ctc.org.uk/news/goodwill-re … g-guidance
Managed to find these stats regarding cyclists & the danger they cause to pedestrians. Just scroll down a little to find them, I realise it’s old, I have to get in touch with a chap this week for a more up to date list.
This is just for London & notice these are for pedestrians on the pavement. That’s where they are supposed to be & everyone else isn’t.
Slackbladder:
I’m still waiting for your evidence to back up the “cyclist have killed 10 people & injured 260 odd” or did you pull that out of you backside?
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/pedestriansbrf.pdf
Didn’t come from my backside unlike most of the crap you lot produce and that’s a pro cyclist stats so would be very interested to see the true figures also where the info was from and how many are uncounted for a vehicle hits are more easy traced then a nutter on a bike ridding off into the distance so like here they pull facts and figures to prove there point
So the figures you originally quoted were wrong then. Don’t know what “pro cycling stats” are, please elaborate. The figures I’ve put in come from tfl, that’s transport for london but, both have come from ctc, they are a cycling charity. I would agree that, occasionally an incident will occur between cyclists & pedestrians and is not reported, just like it happens, occasionally, with motor vehicles & pedestrians and isn’t reported.
Slackbladder:
So the figures you originally quoted were wrong then. Don’t know what “pro cycling stats” are, please elaborate. The figures I’ve put in come from tfl, that’s transport for london but, both have come from ctc, they are a cycling charity. I would agree that, occasionally an incident will occur between cyclists & pedestrians and is not reported, just like it happens, occasionally, with motor vehicles & pedestrians and isn’t reported.
Oh I’m sorry I was 1 fatal out but over 100 injury’s caused by cyclist short, which I’m sure extra 100 life’s ruined by injury’s caused by careless cyclist’s who think they can use the pavement or can pick and choose what Highway code law another motorist has violated to justify there behaviour.
Unlike you I’ve got a life and don’t really have time studying cycling statics suggest you spend more time on your bike then ■■■■■■■■ on the forums trying to hammer home a point of view which most people on that forum couldn’t care less about.
EDITED WITH IMPROVED GRAMMAR FOR SLACKBLADDER’S STUPIDITY
That’s odd! It was you who brought up the cycling stats in the first place, I just asked you to prove them. Why are you so fixated on cycling stats in the first place? If you look at the grid it shows 1 short of 2 thousand killed by motor vehicles & 25.5 thousand injured. You should be trying to get your own house in order before having a go at others.
As for the rest of your rant, try as I might I cannot make sense of it, have you tried full stops or commas before? Poor spelling I can put up with but no punctuation, well that’s just a step too far.
“Carless cyclists” 
Incidentally, The Internet tells me that of the approximately 600 pedestrians killed by motor vehicles every year, 45 of these are on the pavement or roadside verge at the time (that’s 7.5%). On the other hand, an average of 2.2 pedestrians are killed by cyclists in a year, and one every four years is on a pavement or verge. Makes you think, doesn’t it?
But that may not gave been because they were driving on the pavement, the car could have been shunted onto the pavement in the process of the accident.
Diversion2:
But that may not gave been because they were driving on the pavement, the car could have been shunted onto the pavement in the process of the accident.
You are correct of course, but they weren’t shunted there by cyclists that’s for sure.
Slackbladder:
Diversion2:
But that may not gave been because they were driving on the pavement, the car could have been shunted onto the pavement in the process of the accident.You are correct of course, but they weren’t shunted there by cyclists that’s for sure.
lets play your game for a bit shall we? How about a car driver was driving along minding his own business, with his dash cam on and then all of a sudden had to serve onto the pavement to avoid a cyclist, he couldn’t serve to the right as it would of meant certain death, because a nasty mean diesel guzzling truck coming the other way (destroying the environment too) now the car driver was upset he injured a pedestrian but it wasn’t his fault he felt he was exempt from the highway code at that moment in time due to no clear legal definition of what his is. But was more upset he couldn’t find a ID number of a cyclist so he can hunt him down and lecture the highway code at him.
Btw I edited my post to allow someone of you’re low IQ to read it. If you need me to make it easier for someone with a IQ of a 6 year old to read ie use a bigger font and use shorter words just ask 
If your want to get your mummy to mark my posts again just holla I can send them to you direct
I find it priceless and shows what sort of people this group of pro cyclist’s are on here, how one man has gone to work to support his family and was assaulted and had to probably have a few days off work (won’t be enough to claim SSP) and headaches for how long after and yet you make it about the cyclist’s been the victim again.
The sooner you guys ■■■■ off the better this forum will be and the more people will stay here.
K5Project:
Slackbladder:
Diversion2:
But that may not gave been because they were driving on the pavement, the car could have been shunted onto the pavement in the process of the accident.You are correct of course, but they weren’t shunted there by cyclists that’s for sure.
lets play your game for a bit shall we? How about a car driver was driving along minding his own business, with his dash cam on and then all of a sudden had to serve onto the pavement to avoid a cyclist, he couldn’t serve to the right as it would of meant certain death, because a nasty mean diesel guzzling truck coming the other way (destroying the environment too) now the car driver was upset he injured a pedestrian but it wasn’t his fault he felt he was exempt from the highway code at that moment in time due to no clear legal definition of what his is. But was more upset he couldn’t find a ID number of a cyclist so he can hunt him down and lecture the highway code at him.
