take a few minutes and your input is very much appreciated.
> 
> ...


Good Survey, easy to answer questions, some repetition however, Looking forward to results as this survey has had quite a lot of views


----------



## Drago (9 Jun 2016)

Fishier than Adrian's home made apple pie.


----------



## ianrauk (9 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Like I have repeatedly said - I will post the results once there is sufficient response. I am sure Shaun runs this forum because he enjoys it and has an interest in both cycling and bulletin boards php or whatever. A great job and well done. However you logic does not make sense. The very reason you run a bulletin board is to create interest and get people in discussion which I think this thread has definitely achieved. Many people have taken part in the survey and I appreciate their input. If you choose to be critical and opinionated like this then that is your choice but it would indeed be a very sad internet community if your attitude was shared by everybody.




Well done on completely missing the point entirely. And as I and others have deduced from your replies, you want to take and give nothing back.


----------



## swansonj (9 Jun 2016)

Drago said:


> Fishier than Adrian's home made apple pie.


We missed you....


----------



## ianrauk (9 Jun 2016)

swansonj said:


> We missed you....



Change the 'we' for 'I'. Ta.


----------



## doog (9 Jun 2016)

beccabikes said:


> Good Survey, easy to answer questions, some repetition however, Looking forward to results as this survey has had quite a lot of views



You joined today just to say that ...wow 

I think I might ignore your survey for now ta


----------



## classic33 (9 Jun 2016)

beccabikes said:


> Good Survey, easy to answer questions, some repetition however, Looking forward to results as* this survey has had quite a lot of views*


How could you know that bit?


----------



## theclaud (9 Jun 2016)




----------



## beccabikes (9 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> How could you know that bit?


because it is at the top of the research and discussions board


----------



## Spinney (9 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> How could you know that bit?


Cos the list of posts has a column for how many replies and how many views!! Not difficult...


----------



## doog (9 Jun 2016)

beccabikes said:


> because it is at the top of the research and discussions board



You quoted me for some reason....I dont mind surveys but my point was that you joined today and your first post was about this survey....

Ive been here 7 years and never realised a research and questionnaire thread existed until earlier.....(just call me stupid) but isnt it just an odd thing to rock up on a new forum and dive head first into a thread like this .....tell us about your puncture, new bike or helmet ffs


----------



## theclaud (9 Jun 2016)

doog said:


> .....tell us about your puncture, new bike *or helmet* ffs


Please God no.


----------



## Spinney (9 Jun 2016)

User said:


> Yeah but
> 
> As in the survey, not this thread.


Good point!


----------



## russellsg (10 Jun 2016)

Its good to see that your hatred for my survey continues on. I am getting many responses now and hopefully will be able to provide some initial results soon.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (10 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Its good to see that your hatred for my survey continues on. I am getting many responses now and hopefully will be able to provide some initial results soon.


To what end? I still don't understand what you hope to achieve or prove that is of any benefit to cyclists or brings a new angle to the cycle safety debate with this survey, outside of personal gratification.

You elevate your own importance again, this is not borne out of hatred but lack of understanding because you haven't been anywhere near as forthcoming without poking with a sharp stick as you claim to have been & is constructive feedback. That it isn't all fawning, gushing praise seems to have annoyed you, but in truth reflects far more on the flaws in your survey than anything else (apropos of nothing really, are you familiar with the term Sock Puppet in Internet forum terms)


----------



## russellsg (10 Jun 2016)

shouldbeinbed said:


> To what end? I still don't understand what you hope to achieve or prove that is of any benefit to cyclists or brings a new angle to the cycle safety debate with this survey, outside of personal gratification.
> 
> You elevate your own importance again, this is not borne out of hatred but lack of understanding because you haven't been anywhere near as forthcoming without poking with a sharp stick as you claim to have been & is constructive feedback. That it isn't all fawning, gushing praise seems to have annoyed you, but in truth reflects far more on the flaws in your survey than anything else (apropos of nothing really, are you familiar with the term Sock Puppet in Internet forum terms)


So you are calling me a Sock Puppet now? Why are you now getting insulting? I have never insulted anyone on this forum. Ok - I have never heard of a Sock Puppet so I look it up on Google.

