Anyone on here - Barrister who films road rage?!

DonDaddyD

So you accept that cyclists can be the cause of accidents that also involve motor vehicles?

mybreakfastconsisted

DonDaddyD wrote:

So you accept that cyclists can be the cause of accidents that also involve motor vehicles?

I'm happy to be shown evidence of that happening. I've never heard of any. the specific claim was that cyclists cause accidents then flee. If this was a common occurrence it's strange there don't seem to be any examples.

DonDaddyD

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

So you accept that cyclists can be the cause of accidents that also involve motor vehicles?

I'm happy to be shown evidence of that happening. I've never heard of any. the specific claim was that cyclists cause accidents then flee. If this was a common occurrence it's strange there don't seem to be any examples.

Well I thank you for showing willingness to consider such evidence, but you are avoiding the the question.

My question was:

DDD previously wrote:

So you accept that cyclists can be the cause of accidents that also involve motor vehicles?

Do you accept the possiblity that this can be the case?

mybreakfastconsisted

the reason I'm circumspect is because such claims are often made by petrolheads who want cyclists to have registration plates. This is never going to happen, obviously, but it's a claim I've seen elsewhere, like the cyclist who caused a petrol tanker to swerve and explode, destroying the entire centre of Ipswich and causing over £30 worth of damage.

DonDaddyD

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

the reason I'm circumspect is because such claims are often made by petrolheads who want cyclists to have registration plates. This is never going to happen, obviously, but it's a claim I've seen elsewhere, like the cyclist who caused a petrol tanker to swerve and explode, destroying the entire centre of Ipswich and causing over £30 worth of damage.

OK, that is fine and I'm sure valid in your mind. It doesn't answer my question though, which you have yet again chosen not to answer directly. Are you going to answer my question.

My question is this:

Do you accept the possiblity that a cyclist can be the cause of accidents that also involves a motor vehicle?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

mybreakfastconsisted

Yes or no.

You're hectoring DDD and it's draining my positive energy, of course I accept it could happen, I'm inviting people to show me examples!

It's Friday, I'm not going to fart around with people picking fights, I've just had a numpty pull out in front of me on a roundabout and do that Stare Ahead Nothing Happened look, I refuse to allow anyone else try make me discumknockerated and needled.

Bon chance.

DonDaddyD

Trim the fat.

DDD wrote:

Do you accept the possiblity that a cyclist can be the cause of accidents that also involves a motor vehicle?

And

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

of course I accept it could happen

Thanks. That's all.

Because I mean if you can accept that it could happen you can also accept the possiblity that a cyclist would then ride off knowing that there it is highly unlikely he will be caught at a later date. What with th lack of licence plate.

This, of course, being EKE's point which you dismissed due to a lack of visual examples.

Clarion

But are there any examples?

MBC has conceded that it's possible. Just as it is possible that the Queen will abdicate this afternoon. Until I hear a report of that, I'll remain of the opinion that it's highly unlikely.

EKE_38BPM

Clarion wrote:

But are there any examples?

MBC has conceded that it's possible. Just as it is possible that the Queen will abdicate this afternoon. Until I hear a report of that, I'll remain of the opinion that it's highly unlikely.

Yes, on the hard drives here at work.

No, you can't see them. If the company want/need to release the footage, I'm sure they will, but its not up to me.

mybreakfastconsisted

I have several filing cabinets filled to the brim with secret evidence that I'm right.

DonDaddyD

Clarion wrote:

But are there any examples?

MBC has conceded that it's possible.

If he has conceded that it is possible then why does he need examples?

We are not talking about something that is hugely unlikely to happen. We are already aware of car drivers driving off from accidents and collisions when they think they can get away with it. It isn't unlikely that cyclists can and will do the same given that there is even less chance that they will be caught.

Common sense and rational judgement is needed. Instead MDC would rather hide behind the age old internet debate defence of 'proof or it doesn't happen' lest he'd might have to admit he is mistake or heavens crumble, wrong.

The man's a child.

bigmat

DDD, do you accept the possiblity that extra-terrestrials might be visiting earth?

A lot of things are "possible", but without any evidence its just a lot of hot air. I think that is MBC's point. Personally, I think its likely that there are some incidents where cyclists cause accidents and then ride off, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence about which suggests that its a very minor issue.

