Car drivers forget Highway Code

Actually I would say that it is the cyclists who have no respect for the motorist, not the other way around. Cyclists need to give respect to motorists in order to get respect from motorists. Respect is a two way street. Cyclists need to be a bit less self righteous, Look out for your own safety, don't expect other people to do it for you. And never expect every motorist to do the right, or expected thing. Cyclists need to behave correctly and properly when using the highway, and obey the law to the letter and the spirit. The Highway Code is not actually law, it is advice and guidance.

Maybe they had read the highway code.

But maybe it was this one: www.st-1100.com/highway-code.html !

Generalist, "If cycling were far more common and motorists were all saints who never speeded; jumped red lights; used the phone & etc., THEN AND ONLY THEN THERE MIGHT BE A CASE for the registration of bicycles."

Why is that ? The behaviour of motorists in no way cancels out the inconsiderate or dangerous behaviour of cyclists.

In your own time Generalist.

Generalist, you are keen enough to demand answers from other people.

Could you tell me why you believe cyclists don’t need to obey the law until every motorist does?

In my opinion both should do so. Do you have an opinion, not a wall of statistics and quotations but an opinion of your own?

Generalist, this was posted anonymously on 19/10/11,

“Generalist There are so many things wrong with your posts that it is hard to know where to start.

“ "If cycling were far more common and motorists were all saints who never speeded; jumped red lights; used the phone & etc., THEN AND ONLY THEN THERE MIGHT BE A CASE for the registration of bicycles."”

Why do you make the assumption that there is no need to regulate the law- breaking behaviour of some cyclists until all motorists also obey traffic laws? That is like saying we need to get all muggers off the streets and then and only then there might be a case for stopping pickpockets.

Motorists should obey the law and so should cyclists.”

I thought that was a reasonable post but you would not answer it. I have re-printed it and put my name to it is as anonymity seemed to be the problem for you. Would you like to answer it now?

Generalist,you never seem to have any opinions of your own. Instead you seem to bombard gripers with statistics and quotes,which are sometimes quite pointless and idiotic.

Where you perhaps Tony B-liar in a previous incarnation?

I know there's a typo in that, I don't need to be told, and I also know it's not coherent becuase B-liar is not dead yet, but I'm sure reasonable people will get my meaning.

Generalist :

Do you have any opinions of your own, or do you simply look for quotes and statistics to knock down the opinions that others express?

Do you ever answer, as oppose to ask, questions?

Are you a politician? Where you perhaps Tony B-liar in a previous incarnation?

Bernard M. Baruch (1870 to 1965),“Every man has a right to be wrong in his opinions. But no man has a right to be wrong in his facts”

Søren Kierkegaard, (1813 to 1855)
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.

Benjamin Franklin (1706 to 1790) and Johnathan Swift (1667 to 1745) said:
You cannot reason a man out of an opinion into which he was not reasoned to begin with.

Generalist: you can't even write proper english, everyone knows it is;

`it dint work`
not
`it didn`t work`

Boblet, he seems to like statistics, lots of them. It is what he offers instead of an argument or discussion. They must take him hours to find and sift through.

He does the same things that he accuses others of, namely ignoring any points that he does not want to answer. Apparently it is the old "do as I tell you, not as I do".

Generalist has put me in my lowly place again, I just did not realise that I was to answer his questions as well as improve my spelling. I apologise profusely, unfortunately with my questionable intelect it may happen again. You dont like giving the cane do you Generalist?

Boblet can't answer reasonable questions so changes the subject and hopes nobody will notice.

It didn't work.

Generalist,

Regarding statistics, I have two comments:

1. "There are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics."

2. "chump" is right - he who pays the piper, calls the tune.

There are a couple of them Ben. They do not stay in the ring for long. I will take time off from my rusty nail & post a few replies. You watch they will stop posting

Boblet:
Generalist is a total pompous ass who is always quoting the "Dunning-Kruger Effect"
Me thinks he his just a thicko trying to look clever!
See my old posts on this site for his ponsy replies.

"Generalist" Ref my spelling errors. get a life man. I nearly started to check your spelling then I realised how infantile that would be. I havent posted any gripes of late, I have been too busy with my other interests. Watching paint dry & I have a nail that is rusting nicely. You and some of the other self opinionated twerps on GOTW with their inane comments and dubious statistics have taken the fun out of it. Do you have a legitimate gripe of your own? or do you realy want to start trading words with me?

Chump,

What the paper actually says:
'….There is anecdotal evidence that a significant
proportion of cyclists disobey the law and cycle through red lights. This report sets
out to test this hypothesis by analysing cycle counts taken at five arbitrarily
selected junctions in south London....
The purpose of this report is to see whether anecdotal evidence is correct and
that, with high levels of cyclists the number of cyclists cycling through red lights is
becoming a road safety issue.
....'

You claimed:
“The survey was taken by an arm of Transport for London; TFL has a mandate to promote cycling and defend cyclists whenever possible.
It is hardly a fair or honest survey.”

Later you claimed:

“No, the purpose of statistics is to support a point of view that has already been formed by the people who paid for the survey.”

I'm sure I will not be alone in believing that you have made a number of most serious, false, unsubstantiated and malicious claims that have huge implications for those involved in this study, their probity and the methodology used. I believe the implication of your apparently egregiously false and unsubstantiated claims is that the study's data and conclusions were somehow, variously distorted, 'dishonest' (quote), manipulated and biased, in-order to achieve a pre-determined result.

You must now either present your evidence for all to see, or retract your claims in their totality.

Your only saving-grace is that nominative determinism rules! You are living-up to your chosen screen name.

You should read about the Dunning-Kruger Effect, I believe it describes chumps perfectly.

Boblet
'cyclysts ring their bells "Get out of my Way"'

If you were to read the Highway Code, you would know that audible and visual warnings mean:
'I am here'.
Since bells are only normally fitted to bicycles, a ringing bell means 'I am here' and the person sending the message is most probably a person on a bicycle.

Kindly explain how a ringing bell can convey "Get out of my Way", or any other message?

You seem to have a persecution complex. You should seek medical help.

You also made the same spelling error at least twice.

Chump

You claim: “You claim that this survey shows the “Proportion of Cyclists Who Violate Red Lights in London”
I made no such 'claim', this is in-fact the TITLE of the document! It's hidden away on the front page.

You claim: 'pavement cyclists were mentioned in the results as footnotes, they were not included as “violators”'

It's hard to accept your comments as honest and constructive, because of this:
'A violation was defined as a cyclists crossing
though a red light, and continuing over or turning at a junction.
'
It is clear that, while 'pavement cyclists' were recorded, but not as 'violators' because they fell outside this clearly laid-out definition.

Chump indeed.