"a false online identity, typically created by a person or group in order to promote their own opinions or views"

Well this Sir is not correct. I am not using a false identify. That is my real email address. I am happy to correspond with anyone. Nothing I have said is wrong. I am also not promoting any opinions or views. Like I say the survey has no agenda other than interest value. I am not supporting car drivers, cyclists or anything for that matter. Why do you find this so hard to understand? Please do not get insulting and if you are going to criticise me please at least be factual.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (10 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> So you are calling me a Sock Puppet now? Why are you now getting insulting? I have never insulted anyone on this forum. Ok - I have never heard of a Sock Puppet so I look it up on Google.
> 
> "a false online identity, typically created by a person or group in order to promote their own opinions or views"
> 
> Well this Sir is not correct. I am not using a false identify. That is my real email address. I am happy to correspond with anyone. Nothing I have said is wrong. I am also not promoting any opinions or views. Like I say the survey has no agenda other than interest value. I am not supporting car drivers, cyclists or anything for that matter. Why do you find this so hard to understand? Please do not get insulting and if you are going to criticise me please at least be factual.


I wasn't referring to russellsg as the sock puppet. I've been nothing but factual in the statements I've made. Questions are asked to establish facts surely & as you seem fascinated by perceptions and opinions, seems an odd tack to have adopted now demanding facts.

Are you reading the same as everyone else?


----------



## russellsg (10 Jun 2016)

Yes I believe I am. Anyway I am going to continue to be courteous on this forum and I hope that you can afford me the same privilege

Regards


----------



## Mugshot (10 Jun 2016)

I miss @beccabikes , whatever happened to them? I much prefered them to @Drago and he got a whole thread when he went missing!!


----------



## glenn forger (10 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Yes I believe I am. Anyway I am going to continue to be courteous on this forum and I hope that you can afford me the same privilege
> 
> Regards



Dude, you popped up to post a dumbass survey that's as much use as a carpet fitter's ladder, then you get all passive-aggressive at people who question your motives, now you seek refuge in being offended. I think you're looking for a fight that needn't exist.


----------



## Dave Davenport (10 Jun 2016)

'Dude' ????


----------



## shouldbeinbed (10 Jun 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Dude, you popped up to post a dumbass survey that's as much use as a carpet fitter's ladder, then you get all passive-aggressive at people who question your motives, now you seek refuge in being offended. I think you're looking for a fight that needn't exist.


Typical bully, do as I say not as I do.

He's bored me now and he needs to read his own high handed comments to see where the rudeness is coming from but he won't accept that and there is no further point in engaging with someone so self deluded so I'm off to converse with those that make a positive and wider contribution to our little community.


----------



## russellsg (10 Jun 2016)

Ok - so I am trying to be nice and courteous and these are the comments you write

_Dude, you popped up to post a dumbass survey that's as much use as a carpet fitter's ladder, then you get all passive-aggressive at people who question your motives, now you seek refuge in being offended. I think you're looking for a fight that needn't exist._

then I get this

_Typical bully, do as I say not as I do.

He's bored me now and he needs to read his own high handed comments to see where the rudeness is coming from but he won't accept that and there is no further point in engaging with someone so self deluded so I'm off to converse with those that make a positive and wider contribution to our little community._

Can you not see that you are the aggressors here. Lets try and just talk! without the abuse


----------



## Profpointy (10 Jun 2016)

Mmm, something not quite right here. First post is a rather odd survey, then getting all offended.

So, are you working for the Daily Mail to try and get a result like 90% of cyclists jump red lights?
Or are you going to try and sell us something something doubtless hare-braned.
Or more charitably, are you already a regular on here, but posting as someone else for reasons which may or may not be revealed in due course.

Anyhow, "include me out" despite my filling it in in good faith in an unguarded moment previously


----------



## jefmcg (10 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Ok - I have never heard of a Sock Puppet so I look it up on Google.


Now you know what it means, don't you find @beccabikes just a little suspect? Some who signs up just to say what a great survey it is. 

If it's not you, then surely you must think it's a friend trying to be helpful?