DonDaddyD

BigMat wrote:

DDD, do you accept the possiblity that extra-terrestrials might be visiting earth?

A lot of things are "possible", but without any evidence its just a lot of hot air. I think that is MBC's point. Personally, I think its likely that there are some incidents where cyclists cause accidents and then ride off, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence about which suggests that its a very minor issue.

Oh come on you're better than that!

When talking about possibilities/probabilities its safe to say that there is more chance of a cyclist causing an accident and riding off than effing aliens visiting Earth.

In fact it's safe to say that cyclists causing an accient and riding away does actually happen.

I cannot account for the volume of evidence, I haven't done the research. But I think its a weak and pathetic tactic (and it is a tactic) to demand evidence and proof of this (cyclists causing accidents and riding off) happening when its so bleeding obvious that it could and does happen.

I've never seen a rape, I don't personally know anyone who has been raped. Does that mean in an internet debate that if there is no proof it doesn't happen? Because that's MDC's defense when he dismissed EKE's example.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

In fact it's safe to say that cyclists causing an accient and riding does actually happen.

I cannot account for the volume of evidence, I haven't done the research. But I think its a weak and pathetic tactic (and it is a tactic) to demand evidence and proof of this (cyclists causing accidents and riding off) happening when its so bleeding obvious that it could and does happen.

Indeed. FFS people we know cyclists aren't alwasy angels.

Wasn't there a thread on here recently about an RLJer who hit a ped and left the scene?

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

BigMat wrote:

DDD, do you accept the possiblity that extra-terrestrials might be visiting earth?

A lot of things are "possible", but without any evidence its just a lot of hot air. I think that is MBC's point. Personally, I think its likely that there are some incidents where cyclists cause accidents and then ride off, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence about which suggests that its a very minor issue.

Oh come on you're better than that!

When talking about possibilities/probabilities its safe to say that there is more chance of a cyclist causing an accident and riding off than effing alines visiting Earth.

In fact it's safe to say that cyclists causing an accient and riding does actually happen.

I cannot account for the volume of evidence, I haven't done the research. But I think its a weak and pathetic tactic (and it is a tactic) to demand evidence and proof of this (cyclists causing accidents and riding off) happening when its so bleeding obvious that it could and does happen.

I've never seen a rape, I don't personally know anyone who has been raped. Does that mean in an internet debate that if there is no proof it didn't happen. Because that's MDC's defense.

I think the lack of evidence is interesting in that it suggests that the issue isn't as widespreas as certain parts of the press, and "petrolheads" like to suggest. There's a perception that cyclists are a menace to society which I just don't accept. I'd been giving MBC the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he was making a similar argument - I don't think he really thinks that cyclists never cause accidents does he? (in fact he's already made that concession hasn't he?)

W1

BigMat wrote:

I think the lack of evidence is interesting in that it suggests that the issue isn't as widespreas as certain parts of the press, and "petrolheads" like to suggest. There's a perception that cyclists are a menace to society which I just don't accept. I'd been giving MBC the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he was making a similar argument - I don't think he really thinks that cyclists never cause accidents does he? (in fact he's already made that concession hasn't he?)

Being a menace, and causing accidents, aren't the same thing of course.

I think cyclists can be perceived as a "menace" for anti-social riding with good justification.

I also don't think that cyclists causing accidents and scarpering is a huge problem.

But I don't think that it never happens.

Where's the media evidence for cyclists causing accidents being a "problem"?

DonDaddyD

BigMat wrote:

I think the lack of evidence is interesting in that it suggests that the issue isn't as widespreas as certain parts of the press, and "petrolheads" like to suggest. There's a perception that cyclists are a menace to society which I just don't accept. I'd been giving MBC the benefit of the doubt by assuming that he was making a similar argument - I don't think he really thinks that cyclists never cause accidents does he? (in fact he's already made that concession hasn't he?)

No the lack of evidence could indicate a number of things.

#1. They don't actually catch the cyclist of have enough of a description to form an invesitgation.

#2. The ratio of accidents caused by cyclists cannot be determined by onlookers and other drivers, it has to be determined legally. Given that cyclists can ride off one could argue that there just isn't enough cases (i.e. caught cyclists) to determine how many accidents they actually cause.

