Smidgaf - video - would you report this

[lukesdad]

Wow, looks like I missed a whole load of internet drama. Thank goodness.

Well done guys, it appears you've successfully trolled at least one person to breaking point.

If you don't understand the research and results by TFL/DFT, I suggest you contact them to ask them further questions as they are in a better position to answer your questions than any of us.

I'm out.

Brings a whole new meaning to hit and run

You don t seem to be able to answer any question Jezston, you just dissapear !

 

[benb]

I think that, in the absence of any evidence of fraud or bias on the part of the TfL report, we need to take the results of that analysis at face value. It's not as if TfL are renowned for being pro-cycling.

 

[dawesome]

You have allready provided the stats I think you re ducking the answer now.

I didn't provide any stats on proportional road usage, that's something you raised. You said:

Lets look at the evidence dawesome has produced shall we and interpret it another way ? As many as 25% of cyclists could be to blame for collisions and as low as 60% of motorists. Now lets equate that to journeys undertaken. A conservative estimate would be 10 fold more journeys by car ? So collisions per journey could read 25 % of cyclists to blame and 6% of motorists ? But wait we havn t even considered the time spent doing the journey yet ?

I wondered if you had any stats to support this, you seem to be claiming that blame may be higher for cyclists but now we seem to be dancing around the point.

 

[dawesome]

I think that, in the absence of any evidence of fraud or bias on the part of the TfL report, we need to take the results of that analysis at face value. It's not as if TfL are renowned for being pro-cycling.

The accident stats are replicated in a number of studies across the world, and it makes sense when you think about it. Look around the streets you cycle on, notice the bent railings, smashed bollards, all the dings and scratches and bumps on cars. Cyclists, being made of people, have a natural disinclination to colliding with anything because it bloody hurts. Drivers have the protection of a steel cage.

 

[lukesdad]

I think that, in the absence of any evidence of fraud or bias on the part of the TfL report, we need to take the results of that analysis at face value. It's not as if TfL are renowned for being pro-cycling.

I dont think anybody has claimed the stats fraudulent, its interpreting what the stats show. Now if we are including Professional drivers in the stats, the evidence produced on the forum here as well as in campaigning, shows that for instance a high proportion of collisions are caused by this group. Perhaps indicating the private motorist is not the monster portrayed here.

 

[lukesdad]

I didn't provide any stats on proportional road usage, that's something you raised. You said:



I wondered if you had any stats to support this, you seem to be claiming that blame may be higher for cyclists but now we seem to be dancing around the point.

I thought I d made myself pretty clear, no dancing , only on your part. Im obviously going to wait a long time for an answer.

 

[dawesome]

I thought I d made myself pretty clear, no dancing , only on your part. Im obviously going to wait a long time for an answer.

Ok, you're happy to imply the research is wrong without actually saying why. You claimed that because there are far more cars than bikes the figures are skewed but you're unable to explain your reasoning. If there's 1 bike and 5 cars on the roads how would the ratio effect blame apportioned in accidents? And how have you factored in the truism that more bikes=safer roads?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903112034.htm

And nobody called motorists "monsters", that's pointless trolling. Why not debate what's been said?

 

[benb]

I dont think anybody has claimed the stats fraudulent, its interpreting what the stats show. Now if we are including Professional drivers in the stats, the evidence produced on the forum here as well as in campaigning, shows that for instance a high proportion of collisions are caused by this group. Perhaps indicating the private motorist is not the monster portrayed here.

Cheradenine heavily implied it, when they said the study (and by implication all studies everywhere) only found what they were looking for.

Well, that's obviously rubbish, and even if true, there's no indication that TfL were looking for the result that motorists were more often to blame in a collision. I would have thought the opposite would be true, with TfL's anti-cyclist policies.

 

[lukesdad]

Ok, you're happy to imply the research is wrong without actually saying why. You claimed that because there are far more cars than bikes the figures are skewed but you're unable to explain your reasoning. If there's 1 bike and 5 cars on the roads how would the ratio effect blame apportioned in accidents? And how have you factored in the truism that more bikes=safer roads?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903112034.htm

And nobody called motorists "monsters", that's pointless trolling. Why not debate what's been said?

The research has arrived at a conclusion Ive indicated another possible conclusion. I never claimed there are more cars than bikes ( though the statement maybe true ) I pointed to journeys and time, you seem to be unable to understand this. As for your truism well, that could well apply if the offenders took to bikes highly unlikely IMO, and if they did they may start causing collisions on their bikes and what would that do to the stats ?
One bike and five cars where did you pull that one from ?

 

[dawesome]

The research has arrived at a conclusion Ive indicated another possible conclusion. I never claimed there are more cars than bikes ( though the statement maybe true ) I pointed to journeys and time, you seem to be unable to understand this.

How would journey times have any bearing on apportion of blame?

 

[lukesdad]

Anyway no point going round in circles. Tell Jezston he can stop sniping from the undergrowth, its all clear he can come out now!

 

[benb]

The research has arrived at a conclusion Ive indicated another possible conclusion. I never claimed there are more cars than bikes ( though the statement maybe true ) I pointed to journeys and time, you seem to be unable to understand this.

Can you elaborate? I can't see how that would have any effect on who was to blame in a collision.

 

[dawesome]

How would journey times have anything at all to do with the allocation of blame?

 

[400bhp]

One thing to bear in mind in the TRL report is that is only takes account of collisions reported to the police.

It is more than likely that car drivers were to blame for these types of accidents. You're more likely to end up dead or seriously injured as a result of an error of driving, rather than vice versa nd these are the types likely to be reported to the police.

 

[fossyant]

Play nice children !