RlJ'er gets nicked part II

12346»

Comments

  • PBo
    PBo Posts: 2,493



    Really I could go on, but practically it isn't worth it. You are a bigot, in the classic sense of the word. You refuse to acknowldge any other view point despite logical counter-arguments to your posts. You create spurious statistics to back up your claims and rather than use clarity to highlight your points; you deliberately obfuscate your langage to generate a fiction of intellectualism

    It's all a bit pathetic to be blunt..

    weadmire - pwned!
  • weadmire
    weadmire Posts: 165
    Kieran,

    My evidence for not being further than 50m from a traffic light is loosely confined to my experience of London generally and my area of London, EC2/Shoreditch particularly. Take Great Eastern Street, an arterial road way about 600m long. Between Shoreditch High Street and Old Street Tube station there are 8 sets of traffic lights. Norton Folgate/ Bishopsgate//Gracechurh St? I will ride down it tonight, there are fourteen sets of lights from the junction of Gt Eastern and Shoreditch High St to the point where I will turn left into Eastcheap, it's about a kilometer.

    Thank you for calling me a bigot without a shred of evidence that would stand a moments examination. What is your motivation in this? Like many of your peers and the people whose approbation I think you strive for I believe in casting this aspersion you are motivated to spin your legacy of sanctimony and dreary support of the traffic light status quo.

    Why should I thank you? Because it gives me the opportunity to correct you and restate my case, since as well as calling me a bigot you also seek to traduce my argument.

    Neither the report nor table twelve represent the “cornerstone of my case”.

    My case is that it is safer to jump than wait. This is supported by the fact that there are almost no incidents of traffic light jumping cyclists being killed while there are numerous incidents where traffic light compliers have been killed. The reports I provided are interesting in providing some official analysis of this but irrespective of the analysis it is the case that since January 1999 it is jumpers 2 or less and compliers more than 80. In this I am being generous in letting the CTC 2 stand. These comparative numbers cannot be explained away by issues such as experience, or proportions of jumpers or the numbers that arrive with the lights at green, red or amber.

    It is worth repeating a point I made earlier: if jumpers, as committed non compliers, are under represented are they matched by a group of compliers in an equal and opposite way? Some people on the other side of the bell jar so to speak? Indeed there are. Experienced traffic light complying women cyclists aged 25-55 are hugely over represented.

    With an open mind it is clear enough for everyone to see. If you are an insecure, weak bigot too worried by the opinions of others however you might have some difficulty...

    Wallace,

    By its own definition the report had jumpers at more than 70%. By definition, outlook, inclination, good sense and every other measure it is best to be prepared to jump, in south east London about 70% of cyclists appear to agree with me. I think your point about experience is a red herring. It is safer for everyone not to trust traffic lights, experience has little to do with it. Traffic lights deliver dangerous conglomerations of traffic and bore and distract drivers. They are a useless and expensive waste.

    Biondino

    Is that it? Is that your idea of extreme prejudice? Wow, you are a wel'ard among wel'ards I must say. You should come over and see us.
    WeAdmire.net
    13-15 Great Eastern Street
    London EC2A 3EJ
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 18,878
    coventry_europe.jpg

    Excellent location for a tee shirt salesman
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • You are even contradicting yourself now. You stated that the CTC report was less recent than the TFL one you are so fond of. So precisely how you think it is valid to assume that the "2" from the CTC report are 2 of the same 87 incidents in the other report escapes me.

    The CTC report, to my reading of it at least, indicated that 2 rljers were killed and 3 non-rljers were killed out of the incidents studied. In the same report, from memory, there was an indication that 18% of cyclists encountering a red light were going to jump it. So, if you are working with the data of a single report, there seems to be an indication that 18% of incidents gave rise to 40% of the deaths. You simply will not tackle that point, preferring instead to make some other numbers up.

    These are very very small sample sizes, however.

    Note that even if you decide to use the data from the other report (which is of course rediculous thing to do), which appears to indicate that 40% of lights are jumped (why you are sticking to your guns with the 70% also escapes me) then, still, proportions would indicate that fatalities are roughly in line with the incidence of rljing.

    Still, if this is all too inconvenient, why not revert to the contention that 98% of cyclists run red lights and that there has never been a rljer injured or killed anywhere ever, and that's a big number so there I'm right I'm right I'm right.

    The reason people take the pis$ out of you WeadMire is that from post #1 you haven't had the decency to converse politely with anyone. You make stuff up, you are rude, you fail to answer direct questions and instead throw back invective and quote some other random factoid to deflect from answering a question that is either beyond you or contradicts your view point. From the outside looking in, you are marching out of step, but you are absolute in your belief that you ar the only one marching in step.

    I think you have a personality disorder, really I do.
  • weadmire wrote:
    Kieran,

    My evidence for not being further than 50m from a traffic light is loosely confined to my experience of London generally and my area of London, EC2/Shoreditch particularly. Take Great Eastern Street, an arterial road way about 600m long. Between Shoreditch High Street and Old Street Tube station there are 8 sets of traffic lights. Norton Folgate/ Bishopsgate//Gracechurh St? I will ride down it tonight, there are fourteen sets of lights from the junction of Gt Eastern and Shoreditch High St to the point where I will turn left into Eastcheap, it's about a kilometer.

    Thank you for calling me a bigot without a shred of evidence that would stand a moments examination. What is your motivation in this? Like many of your peers and the people whose approbation I think you strive for I believe in casting this aspersion you are motivated to spin your legacy of sanctimony and dreary support of the traffic light status quo.

