Tony Raven opined the following...
Time for http://www.ebaumsworld.com/penguinswing.html

Damn. I need to get a keyboard cover! ;-)

Jon

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.

[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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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