Does the Daily Mail hates Cyclists?

JNugent

Nigel Randell wrote:

>> Please treat "seriously injured" as meaning "life-threatening". I see
>> no difference between them.

> The experts in the field would seem to disagree with you.
> http://www.trauma.org/archive/scores/ais.html
> The AIS level of 3 is classed as "serious" with 4 and 5 being "severe and
> critical". As a rating of 6 is unsurvivable it seems reasonable that "life
> threatening" would usually describe a level 5 injury, or possibly a level 4.

I didn't realise that all usenet posts had to be vetted by a doctor.

JNugent

Nigel Randell wrote:

>> That is one of the reasons why I found the recent allegation by a
>> poster here that a driver shouted at him "I'm a ******* car" to be
>> totally unbelievable. When one is making things up, care should be
>> taken that the fabrication has the ring of truth about it. "I'm a ...
>> car" is something that no-one would say.

> I don't suppose that anyone has ever said that "we" weren't playing in the
> Euro footie. "We" were never going to play in it even if the national team
> had qualified.

???

Alan Braggins

In article <485d9694$1_2@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, Nigel Randell wrote:
>>
>> That is one of the reasons why I found the recent allegation by a
>> poster here that a driver shouted at him "I'm a ******* car" to be
>> totally unbelievable. When one is making things up, care should be
>> taken that the fabrication has the ring of truth about it. "I'm a ...
>> car" is something that no-one would say.
>
>I don't suppose that anyone has ever said that "we" weren't playing in the
>Euro footie. "We" were never going to play in it even if the national team
>had qualified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy

Oh wait, that's JNugent you are quoting isn't it? He lives in his own
private world where drivers never jump red lights or drive on pavements,
so has trouble believing that they actually happen. Maybe this is just
another example.

Ian Smith

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:22:13 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Alan Braggins wrote:
>
> > JNugent wrote:
>
> >> And this is absolutely not the issue. The issue is travel along
> >> footways at normal travelling speed (which means the speed at
> >> which the same vehicle would usually travel along the
> >> carriageway), IOW, using the footway as a straightforward
> >> mainstream alternative to the carriageway.
>
> > Also the cars aren't doing it on two wheels, so it doesn't count.
> > And even if they were, they are cars, so they don't count.
>
> You are forgetting the main reason why it doesn't count - which is
> that cars (and vans, and lorries) don't travel along footways like
> (some) cyclists do.

But that's an entirely artificial definition of 'counting' that you've
made up, for no reason other than to give yourself something to argue
about.

Must more sensible definitions would be driving along the pavement at
similar level of risk to pedestrians (but we know cars do many times
more to that measure already), or diving at similar speeds along
pavements (but that happens quite often). You have even (in this
thread) refused to count vehicles driving along the pavement _faster_
than they were able to drive along the carriageway.

Arbitrarily deciding that you'll only choose 'driving along the
pavement at identically the same speed as the mean speed of
equivalent vehicles in the carriageway alongside' has no sensible
basis.

Your definition boils down to 'cars don't drive along teh pavement in
situations where there is no perceived benefit for them in doing so'.
Big deal. However, you will find that cyclists don't ride along
pavements where there is no perceived benefit to them doing so. In
fact, most organisms don't do anything where there is no benefit to
them doing so.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Squashme

