This whole RLJ thing

Origamist · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mosschops2

Theo - I have been doing some research on the subject, you'll be pleased to know.

According to Transport for London, eight people died as a result of red-light jumping in 2006, in London alone.

Therefore your 130:0 figure needs a little more work....

Have you ever tried pressing Alt+F4 ??
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Were all of the fatalities cyclists? Do you have any more details about the incidents?

Folders

tstegers · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mosschops2

Theo - I have been doing some research on the subject, you'll be pleased to know.

According to Transport for London, eight people died as a result of red-light jumping in 2006, in London alone.

Therefore your 130:0 figure needs a little more work....

Have you ever tried pressing Alt+F4 ??
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Mosschops. True! But I think you will find that it was motor vehicles that did the jumping. The jumpers killing cyclists who thought they were safe complying with said lights. Now if those same cyclists were in the habit of looking for traffic first and lights second, a discipline I learned the hard way, I think many of them would have seem the motorised jumper coming and survived.

Theo Stegers

Greenbank · June 2007

Pedestrian killed by RLJing cyclist in August last year:-

http://www.tandem-club.org.uk/cgi-bin/d ... ?read=7816

--
If I had a baby elephant signature, I'd use that.

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Regulator

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

How can it be explained more clearly?
Traffic accidents occur when traffic is moving (green light); not when it's stationary (red light).

I have never claimed that rljing is especally dangerous, all of my counter arguments have been about the impression that it gives and the effect that that has on cycling as a whole; from the way we're treated on the road to the way we are and will be treated in the courts. (And even in the Parliament, have you been paying attention?)
I do argue that red-light-stopping need not be as dangerous as you say. It's mostly a matter of positioning.

This sig is under construction.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I hate to burst your bubble Dondare, but I have attended a number of accident which have occurred when the lights are red. It's amazing how many motorists don't spot other vehicles stopped in front of them at lights (be they cars or bikes). One accident I saw a Mini had managed to wedge itself under the back of a lorry's trailer. The Mini driver's head was found on the back seat!

___________________________
Bugger elephants - capabari are cuter!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Fatalities caused by left-turning HGVs are the problem, cyclists are rarely killed by cars ramming them from behind. That does happen, but it's not common.
The bulk of rljing consists of filtering passed stationary traffic then going through the red, not going ahead of moving traffic.

This sig is under construction.

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

blah blah blah

Theo Stegers
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Theo

You boasted about information which would vincicate you. You hid the information when it arrived. You no longer brag about the information because it doesn't back you up. The information does not support your view. It shows that junctions are a risk. It shows that there are areas which need to be addressed to reduce the risk. It suggests nothing at all about RLJing being a cure, but things like not riding into posts, not riding off the pavement into the path of cars, and being very careful when joining the flow from filtering on the right.

It's crass to bring Cupoftea into it, because he was able to looked at the information far more objectively than is possible for you. And he did, and came out with a different outcome to you.

You're blinkered. You don't talk about any of the critical issues. You're crassness puts people in danger because you falsely claim that jumping lights is safer than not.

And all you've got to go on is your figure. Which, when the incidents are broken down, is not even yours to own.

2/10. Keep learning.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

cupofteacp · June 2007

Dondare,
216 Driving Too Close To The Vehicle In Front 5 10%

So 10% of cyclists killed were killed by cars from behind

&

217 Driving Too Close To The Vehicle Alongside 5 10%

a further 10% as they try and squeeze past

4% killed RLJing if you belive Street.

you are correct regarding left turners

210 Turning Left 17 35%

15 * 2 * 5
* 46 = Happiness

Hackbike 6 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

blah blah blah

Theo Stegers
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

heh heh heh.[:D]

Hackbike 8 Commuting Debut 09/09/2006Dawes Audax 2006 New 20/09/2006 

 Cycle Commuting since 1981 

Cycling Proficiency Test 24 May 1977 (30 years ago)

 Ride to work part 1 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/ypjapc
Ride to work part 2 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/2jfagu
Ride to work part 3 of 8 http://tinyurl.com/2jcldv 

How not to lock a bike. http://i14.tinypic.com/52355zr.jpg

Roastie · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cab

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Roastie
Who said I'm swapping road positions? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

(further drivel cut)

(edited for slightly more polite response)

You seem to be flopping around rather, and missing the main point.

You're behaving selfishly and breaking the law in doing so. Its unforgiveable. End of.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Not flopping at all. Been consistent the whole way though. My point has always been that I agree with most anti-RLJ arguments, and hardly RLJ myself, but there are occasions when it is arguable that carefully going through a red can be the better option. I still believe this.