#3 Equally when comparing the number of accidents cyclists can cause what are you comparing to, the percentage of people who actually cycle isn't that significant a percentage in the first place.

But we are getting off the point. The point was MDC's dismissal to something so bleedingly obvious even though he admits he can freely believe that it does happen.

Specialized Needs

Greg66 wrote:

It is trolling. It's his Friday troll. A bit heavy handed today, though.

ETA: just to make sure the bleedin' obvious isn't overlooked:

MBC in one breath wrote:

I've just never heard of an accident caused by one

MBC in the next breath wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282411/Police-hunt-cyclist-linked-pensioners-bus-death-Woman-78-fell-double-decker-emergency-stop.html

I'll hold my hand up.

I've caused an accident when on a bike. I've keeled over into the side of a bendy bus through an epic toeclip fail. It certainly caused some superficial damage to the bus (to say nothing of my pannier). I didn't disappear, though. But the bus driver was fine about it - he was just glad I was OK (the biggest bruise was on my ego).

Also, when I was about 8 (several years back, now!) I rode straight into the side of a car who had right of way.

There are a couple of examples. I'm afraid I can prove neither of these beyond you accepting what I have said, though.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

Where's the media evidence for cyclists causing accidents being a "problem"?

Doesn't take long to find this evidence

W1

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Where's the media evidence for cyclists causing accidents being a "problem"?

Doesn't take long to find this evidence

The DAILY BLOODY MAIL! BURN HIM.

Was it a particular articlee, or anything with "cyclist" in it? Cos I'm not seeing a huge media backlash against scarpering cyclists...

mybreakfastconsisted

I caused an accident where Hackney Road ends. I cycled up to a bus at the lights and there was a girl with short hair sitting by the window. We made eye contact and I smiled. She smiled back. She was lovely, gamine and elfin, like Nicole Kidman in Birth:



I leant against the crash railing on my left, then as I toppled sideways and crashed to the ground I realised the barrier wasn't actually attached to anything. After about a year I unclippped and scrambled to my feet, face burning, got back on the bike and rode off without a backward glance.

We never did get married.

Troofact.

notsoblue

W1 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

W1 wrote:

Where's the media evidence for cyclists causing accidents being a "problem"?

Doesn't take long to find this evidence

The DAILY BLOODY MAIL! BURN HIM.

Was it a particular articlee, or anything with "cyclist" in it? Cos I'm not seeing a huge media backlash against scarpering cyclists...

Oops, apologies, I'm only half-heartedly trolling this thread at the moment. I was mainly trying to back up the point Mat makes here:

BigMat wrote:

There's a perception that cyclists are a menace to society which I just don't accept.

Cyclists in general are considered a "problem". So when someone makes a throwaway comment in the media about "scarpering cyclists" to back up a point, they get away with it.

Sure, cyclists cause accidents, but they are perceived to cause far more than they actually do.

dhope

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I caused an accident where Hackney Road ends. I cycled up to a bus at the lights and there was a girl with short hair sitting by the window. We made eye contact and I smiled. She smiled back. She was lovely, gamine and elfin, like Nicole Kidman in Birth:



I leant against the crash railing on my left, then as I toppled sideways and crashed to the ground I realised the barrier wasn't actually attached to anything. After about a year I unclippped and scrambled to my feet, face burning, got back on the bike and rode off without a backward glance.

We never did get married.

Troofact.

W1

notsoblue wrote:

Sure, cyclists cause accidents, but they are perceived to cause far more than they actually do.

We're going to have to diverge at this point (again). I don't think cyclists are known for causing accidents. Anti-social riding? Yeah, that gets people's heckles up.

But to the point - it's obvious that cyclists will have caused accidents and scarpered.

deptfordmarmoset

dhope wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

I caused an accident where Hackney Road ends. I cycled up to a bus at the lights and there was a girl with short hair sitting by the window. We made eye contact and I smiled. She smiled back. She was lovely, gamine and elfin, like Nicole Kidman in Birth:



I leant against the crash railing on my left, then as I toppled sideways and crashed to the ground I realised the barrier wasn't actually attached to anything. After about a year I unclippped and scrambled to my feet, face burning, got back on the bike and rode off without a backward glance.

We never did get married.

Troofact.

I've never seen anyone sum up the romantic potential of Hackney Road so succinctly!