On 21 Oct 2004 13:43:32 -0700, (Silas Denyer)
wrote in message :

a) the total number of pedestrians killed by vehicles of all kinds
b) the total number of pedestrians killed by bicycles
c) the total number of pedestrians killed by cars crossing lights at
red

These data are sound.

Sound in the sense of extrapolated beyond their applicability, you
mean? Or sound in the sense of embodying invalid assumptions?

Singling out the offence which, by your own admission, drivers are
least likely to commit is also very obviously invalid.

In fact what I have been arguing for is the policing of cyclists.

And we have pointed out that (a) cyclists are already policed (there
is even a scheme for fixed penalties specifically for cycling
offences), and (b) the police - rightly - take the view that this
policing is a very low priority, since the risk is clearly miniscule.

Cycles running red lights unpenalised are a manifestation of a failure
to police.

All road traffic offences are evidence of that. Some classes of road
user seem to think that enforcement is an infringement of their civil
liberties. They are not the cyclists, either.

They do, however, show that you are as likely to be killed by any
particular bike as by any particular car running a red light, which is
still statistically significant!

So you believe that all cycling offences put together are still only
as bad as cars running red lights, which you seem to think they rarely
do; I think that's a point against you rather than for you!

Still, you might be able to find a job at the ABD. They love people
who can use statistics to prove the opposite of the truth :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University