What do you do?

Ian Smith said:

I quoted exactly what he said. If he didn't mean that, he could have
simply said "oops, allow me to refrain - pedestrians are generally
more distanced from motor vehicles than cyclists".

you mean this post:

"There is of course no such thing as "safe" just relative safety, but in the
normal way of the world I am safer standing on a pavement than crossing a
road. I am safer walking along a pavement than I am cycling along the road."

Ian, you knew what was meant. You saw the threat. You saw where it was
going. You filled the air with chaff!

Now everyone is distracted and the substantive point is long mislaid.

ah well, I should be used to it by now.

pk

Ewan said:

If you are dishonest in selectively quoting it is hard to know for
certain what point you are trying to get accross.

.... but since I'm not, it should be perfectly easy, for anyone capable
of reading what is written, rather than reading what they assume is
written. (Shall we refer to the 49/40 interlude?)

I'll repeat my point again, if you like.
This is the sum total of the meaning of my comment:

Pedestrians on a pavement are not isolated from the danger posed by
motor vehicles. PK's assertion that they are was erroneous. My
reading of Tony's post was that he was simply highlighting that the
assertion was erroneous.

Note that I have said nothing about relative safety of pedestrians.
Note that I have said nothing about relative safety of cyclists.
Note that I have said nothing about absolute safety of cyclists.
Note that these comments are true irrespective of casualty rates.

Note that there are lots of other things not said. Just because I did
not say them it is not reasonable for you to assume I mean what I did
not say (or that I do not mean what I did say).

I don't know why you found any of that difficult.

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

p.k. said:

Ian Smith said:

I quoted exactly what he said. If he didn't mean that, he could have
simply said "oops, allow me to refrain - pedestrians are generally
more distanced from motor vehicles than cyclists".

you mean this post:

"There is of course no such thing as "safe" just relative safety, but in the
normal way of the world I am safer standing on a pavement than crossing a
road. I am safer walking along a pavement than I am cycling along the road."

Ian, you knew what was meant. You saw the threat. You saw where it was
going. You filled the air with chaff!

Now everyone is distracted and the substantive point is long mislaid.

ah well, I should be used to it by now.

Anybody with the slightest grasp of English comprehension who looks at the
point, way above, what Ian selectively quoted will know straight away that what
he did was dishonest and obfuscating.

They will not be in the slightest part convinced by the smokescreen he's been
putting up since.

He quoted selectively and dishonestly.

The evidence is there for all to see.

Ewan said:

, it's like saying that tight-rope

Quoted message said:

walking is safer than pavement walking because only one person a year
dies tight-rope walking compared top 40 a year on the pavements.

I must try and remeber that one!

pk

p.k. said:

Ian Smith said:

I quoted exactly what he said. If he didn't mean that, he could have
simply said "oops, allow me to refrain - pedestrians are generally
more distanced from motor vehicles than cyclists".

you mean this post:

"There is of course no such thing as "safe" just relative safety,
but in the normal way of the world I am safer standing on a
pavement than crossing a road. I am safer walking along a pavement
than I am cycling along the road."

Ian, you knew what was meant.

No, I did not. I can comment only on what you write, not on what you
think you intended to write. I did not see the text you present as a
quote above until after I commented on what I _did_ see.

I say again - I can only comment on what you've already written, and
what I've already read, not on what you meant, or what you might
write in future, or what I might read in future. If that's not good
enough for you, you'll have to killfile me. I think you'll need to
killfile everyone, actually, because as far as I know everyone here is
constrained within the same timeframe.

For what it's worth, I agree you're safer standing than crossing, but
I'm not so sure that you're safer walking than cycling along
(presumably the same) road - it depends on too many variables to make
such a sweeping statement.

Quoted message said:

You saw the threat.