I think you just have issues with replying before you've bothered reading.

ps. you haven't explained to me how you deduced I ride in the gutter?

Roastie · June 2007

Something that occurred to me today:

There is a strong theme in this thread that cyclists must pander to the opinions of motorists, and hence must try to behave perfectly in order to be considered equal. But does this sort of subordinate approach not simply continue to perpetuate the perception of cyclists as "second cousin" road users?

Should cyclists not be making more noise about the behaviour of motorists? Problem is we are in the minority, we perpetuate the way we are perceived through our own behaviour, and we are frankly too busy with petty arguing amongst ourselves to move forward.

dondare · June 2007

It depends on the opinion.
If the opinion is that cyclists should be using the cycle-lanes, then no.
If the opinion is that cyclists have to ride in the gutter so as not to be in their way, then no.
If their opinion is that cyclists shouldn't ride though red lights, then they've got a point.

This sig is under construction.

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

To refresh your memory as to why I would not send you the details you had repeatedly showed you wanted to believe that the people who had been crushed had been undertaking the HGVs that did for them. That the cyclists were culpable. I had repeatedly called you crass. I know you remember. Why you wanted to believe this is clear, it is because this belief suits you preconceived ideas about cyclists who RLJ and cyclists who get crushed at lights. That your ideas in this regard are nonsense is borne out by the details of the six or so cyclists who have been killed in London this year. To continue to pedal this nonsense is a vanity. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

On the contrary mate, I feel I need to remind you. I pointed out that some cyclists collide with left turning wagons after having ridden up the inside of them. That's the reality. You kept using your 'crass' allegation in an attempt to avoid reality. You refuse to go anywhere near the truth that cyclists can sometimes get themselves into positions of danger. It's ridiculous, and this denial has no place in a responsible discussion about improving safety for cyclists. You're not helping anyone.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

The first sentence of your quoted mail above shows you out. In the Barbican thread I lost count of the times I asked you to explain the 130:0, I asked you every time you claimed to have explained it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And again, you're lying. You asked me to explain your figure, but wouldn't let me see the evidence. How childish.

And let's just refresh everyone's memory, though you won't like this. When I did get hold of the evidence, and distributed it to everyone who asked for a copy, it became clear why you had withheld it. Your 130 is not 130.

Your 130 included a drunk cyclist who hit a parked car and fell off his bike. Your 130 includes at least one cyclist who rode into a post. Your 130 includes at least one cyclist who rode off the pavement and into the path of a car. At least one cyclist who rode into the back of a car. 2+ cylists who had doors opened on them. A speeding driver who skidded on oil and into a cyclist.

(I got to number 23 of the list of 128 with those, but I think you got the gist)

All of the above examples are ones you use to justify why it is safer to jump red lights than not to. Can't you see how ridiculous that is? Or perhaps you have an explanation?

So come on Theo, let's get back to reality. You've got to stop being dishonest about this. Then we might be able to get some proper discussion going again.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

If anyone wants the TfL report, which lists 128 cyclist deaths and contributing factors, send me a message with your email address and I'll happily forward you a copy.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

tstegers · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

To refresh your memory as to why I would not send you the details you had repeatedly showed you wanted to believe that the people who had been crushed had been undertaking the HGVs that did for them. That the cyclists were culpable. I had repeatedly called you crass. I know you remember. Why you wanted to believe this is clear, it is because this belief suits you preconceived ideas about cyclists who RLJ and cyclists who get crushed at lights. That your ideas in this regard are nonsense is borne out by the details of the six or so cyclists who have been killed in London this year. To continue to pedal this nonsense is a vanity. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

On the contrary mate, I feel I need to remind you. I pointed out that some cyclists collide with left turning wagons after having ridden up the inside of them. That's the reality. You kept using your 'crass' allegation in an attempt to avoid reality. You refuse to go anywhere near the truth that cyclists can sometimes get themselves into positions of danger. It's ridiculous, and this denial has no place in a responsible discussion about improving safety for cyclists. You're not helping anyone.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

The first sentence of your quoted mail above shows you out. In the Barbican thread I lost count of the times I asked you to explain the 130:0, I asked you every time you claimed to have explained it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And again, you're lying. You asked me to explain your figure, but wouldn't let me see the evidence. How childish.

And let's just refresh everyone's memory, though you won't like this. When I did get hold of the evidence, and distributed it to everyone who asked for a copy, it became clear why you had withheld it. Your 130 is not 130.

Your 130 included a drunk cyclist who hit a parked car and fell off his bike. Your 130 includes at least one cyclist who rode into a post. Your 130 includes at least one cyclist who rode off the pavement and into the path of a car. At least one cyclist who rode into the back of a car. 2+ cylists who had doors opened on them. A speeding driver who skidded on oil and into a cyclist.

