Forum Topic

Hello, Tom Pike

Tom Pike said: A rational approach would be based on the overwhelming evidence that motor vehicles, not bikes, pose the largest risk to pedestrians, and the best way therefore to reduce pedestrian injuries would be to reduce the flow of motor vehicles on the High Road. Would the good doctor please educate us all as to how this risk to pedestrians could be reduced? Now the newly chastened baker will eliminate the crude language used but the cyclist along with the gesture said "FU." Have a blessed day, Tom. Be well.

David Lesniak ● 1611d28 Comments

Excellent stuff "newly chastised baker" 🤣

Loraine Pemberton ● 1611d

“ best way therefore to reduce pedestrian injuries would be to reduce the flow of motor vehicles on the High Road.”Wouldn’t the best way to reduce pedestrian injuries on the High Road simply be for pedestrians to cross the High Road at designated controlled crossings?  Oh no, I forgot,  cyclists ignore the law and speed across zebra crossings and through red lights with impunity. I guess the answer is simply to tell pedestrians to be extremely careful when crossing roads and ALWAYS be on the lookout for idiotic cyclists breaking the law.

Steve Taylor ● 1611d

Steve. I hope that you as a cyclist as well as motorist and pedestrian are not admitting to this as well?

Philippa Bond ● 1611d

You’ve got to give it to non cycle lobby members. We’ve got a sense of humour that I think the lobby are missing.

Maggie Dodge ● 1611d

Is that the risk of injury to your own delicate sensibilities from the language you heard, or the risk to the sensibilities of the rest of us from your repeating the language?Maybe publicly recounting the incident can offer you some catharsis - you're the best judge of that - but it had been at the cost of transferring that risk to the rest of us, although I see you've now taken measures to mitigate this.As to reducing the risk of physical injury, how many pedestrians have been killed or injured on the pavements alongside the High Road in collisions with cyclists as opposed to on the roadway by collisions with motor vehicles? Of course a rational approach to better protecting pedestrians from harm would focus on the higher of those two risks.

Tom Pike ● 1611d

I can promise you 100% Philippa that I have never cycled through a red light.

Steve Taylor ● 1611d

Tom, I know you poo-poo anecdotal evidence,  but as a pedestrian that walks on the pavement along CHR 3 times a day, 7 days a week, I can categorically confirm that my risk of injury comes solely from pavement cyclists and not motorists. And yes I've been hit, as has one of my dogs, by cyclists reported to Police but nothing done which is shameful.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1611d

Steve, I think you'll find that Philippa favours cyclists... or am I wrong on that Philippa  ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 1611d

It doesn't take a rocket scientist.....
Now why do you think the cyclist was "next to an empty cycle lane"? 
I took the photo on the day you posted your image because I'd been cycling to Hammersmith and back that week and figured you'd framed the photo so as to be a bit misleading. But by the time I'd got home to reply, the post had been removed for your "f bomb".
On a separate note, Loraine is dropping heavy hints she tried to get me banned for my language — she failed on this occasion, but not for want of trying :-) As Loraine knows well, about the only way to get people kicked off this forum is to report them for swearing.   Anyway, good to see that you two have buried the hatchet — you had a bit of a falling out didn't you? I know...I'm being about as subtle as a dog whistling councillor calling immigrants dirty!

Ed Saper ● 1611d

If anyone makes a report of a injury collision on the High Road to the police, whether it be on the roadway or the pavement, it should be in the collision database.Since 2017, there have been reports of eleven pedestrian injuries along the length of the High Road of the current C9, from Heathfield Terrace to Goldhawk Road, all by motor vehicles. Two of them were serious injuries. It's difficult to blame the police for focusing their limited resources on preventing the collisions that have resulted in the reported pedestrian injuries.

Tom Pike ● 1611d

Ed, as always I'm in awe of your skill of misrepresenting the truth and confusing facts with your perceived version of the truth, you'd give Hans Christian Anderson a run for the money.Oh dear and now you have also resorted to trying to find skeletons where they don't exist, but you could always try harder next time, and I'm certain there will be a next time.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1611d

Ed, it is not difficult at all to figure out exactly who reported the baker and got him suspended from this forum. The attempts by the protagonist to cover her tracks are very funny.I suppose if anybody did have insufficient intellect to figure out this whodunnit then it would be the loudest opponents of cycling on this forum.

Paul Campbell ● 1611d

As my Grandmother told me, you can lock away from Thieves but never LIARS... go figure

Loraine Pemberton ● 1611d

Loraine.  As you well know I favour pavements for pedestrians  - considerate ones.

