anyone know this cyclist?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
B2_Hb2vCEAA50qZ.jpg
 

Attachments

  • B2_Hb2vCEAA50qZ.jpg
    B2_Hb2vCEAA50qZ.jpg
    19 KB · Views: 39

subaqua

What’s the point
Location
Leytonstone
Hands up all them cyclists that have never ever cycled on a footpath!!!
how far back you want to go. I probably did as a kid. I regularly CROSS on to access property . Last time I did ride on a footpath with a no cycling sign it was under the encouragement of the Area coordinator of LCC for the POP in 2012 . which speaks volumes.
 
Didn't hear You and Yours but apparently it was just people phoning in with implausible anecdotes about something that happened one time. Unedifying.
 
A cabbie phoned in and said he was overtaking on a bend and met a cyclist coming the other way. That was it. That was his story.
 

shouldbeinbed

Rollin' along
Location
Manchester way

98 people hit by cycles is 98 too many, just as 2642 people hit by cars is 2642 too many.

Whats the modal share of the traffic types for the same timespan? 2% looks about average to me for bike share (happy to see numbers telling me I'm mistaken tho) & not sure how much you can legitimately read into half a statistic.
 

Attachments

  • B2_Hb2vCEAA50qZ.jpg
    B2_Hb2vCEAA50qZ.jpg
    19 KB · Views: 62
98 people hit by cycles is 98 too many, just as 2642 people hit by cars is 2642 too many.

Whats the modal share of the traffic types for the same timespan? 2% looks about average to me for bike share (happy to see numbers telling me I'm mistaken tho) & not sure how much you can legitimately read into half a statistic.

That's right nationally. So 1.8% of pedestrians injured and hurt by cyclists, who are 2% of traffic, so cyclists are less likely to injure peds than drivers even after you allow for the respective disparate numbers.
 
It's also a truism that more cyclists means safer conditions for peds, so encouraging cycling makes it safer to walk. You can't say that about any other road user. But of course all this will be ignored while Radio 4 engage in tabloid garbage and mad people phone in with their tedious "One time a cyclist got his bum out" anecdotes.
 
OP
OP
P

PK99

Legendary Member
Location
SW19
I suspect that the motorvehicle events were in the vast majorith of Cases unintentional entryonto the fotaay by the vehicle. in the case in discussion, the cyclist was deliberatelty and with forethoughe cycling on the pavement Nd was not showing due regard to the safety of legitimate users of the fotway.
 

Attachments

  • B2_Hb2vCEAA50qZ.jpg
    B2_Hb2vCEAA50qZ.jpg
    19 KB · Views: 56
OP
OP
P

PK99

Legendary Member
Location
SW19
That's right nationally. So 1.8% of pedestrians injured and hurt by cyclists, who are 2% of traffic, so cyclists are less likely to injure peds than drivers even after you allow for the respective disparate numbers.

All motor vebicle vs pedestrian collisions will be recorded. My guess would be that most cyclist pedestrian collisions would not be, and would expect gross underrecording of minor injuries.
 
[QUOTE 3713622, member: 45"]You think I was driven into on a pavement by a driver reversing onto a drive to turn around. He hadn't bothered looking because he was in "look only for other cars" mode and assumed that any pedestrians would jump out of the way of the all-powerful motor car.[/QUOTE]

Speeding driver chatting on a mobile, kills two children on the pavement, 18 month ban and £3000 fine. She chose to speed. She chose to have a chat on her mobile.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...T-GUILTY-causing-death-dangerous-driving.html
 
Top Bottom