(I got to number 23 of the list of 128 with those, but I think you got the gist)

All of the above examples are ones you use to justify why it is safer to jump red lights than not to. Can't you see how ridiculous that is? Or perhaps you have an explanation?

So come on Theo, let's get back to reality. You've got to stop being dishonest about this. Then we might be able to get some proper discussion going again.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

If you believe what you wrote in your last two posts you are delusional. For whose benefit do you write this stuff? It cannot be mine, nor cannot it be for anyone who read the Barbiican thread at the time. That leaves you and perhaps darenot! The truth now, do you hear voices? Are you known to the social services?

In the incidents detailed there is bound to be flacky behaviour. But let's try and keep it simple: please explain why, flaky or not, RLJers seem to miss everything. Explain that zero/two at most.

Theo Stegers

Oddballcp · June 2007

You explain why it's impossible to talk to anyone else about cycling without the subject of red-light-jumping coming up within seconds. Explain why it doesn't matter that this makes everyone else hate cyclists.

http://victoryatseaonline.com/war/kellys.html

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

If you believe what you wrote in your last two posts you are delusional. For whose benefit do you write this stuff? It cannot be mine, nor cannot it be for anyone who read the Barbiican thread at the time. That leaves you and perhaps darenot! The truth now, do you hear voices? Are you known to the social services?

In the incidents detailed there is bound to be flacky behaviour. But let's try and keep it simple: please explain why, flaky or not, RLJers seem to miss everything. Explain that zero/two at most.

Theo Stegers
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

There you go getting all theatrical again. It just shows that you're sinking.

It's incredibly simple Theo, mate. Your 130:0 number is bunkum. The stats prove it. You going to admit it?? Are you going to stop lying and change your figures?

You're asking me how RLJers missed being drunk and falling in front of a car, riding off the pavement into the path of cars, being doored, hit by a speeding, skidding driver? I wonder if the two who were killed by riding into opening car doors were RLJers. Were they Theo? You don't know that they weren't. Did you know them? Do you not see how ridiculous your argument has become?

And those who were hit by left turning vehicles. Were they RLJers? You have no way of knowing. So you can't claim the figure. You're talking nonsense.

I don't think I need to say any more. It's not about RLJing or not RLJing. To try to manipulate figures and lie so blatantly, and use the deaths of cyclists to your own personal crusade is, to use your favourite term, crass.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

dondare · June 2007

Are there any figure for the number of cyclists fined for cycling through red lights, compared with the number fined for cycling through green ones?

This sig is under construction.

dondare · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

If you believe what you wrote in your last two posts you are delusional. For whose benefit do you write this stuff? It cannot be mine, nor cannot it be for anyone who read the Barbiican thread at the time. That leaves you and perhaps darenot! The truth now, do you hear voices? Are you known to the social services?

In the incidents detailed there is bound to be flacky behaviour. But let's try and keep it simple: please explain why, flaky or not, RLJers seem to miss everything. Explain that zero/two at most.

Theo Stegers
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's Dondare you pusillanimous little turd. Fixed.

This sig is under construction.

il_principe · June 2007

Theo's use (mangling) of the English language never ceases to amuse/amaze.

My Best Bike

tstegers · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

There you go getting all theatrical again. It just shows that you're sinking.

It's incredibly simple Theo, mate. Your 130:0 number is bunkum. The stats prove it. You going to admit it?? Are you going to stop lying and change your figures?

You're asking me how RLJers missed being drunk and falling in front of a car, riding off the pavement into the path of cars, being doored, hit by a speeding, skidding driver? I wonder if the two who were killed by riding into opening car doors were RLJers. Were they Theo? You don't know that they weren't. Did you know them? Do you not see how ridiculous your argument has become?

And those who were hit by left turning vehicles. Were they RLJers? You have no way of knowing. So you can't claim the figure. You're talking nonsense.

I don't think I need to say any more. It's not about RLJing or not RLJing. To try to manipulate figures and lie so blatantly, and use the deaths of cyclists to your own personal crusade is, to use your favourite term, crass.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

"Bunkum" really? Is this another case of you confusing yourself with someone/something else? Bunkum: OED, nonsense. Nonsense should easily be exposed me thinks. Despite repeated attempts and many claims on your part you have not made a case that what I am saying is nonsense. not even close.