On 22 Jun, 09:01, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:22:13 +0100, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> > Alan Braggins wrote:
>
> > > JNugent wrote:
>
> > >> And this is absolutely not the issue. The issue is travel along
> > >> footways at normal travelling speed (which means the speed at
> > >> which the same vehicle would usually travel along the
> > >> carriageway), IOW, using the footway as a straightforward
> > >> mainstream alternative to the carriageway.
>
> > > Also the cars aren't doing it on two wheels, so it doesn't count.
> > > And even if they were, they are cars, so they don't count.
>
> > You are forgetting the main reason why it doesn't count - which is
> > that cars (and vans, and lorries) don't travel along footways like
> > (some) cyclists do.
>
> But that's an entirely artificial definition of 'counting' that you've
> made up, for no reason other than to give yourself something to argue
> about.
>
> Must more sensible definitions would be driving along the pavement at
> similar level of risk to pedestrians (but we know cars do many times
> more to that measure already), or diving at similar speeds along
> pavements (but that happens quite often). You have even (in this
> thread) refused to count vehicles driving along the pavement _faster_
> than they were able to drive along the carriageway.
>
> Arbitrarily deciding that you'll only choose 'driving along the
> pavement at identically the same speed as the mean speed of
> equivalent vehicles in the carriageway alongside' has no sensible
> basis.
>
> Your definition boils down to 'cars don't drive along teh pavement in
> situations where there is no perceived benefit for them in doing so'.
> Big deal. However, you will find that cyclists don't ride along
> pavements where there is no perceived benefit to them doing so. In
> fact, most organisms don't do anything where there is no benefit to
> them doing so.
>

I think that it is mostly that cars don't drive along pavements
because their free passage is obstructed there. Remove all that
annoying clutter of lampposts, signposts, railings, trees and raised
kerbs, and you would see a big increase where vehicles found it
beneficial to use them, and their pavement speeds would rise too.

Perhaps, after this policy, pavements could be considered as a source
of extra vital road space?:-

"The M42 pilot.

The M42 pilot has given us valuable experience of installing and
operating a hard shoulder running system in the UK, and early results
indicate benefits in relation to traffic flow, journey time
reliability, emissions and compliance, at considerably lower cost than
widening schemes. We should look to learn from and build on this
experience in implementing similar schemes in the future.

Safety.

Results to date from the M42 pilot give no evidence to suggest that
safety has been compromised by the introduction of the hard shoulder
running scheme. The early results suggest an improvement, although
this cannot be confirmed until a much larger data set has been
gathered over a longer period of time. Initial safety levels observed
may also deteriorate over time." (DFT)

Tony B

NewRiderPS wrote:

> Sounds to me like the mother allowed the child out on her own, when
> she should not have

Why should 5 yo kids not be allowed out on their own (car free)doorstep?

T

Rob Morley

On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:38:35 +0100
Tony B <tony@thebramahs.plus.com> wrote:

> NewRiderPS wrote:
>
> > Sounds to me like the mother allowed the child out on her own, when
> > she should not have
>
> Why should 5 yo kids not be allowed out on their own (car
> free)doorstep?
>
Risk of massive head trauma?

Squashme

On 22 Jun, 13:38, Tony B <t...@thebramahs.plus.com> wrote:
> NewRiderPS wrote:
> > Sounds to me like the mother allowed the child out on her own, when
> > she should not have
>
> Why should 5 yo kids not be allowed out on their own (car free)doorstep?
>

Not car-free, just no through traffic. Motorists parking cars can
injure, I believe.

Tony B

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:38:35 +0100
> Tony B <tony@thebramahs.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> NewRiderPS wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds to me like the mother allowed the child out on her own, when
>>> she should not have
>> Why should 5 yo kids not be allowed out on their own (car
>> free)doorstep?
>>
> Risk of massive head trauma?
>
That happens indoors too - I understand stairs are particularly dangerous..

Point being, with obvious due concern and sympathy for this case, kids
of five are OK being outdoors. Mine are/were and plenty of others too.
Some kids have accidents; I'm glad every day that mine have been OK so
far. I myself almost lost a hand due to 7yo arsing about doing something
I shouldn't have been doing (my mum must have been in bits, but I
hardly remember the incident).

Today though, parents are keeping kids out of "danger" to the point of
caging them. Not ideal is it? So, I like to challenge any and every
reference to kids not belonging outdoors due to "danger" - outdoors is
precisely where kids should be. It's the things that people see as
reasons for keeping them in that should be addressed. Imprisonment is
not the solution.