----------



## russellsg (10 Jun 2016)

Profpointy said:


> Mmm, something not quite right here. First post is a rather odd survey, then getting all offended.
> 
> So, are you working for the Daily Mail to try and get a result like 90% of cyclists jump red lights?
> Or are you going to try and sell us something something doubtless hare-braned.
> ...



Thanks for filling it in before. Certainly not working for the Daily Mail or anything like it. Wont try and sell anything and initial results are indicating that most people respect red lights so I promise I wont use that one either.


----------



## russellsg (10 Jun 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Now you know what it means, don't you find @beccabikes just a little suspect? Some who signs up just to say what a great survey it is.
> 
> If it's not you, then surely you must think it's a friend trying to be helpful?


Yes maybe it is a friend - I am not sure but one thing for certain is it is not me. I am sure that you can check that from the IP address. Anyway a little bit of support would be much appreciated


----------



## classic33 (10 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Yes maybe it is a friend - I am not sure but one thing for certain is it is not me.* I am sure that you can check that from the IP address.* Anyway a little bit of support would be much appreciated


Two computers, easily access multiple ones in a bank.


----------



## jonny jeez (10 Jun 2016)

theclaud said:


>


Methinks your instinct could be correct.


----------



## jonny jeez (10 Jun 2016)

Mugshot said:


> I miss @beccabikes , whatever happened to them? I much prefered them to @Drago and he got a whole thread when he went missing!!


Hmmmmm

Have we ever seen the two of them in the same room at the same time?

@Drago, is that you?


----------



## classic33 (10 Jun 2016)

User said:


> I reckon @beccabikes is a sock puppet but not @russellsg's. I think it is an existing member having a laugh.


https://www.youtube.com/user/beccabikes Same one?


----------



## russellsg (11 Jun 2016)

Good morning everyone. How is everyone today?


----------



## russellsg (11 Jun 2016)

User said:


> We're you planning on contributing to the forum, beyond the confines of this thread that is? It has been several days now and not a sausage.


Yes I have - I have completed a different survey and I have read a lot of interesting threads. I am happy to contribute where I feel I can.


----------



## russellsg (11 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> Two computers, easily access multiple ones in a bank.



We are not allowed to access forums like this from work and I am so busy at work I would not have time to be writing comments here. Also check the posting times - they are always late evening or early morning Singapore time. Anyway I have already agreed that it is probably someone I know so there is nothing to be suspicious about.


----------



## classic33 (11 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> We are not allowed to access forums like this from work and I am so busy at work I would not have time to be writing comments here. Also check the posting times - they are always late evening or early morning Singapore time. *Anyway I have already agreed that it is probably someone I know so there is nothing to be suspicious about.*


I wouldn't say that.

Banks do tend to run 24 hours a day though, even if they're not open to the public. I used to finish at 22:00hrs in one.


----------



## russellsg (11 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> I wouldn't say that.
> 
> Banks do tend to run 24 hours a day though, even if they're not open to the public. I used to finish at 22:00hrs in one.


I think you are taking this a bit far now and you are being unreasonable. I have said I do not post from work so please stop inferring this. You can accuse me of doing this by other means but do not include my work please. Anyway like I have said - this was someone I know and I have asked them not to post anymore. Please move on.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (11 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Anyway I have already agreed that it is probably someone I know so there is nothing to be suspicious about.





russellsg said:


> Anyway like I have said - this was someone I know and I have asked them not to post anymore. Please move on.



Your detective work within 2 hours and 20 minutes is a credit to you. Cap doffed


----------



## russellsg (14 Jun 2016)

By way of update I have 164 responses so far. This is good and I can start to play with the numbers a bit. I still want to try and get a lot more responses if I can.

Thanks


----------



## classic33 (15 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I am currently conducting some private research on cycling safety and how cyclists conduct themselves on the highway. This has no commercial basis and I have no commercial interests in cycling or cycling products. I trust that people using this webstie will treat this in good faith and respond to this research by completing a short Cycling Safety Survey from the attached link. It will only take a few minutes and your input is very much appreciated.
> 
> ...