I will try to help you out. You and yours have repeatedly made the case that RLJers are likely to be less competent, less experienced, less worthy, selfish, if not self absorbed cyclists. I think you are wrong and they are likely to be more or less representative of all cyclists. Given that roughly between 30% and 75% jump lights in London it must be the case RLJers are broadly representative. (please bear in mind here that this presumption would tend to work against my case) Some RLJers will be flaky unobservant and dangerous, some the opposite. Just like the cyclists who comply with lights. OK?

Now please explain the discrepancy between those killed complying and those killed jumping. Strip out the flaky stuff from the details of fatalities supplied by TfL. If you like you can double the number of strip outs to stay on the conservative side of things. Just treat both groups - those killed complying and those killed jumping - equally. What are you left with. Try to remember it's a comparative thing. It is the ratio one to the other that is important.

Now you should retract your claim that I am a liar and apologise. Of course I doubt you will. Bunkum? You are deluded and not fit to judge what might qualify as bunkum.

Theo Stegers

TheJollyJimLad · June 2007

It doesn't matter what broad spectrum of cyclists in London break red lights Theo. They could be men, women or slightly confused. They could be of any creed or colour. They could be Landscape Architects, Statisticians for the DfT, the Prime Minister of Norway. It doesn't matter. You are wrong. Breaking red lights is against the law. End of. It really is that simple and I can't believe this is still under debate.

How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?

tstegers · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dondare

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That's Dondare you pusillanimus little turd.

This sig is under construction.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

ddddddare.not! "pusillanimus little turd", I take it you mean pusillanimous. I'm not too familiar with the word, I had to look it up. OED: Timid, lacking courage. While I had the dictionary to hand I also looked up turd. I thought I was familiar here - but just in case. Turd: a ball of excrement.

So I am a timid excrement baller. Hm... But I have repeatedly irritated you and you have repeatedly made yourself look foolish. I am thinking here of the fact you are apparently cowed by rhetorical questions from drivers and acquaintances concerning cyclists who jump lights, ride up one way streets and on pavements. These questions never arise from my acquaintances. Not to mention your silly claims that accidents do not happen at red lights. And the curious question in your penultimate post to this thread, asking about the ratio of people fined jumping reds to people fined going through greens. Eh?? Then we have the self aggrandising claims to writing "excellent" letters to The Standard.

So if I am a timid excrement baller what does that make someone who is showing signs of obsession with the same? A subordinate/junior excrement baller?

Please remember after balling up your excrement to wash your hands. And please while you are at it think about why cyclists are so infrequently killed or injured when jumping lights compared to the numbers killed when complying with them. Answers please. If you leave the excrement alone it should be easy for you...

Theo Stegers

tstegers · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by TheJollyJimLad

It doesn't matter what broad spectrum of cyclists in London break red lights Theo. They could be men, women or slightly confused. They could be of any creed or colour. They could be Landscape Architects, Statisticians for the DfT, the Prime Minister of Norway. It doesn't matter. You are wrong. Breaking red lights is against the law. End of. It really is that simple and I can't believe this is still under debate.

How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No. What matters old boy is that so many are killed and maimed while complying with lights. That is why there is a debate. I hope that helps to make things clearer for you.

Theo Stegers

TheJollyJimLad · June 2007

Theo

You still aren't getting it are you? Where the hell is your commute? You make it seem like the first 20 minutes from 'Saving Private Ryan'. I have never been in a threatening situation at traffic lights because I wait in a prominent position. Do motorists mind that I do this? Of course not, and do you know why? Because not one motorist is out there to try and kill me. Not one.
Play by the rules, you never know, you might enjoy it.

How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?

Mister Paul · June 2007

quote]Originally posted by tstegers

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

There you go getting all theatrical again. It just shows that you're sinking.

It's incredibly simple Theo, mate. Your 130:0 number is bunkum. The stats prove it. You going to admit it?? Are you going to stop lying and change your figures?

You're asking me how RLJers missed being drunk and falling in front of a car, riding off the pavement into the path of cars, being doored, hit by a speeding, skidding driver? I wonder if the two who were killed by riding into opening car doors were RLJers. Were they Theo? You don't know that they weren't. Did you know them? Do you not see how ridiculous your argument has become?

And those who were hit by left turning vehicles. Were they RLJers? You have no way of knowing. So you can't claim the figure. You're talking nonsense.

