Cheradenine
Guest
And there lies the problem.
It's not the source material you are reading but the guardians editorial of it.
Smidgaf - video - would you report this
- Thread starter gb155
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
It's not the source material you are reading but the guardians editorial of it.
You did say it was an illusion. If stats can be twisted in the way you suggest I wondered why you can't find any that blame the cyclist most of the time.
And really, implying the data is flawed with zero evidence is a bit daft.
The research was carried out by the Dept of Transport and analysed by TFL, neither organisations noted for sympathy with cyclists!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/15/cycling-bike-accidents-study
I guess what I'm getting at is that I have an opinion I can back up with research.
You have an opinion.
Cheradenine
Guest
We all ride and we all see the twankers.
You know, I know and everyone else knows that there is a sea of gibbons out there just itching to improve the gene pool by removing them self from it. If the government goes so far as running an advert warning of the dangers of filtering up the side of high sided vehicles then that suggests that the problem may not just be with the drivers.
You were provided with the answer several posts back, you just didn't understand it.
Please don't patronise me, I'm attacked your argument, not you personally. If you are now saying your evidence that it's an "illusion" that cyclists are rarely to blame is your own eyes then I politely disagree and can point to evidence that refutes your personal experience. The plural of anecdote is not data.
The government run adverts about the dangers of drink driving and driving whilst on a mobile, only a halfwit would conclude this means drivers are always in the wrong.
Cheradenine
Guest
I never at any stage claimed that cyclists are always in the wrong did I?
Cyclist are not perfect, people are getting a strop on when this is pointed out and clinging to petty arguments. There is I believe a poster on here with his own Youtube channel dedicated to people who ride like fools so it's far from just anecdotal accounts at work.
We as cylists are the people out there on the roads, we are the ones who survive year in year out without getting ourseleves killed, that makes us the ones qualified to comment, we don't have to go looking for studies in the Guardian.
You said:
And you've repeatedly refused to say what you base this claim on other than "I saw a badly behaved cyclist". Nobody's getting in a strop because you are saying cyclists aren't perfect, that's daft, I'm just pointing out you are making assertions you cannot back up.
Cheradenine
Guest
And you are making the assertation that the data is simply not there to suggest that cyclists could be at fault more than we would like to admit.
How do you know?
Have you gone looking for it?
Yes! And I've asked you several times to post it!
I can't for the life of me think why you're unable to do so, especially since you confidently asserted the fact that cyclists are rarely to blame is just an "illusion"!
Is it this?
View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Rkr0LUnSVA
Cheradenine
Guest
So...lets get this straight.
On a cycling forum some one states the common sense point of view that there is always more than one set of data out there and you get in a tiz because some one doesn't have the team of researchers and grant money at hand to dash out a conflicting study to the existing ones in a single after noon?
And this makes you right how exactly?
Are you keen on creationist theory as well by any chance?
On a cycling forum some one states the common sense point of view that there is always more than one set of data out there and you get in a tiz because some one doesn't have the team of researchers and grant money at hand to dash out a conflicting study to the existing ones in a single after noon?
And this makes you right how exactly?
Are you keen on creationist theory as well by any chance?
Nope. It's really very simple.
You stated confidently that it's an "illusion" that cyclists are rarely to blame. We've established you have no evidence for this.
Hope this helps.
Cheradenine
Guest
And you have no evidence to disprove it as existing studies are known to be flawed as they always find the results they go looking for.
You were told this several pages ago but just decide to gleefully leap upon certain phrases like a tramp who has found a bag of still warm chips.
Once again, what is your evidence that the studies were corrupted please? The findings are replicated worldwide, are you claiming a worldwide conspiracy exists to downplay cyclists culpability in accidents?
The only evidence out there, researched and presented by a body certainly not known to be biased towards cyclists (TFL/DFT), states that in most collisions, the cyclist was not to blame.
There is no evidence suggesting otherwise.
Thus, we conclude that in most collisions, the cyclist was not to blame.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it. If not - accept the evidence and move on.
That is all there is to it.
There is no evidence suggesting otherwise.
Thus, we conclude that in most collisions, the cyclist was not to blame.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it. If not - accept the evidence and move on.
That is all there is to it.
lukesdad
Guest
So was the motorist to blame or could blame not be apportioned to either party ?
