staggerspool said:
Your opinion was supported by a quoted study that is incomplete. LMAO
Go ahead and try all you want to change it, but that is fact. It is an incomplete study.
Have a great day.
Drivers cause 90% of accidents with bikes
- Thread starter staggerspool
- Start date
Your opinion was supported by a quoted study that is incomplete. LMAO
Go ahead and try all you want to change it, but that is fact. It is an incomplete study.
Have a great day.
yeah, the title is extremely misleading. Cars may cause the accidents but that's like saying "if there were no cars on the roads, there'd be no bike/car accidents".
I was involed in a bike/car accident (I was in the car). It was at victoria street by ryerson. I was making a left and there were lots of pedestrians. As I was inching forward, a bunch of students stopped to let me through. A bicyclist came flying down the sidewalk between the pedestrians who stopped and right out in front of me. I hit him, he rolled over the hood.
The cops showed up and talked to witnesses (the ones who stopped to let me inch through) and didn't charge me. Even though pedestrians "always have the right of way" the cops told me that the other rule is that "pedestrians should stop, look both ways, and proceed when it is safe to do so" and they laughingly said they have yet to meet a pedestrian that does that......
The moral of the story is: yes I "hit" the cyclist and was the cause of the accident but I wasn't held to be at fault. I was turning, the cyclist was riding on the sidewalk (illegal) didn't stop (illegal) drove on a crosswalk (illegal).
I also wonder if the study took into account who was involved in the accidents. I have found that many who are involved in accidents, are always involved in accidents (kind of like 80% of accidents are caused by 10% of the drivers). Some just shouldn't be on the road (cyclists as well as motorized vehicles).
Then just look at the shear numbers. There are probably 100 times more vehicles on the road than cyclists. Just say there are 100000 cars on the road and 1000 at any given time. If 100 of those cyclists are involved in accidents, the odds of the car being the cause are 100 times more likely.
If you compare it per capita, that's only .1% of cars, and 10% of cyclists. I know those aren't actual numbers, but it only stands to reason that since there are so many more cars than bikes, cars will be the cause more often. Just because of the shear numbers involved.
Another example: I was driving along the bloor viaduct (bridge) and there is a big bike lane there. Some asswipe decides to whip out and pass all the other cyclists, into MY lane. I'm doing 60 kph, he's doing 10 or 15, I had to hammer on the brakes. Now one could argue that if I hit him, I caused the accident, (because if I wasn't there there couldn't have been an accident) but was I at fault? Nope. I heard on the radio on friday that the cops were instructed to ticket all cyclist infractions this weekend. One was "failing to yield to an overtaking vehicle". It was explained that 'slower vehicles must yield to faster vehicles" and I can tell you, fuji is one of them, who doesn't do that. They went on to describe that the fine for NOT following this rule is $128.00. (I do hope they caught fuji lol).
I was involed in a bike/car accident (I was in the car). It was at victoria street by ryerson. I was making a left and there were lots of pedestrians. As I was inching forward, a bunch of students stopped to let me through. A bicyclist came flying down the sidewalk between the pedestrians who stopped and right out in front of me. I hit him, he rolled over the hood.
The cops showed up and talked to witnesses (the ones who stopped to let me inch through) and didn't charge me. Even though pedestrians "always have the right of way" the cops told me that the other rule is that "pedestrians should stop, look both ways, and proceed when it is safe to do so" and they laughingly said they have yet to meet a pedestrian that does that......
The moral of the story is: yes I "hit" the cyclist and was the cause of the accident but I wasn't held to be at fault. I was turning, the cyclist was riding on the sidewalk (illegal) didn't stop (illegal) drove on a crosswalk (illegal).
I also wonder if the study took into account who was involved in the accidents. I have found that many who are involved in accidents, are always involved in accidents (kind of like 80% of accidents are caused by 10% of the drivers). Some just shouldn't be on the road (cyclists as well as motorized vehicles).
Then just look at the shear numbers. There are probably 100 times more vehicles on the road than cyclists. Just say there are 100000 cars on the road and 1000 at any given time. If 100 of those cyclists are involved in accidents, the odds of the car being the cause are 100 times more likely.
If you compare it per capita, that's only .1% of cars, and 10% of cyclists. I know those aren't actual numbers, but it only stands to reason that since there are so many more cars than bikes, cars will be the cause more often. Just because of the shear numbers involved.
Another example: I was driving along the bloor viaduct (bridge) and there is a big bike lane there. Some asswipe decides to whip out and pass all the other cyclists, into MY lane. I'm doing 60 kph, he's doing 10 or 15, I had to hammer on the brakes. Now one could argue that if I hit him, I caused the accident, (because if I wasn't there there couldn't have been an accident) but was I at fault? Nope. I heard on the radio on friday that the cops were instructed to ticket all cyclist infractions this weekend. One was "failing to yield to an overtaking vehicle". It was explained that 'slower vehicles must yield to faster vehicles" and I can tell you, fuji is one of them, who doesn't do that. They went on to describe that the fine for NOT following this rule is $128.00. (I do hope they caught fuji lol).
Cars, of course, actually ARE responsible to stay away from law abiding cyclists. That is the law, isn't it? This sort of attitude is why I don't trust the law to protect me as a rider.fijiman said:
As for 'cyclists rarely check their blind spots' - that is just an opinion. Perhaps you notice this and think it a common thing, but then I bet that pretty much every cyclist you encounter going your way on the road is someone you have passed. You would notice them not looking in their blind spot how? By having them pull out in front of you. So then, almost every time you pass a cyclist, they pull out in front of you? Not a credible observation.