Philippa Bond ● 1611d

Apologies Philippa, I've obviously missed that nuance.

Loraine Pemberton ● 1611d

Ed Saper explained " It doesn't take a rocket scientist....."to work out that when the cycle lane is closed, this not only gives cyclists the right to ride on the pavement (as many of them do, in any case) but to do wheelies and give the finger to anyone with the audacity to object.Which only confirms what many people suspected already happens; but its nice to have it confirmed as being the official policy by a leading spokesman for the cycl;ing lobby.michael adams

Michael Adams ● 1611d

Saying f@ck is actionable. The recounting of it should not be. I get your ears are sensitive Tom. But fact is the word itself is in the public domain and can be found in The New York Times as well as here in this island when reading "I"news. Me thinks your just a bit too precious. Me thinks you also just revealed your hand.

David Lesniak ● 1611d

Name and shame Paul,  with proof please. I’m sure you wouldn’t make unsubstantiated claims. As I know to my cost 😂

Maggie Dodge ● 1611d

I am glad this rendez-vous has not been lost, or censored as some might say.Also, I'm not a financial analyst, however I can't help but notice - with due respect - that for the record, there's an entrepreneur who once invested £1 of his hard-earned capital into a venture, and so far generated losses of £8.8k if I'm reading this right.https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/04332397/filing-historyMy comments I keep for myself, perhaps it's not all about the money after all.

Adam Pycz ● 1610d

Oh dear, oh dear. I do find Ed Saper's latest post amusing. So cyclists are now too namby-pamby to use the cycle track because there is a slight obstruction in the form of a 'sign' on the lane. The road is totally devoid of cars yet Mr Saper thinks it is OK for the cyclist to ride on the pavement, doing wheelies, instead of using the road  (quite legally)  or indeed the empty cycle track. So Mr Saper condones the cyclist breaking the law and putting pedestrians lives at risk?

Steve Taylor ● 1610d

Now Adam do tell us why you felt you should post a link to accounts of a company like this on a public forum when I believe the previous thread was removed? Doesn't seem very appropriate or nice for that matter.

Matthew Swain ● 1610d

Why do you think the cyclist was popping a wheelie threatening pedestrians and saying "fu*k you" when he could have easily been on the roadway which, as you so clearly demonstrate, was vehicle free?Again, I do so love I was banned for quoting someone else. It doesn't get more vindictive does it, Ed? But I must say your and Paul's smokescreens are a lovely shade of grey. As for Loraine and I, indeed we do have disagreements from time to time. We can table them, agree to disagree or come to some form of understanding and respect. Something I know you're incapable of. At least online. In person you're a completely different animal which I always find odd.But also interesting are the emails (note the plural) Loraine sent on my behalf. So my humble thanks go to Loraine. No offense to her, but no telling if they made a difference as NNet has refused to engage. No doubt your and Paul's email to Nnet were of a completely different tone and motive. But cowards are always cowards ditto bullies and they like to bob, weave, distract and hide.

David Lesniak ● 1610d

“ why you felt you should post a link to accounts of a company like this on a public forum”Why not? Company financial results are open to the public for scrutiny together with directors details, directorships and details of directors financial success or failure. A company’s net worth is often of immense interest.

Steve Taylor ● 1610d

'Why not' ,  well I would have thought given the previous thread was removed it would be obvious,  its because its malicious. As for saying a companies Net Worth is of immense interest,  well yes of course but as I'm sure you know small businesses publish abridged accounts with no P&L etc. In my view its not appropriate to just make random conclusions by looking at them online. In any case at least I can see the business in question has some tangible assets unlike many other small businesses.

Matthew Swain ● 1610d

This site is full of malicious posts.

Maggie Dodge ● 1609d

In my view it is totally appropriate to scrutinise company finances and details of directors before doing business with them.  In my job I do it regularly and it is a pre-requisite that we do so. We would NEVER consider doing business with a company (big or small) which hasn’t been checked out at Companies House.  It is also essentially important to check out directors current and past directorships of dissolved companies!!

Steve Taylor ● 1609d

Malicious, is posting on Twitter purporting to be an anti cycle lane group, when you’re actually a cycle lobby group. But nobody would do that would they ?

Maggie Dodge ● 1609d

"Malicious, is posting on Twitter purporting to be an anti cycle lane group, when you’re actually a cycle lobby group. But nobody would do that would they ?"Of course they wouldn't  😉

Loraine Pemberton ● 1609d