Btw I edited my post to allow someone of you’re low IQ to read it. If you need me to make it easyier for somone with a IQ of a 6 year old to read ie use a bigger font and use shorter words just ask
If your want to get your mummy to mark my posts again just holla I can send them to you direct
Can you make it easier for me please
mickyblue:
K5Project:
Slackbladder:
Diversion2:
But that may not gave been because they were driving on the pavement, the car could have been shunted onto the pavement in the process of the accident.You are correct of course, but they weren’t shunted there by cyclists that’s for sure.
lets play your game for a bit shall we? How about a car driver was driving along minding his own business, with his dash cam on and then all of a sudden had to serve onto the pavement to avoid a cyclist, he couldn’t serve to the right as it would of meant certain death, because a nasty mean diesel guzzling truck coming the other way (destroying the environment too) now the car driver was upset he injured a pedestrian but it wasn’t his fault he felt he was exempt from the highway code at that moment in time due to no clear legal definition of what his is. But was more upset he couldn’t find a ID number of a cyclist so he can hunt him down and lecture the highway code at him.
Btw I edited my post to allow someone of you’re low IQ to read it. If you need me to make it easyier for somone with a IQ of a 6 year old to read ie use a bigger font and use shorter words just ask
If your want to get your mummy to mark my posts again just holla I can send them to you directCan you make it easier for me please
NO
K5Project:
lets play your game for a bit shall we? How about a car driver was driving along minding his own business, with his dash cam on and then all of a sudden had to serve onto the pavement to avoid a cyclist, he couldn’t serve to the right as it would of meant certain death, because a nasty mean diesel guzzling truck coming the other way (destroying the environment too) now the car driver was upset he injured a pedestrian but it wasn’t his fault he felt he was exempt from the highway code at that moment in time due to no clear legal definition of what his is. But was more upset he couldn’t find a ID number of a cyclist so he can hunt him down and lecture the highway code at him.Btw I edited my post to allow someone of you’re low IQ to read it. If you need me to make it easyier for somone with a IQ of a 6 year old to read ie use a bigger font and use shorter words just ask
If your want to get your mummy to mark my posts again just holla I can send them to you direct
Well you’ve got me there, I haven’t a clue what your scenario is meant to represent regarding this thread. It appears to me that you are now trying to blame cyclists for vehicles swerving onto the pavement & injuring pedestrians, and that all collisions with trucks mean certain death, thats not the case. Its the reason I don’t bother with “what if” scenarios myself, I don’t have the mental ability to make up stories, im just a driver.
There’s nothing wrong with the font size, I’m not blind, as a driver it would be frowned upon, it’s the lack of punctuation. But seeing as how you brought the subject up:
It’s swerve not serve, your not you’re, someone not somone, holler not holla, easier not easyier. Oh & my mums dead so she cannot mark it. Hope this helps.
K5Project:
Slackbladder:
Diversion2:
But that may not gave been because they were driving on the pavement, the car could have been shunted onto the pavement in the process of the accident.You are correct of course, but they weren’t shunted there by cyclists that’s for sure.
lets play your game for a bit shall we? How about a car driver was driving along minding his own business, with his dash cam on and then all of a sudden had to serve onto the pavement to avoid a cyclist, he couldn’t serve to the right as it would of meant certain death, because a nasty mean diesel guzzling truck coming the other way (destroying the environment too) now the car driver was upset he injured a pedestrian but it wasn’t his fault he felt he was exempt from the highway code at that moment in time due to no clear legal definition of what his is. But was more upset he couldn’t find a ID number of a cyclist so he can hunt him down and lecture the highway code at him.
Btw I edited my post to allow someone of you’re low IQ to read it. If you need me to make it easier for someone with a IQ of a 6 year old to read ie use a bigger font and use shorter words just ask
If your want to get your mummy to mark my posts again just holla I can send them to you directI find it priceless and shows what sort of people this group of pro cyclist’s are on here, how one man has gone to work to support his family and was assaulted and had to probably have a few days off work (won’t be enough to claim SSP) and headaches for how long after and yet you make it about the cyclist’s been the victim again.
The sooner you guys [zb] off the better this forum will be and the more people will stay here.
What a ■■■■■■■ idiot, if you’re going to knock someones iq, at least use the correct YOUR 
Back to the original story, it’s not about being pro or anti cyclist, it’s about facts. In the one you’re comparing it to, the video was proof. In this story, we’ve got a ‘big burly hairy arsed trucker’ who’s had his arse handed to him and claims ‘I was waiving my arm out of the window to warn the cyclist and I got out of my vehicle to explain the situation’ - whereas I read it as ‘I called him a ■■■■■■ and when he gave me some abuse back, I dived out of my truck to prove how huge my ■■■■■ was, but the cyclist was bigger, smarter and tougher.’
K5Project:
Slackbladder:
Diversion2:
But that may not gave been because they were driving on the pavement, the car could have been shunted onto the pavement in the process of the accident.You are correct of course, but they weren’t shunted there by cyclists that’s for sure.
lets play your game for a bit shall we? How about a car driver was driving along minding his own business, with his dash cam on and then all of a sudden had to serve onto the pavement to avoid a cyclist, he couldn’t serve to the right as it would of meant certain death, because a nasty mean diesel guzzling truck coming the other way (destroying the environment too) now the car driver was upset he injured a pedestrian but it wasn’t his fault he felt he was exempt from the highway code at that moment in time due to no clear legal definition of what his is. But was more upset he couldn’t find a ID number of a cyclist so he can hunt him down and lecture the highway code at him.
If your make belive motorist had kept their concentration on the road as opposed to minding their own business! Then they would have seen said cyclist in front of them and had no need to mount a kerb!!!
Why try to make belive scenarios to add weight to your argument’
They are make belive for a reason!
Please don’t start me educating the forum on English lessons, I have all night!!