Absolutely not. I not the slightest whiff of a hint that if I
pointed out that the assertion made was erroneous a couple of
pillocks would spring into being, one of whom can't tell the
difference between per year and per billion km, yet is condescending
and disparaging of the statistical abilities of others, and the other
of which actually has no argument whatsoever. I dispute that anyone
could see them coming.

I agree that when it became apparent just how deep and dark the hole
Ewan was digging was getting, I prodded him a little, but it was
fantastically funny.

Quoted message said:

Now everyone is distracted and the substantive point is long
mislaid.

I don't know what the substantive point ever was. The point I
commented on _was_ erroneous.

You seem to be bemoaning the picking at steps in a logical argument.
It seems that you think it's OK for one or two of the steps to be
shonky, as long as the conclusion is what you want. I disagree - all
the facts should be straight, at every stage. A logical argument
with one flaw in the middle is useless. I agreed with Tony's
highlighting of one flaw in your posting. It really shouldn't have
been a big deal, and I remain perplexed why anyone could think it was
a big deal - you made a statement that was erroneous (you have
subsequently agreed that it was indeed erroneous), I agreed with Tony
when he pointed out that it was erroneous. What is wrong with that?

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

Ian Smith said:

Ewan said:

If you are dishonest in selectively quoting it is hard to know for
certain what point you are trying to get accross.

... but since I'm not,

Ian, give up mate.

The whole world can, if they care to look, see where you completely changed the
point someone was making by only partially quoting what they said.

It was a stupid, dishonest thing to do made worse by your abject failure to even
see your own wrongdoing.

Do you really think that all this bluster will convince anyone otherwise?

If you do I fear you are sadly deluded.

It's there in black and white mate.

You quoted part of TR's sentence making it appear to say something quite
different to what the whole sentence said.

Ian Smith said:

p.k. said:

Ian Smith said:

I quoted exactly what he said. If he didn't mean that, he could have
simply said "oops, allow me to refrain - pedestrians are generally
more distanced from motor vehicles than cyclists".

you mean this post:

"There is of course no such thing as "safe" just relative safety,
but in the normal way of the world I am safer standing on a
pavement than crossing a road. I am safer walking along a pavement
than I am cycling along the road."

Ian, you knew what was meant.

No, I did not. I can comment only on what you write, not on what you
think you intended to write. I did not see the text you present as a
quote above until after I commented on what I _did_ see.

This part of the thread really isn't about what you thought anyone meant,
though, is it?

It's about someone saying something and your dishonest, selective quoting to
make it appear to say something else and then arguing that the modified version
was correct (which it self evidently was - there was no argument there).

You've shown yourself up as a liar and a cheat all the more so for your
insistance, in the face of documented evidence, that you did nothing wrong when
all the world can see your cheating.

Had you come clean and said "oops, I misread that", it would all have been
forgotten and barely a soul would have noticed.

Instead, like Aitkin and Archer before you, you scream your innocence from the
roof tops, convincing no one but advertising your mendacity to an ever larger
audience.

It's rather sad, really.

Ian Smith said:

Absolutely not. I not the slightest whiff of a hint that if I
pointed out that the assertion made was erroneous a couple of
pillocks would spring into being, one of whom can't tell the
difference between per year and per billion km, yet is condescending
and disparaging of the statistical abilities of others, and the other
of which actually has no argument whatsoever. I dispute that anyone
could see them coming.

I agree that when it became apparent just how deep and dark the hole
Ewan was digging was getting, I prodded him a little, but it was
fantastically funny.

I think that tells us a great deal about you and sadly what it tells us is not
very pleasant.

It tells us that when you see someone has made a simple, everyday mistake you
actually find yourself cackling with laughter rather than pointing out the
mistake immediately and moving on.

Of course, I appreciate that in your rather sad mind you belive that it would
distract people from your dishonest quoting but you are wrong to believe that.

It was so blatant, and so obvious, that seen once nothing that happens
afterwards will erase the memory of it.