Hi everyone,

Please forgive me if I have the wrong topic forum. I have looked through the site but there does not appear to be a Research and Questionnaire area.

I am currently conducting some private research on cycling safety and how cyclists conduct themselves on the highway. This has no commercial basis and I have no commercial interests in cycling or cycling products. I hope that I could get some help from people on this site to provide some valuable information by completing a short Cycling Safety Survey from the attached link. It will only take a few minutes and your input is very much appreciated. I am actually a rider based in Singapore and I ride to work each day from Keppel Bay to the City so it would be great to get some local feedback for this. I do have quite a lot of feedback from the UK and US but would like to balance this with other geographical areas.

Also I would be happy to post any result from this on this site in due course.

http://goo.gl/forms/97TyELFKC3K8mKDT2

Many thanks

And you wonder why cyclists are wary of the "survey". Common points raised wherever it's been posted and you consider them hostile/aggresive.




And posting times have changed as well.


----------



## russellsg (18 Jun 2016)

What is your point here? You continually attack this survey for no good reason. I am trying to be fair but you have no other Agenda other that to discredit what I am trying to do. I suggest you take some time off and find something else that interests you. I would hate to think that I am your only form of entertainment.


----------



## russellsg (18 Jun 2016)

Yes and before you try you amateur network forensics you will notice this IP address is the same as BeccaBikes. That is because I am in the UK visiting. There you go I saved you some time as I am sure you have more important things to do.


----------



## classic33 (18 Jun 2016)

russellsg said:


> What is your point here? You continually attack this survey for no good reason. I am trying to be fair but you have no other Agenda other that to discredit what I am trying to do. I suggest you take some time off and find something else that interests you. I would hate to think that I am your only form of entertainment.


Don't flatter yerssen lad.


----------



## russellsg (20 Jun 2016)

? is this written in English?


----------



## classic33 (20 Jun 2016)

User13710 said:


> "Maybe it is a friend."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mark doesn't want to answer questions!

And @beccabikes is now a guest account.


----------



## Shaun (21 Jun 2016)

I've closed the beccabikes account as it was created by someone known to russellsg with the sole purpose of backing him up in this thread.

@russellsg - you've haven't registered here to become an active member of our community; but to post your survey. That's all.

That's fine, and is what this part of the forum is for, but your truculent posts are making me want to close the thread and remove the survey link.

Like many of our members I'm not convinced that your survey is based on idle interest; I doubt you would be posting it on every major cycling forum if that were the case, but am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, so please do give us some more information about yourself and what you are doing with the survey data so that we can be assured that you are genuine and that your interests are _not_ commercial.

Feel free to do it via personal message to me if you'd prefer.

Kind regards,
Shaun
CycleChat Founder


----------



## shouldbeinbed (21 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> Don't flatter yerssen lad.






russellsg said:


> ? is this written in English?


You did claim to have lived in Leeds didn't you?


----------



## classic33 (3 Jul 2016)

Wonder what results have been drawn from the 389 completed forms?


----------



## ianrauk (14 Jul 2016)

Well.. as we correctly guessed. None.


----------



## classic33 (14 Jul 2016)

Well until last Friday, he was in every second day at least. There's nothing on any of the other sites either.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (14 Jul 2016)

We've served our purpose and been milked now. I don't think Mr Russell likes the fact we're not as daft or credulous as he thought.


----------



## jefmcg (14 Jul 2016)

I'd just like to say this late in the game, that while you might *flaunt* your body in tight lycra, when it comes to rules, the verb is *flout*.


----------



## raleighnut (14 Jul 2016)

He did get the 'rough end of the stick' though, quite rightly some may say as the 'survey' seems to be his only contribution to the forum.


----------



## classic33 (15 Jul 2016)

raleighnut said:


> He did get the 'rough end of the stick' though, quite rightly some may say as the 'survey' seems to be his only contribution to the forum.


Same result everywhere the survey was posted.


----------



## Drago (15 Jul 2016)

The way the questions were worded suggested to me that hed already decided the answers he wanted to hear.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (15 Jul 2016)

Just noticed my earlier placeholder post marking Mr Russell's continued absence from the thread has been quietly deleted.