I hope my homespun ramblings make sense, I know what I mean anyway :-)

T

Ekul Namsob

Tony B <tony@thebramahs.plus.com> wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 13:38:35 +0100
> > Tony B <tony@thebramahs.plus.com> wrote:
> >
> >> NewRiderPS wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sounds to me like the mother allowed the child out on her own, when
> >>> she should not have
> >> Why should 5 yo kids not be allowed out on their own (car
> >> free)doorstep?
> >>
> > Risk of massive head trauma?
> >
> That happens indoors too - I understand stairs are particularly dangerous..
>
> Point being, with obvious due concern and sympathy for this case, kids
> of five are OK being outdoors. Mine are/were and plenty of others too.
> Some kids have accidents; I'm glad every day that mine have been OK so
> far. I myself almost lost a hand due to 7yo arsing about doing something
> I shouldn't have been doing (my mum must have been in bits, but I
> hardly remember the incident).
>
> Today though, parents are keeping kids out of "danger" to the point of
> caging them. Not ideal is it? So, I like to challenge any and every
> reference to kids not belonging outdoors due to "danger" - outdoors is
> precisely where kids should be. It's the things that people see as
> reasons for keeping them in that should be addressed. Imprisonment is
> not the solution.

Hear hear!

Certain activities are best avoided as the obvious health risks outweigh
any potential health benefits. My not-quite-five year old daughter's not
allowed to play in the road due to bad sight lines caused by parked
cars, she's welcome to play on the pavement and in the back garden. When
she's rather older, we'll probably let her play down by the river. We'll
not let her play on the eight lane road that slices through the valley,
no matter how much she protests that dodging the cars is good exercise
for the heart and the brain.

One could argue that 15 year old kids shouldn't be allowed out on their
bicycles due to the risk of massive head trauma. In actual fact, the
benefits, as may possibly have been mentioned on this group once or
twice before, enormously outweigh the risks.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Nigel Randell

JNugent wrote:
> Nigel Randell wrote:
>
>>> Please treat "seriously injured" as meaning "life-threatening". I
>>> see no difference between them.
>
>> The experts in the field would seem to disagree with you.
>> http://www.trauma.org/archive/scores/ais.html
>> The AIS level of 3 is classed as "serious" with 4 and 5 being
>> "severe and critical". As a rating of 6 is unsurvivable it seems
>> reasonable that "life threatening" would usually describe a level 5
>> injury, or possibly a level 4.
>
> I didn't realise that all usenet posts had to be vetted by a doctor.

Could get it doctored by a vet if you prefer.

--

Nigel

Andy Morris

JNugent wrote:
>
> You are forgetting the main reason why it doesn't count - which is that
> cars (and vans, and lorries) don't travel along footways like (some)
> cyclists do.
>

They (the cars) were travelling along the footway, at greater than
walking speed speed. Why is it OK for them?
--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

Dan Gregory

Andy Morris wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>>
>> You are forgetting the main reason why it doesn't count - which is
>> that cars (and vans, and lorries) don't travel along footways like
>> (some) cyclists do.
>>
>
> They (the cars) were travelling along the footway, at greater than
> walking speed speed. Why is it OK for them?
Like the one outside the Hippodrome in Bristol which hit 5 people.
I think the TV report said it was the 25th incident in the last year
including one actor they named ...

Alan Braggins

In article <g3ml9m$ebs$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Andy Morris wrote:
>JNugent wrote:
>>
>> You are forgetting the main reason why it doesn't count - which is that
>> cars (and vans, and lorries) don't travel along footways like (some)
>> cyclists do.
>
>They (the cars) were travelling along the footway, at greater than
>walking speed speed. Why is it OK for them?

Because if he counted them, he'd have to admit he was wrong. Again.

Much easier to stick his fingers in his ears and shout "cars don't use
footways, and even if they do then it doesn't count". It's not about
the relative danger to pedestrians, it's about some artificial measure
by which cyclists are worse than drivers so long as you don't count
those drivers who are equally bad or worse.