Ewan said:

Ian Smith said:

Absolutely not. I not the slightest whiff of a hint that if I
pointed out that the assertion made was erroneous a couple of
pillocks would spring into being, one of whom can't tell the
difference between per year and per billion km, yet is condescending
and disparaging of the statistical abilities of others, and the other
of which actually has no argument whatsoever. I dispute that anyone
could see them coming.

I agree that when it became apparent just how deep and dark the hole
Ewan was digging was getting, I prodded him a little, but it was
fantastically funny.

I think that tells us a great deal about you and sadly what it
tells us is not very pleasant.

It _was_ fantastically funny. I particularly liked the way you laid
into Tony for his inability to handle statistics properly.

Quoted message said:

It tells us that when you see someone has made a simple, everyday
mistake you actually find yourself cackling with laughter rather
than pointing out the mistake immediately and moving on.

No, actually. Making the mistake wasn't the funny bit. It was the
scorn and ridicule you lavished on everyone that tried to point out
the mistake that was funny. If you'd simply made the mistake, it
wouldn't have been amusing at all.

It was a marvellous case of the pot calling the kettle black, and
doing it with such conviction. Actually, I think it was better than
that - the pot calling the snowball black, maybe.

That you were talking such complete and utter bollocks, that almost
everyone else could see you were maying such an idiot of yourself, and
that through it all you carried on being so self-righteous about your
superior statistical abilities and about how everyone else was being
misleading or messing up their figures.

You alone were in step, and you made it very clear that you _KNEW_,
ABSOLUTELY, that it was everyone else that was out of step.

That was what was funny.
I still think it was fantastically funny.

If we ask nicely, will you do it again?

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

In article <[email hidden]>, Ian Smith says...

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:27:18 GMT, Ewan <[email hidden]> wrote:
blah, blah, blah

Oh, FFS. This dialogue makes some of Matt B's arguments look
interesting and worth reading (almost).

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:39:54 +0000

Tony Raven said:

Nick Kew wrote on 05/02/2007 17:57 +0100:

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:32:41 +0000

Tony Raven said:

Ewan wrote on 05/02/2007 14:38 +0100:
> Can you quote audited statistics for that assertion?
Road Casualties Great Britain 2005 Table 52. Deaths per billion
journey km: Pedestrians 49, cyclists 38.

AIUI, the pedestrian figure includes casualties whilst getting
into or out of a motor vehicle, and I've also heard that those
account for about half of all the pedestrian deaths.

Do you have a reference for that or is it just a number you invented
to make an argument in your favour?
Road Casualties Great Britain 2005 Table 32.

No and no. It's something I heard on Radio 4, but I couldn't
give any more detail.

It seems credible. And even if it's a pile of ****, it serves as
an example of how definitions can radically affect statistics,
particularly where small numbers are involved.

And as for "an argument in my favour", that presupposes I support
some particular position.

--
not me guv

Tony Raven said:

"
It's like the situation of the road crossing for pedestrians that is so
dangerous, no-one ever goes there, so there are no casualties. It is
apparently safe, because it is so dangerous. This is exactly the
situation with cycling for the social groups who are almost
unrepresented amongst cyclists. They make a correct judgement of the
high level of danger that cycling on the roads presents to them,
therefore they don't do it, therefore they don't add to the casualty
figures.

It's fairly safe for most of the people who do it, because people can
judge their own capabilities. But this situation limits cycling, like
skydiving or mountaineering, to a small subset of the population. This
is serious because cycling is so socially and economically useful,
unlike those other activities."

I can see the point he is trying to put across in the first paragraph,
but I do not think it is valid. If these people were extra aware of any
dangers to themselves, they would compensate by cycling in a safe manner
(lit up like christmas trees, well maintained brakes and bikes, read
cyclecraft etc.), and so would in fact reduce the amount of casualties
per mile cycled.