Agree Drago, I made the point earlier he was targeting cyclists only and his questions were very much skewed to indicate bad behaviour.

I hope if the results do get shared with S G or any other organisation, they are made aware it is a skewed process, obtained under false pretences.


----------



## glenn forger (16 Jul 2016)

When *you* jump red lights do you:

1/

Punch kittens?

2/

Wear a nazi uniform?


3/

Set fire to orphanages?


----------



## Drago (16 Jul 2016)

I'm getting a bit worried about Glenn. All this week he's been saying stuff I liked!


----------



## classic33 (16 Jul 2016)

Drago said:


> I'm getting a bit worried about Glenn. All this week he's been saying stuff I liked!


It's you!


----------



## Drago (16 Jul 2016)

I have been feeling a bit strange lately.


----------



## russellsg (17 Jul 2016)

As an update the only reason that I have posted nothing is that I do not have sufficient responses. I only have 215 responses which will not give any meaningful results. If I do not get enough responses then I will simply close the survey and delete the results. Some may think this is a good thing. If this is what happens I apologise for those that took the effort to complete the survey. If of course I do get sufficient response I am happy to post the results. Again I must stress there is no agenda and I am happy just to drop this survey and close it off given the reaction it has caused.


----------



## classic33 (17 Jul 2016)

What happenned to the 389 responses(your own figure, given elsewhere by you)?


----------



## russellsg (17 Jul 2016)

There are only 215 responses. If the figure was given it was a mistake or the number was misread from the Google Forms. Either way the number of responses is only 215 and I am being up front about that. I am happy to provide a screenshot if need be.


----------



## summerdays (17 Jul 2016)

What number of responses are required to allow you to consider that you have a meaningful number?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (17 Jul 2016)

russellsg said:


> By way of update I have 164 responses so far. This is good and I can start to play with the numbers a bit. I still want to try and get a lot more responses if I can.
> 
> Thanks



So what basic trends and inclinations has your initial playing with a "good" number of responses PLUS 51 (nearly 1/3 again) more, by your own reported count, started to indicate. 

Why is 215 inadequate when 164 was good?



summerdays said:


> What number of responses are required to allow you to consider that you have a meaningful number?


I have asked that question before and it wasn't answered. 

I suspect Mr Russell isn't getting the 'right' answers to his questions.


----------



## Drago (17 Jul 2016)

Bertrand Russell?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Jul 2016)

How many forums has he posted this on, wolrwide?

215 (or 389) responses in six weeks is a remarkably poor return and suggests to me that his survey has been viewed with suspicion across all forums.

GC


----------



## russellsg (17 Jul 2016)

My final post

OK - it is obvious from the tone of these comments that it is waste of time for me to bother responding to any more posts. I intend now to take the survey off line and delete the results. The continued attacks by certain members of this forum have made it impossible to obtain sufficient impartial survey responses particularly given the number of responses that have likely come from people who have been reading this thread. There also appears to be a certain amount of sabotage responses. I apologise for all those members who took the effort to complete the survey and were genuinely interested in finding out what trends or information could have been seen from the results. However I am not prepared to spend hours of statistical evaluation of the results to post any findings in such a hostile environment. To be honest the actions of a few members on this forum have been quite inappropriate and rude. I also note a couple of posts that were removed which obviously meant that the moderator must have considered them not to be in the best interests of this forum.

After logging off today for the last time I have no intention of viewing this thread again to read the predictable stream of responses (with all the high 5's and likes between those people) which I am sure will follow. Like I have always said this survey was initiated as an interest matter only and there never was any other agenda to it. I think after a while everybody actually realised this and I have answered all questions asked by the forum owner

Once again thanks for those that did provide support (yes there were some) and I am sorry that the overall support was not there in the end. I would just like to finish off with saying congratulations to all those that wanted this survey stopped - your lack of any kind of supportive cooperation has won out in the end. If the world depended on your progress we would all still be living in caves.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Jul 2016)

russellsg said:


> My final post
> 
> OK - it is obvious from the tone of these comments that it is waste of time for me to bother responding to any more posts. I intend now to take the survey off line and delete the results. The continued attacks by certain members of this forum have made it impossible to obtain sufficient impartial survey responses particularly given the number of responses that have likely come from people who have been reading this thread. There also appears to be a certain amount of sabotage responses. I apologise for all those members who took the effort to complete the survey and were genuinely interested in finding out what trends or information could have been seen from the results. However I am not prepared to spend hours of statistical evaluation of the results to post any findings in such a hostile environment. To be honest the actions of a few members on this forum have been quite inappropriate and rude. I also note a couple of posts that were removed which obviously meant that the moderator must have considered them not to be in the best interests of this forum.
> 
> ...




As a flounce I'd rate that a poor 4.5/10.
As a display of bullshitting it gets a decent 9/10.

GC


----------



## summerdays (17 Jul 2016)

russellsg said:


> My final post
> 
> OK - it is obvious from the tone of these comments that it is waste of time for me to bother responding to any more posts. I intend now to take the survey off line and delete the results. The continued attacks by certain members of this forum have made it impossible to obtain sufficient impartial survey responses particularly given the number of responses that have likely come from people who have been reading this thread. There also appears to be a certain amount of sabotage responses. I apologise for all those members who took the effort to complete the survey and were genuinely interested in finding out what trends or information could have been seen from the results. However I am not prepared to spend hours of statistical evaluation of the results to post any findings in such a hostile environment. To be honest the actions of a few members on this forum have been quite inappropriate and rude. I also note a couple of posts that were removed which obviously meant that the moderator must have considered them not to be in the best interests of this forum.
> 
> ...


Why not post the responses here and we'll pick over them ourselves then?

I only felt that you started the survey expecting one set of results, and I suspect you didn't get your predicted result. Not necessarily because people set out to wreck your survey but just because it didn't reflect the places we cycle and how we find it. Even across this site there will be differences in opinion with regards how to cycle safely. I cycle where there are lots of cyclists and often find the comments of those who say they met one cyclist while they were out strange. I don't have to leave my house to see double figure of cyclists (2 just cycled past as I type this).


----------



## Drago (17 Jul 2016)

Problem is its not an impartial survey. Its very badly worded, and the tone of the questions will build inherent bias into the results.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (17 Jul 2016)

Remarkable how questions Mr Russell is unwilling or unable to answer are translated in his world into attacks.

Particularly having provided us with a survey clearly biased against cyclists and attacking the notion of the decent honest cycling that the vast majority of us routinely engage in.

I doubt anyone has ever tried to shut down this survey, simply to find out more about it by asking questions and highlighting irregularities from a poster shifty & evasive from the outset then increasingly antisocial rather than being open and honest as he claimed to be.


----------



## classic33 (17 Jul 2016)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Remarkable how questions Mr Russell is unwilling or unable to answer are translated in his world into attacks.
> 
> Particularly having provided us with a survey clearly biased against cyclists and attacking the notion of the decent honest cycling that the vast majority of us routinely engage in.
> 
> I doubt anyone has ever tried to shut down this survey, simply to find out more about it by asking questions and highlighting irregularities from a poster shifty & evasive from the outset then increasingly antisocial rather than being open and honest as he claimed to be.


I think I know who he meant, but I made it clear I couldn't complete it.

Thought, if I could see the data being collected by GoogleForms, would this include any e-mail addresses left?


----------



## classic33 (17 Jul 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> How many forums has he posted this on, wolrwide?
> 
> 215 (or 389) responses in six weeks is a remarkably poor return and suggests to me that his survey has been viewed with suspicion across all forums.
> 
> GC


Ten, as well as managing to get it in an a newspaper.


----------



## Shaun (20 Jul 2016)

Sadly a few things have gone on in the background (and at other cycling forums) that have not painted russellsg or CycleChat in a very good light, so I'm closing the thread and will be archiving it into the moderators forum in a few days time.

russellsg is no longer a member of CycleChat and I would ask that people do not follow him around to other cycling forums seeking to discredit or harrass him there; certainly not in association with CycleChat.

Thanks,
Shaun


----------

