What sort of tat is this exactly? isn't it more likely to be due to buses, cars, lorries etc?
Surprised the Telegraph ran this inbalanced rubbish.
Bike Forum
[closed]
"cycling responsible for second wave of 7/7 deaths"
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
The findings were presented at the British Psychological Society’s Cognitive Psychology section annual conference.
Presumably he got a prize in the 'No shit, Sherlock' category...
Posted 2 years ago # -
But if you asked which killed more people ion the last 10 years in London, international terrorism, or bicycles, the answer would definitely be bicycles.
Really? I have never heard of a bicycle killing anyone. Very occasionally a bicycle rider kills someone but more often a car or a truck kills a bicycle rider.
Posted 2 years ago # -
forget that, I can't be bothered today.
Posted 2 years ago # -
"...some people switched from the underground to cycling, and the psychological dread risk effect may be the explanation for this behaviour"
I suspect the 'dread effect' wore off within the six months they cite and other factors kept people cycling. To assert that people were killed and injured on their bikes because of the bombings obscures the direct factors which led to the casualties on the roads.
Will the cycle2work scheme also get blamed for deaths and injuries to cyclists?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Really? I have never heard of a bicycle killing anyone.
TJ - I think the article is refering to cyclist deaths.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Could've gone a step further & said that media hyperbole is responsible for additional deaths
No, Wait, that'd make journalists look like tossers
Posted 2 years ago # -
Wackoak - I can see that but the sloppy use of language is indicative of the sloppy thinking behind the story. Cars and trucks kill cyclists not bicycles
Posted 2 years ago # -
No, Wait, that'd make journalists look like tossers
Shouldn't be a concern to the Torygraph - they've sacked all the journos and just buy in the copy from news desks around the world.
It's like the way that local papers rehash press releases into "stories", but on a larger scale....
EDIT: some info here.
Posted 2 years ago # -
What a load of tosh. Just goes to show what a shoddy paper it is...
Posted 2 years ago # -
Ah but did more people turn to their cars, thereby putting more cars on London roads and in turn causing more accidents involving bicycles?
International terrorism and bicylcles in one sentance....brilliant.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Basically saying Don't ride bikes, it's too dangerous. What a load of f%^&ing rubbish.
Posted 2 years ago # -
mmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggggggggggg.
Posted 2 years ago # -
This sounds right enough. Similar research was done into the increase in road deaths in the US post 9/11 when people stopped flying.
The language is colourful, but the point is that large numbers of people started cycling because they were afraid of being blown up by fanatical bearded twits on the tube, and were instead run over by fanatical tattoo'ed taxi drivers on Oxford Street.
To refer to this phenomenon as "a second wave of deaths" is a bit daft, and to single out cycling as "more dangerous than terrorism" is also silly, as many things, in particular rugs placed on polished wooden floors and christmas tree lights are also more dangerous than terrorism. But hey.
Posted 2 years ago # -
How many lives have been 'saved' because of the health benefits of cycling?
How many more cyclists were there, relative to the increase in casualties?
Here's what the headline should have read: 7/7 London bombings may have resulted in health benefits for commuters turning to the bicycle
Posted 2 years ago # -
Indeed BigDummy. When I was a lad banana skins were a greater threat than international terrorism.
Posted 2 years ago # -
ah, oldgit - again, press hyperbole
the Beano used to buy in all its stuff from Korea
Posted 2 years ago # -
Cars and trucks kill cyclists not bicycles
Thats true, but you can hardly blame the lorry driver if some cyclists rides up the inside of a left turning lorry.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Fixies + Flip Flops/High heels = 999
Posted 2 years ago # -
As BD says, the language is colourful. It continually mentions 'casualties' without specifying what that means. The only reference to deaths is the statement
But if you asked which killed more people ion the last 10 years in London, international terrorism, or bicycles, the answer would definitely be bicycles.
He then goes on to state that the study looked at data for the last 10 years- I'm sure that any recent 10 year period in isolation would have more cyclist than terrorist deaths in London.
Written by a crap journalist imo. Who was so cocky he couldn't be arsed using a spellchecker.Posted 2 years ago # -
Perhaps they're referring to Bicycle Bombs.
These deadly terrorist suicide bicycles haven’t ever exploded in London it seems, What are their demands? I think they are campaigning for better sustrans routes, and cycle lanes throughout the UK still seems a little extreme, but everyone has a cause these days…
Posted 2 years ago # -
I don't believe anyone in London has ever even ridden a bicycle, much less been killed by one. Aren't they just brightly-coloured fashion accessories that Vince Noir lookalikes push to their wanky Camden drinking holes?
Posted 2 years ago # -
An actual quote from the Greater London Council:
“Bombs don’t kill people,
Bicycles Do!
I Saw it in a Documentary on BBC2”FACT!
Posted 2 years ago # -
To be fair to the Telegraph, the headline on this thread is more sensationalist and misleading than the one on the story it links to.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Posted 2 years ago #
-
imbobrighton - Member
Surprised the Telegraph ran this inbalanced rubbish.
You are sh*tting me, yes?Interesting story and I would not be surprised if there was truth behind it.
But the conclusion should surely be "cycling should be safer i.e. let's educate/deter/punish bad drivers" rather than "don't take up cycling cos you'll die"
Posted 2 years ago # -
Mr Agreeable - can you blame them? Damned if you do, damned if you don't! It's a bit like the jokers at airports moaning about strip searches after the "oh yeah I've got an uzzi/grenade/C4 in my jacket" comments in airports after 9/11.
No reason why a band shouldn't be called that or why I shouldn't have said sticker on my bike. But don't be surprised if some people take it serious or are scared by it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Statistics eh? Its funny what you can do with them.
Posted 2 years ago # -
can you blame them?
Was probably a fairly innocent mistake, although it's a stupid name for a band.
I'm still paranoid that I'm going to end up wearing my tasteless Marzocchi 5:10s to save on baggage allowance - they've gotta be a one way ticket to a cavity search.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I must be missing something.
The story title is "7/7 London bombings may have resulted in 'second wave' of casualties on the roads" and the content seems quite reasonable.
Mind you it wouldn't be the first time the telegraph has had to change a story title after being told it's a load of bollocks.Posted 2 years ago # -
But don't be surprised if some people take it serious or are scared by it.
I am surprised that this group of hysterical ninnies are guarding airports, to be frank. Imagine the thought process: "here is a bicycle...But wait!! Although it looks in all respects like a normal bicycle it has a sticker on it that says it is in fact a pipe bomb! So it must be a pipe bomb! Crikey! I'm glad I spotted the sticker in time! Defcon 3! Clear the airport! There is a pipe bomb in the bicycle!! I'll probably get a medal for this..."
Posted 2 years ago # -
This Bike is a Pipe Bomb were formed in 1997 and are well-known in underground and mischievous bumper-sticker-collecting circles.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I am surprised that this group of hysterical ninnies are guarding airports, to be frank
But imagine how stupid you'd look if it was a pipe bomb. And they're good at double-bluffing, those anarchist crusty folk-punk types.
Posted 2 years ago # -
You'd look pretty stupid, I have to agree.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I don't see what there is to get het up about - all they are saying is that people switched from travelling by tube because of a perceived but in reality tiny danger of death and switched to another mode of travel which has a small but real danger of death.
It's not saying cycling is dangerous, it's saying that it's more dangerous than travelling by tube. Which is true, terrorists or not. But some people felt more safe taking charge of things rather than going back in the tube. In the same way many people are happier driving than travelling by plane, even though planes are statistically safer.
Move along nothing to see here...
Posted 2 years ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
