Smidgaf - video - would you report this

[dawesome]

Yes there are a lot of bad drivers out there, but also there are bad cyclists. My experience has generally been good from cyclists, but Iv also had bad ones. But my point is, I wonder how this all would seem if the tables were turned. Drivers recorded and cherry picked what cyclists got up to. I believe there would be relatively as many so called numpty/law breaking/dangerous and what ever the other names cyclists have called them, cyclists out there.

I'm willing to bet you're wrong. No real way of measuring the dangerousness of cyclists, unless of course you compare the 2500 coffins a year filled by drivers and the half a coffin a year filled by cyclists.

 

[col]

As far as I can see, in this topic it's only you doing this polarizing, yes? I offer you the Silly Cyclists series to press home my point. We're all the same humans with the same sort of attitude to road use.

And in the reality of motor vehicle vs cyclist collisions, then yes, it is the driver to blame most of the time. That's not to say that drivers are bad, but that it's a simple consequence of the cager effect - some soft skinned vulnerable cyclists might not obey rules of the road, but they are considerably more motivated to avoid injury to themselves than drivers protected inside their metal cage.

The polarizing is being done by others, the op gave an opinion, which I think was correct. But your polarising tried to turn it round on them, so showing how polarised you are, you need to stop being so defensive to everything that you deem an attack on cyclists, as some of it is actually true. Which brings us to soft skinned cyclists who dont obey the rules of the road, yet are not to blame? What facts are you going on to say drivers are mostly to blame?

 

[dawesome]

The polarizing is being done by others, the op gave an opinion, which I think was correct.

cheredenine claimed it was an "illusion" that cyclists were usually not to blame and then implied evidence that showed otherwise was tainted. No evidence offered for either contention.

 

[col]

I'm willing to bet you're wrong. No real way of measuring the dangerousness of cyclists, unless of course you compare the 2500 coffins a year filled by drivers and the half a coffin a year filled by cyclists.

Would you say there are 2500 times more drivers than cyclists? maybe more?
Also if drivers filmed rlj's/ pavement cycling, no lights, filtering at dangerous times and places, bad position ect, Im sure there could be a vary large collection on you tube, nameing and shaming oh I forgot, there is no way of doing that with cyclists is there? No wonder they rlj, pavement cycle and generally just dont follow the rules of the road eh? do you see the way it could go? Pretty much the same as the cctv ones are doing with cars now. Again we come back to the polarised comment, which does fit in this point.

 

[col]

cheredenine claimed it was an "illusion" that cyclists were usually not to blame and then implied evidence that showed otherwise was tainted. No evidence offered for either contention.

You obviously missed the sentence

If it's going to be this childish polarized "cyclists are good and drivers are evil!" argument for ever and ever then it's going to get you nowhere.​

 

[dawesome]

Would you say there are 2500 times more drivers than cyclists? maybe more?

Nowhere near, cyclists are the majority on many London roads now, Blackfriar's, for instance. Plus, remember that the truism that more cyclists = safer roads most emphatiocally does not apply to motor vehicles.

 

[dawesome]

You obviously missed the sentence

If it's going to be this childish polarized "cyclists are good and drivers are evil!" argument for ever and ever then it's going to get you nowhere.​

No, I addressed it by highlighting cherdenine's dishonesty. That's an argument plucked from thin air that nobody's made. It's a troll tactic, rather than address the points raised make up a daft argument and attack it. Saves dealing with what's actually been said.

 

[Bicycle]

Col seems to make a very fair and reasonable point to me. There is a big difference between holding a position diametrically opposed to that of another contributor and one just a few critical degrees off to one side.

Of course there are dreadful cyclists. As Col says, being 'soft-skinned' doesn't make them saints. It doesn't make them clever either.

There are dreadful drivers too. There are few drivers who feel the need to post online the antics of dreadful cyclists.

Most road users are courteous, skilled and law-abiding. Those few who are not can be found on every possible type of road transport.

 

[col]

No, I addressed it by highlighting cherdenine's dishonesty. That's an argument plucked from thin air that nobody's made. It's a troll tactic, rather than address the points raised make up a daft argument and attack it. Saves dealing with what's actually been said.

It actually describes very well some on here, as it obviously seems you dont like the statement so attatch the word troll to it. Which seems to be the sop of some here too.
Its actually a good point.

 

[dawesome]

It actually describes very well some on here, as it obviously seems you dont like the statement so attatch the word troll to it. Which seems to be the sop of some here too.
Its actually a good point.

It's not that I don't like the statement, it's that it's factually inaccurate. That's not a matter of opinion, but of fact, drivers are usually at fault in vehicle/cyclist collisions. cherdenine's tactic is to refute this with no evidence and dismiss evidence that supports the claim as "biased", again with no explanation.

 

[col]

It's not that I don't like the statement, it's that it's factually inaccurate. That's not a matter of opinion, but of fact, drivers are usually at fault in vehicle/cyclist collisions. cherdenine's tactic is to refute this with no evidence and dismiss evidence that supports the claim as "biased", again with no explanation.

I think we are on crossed lines, Im saying some are polarised.

 

[dawesome]

I think we are on crossed lines, Im saying some are polarised.

I've never heard anyone make the argument that all cyclists are saints, that's just silly. And again, it's wasting a lot of energy arguing against silly points noone's posted.

 

[col]

I've never heard anyone make the argument that all cyclists are saints, that's just silly. And again, it's wasting a lot of energy arguing against silly points noone's posted.

This is the post Im talking about, I agree about the polarised view of some. This point was posted earlier, thought you saw it?
"If it's going to be this childish polarized "cyclists are good and drivers are evil!" argument for ever and ever then it's going to get you nowhere"

 

[dawesome]

This is the post Im talking about, I agree about the polarised view of some. This point was posted earlier, thought you saw it?
"If it's going to be this childish polarized "cyclists are good and drivers are evil!" argument for ever and ever then it's going to get you nowhere"

Yep, an argument no-one's made.

It was pointed out that cyclists are indeed rarely at fault in vehicle RTCs. This, it was claimed, is an "illusion". Supporting evidence was posted and dismissed. That, to me, suggests a closed mind.

 

[col]

Yep, an argument no-one's made.

It was pointed out that cyclists are indeed rarely at fault in vehicle RTCs. This, it was claimed, is an "illusion". Supporting evidence was posted and dismissed. That, to me, suggests a closed mind.

It seemed a response to quite a lot of posts on here?