Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#71
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#72
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ian Smith ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : Can we indicate where we specified 11 a day was sober pedestrians? You seemed to suggest it was 11 peds per day. Society clearly thinks 11 fatalities a day is acceptable. I'm not sure I agree with that inference. |
#73
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
[Not Responding] ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying : Try 774 ped deaths last year - of which around 60% were over the legal blood-alcohol level for driving. In other words - around 11 sober pedestrians killed on the roads *per fortnight*... What the hell has sobriety got to do with it? Fortunately this isn't America or Saudi Arabia and you're perfectly within your rights to walk home drunk as a lord and not get run over. Did I say otherwise? Has it not occurred to you that maybe some of those ****ed peds might have walked into the road without looking? And that they therefore may have been partly to blame for their demise? I know I've done that in the past - and that it would have been my own bloody stupid fault if I'd got flattened as a result. |
#74
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ian Smith ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying : How many pedestrians die annually from being hit by cyclists? How many die from being hit by cars? How wide is a car? How wide is a bicycle? Much more than one two-hundredth as wide. Dodge an object 6ft wide. Dodge an object 1ft wide. Which is easier? Is this line of questioning going anywhere? Ooops, just noticed the cross-post. It's obviously all the fault of drivers. *******s, all of 'em. |
#75
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ian Smith wrote:
You avoiding commenting on why you're so hung up about bicycles but accept teh 3000 times worse motor vehicles record, I see. I reckon he hit a cyclist and it scratched his p*n*s John B |
#76
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Solar Penguin wrote:
--- Ian Smith said: On 16 Oct 2004 05:58:53 -0700, Silas Denyer wrote: (yes, lives - cyclist hitting pedestrian can and does result in death). How many per annum on average? And how many would you consider acceptable? How many pedestrians per annum do you think are expendable? Why should you restrict yourself to the number of expendable pedestrians? Perhaps you should consider the bigger picture and look at the number of people who die because they they do not walk or cycle regularly. This number dwarfs the numbers killed by cyclists or motorists and is extremely easy to correct. The following is a clip from the Cycling and Health page on the National Cycling Strategy Website (http://www.nationalcyclingstrategy.o...and_health.pdf) "Many people say that the risk of cycling is one of the main barriers to more people getting ‘on their bikes’. However, the British Medical Association (BMA) has concluded that the benefits of cycling are likely to outweigh the loss of life as a result of crashes. In 2000, a total of 125 adults and children were killed in the UK while cycling. By contrast, 125,000 people died in the same year from coronary heart disease (CHD) in the UK, of which around 45,000 deaths were due to lack of activity." So, getting 45,000 people per year out of their cars and onto bikes would appear to be A Very Good Thing, as far as I can see. Do we need to start a new petition? -- Terry Duckmanton. http://homepage.ntlworld.com/terry.duckmanton A website mostly dedicated to cycling http://tduckmanton.bravejournal.com A daily log of my cycling exploits |
#77
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:32:23 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote in message : the fact that this alleged bigotry *is* so common, doesn't clue you in to the fact that just maybe it isn't bigotry after all , but good old fashioned common sense? I think Jon has answered that point perfectly, above. Common sense is generally that phrase which is used in lieu of data by those peddling outdated and oppressive views. Strange how the so-called bigotry makes more sense than your response too Given that you think it is more important to control the trivial risk of pavement cycling than the massive risk of dangerous driving, even though the facts show that you are around 200 times as likely to be killed on the footway by a motor vehicle than by a cyclist, I think you have a very strange view of what constitutes sense, common or otherwise. 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 |
#78
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:42:39 +0100, "Solar Penguin"
wrote in message : And how many would you consider acceptable? How many pedestrians per annum do you think are expendable? Do you have any idea what is the usual penalty applied to a driver who, through negligence, kills a cyclist or pedestrian? It is currently running at six points and a fine of around £200. If you hit the twelve-point totting up limit, you'll probably be able to persuade the court to let you drive home. 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 |
#79
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
Given that you think it is more important to control the trivial risk of pavement cycling than the massive risk of dangerous driving, even though the facts show that you are around 200 times as likely to be killed on the footway by a motor vehicle than by a cyclist, I think you have a very strange view of what constitutes sense, common or otherwise. As Einstein said, common sense is the collection of predjudices acquired by the age of eighteen Tony |
#80
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:50:25 GMT, ningi
wrote: davek wrote: Silas Denyer wrote: Personally I think the only solution is compulsory registration of bicycles, with clearly-displayed plates Cars have those and it doesn't stop their drivers jumping red lights or driving on the pavement. Well, cars don't jump red lights with anything like the frequency that bikes do in London, so perhaps it does. you obviously haven't been to South London recently ![]() Pete -- Martin Smith |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
'Near miss' between District and Piccadilly line trains near EalingBdwy | London Transport | |||
OTish: Laptops on planes - hand luggage? | London Transport | |||
Guinness rules (was: Breaking the tube record using IT) | London Transport | |||
Guinness rules (was: Breaking the tube record using IT) | London Transport | |||
Guinness rules (was: Breaking the tube record using IT) | London Transport |