I don't think I need to say any more. It's not about RLJing or not RLJing. To try to manipulate figures and lie so blatantly, and use the deaths of cyclists to your own personal crusade is, to use your favourite term, crass.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

"Bunkum" really? Is this another case of you confusing yourself with someone/something else? Bunkum: OED, nonsense. Nonsense should easily be exposed me thinks. Despite repeated attempts and many claims on your part you have not made a case that what I am saying is nonsense. not even close. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Read the above Theo. A cyclist killed by riding into an opening car door. How can you say whether or not the cyclist was RLJer? How would RLJing have saved him? But you still use his example of one of yours who would have been saved by RLJing. See? Very, very simply put. A clear case. And that's just one example of your bunkum. Nonsense.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

I will try to help you out. You and yours have repeatedly made the case that RLJers are likely to be less competent, <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And now you're lying.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

less experienced, <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
untrue
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

less worthy, <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
completely untrue
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

selfish, <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yup
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

if not self absorbed cyclists. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yup
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

I think you are wrong and they are likely to be more or less representative of all cyclists. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, given that I have pointed out that the claims you have made above are untrue, you can't follow on to say that I'm wrong. More bunkum.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

Given that roughly between 30% and 75% jump lights in London it must be the case RLJers are broadly representative. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Again, nonsense. Again, you manipulate figures. You claim that RLJers are those who ignore the lights and proceed when they want to. Yet, the RLJ figures you quote include those who stop ahead of the white line. So again, you're including a group who aren't doing what you say, in order to bulk up your figures. Nonsense.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

Some RLJers will be flaky unobservant and dangerous, some the opposite. Just like the cyclists who comply with lights. OK? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yup. Never disagreed with this. And some will be reckless cyclists which, remember, you admit to being. Not the kind of cyclist whose advise should be followed by anyone really are you Theo?[;)]
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

Now please explain the discrepancy between those killed complying and those killed jumping. Strip out the flaky stuff from the details of fatalities supplied by TfL. If you like you can double the number of strip outs to stay on the conservative side of things. Just treat both groups - those killed complying and those killed jumping - equally. What are you left with. Try to remember it's a comparative thing. It is the ratio one to the other that is important.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's been explained to you, very very simply, why you can't use the figures that you use. 130:0 (or 2) you claim. Now, to support your argument, you need to go through the 130, and strip out the majority for who RLJing or not wasn't the issue. For some reason you can't see your flaw.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

Now you should retract your claim that I am a liar and apologise. Of course I doubt you will. Bunkum? You are deluded and not fit to judge what might qualify as bunkum.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

On the contrary, even in this post you have lied. As has been shown. And you continue to manipulate the figures.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by tstegers

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by TheJollyJimLad

It doesn't matter what broad spectrum of cyclists in London break red lights Theo. They could be men, women or slightly confused. They could be of any creed or colour. They could be Landscape Architects, Statisticians for the DfT, the Prime Minister of Norway. It doesn't matter. You are wrong. Breaking red lights is against the law. End of. It really is that simple and I can't believe this is still under debate.

How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No. What matters old boy is that so many are killed and maimed while complying with lights. That is why there is a debate. I hope that helps to make things clearer for you.

Theo Stegers
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Nonsense. What matters Theo, is that your excitedly trumpeted research showed that many are killed not by complying with lights, but by cycling off pavements into the path of traffic, by cycling into statinary cars, by being doored, being hit by speeding drivers, by trying to filter back into traffic from the opposite lane, by cycling into posts, and being run over by left-turning vehicles.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

FatBlokeFromFelixstowe · June 2007

Mister Paul, thanks for e mailing those tfl figures. I have had a look over and can concur with you that our reckless friend is indeed talking out of his harris. No real suprise there.

My e bay bargain œ 31.05
http://tinyurl.com/366awv

rothbook · June 2007

The last time this was explained to Theo he disappeared.

tstegers · June 2007

Mister Paul
All in the above two posts is a good example of your attempts to use specific examples to discredit a general danger. Consistent with the crass "undertaking" speculation we have seen from you so many times before.

If it was not safer to jump than to comply you would expect at least a third of the total killed when complying to be killed while jumping. This on the most generous measure of the numbers who jump vs the numbers who comply. What do we have by your count? About 100: 0. I'll settle for that. For that matter I will settle for Jenny Jones's count too. Wasn't that 25 killed while "waiting" 1999-2004? For the nth time please explain the nil.

The truth is that the six that I am aware of who have been killed at lights since late December last are probably representative. I have not seen one of them described as incompetent or inexperienced. Quite the reverse in the four cases among this group that I saw described. Spare me the "excited" description by the way, it's deluded, assumptive, inaccurate.

Theo Stegers

Cab · June 2007

I'm still waiting for the extra information Theo claimed to have that made everything he says true. He promised it, it never came.

So, once again Theo, put up or shut up.

Free baby elephants for every citizen
Vote Arch for Prime Minister

dondare · June 2007

Theo, for once I'm wrong and you're right.

That's pusillanimous little turd.

This whole RLJ thing

Comments

Categories