Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Alan de Enfield

Ducks 'get in the way of cyclists' 4500 eggs destroyed.

Featured Posts

12 minutes ago, frangar said:

Just for information I also detest fishermen so if you ride a bike and fish I suggest you are doomed.....

I think there is more to this view than meets the eye:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, frangar said:

I think a cull of cyclists would benefit the wider population much better....just trying to cross the road these days is tricky as apparently they don’t have to stop for red lights...

https://cyclinguphill.com/reviews/stats-cycling-red-lights/

The report concludes
A total of 7502 cyclists were surveyed across all of the sites. Of these, an average of 16% violated red lights, while the remaining 84% obeyed the traffic signals. Therefore it can be concluded that the majority of cyclists do not ride through red lights. However, the 16% that do must be discouraged from ignoring traffic signals.
Accidents at Red Lights.
Quite revealing is the statistic
"Of pedestrians injured in London in a collision caused by red light jumping only 4% involve cyclists, whereas 71% occur when a car driver jumps a red light and 13% when a motorcyclist does. As an organisation representing those two road user groups, CTC suggests IAM ought to call for more road traffic policing to enforce traffic laws, rather than highlighting red light jumping by cyclists." CTC
From the media coverage, it often feels running red lights is primarily a violation by cyclists. But, just 4% of accidents suggests that the danger posed by motor cars is much greater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

That looks like a well tunaed bike.

 

On a scale of 1 to 10 for silliness, it scores 10. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

On a scale of 1 to 10 for silliness, it scores 10. ?

Its all good fin.

4 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Which is a good thing, the world needs more silly

You rang?

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nbfiresprite said:

https://cyclinguphill.com/reviews/stats-cycling-red-lights/

The report concludes
A total of 7502 cyclists were surveyed across all of the sites. Of these, an average of 16% violated red lights, while the remaining 84% obeyed the traffic signals. Therefore it can be concluded that the majority of cyclists do not ride through red lights. However, the 16% that do must be discouraged from ignoring traffic signals.
Accidents at Red Lights.
Quite revealing is the statistic
"Of pedestrians injured in London in a collision caused by red light jumping only 4% involve cyclists, whereas 71% occur when a car driver jumps a red light and 13% when a motorcyclist does. As an organisation representing those two road user groups, CTC suggests IAM ought to call for more road traffic policing to enforce traffic laws, rather than highlighting red light jumping by cyclists." CTC
From the media coverage, it often feels running red lights is primarily a violation by cyclists. But, just 4% of accidents suggests that the danger posed by motor cars is much greater.

Wow! Also in conclusion, a dog has four legs, this table has four legs, this table is a dog. 

 

Firstly, 16% of cyclists surveyed ADMITTED jumping red lights. If that proportion of car drivers did so there would be carnage. Of course that's not possible as cars have to queue rather than filter to the front like cycles and motorbikes. 

 

The figures take no account of the vastly greater numbers of cars on the road or that a collision between pedestrian and cycle is less likely to result in a reportable injury than one involving a car or motorbike. 

 

I'm not jumping on the anti-cyclist bandwagon here, I just get irritated by such reports that clearly twist the numbers to suit their own agenda. I'm sure there are equally misrepresented figures from the 'ban-all-cyclists' lobby. 

 

  • Greenie 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting one. My friend wouldn't dream of driving through a red light but when he is on his bicycle he does if he thinks there's nothing coming.

 

When I asked him why he explained that if he stopped he had to get going again which required extra effort compared with rolling on through. It sounds like he's an ideal customer for an electric bike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stegra said:

Wow! Also in conclusion, a dog has four legs, this table has four legs, this table is a dog. 

 

Firstly, 16% of cyclists surveyed ADMITTED jumping red lights. If that proportion of car drivers did so there would be carnage. Of course that's not possible as cars have to queue rather than filter to the front like cycles and motorbikes. 

 

The figures take no account of the vastly greater numbers of cars on the road or that a collision between pedestrian and cycle is less likely to result in a reportable injury than one involving a car or motorbike. 

 

I'm not jumping on the anti-cyclist bandwagon here, I just get irritated by such reports that clearly twist the numbers to suit their own agenda. I'm sure there are equally misrepresented figures from the 'ban-all-cyclists' lobby. 

 

Firstly the survey was conducted by 'Transport for London'. Secondly, Cyclists or No other road users were asked questions. The survey was conducted at 5 different locations around London by counting (i.e Number of cycles pass a red light and number stopping, Total number passing throught the junction) So how can these figures be misrepresented.  

