On 5 Feb, 11:20, Adrian wrote:
spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

"despite the antipathy that
cyclists like you feel towards motorcyclists,"

And your evidence for this is?

Read your own posts. It's clear.

Oh, and learn to quote.

You should have no trouble finding examples then?

spindrift wrote:
On 5 Feb, 11:20, Adrian wrote:
spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

"despite the antipathy that
cyclists like you feel towards motorcyclists,"

And your evidence for this is?

Read your own posts. It's clear.

Oh, and learn to quote.

You should have no trouble finding examples then?

Why does "Adrian" need to find examples of your posts to show that you said
certain things? Why can't you accept that you've ****ed up?

On 5 Feb, 12:01, "Brimstone" wrote:
spindrift wrote:
On 5 Feb, 11:20, Adrian wrote:
spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying:

"despite the antipathy that
cyclists like you feel towards motorcyclists,"

And your evidence for this is?

Read your own posts. It's clear.

Oh, and learn to quote.

You should have no trouble finding examples then?

Why does "Adrian" need to find examples of your posts to show that you said
certain things? Why can't you accept that you've ****ed up?

Weeeell, I'd have thought it's obvious. A number of views were
ascribed to me.

I've never made any such posts, ever.

I've asked if the posters can back up what they claim.

It's becoming clear that they can't.

In light of this it appears some weird internet stalky types are
making random, odd ad hominem attacks.

Why?

Because i criticised Paul Smith's gibberish?

You should really be able to make your own argument stand up rather
than resort to trying (and failing) to ascribe to me views i don't
hold and have never put forward.


Toodle pip!!

spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

It's becoming clear that they can't.

Oh, we can. And we have. We've told you to re-read your posts in this
thread.

On 5 Feb, 12:13, Adrian wrote:
spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

It's becoming clear that they can't.

Oh, we can. And we have. We've told you to re-read your posts in this
thread.

I already have. I posted evidence that PTW's in bus lanes increase
danger. If this strikes you as being "anti-motorist" then I take it
warning signs telling drivers to avoid flooded roads is also "anti-
motorist"? Speed limit signs? restrictions on vehicles allowed on
motorways?

The reality is that since you can't counter my view with logic, you
instead make up a view I don't hold, then attack that.

Exactly the kind of response I'd expect from a man who punches ginger
colour-blind orphans (remember how false accusations are annoying...?)

"spindrift" wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb, 11:20, Nick wrote:
spindrift wrote:
Every single study shows that more cyclists on the roads results in
fewer cyclist/vehicle accidents.

That just isn't true.

Some surveys may indicate that a specific type of risk (accident rate
per cyclist or per mile) goes down but I believe the recent stats from
London showed the number accidents had increased with the increase in
cyclists numbers.

Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling
P L Jacobsen

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase
the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective
route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/.../short/9/3/205


You and apparently the author of this report are not being careful with your
language. The above statement is at best ambiguous and at worst deliberately
misleading.

If you wish to use statistics to help you arive at valid conclusions you
need to be very precise linguistically. You should take the time to
understand the statistics clearly before you post.

spindrift (spindrift ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

It's becoming clear that they can't.

Oh, we can. And we have. We've told you to re-read your posts in this
thread.

I already have. I posted evidence that PTW's in bus lanes increase
danger.

No, you didn't. You posted links to some fluffy "But I don't like it" -
and you ADMITTED that there was no evidence that your claims for Bristol
were valid.

Oh, and congrats on learning how to quote. Now, as a follow-up, how about
posting so that your Newsgroup line doesn't contain spurious spaces which
I'm having to manually remove? Everybody else manages.

On 5 Feb, 12:27, "Nick" wrote:
"spindrift" wrote in message

...





On 5 Feb, 11:20, Nick wrote:
spindrift wrote:
Every single study shows that more cyclists on the roads results in
fewer cyclist/vehicle accidents.

That just isn't true.

Some surveys may indicate that a specific type of risk (accident rate
per cyclist or per mile) goes down but I believe the recent stats from
London showed the number accidents had increased with the increase in
cyclists numbers.

Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling
P L Jacobsen

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase
the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective
route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/.../short/9/3/205

You and apparently the author of this report are not being careful with your
language. The above statement is at best ambiguous and at worst deliberately
misleading.

If you wish to use statistics to help you arive at valid conclusions you
need to be very precise linguistically. You should take the time to
understand the statistics clearly before you post.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Which part of Jacobsen's research do you disagree with and why?


So many vague accusations on this thread.....

spindrift wrote:
On 5 Feb, 12:27, "Nick" wrote:
"spindrift" wrote in message

...





On 5 Feb, 11:20, Nick wrote:
spindrift wrote:
Every single study shows that more cyclists on the roads results in
fewer cyclist/vehicle accidents.
That just isn't true.
Some surveys may indicate that a specific type of risk (accident rate
per cyclist or per mile) goes down but I believe the recent stats from
London showed the number accidents had increased with the increase in
cyclists numbers.
Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling
P L Jacobsen
Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase
the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective
route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/.../short/9/3/205
You and apparently the author of this report are not being careful with your
language. The above statement is at best ambiguous and at worst deliberately
misleading.

If you wish to use statistics to help you arive at valid conclusions you
need to be very precise linguistically. You should take the time to
understand the statistics clearly before you post.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Which part of Jacobsen's research do you disagree with and why?


So many vague accusations on this thread.....


The statement

"A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and
bicycling if more people walk or bicycle."

The statement is clearly ambiguous. If no people walk, clearly a
motorist has no chance of colliding with a walker.

A lion is less likely to eat a specific antelope if there are a herd of
antelope. However at the same time the lion is much more likely to eat
an antelope if it finds a herd rather than an individual. The individual
may be fast enough to escape but one of the herd is likely to be slow.

If you can't distinguish between these cases with your language you are
not understanding the issues or you are attempting to mislead.

On 5 Feb, 14:00, Nick wrote:
spindrift wrote:
On 5 Feb, 12:27, "Nick" wrote:
"spindrift" wrote in message

...

On 5 Feb, 11:20, Nick wrote:
spindrift wrote:
Every single study shows that more cyclists on the roads results in
fewer cyclist/vehicle accidents.
That just isn't true.
Some surveys may indicate that a specific type of risk (accident rate
per cyclist or per mile) goes down but I believe the recent stats from
London showed the number accidents had increased with the increase in
cyclists numbers.
Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and
bicycling
P L Jacobsen
Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking
and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase
the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective
route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/.../short/9/3/205
You and apparently the author of this report are not being careful with your
language. The above statement is at best ambiguous and at worst deliberately
misleading.

If you wish to use statistics to help you arive at valid conclusions you
need to be very precise linguistically. You should take the time to
understand the statistics clearly before you post.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Which part of Jacobsen's research do you disagree with and why?

So many vague accusations on this thread.....

The statement

"A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and
bicycling if more people walk or bicycle."

The statement is clearly ambiguous. If no people walk, clearly a
motorist has no chance of colliding with a walker.

A lion is less likely to eat a specific antelope if there are a herd of
antelope. However at the same time the lion is much more likely to eat
an antelope if it finds a herd rather than an individual. The individual
may be fast enough to escape but one of the herd is likely to be slow.

If you can't distinguish between these cases with your language you are
not understanding the issues or you are attempting to mislead.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's also true to say collsions would be unlikely if there were no
motorists.

This is another example of the bum fluffery I mention upthread, you've
taken a truism, backed up with evidence, changed it to a completely
different scenario and then used that as an argument against the
original contention.

Yes, if no people walk then there will be no collisions with walkers,
well done.

In the real world, where people , um, DO walk, the evidence shows that
increased numbers reduces accidents.

It's thought that the mindset of drivers changes since:

1/

they are more used to encountering cyclists and

2/

the drivers cycle themselves


The "them and us" attitude displayed by your probably subconscious
decision to cast motorists as lions and vulnerable road users as
antelopes is telling. In reality cyclists own cars at the rate of 85%-
higher than the general population- and so they are well acquainted
with responsible driving.