    Why should I thank you? Because it gives me the opportunity to correct you and restate my case, since as well as calling me a bigot you also seek to traduce my argument.

    Neither the report nor table twelve represent the “cornerstone of my case”.

    My case is that it is safer to jump than wait. This is supported by the fact that there are almost no incidents of traffic light jumping cyclists being killed while there are numerous incidents where traffic light compliers have been killed. The reports I provided are interesting in providing some official analysis of this but irrespective of the analysis it is the case that since January 1999 it is jumpers 2 or less and compliers more than 80. In this I am being generous in letting the CTC 2 stand. These comparative numbers cannot be explained away by issues such as experience, or proportions of jumpers or the numbers that arrive with the lights at green, red or amber.

    It is worth repeating a point I made earlier: if jumpers, as committed non compliers, are under represented are they matched by a group of compliers in an equal and opposite way? Some people on the other side of the bell jar so to speak? Indeed there are. Experienced traffic light complying women cyclists aged 25-55 are hugely over represented.

    With an open mind it is clear enough for everyone to see. If you are an insecure, weak bigot too worried by the opinions of others however you might have some difficulty...

    Wallace,

    By its own definition the report had jumpers at more than 70%. By definition, outlook, inclination, good sense and every other measure it is best to be prepared to jump, in south east London about 70% of cyclists appear to agree with me. I think your point about experience is a red herring. It is safer for everyone not to trust traffic lights, experience has little to do with it. Traffic lights deliver dangerous conglomerations of traffic and bore and distract drivers. They are a useless and expensive waste.

    Biondino

    Is that it? Is that your idea of extreme prejudice? Wow, you are a wel'ard among wel'ards I must say. You should come over and see us.

    Ha, ha, ha, ha ,ha ,ha ,ha, ha ,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,. ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ah. ha. ha. ah,ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. ,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,. ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, he, he, he, ho ,ho, ho ,ho ,ho ,he, he,. he, he, heil, heil, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ho, ho ,ho, ho, ho. <Intake of breath>

    wanker, wanker, wanker, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, h,a ,ha ,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho! he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he. ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,. ha!

    Oh, fuck it! I've got a 7 o'clock call tomorrow!
  • weadmire wrote:
    My evidence for not being further than 50m from a traffic light is loosely confined to my experience of London generally and my area of London, EC2/Shoreditch particularly. Take Great Eastern Street, an arterial road way about 600m long. Between Shoreditch High Street and Old Street Tube station there are 8 sets of traffic lights. Norton Folgate/ Bishopsgate//Gracechurh St? I will ride down it tonight, there are fourteen sets of lights from the junction of Gt Eastern and Shoreditch High St to the point where I will turn left into Eastcheap, it's about a kilometer.

    Wow! Are you really that bad at sums, going with the figures you quote you are closer to 100m (70-75m to be more accurate) from a traffic light than 50m. Are you exaggerating for effect? Don't get me wrong no-body thinks all those lights are a great idea but jumping everyone to make a point is stupid!
    Neither the report nor table twelve represent the “cornerstone of my case”.

    So why are you constantly wrongly quoting numbers from them to make your case???
    ...but irrespective of the analysis it is the case that since January 1999 it is jumpers 2 or less and compliers more than 80.

    Hear we go again…as AT has stated (I don’t think it can be overstated) these are 2 different studies!!! The 2 jumpers in the CTC report are apposed to 3 compliers, who incidentally were killed by people performing that very safe art of RLJing!

    The more than 80, you quote, refers to the total amount of people killed in the HGV report (87 to be accurate) but only 37 (42%) of these were at a light controlled junction, supposedly people complying with lights (which also isn’t stated). There is absolutely nothing in the report to state whether the 58% of people killed away from lights were non-rljers, RLJers or where they were on the road. If your 70% stat for jumpers is correct a good proportion of them could be RLJers, but of course that's just speculation :wink:
  • biondino
    biondino Posts: 5,990
    Can we lock the thread and ban the special kid?

    No, not Kieran, the other guy.
  • biondino wrote:
    Can we lock the thread and ban the special kid?

    No, not Kieran, the other guy.

    Have I just been insulted or complimented? :shock: :wink:
    Chunky Cyclists need your love too! :-)
    2009 Specialized Tricross Sport
    2011 Trek Madone 4.5
    2012 Felt F65X
    Proud CX Pervert and quiet roadie. 12 mile commuter
  • The Rookie
    The Rookie Posts: 27,812
    Its a compliment......

    As for Weadmire, I assume the 'ourselves' was too long for a name tag?

    Did you know 92.3% of statistics are made up on the spot...well that wone was but I reckon it sums up weadmires statistical capability as last time I checked 2+2 still equalled 4 not the 6 weadmire would drum up!

    Simon
    Currently riding a Whyte T130C, X0 drivetrain, Magura Trail brakes converted to mixed wheel size (homebuilt wheels) with 140mm Fox 34 Rhythm and RP23 suspension. 12.2Kg.
  • Wallace1492
    Wallace1492 Posts: 3,707
    I am bored with this now....

    The report did state that on the 10 junctions viewed, 39% were observed to jump the red light. End of. Yet We still seems to get 70%. There really is no point in this continuing.

    There are no facts to back up the statement that it is safer to RLJ, other than jumpers tend to be experienced, and as they are doing something illegal, and dangerous, will be on the look out for trouble.

    Not worth replying to the other points..... other than, who thinks it would be safer for everyone to jump all lights?

    Do you all think London would thrive if all the lights were turned off tomorrow?

    Answers on a postcard to:

    WeAdmire
    Shoreditch.
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"