Yeah, having a great time!SecretRendezvous said:
Well, I hesitate to point out that a complete study would be impossible (all interactions between bikes and cars throughout time, all rides and drives throughout history...) so we have to establish what you mean by 'incomplete.'
And how is your statement a fact? Like the sky is blue, or boys like girls? Or is there some subtlety I miss here? Is it a fact because you say so?
However, the studies continue to support the ongoing evolving notion that drivers create most of the problems between themselves and riders. And you can't change that without conducting a study. Make sure it is complete.
Nope - it is the people on bikes who are at fault completely. There are on our road.staggerspool said:
PS - TBOY - go get him. He is trying to take over your place in TERB. Are you really going to let that happen? Are you going soft on us? What is up?
Your road???? Hey, WTF... I pay taxes too!SecretRendezvous said:
(I trust you were being facetious... right?)
Nope - I am totally serious. The Sex Workers Union {oh no I said the "U" word} has convinced the government that if we finally pay ALL our taxes, we will actually get to control the Country. We end up paying more then any of you, so we rule. You lose.Cycleguy007 said:
Last year - didn't you get our memo?Geoff said:And when did you purchase all of the roads ?
We are changing all the names too, so I hope you like your username as we are now using all the TERB names as our street names.
Oh and for those we don't like - we are going to come up with some insulting name for you instead.
My BIG ASS MOSTER TRUCK baby!Geoff said:
It has a big picture of a naked woman on one side and naked guy on the other. If I like you by the time we meet, I will make sure that your faces lines up with her puss, cool?
Objectively, according to law, rolling thorugh a stop is illegal for either vehicle. And you are so scared of the cyclists that you chase them ("many times") with your car. There's a guy who I'd trust for objectivity. Or are you scared FOR them? Do us a favor, don't chase us with your death machine. That is scarey.Mia.Colpa said:
Yeah, I get you ride too. Yes, everyone agrees that everyone could do better.
You think I have lost objectivity - I think you are just not capable of it (or don't know what I mean by it), and cannot recognize the distinction between opinion based on biased personal experience and opinions based on facts derived from studies by large groups who are trained to figure out what is going on in the real world.
I also get that maintaining and defending a position with too much vigor pisses some people off. I'm cool with that, it helps me separate those whom I can take seriously from those who I just have fun with.
Ah, good, so you are joking. I thought you might be stupid or something...SecretRendezvous said:
I don't joke with little boys. They get upset, run home and cry to mommy......staggerspool said:
Now a man - he has something to offer, although some do need to be trained how to properly use their mouth around a woman. I don't do lessons though. I am sure someone else here can help you, or make a recommendation, since you think of yourself as a man.
Okay - in all seriousness. I have my own opinion about the study, and have my own opinion about the problems between a cyclist and a motorist. They are different from yours. If you want to think I am stupid, not objective, throwing around an opinion of no value - you go right ahead. All the power to ya hon.... You are anonymous poster on a website. Do you really think that your opinion of me, of anything for that matter is going to make a difference to me at all? Come on.... think about it? Does anyone's opinion here actually matter to you?
Though I don't ride as much as I used to as a student, when I depended on the bike completely, I still ride in the city pretty regularly. Ninety percent sounds high, but I've no doubt drivers are at fault most of the time in accidents with cyclists. And yes, I drive to work everyday. When I've had near misses with bikes while I'm driving, I admit I'm almost always at fault.
However, I'd say cyclists break the rules of the road more often than drivers. It's just that being on a light vehicle, and generally moving slower, their mistakes don't often cause as much of a ruckus.
One other thing: Many cyclists react as if they've caught you having a twosome with their mother and sister if you cut them off or scare them in traffic. I know bike couriers who carry around throwables to use in such cases. Couple of summers ago I saw one throw a fucking brick through a car window because the driver had cut him off on a narrow part of Bloor. Sorry, but just because you're on a bike you don't have permission to behave that way.
However, I'd say cyclists break the rules of the road more often than drivers. It's just that being on a light vehicle, and generally moving slower, their mistakes don't often cause as much of a ruckus.
One other thing: Many cyclists react as if they've caught you having a twosome with their mother and sister if you cut them off or scare them in traffic. I know bike couriers who carry around throwables to use in such cases. Couple of summers ago I saw one throw a fucking brick through a car window because the driver had cut him off on a narrow part of Bloor. Sorry, but just because you're on a bike you don't have permission to behave that way.
Dam! You control the pussy AND the roads! How's a guy supposed to get a head in life!? LOLSecretRendezvous said:
Identity is not relevant here but arguments are. Why even participate in a discussion if you're willing to risk learning something?
I am sending a private message in reply to this. I think the poster should be careful what they write, when they also provide means to contact them for other services.SecretRendezvous said:
Cycleguy007 said:Dam! You control the pussy AND the roads! How's a guy supposed to get a head in life!? LOL
You only get a-head, when I am in the mood to give head. So about 1pm then?
This is not a discussion. This is someone replying on one study to shove his opinion down the throat of others. A discussion is people bring 2, 3 even 4 different sides to the conversation at hand.luckyjackson said:
You want to have a discussion, I am game for that, but I have yet to see a discussion here.
Who said anything about soliciting? Stop assuming things, this is where you got yourself in trouble already. Oh and isn't this an Escort Board where I pay to advertise escorts? So would it matter if I did or didn't post soliciting services?staggerspool said:
BTW - I never have bad feelings.
Cycleguy007 said:
Hmm ask your wife, I think you've stated she is good at "head"
or you could be like the rest of us, and pay for it lol