The real danger is those that cycle believing themselves to be fully
safe, or safe if they are wearing an inch or polystyrene. These are the
ones that don't use lights, have faulty brakes and take risks.

I think that there are *very* few people who can judge their own
capabilities, the rest usually overestimate them.

If someone deems cycling to be too dangerous for them, then they will
get in a car and drive, which would be more dangerous.

I think very few people decide whether or not to cycle on safety
grounds. Most people I talk to at work that don't cycle, regard cycling
as too much like hard work, with the wet and the cold also disliked.

Quoted message said:

What do you do when shroud wavers like this are campaigning for cycling?

All you can do counter with reasoned arguments.

Martin.

Martin Dann said:

If someone deems cycling to be too dangerous for them, then they will
get in a car and drive, *which would be more dangerous*.

On what basis do you conclude that?

Would I be safer cycling or driving from Wimbledon into central London?

pk

Martin Dann said:

If someone deems cycling to be too dangerous for them, then they will
get in a car and drive, which would be more dangerous.

Is a second reply bad etiquette? Well, what the hell...

I recall numbers showing that mature, experinced cyclists have an annual
risk around twice that of drivers and around 25% greater than pedestrians.

pk

Ian Smith said:

Ewan said:

Ian Smith said:

Absolutely not. I not the slightest whiff of a hint that if I
pointed out that the assertion made was erroneous a couple of
pillocks would spring into being, one of whom can't tell the
difference between per year and per billion km, yet is condescending
and disparaging of the statistical abilities of others, and the other
of which actually has no argument whatsoever. I dispute that anyone
could see them coming.

I agree that when it became apparent just how deep and dark the hole
Ewan was digging was getting, I prodded him a little, but it was
fantastically funny.

I think that tells us a great deal about you and sadly what it
tells us is not very pleasant.

It _was_ fantastically funny. I particularly liked the way you laid
into Tony for his inability to handle statistics properly.

And yet I was quite correct.

The difference between Tony and myself is that whereas I made a simple mistake
in noting a change of units (and instantly understood the error when you and
Clive stopped your childish baiting and pointed it out) Tony seems to be
*fundamentally* unable to handle statistics whether as a matter of honesty or
competance, I can't tell.

I'll just give one example - the one that started this whole sub-thread - he
countered an assertion the cycling was more dangerous than being a pedestrian by
quoting some statistics and completely ignoring the fact that there are *vastly*
more pedestrian 'journeys' than cycling ones.

An honest poster who was competant with statistics would never have done that
and if he had made an honest mistake he would have readily admited such.

Tony, on the other hand seems either completely unaware or completely unashamed
of his statistical dissembling.

But as you are also a mendacious poster who will use selective quoting to
falsify the appearance of an argument I wouldn't expect you to understand.

You and Tony are like two peas in a pod, both willing to be as dishonest as
needed to attempt to make your point.

Quoted message said:

You alone were in step, and you made it very clear that you _KNEW_,
ABSOLUTELY, that it was everyone else that was out of step.

You have made no cogent argument (indeed have made no attempt at a cogent
argument) to refute my assertion that TR was dishonest/incompetant in his use of
statistics as quoted above.

Instead you continually harp on a simple observational error. Not surprising, I
suppose since that's all you've got.

The fact I made a mistake about a quite different subsiduary (and also
disingenuous) statistic in no way invalidated my assertion that TR and yourself
(who you seem to think qualifies as 'everyone'😉 were using stats in an invalid
and/or dishonest way in the first place.

Ian Smith said:

Ewan said:

Ian Smith said:

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:27:18 GMT, Ewan <[email hidden]> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:19:15 -0000, "p.k." <[email hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >Avoiding the question by posing another?

Like you have been doing and did just now?

Not only are you a past master of selective quoting, you're also now making it
appear that I said something that was actually said by another poster.

No, if you read the attributions (you know - read what people actually
posted) you will see that pk wrote what I claimed pk wrote. There
were two '>' marks - you can count to 2, can't you?