 

According to TFL between 1998 to 2007, 4% of pedestrian injuries were the result of red light jumping by cyclists.  Whereas 71% occur when a car driver jumps a red light and 13% when a motorcyclist does.

 

Red light jumping in London is prevalent amongst motorists with 47,932 fines issued in 2016 for drivers caught jumping red lights (that is 130 drivers a day!). Only  4089  cyclists were issued Fixed Penalty Notices after being caught jumping red lights in 2016.

 

Reasons for Fatalities and accidents

  1. A report by Transport for London found  fatal and serious collisions involving cyclists in 2011 showed that 56% were caused by the motorist driving in an ‘unlawful or anti-social’ manner, compared to only 6% caused by cyclists doing the same.
  2. Failed to look properly? was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions.

  3. Risky cycling behaviour? A Department for Transport report, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.

  4. In London 20% of fatal cycling accidents involve a HGV – often when a HGV is turning left at a junction. Often cause by the HGV overtaking just before turning.

  5. About 25% of serious accidents involve a HGV or bus ‘passing too close to a cyclist’

5 most common cycling accidents

  • Motorist emerging into path of cyclist (not seeing the cyclist on the road)
  • Motorist turning across path of cyclist
  • Cyclist and motorist going straight ahead
  • Cyclist turning right from a major road and from a minor road
  • Child cyclist playing or riding too fast

Jumping a red light is dangerous behaviour regardless of whether you are behind a steering wheel or handlebars. In London, between 2011 – 2015 (the most recent data available), 3 cyclists and 7 motor vehicle occupants were killed when a motorist jumped a red light whilst two cyclists were killed by red light jumping.

 

Road fatalities by mode of  transport 2013 Dapartment for Transport

  • Cycling fatalities – 109
  • Pedestrian fatalities – 398
  • Motorcycles – 331
  • Car – 785

Cars account for approx 78% of journeys but 46% of fatalities.

 

 

 

Edited by nbfiresprite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cheshire cat said:

It's an interesting one. My friend wouldn't dream of driving through a red light but when he is on his bicycle he does if he thinks there's nothing coming.

 

When I asked him why he explained that if he stopped he had to get going again which required extra effort compared with rolling on through. It sounds like he's an ideal customer for an electric bike.

Or A & E if he isn't very careful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jerra said:

The badger cull is a different ball game.   They aren't reducing the population without disturbance as is the case with egg pricking.   The cull creates disturbance and makes an area feel dangerous.  Survivors move out and being a nomadic animal moving setts regularly next door move in.

 

This is the basic problem with the cull, I suspect any short term reduction in local Tb infection will soon disappear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Shorely you cod do batter than that?

 

 

You sound like officer Crabtree....Good moaning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

This is the basic problem with the cull, I suspect any short term reduction in local Tb infection will soon disappear.

That and the fact it hasn't been clearly proven yet whether cattle pass Bovine Tuberculosis to Badgers or Vice Versa

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jerra said:

That and the fact it hasn't been clearly proven yet whether cattle pass Bovine Tuberculosis to Badgers or Vice Versa

Or they ignore rats, cats and other wildlife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, nbfiresprite said:

Firstly the survey was conducted by 'Transport for London'. Secondly, Cyclists or No other road users were asked questions. The survey was conducted at 5 different locations around London by counting (i.e Number of cycles pass a red light and number stopping, Total number passing throught the junction) So how can these figures be misrepresented.  

 

According to TFL between 1998 to 2007, 4% of pedestrian injuries were the result of red light jumping by cyclists.  Whereas 71% occur when a car driver jumps a red light and 13% when a motorcyclist does.

 

Red light jumping in London is prevalent amongst motorists with 47,932 fines issued in 2016 for drivers caught jumping red lights (that is 130 drivers a day!). Only over 4089  cyclists were issued Fixed Penalty Notices after being caught jumping red lights in 2016.

 

Reasons for Fatalities and accidents

  1. A report by Transport for London found  fatal and serious collisions involving cyclists in 2011 showed that 56% were caused by the motorist driving in an ‘unlawful or anti-social’ manner, compared to only 6% caused by cyclists doing the same.
  2. Failed to look properly? was attributed to the car driver in 57% of serious collisions and to the cyclist in 43% of serious collisions at junctions.

  3. Risky cycling behaviour? A Department for Transport report, found that in 2% of cases where cyclists were seriously injured in collisions with other road users police said that the rider disobeying a stop sign or traffic light was a likely contributing factor. Wearing dark clothing at night was seen as a potential cause in about 2.5% of cases, and failure to use lights was mentioned 2% of the time.

  4. In London 20% of fatal cycling accidents involve a HGV – often when a HGV is turning left at a junction. Often cause by the HGV overtaking just before turning.

  5. About 25% of serious accidents involve a HGV or bus ‘passing too close to a cyclist’

5 most common cycling accidents

  • Motorist emerging into path of cyclist (not seeing the cyclist on the road)
  • Motorist turning across path of cyclist
  • Cyclist and motorist going straight ahead
  • Cyclist turning right from a major road and from a minor road
  • Child cyclist playing or riding too fast

Jumping a red light is dangerous behaviour regardless of whether you are behind a steering wheel or handlebars. In London, between 2011 – 2015 (the most recent data available), 3 cyclists and 7 motor vehicle occupants were killed when a motorist jumped a red light whilst two cyclists were killed by red light jumping.

 

Road fatalities by mode of  transport 2013 Dapartment for Transport

  • Cycling fatalities – 109
  • Pedestrian fatalities – 398
  • Motorcycles – 331
  • Car – 785

Cars account for approx 78% of journeys but 46% of fatalities.

 

 

 

Ok, I'll bite but I'd like to emphasize again that I'm not anti-bike, just don't like to see statistics played with. 

 

I accept that the survey is accurate given your clarification. However, there's no mention of the percentage of cars jumping red lights and there are far more of them. They're also more likely to cause injuries or death than a cycle. 

 

The figures for fixed penalty notices don't account for the disparity in numbers either, but more importantly, the fact that cameras don't catch cyclists. There needs to be someone on the ground to catch them. 

 

The final sentence, "Cars account for approx 78% of journeys but 46% of fatalities" seems to be counter to the whole argument. Surely this indicates that cars are safer and that 22% of journeys by other means are responsible for 54% of fatalities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stegra said:

Firstly, 16% of cyclists surveyed ADMITTED jumping red lights. If that proportion of car drivers did so there would be carnage. Of course that's not possible as cars have to queue rather than filter to the front like cycles and motorbikes.

Where does it say "admitted"? I think that's your word as it doesn't appear in the article, which says:

 

"Transport for London Conducted a survey at 5 different locations around London and marked the number of cyclists who went through red lights."

 

Looks to me that they just watched cyclist's behaviour.

 

Edit, sorry missed your reply above

Edited by NB Caelmiri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that, whilst the article gives another excuse I suppose to have a go at cyclists, the wording from English Nature regarding the granting of the licence stated,"...Mallards congregate around the [location withheld] where they are fed. This includes outside seating areas of restaurants. Faeces are a problem in these areas....." doesn't seem to be much criticism of the 'snowflakes' who seem to object to eating their meals around piles of duck sh*t, why is that?

Edited by Wanderer Vagabond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Shorely you cod do batter than that?

 

 

Yes but what’s the scale? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, frangar said:

I think a cull of cyclists would benefit the wider population much better....just trying to cross the road these days is tricky as apparently they don’t have to stop for red lights...and don’t get me started about the way they think they have a right to cycle on the pavement....as a stout chap at least  I can make my presence felt....sadly something the blind or elderly can’t do!

I'd rather have a cull on idiots. We've too many of them. 

 

Cars kill hundreds of people each year but oh no the real bile is reserved for people on bikes. 

 

Try going to a few of your mates funerals and you'll see where the real danger is. Crappy motorists driving while on the phone or driving blind at speed into the sunlight and just hoping nothing is in the way. 

 

I've never heard of a cyclist asking for a cull of ducks. Never had a close call with one. They've just made it up as an excuse. 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cougie said:

 

I've never heard of a cyclist asking for a cull of ducks. Never had a close call with one. They've just made it up as an excuse. 

Cycling groups did not request that the eggs were destroyed. But a jack booted Health and safety Nutcase who did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I find it interesting that, whilst the article gives another excuse I suppose to have a go at cyclists, the wording from English Nature regarding the granting of the licence stated,"...Mallards congregate around the [location withheld] where they are fed. This includes outside seating areas of restaurants. Faeces are a problem in these areas....." doesn't seem to be much criticism of the 'snowflakes' who seem to object to eating their meals around piles of duck sh*t, why is that?

high time we culled snowflakes.

 

perhaps a medicine that will cause them to melt and run off into the gutters when the temperature rises above 15C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.