Your ham-fisted/dishonest quoting style makes it appear, to anyone who doesn't
bother count '>'s as if U said what pk said.

I'll be generous and attribute this you your incompetance rather than your
mendacity, in this instance.

Ewan said:

Ian Smith said:

Ewan said:

On 05 Feb 2007 20:58:01 GMT, Ian Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Absolutely not. I not the slightest whiff of a hint that if I
>pointed out that the assertion made was erroneous a couple of
>pillocks would spring into being, one of whom can't tell the
>difference between per year and per billion km, yet is condescending
>and disparaging of the statistical abilities of others, and the other
>of which actually has no argument whatsoever. I dispute that anyone
>could see them coming.
>
>I agree that when it became apparent just how deep and dark the hole
>Ewan was digging was getting, I prodded him a little, but it was
>fantastically funny.

I think that tells us a great deal about you and sadly what it
tells us is not very pleasant.

It _was_ fantastically funny. I particularly liked the way you laid
into Tony for his inability to handle statistics properly.

And yet I was quite correct.

If you say it's correct to subtract 'per year' from 'per billion km'
figures, then who am I to argue. Of course, you must be right, and
everyone else must be cretinous imbecile. Absolutely.

Quoted message said:

The difference between Tony and myself is that whereas I made a simple mistake
in noting a change of units (and instantly understood the error when you and
Clive stopped your childish baiting and pointed it out)

I explicitly pointed it out in the very first posting I made. Still
you were abusive and rude to other people. Still you swore blind you
were in the right. Still you failed (and continue to fail) to
apologise for all the abuse you spewed.

Quoted message said:

I'll just give one example - the one that started this whole sub-thread - he
countered an assertion the cycling was more dangerous than being a pedestrian by
quoting some statistics

Bollocks.

He countered the suggestion that pedestrians were safe from motor
vehicles on the pavement. Read what was ACTUALLY WRITTEN, not what
you think was meant.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You alone were in step, and you made it very clear that you _KNEW_,
ABSOLUTELY, that it was everyone else that was out of step.

You have made no cogent argument (indeed have made no attempt at a cogent
argument) to refute my assertion that TR was dishonest/incompetant in his use of
statistics as quoted above.

I have. The interpretation you have decided to apply relies on
assuming Tony (and I) meant lots more than we actually said. I for
one did not, and from past experience, it is likely that Tony did not.

Read what was written, not what you think it might mean.

Quoted message said:

The fact I made a mistake about a quite different subsiduary (and also
disingenuous) statistic in no way invalidated my assertion that TR and yourself
(who you seem to think qualifies as 'everyone'😉 were using stats in an invalid
and/or dishonest way in the first place.

No. We made specific observations about a specific point.
Observations that pk has subsequently agreed with. I have no idea why
you persist in assuming we meant a whole lot more that was not said.
I didn't. I said everything I meant. Your extrapolated meaning is
completely false.

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

Colin McKenzie said:

fred said:

He does have a point about the value of statistics, but you can co-opt
his example to strengthen your argument for cycling. In his argument,
the pedestrians exercised their senses (sight and sound) and their
judgment and their good sense. They saw a danger, thought things
through, and planned to avoid the danger altogether.

Cyclists are no less intelligent than pedestrians. The simple act of
cycling is not, of itself, inherently dangerous. Sharing a roadway with
automobiles does increase the risk. Cyclists are smart enough to
recognize the truly dangerous places and avoid them (we aren't suicidal
[well, not most of the time]).

Actually, I don't think many cyclists are good at recognising and
avoiding danger. Most cyclists avoid the most frightening places,
which are not the same as the most dangerous.

people are good at human movment sort of dangures once you get to cars
speed people are very bad at it, 30 mph feels slow in car, it's not it
fast. yet people will tailgate at 80mph+

certinaly at the moment ie with dark rides back i would say lights are
the problem for bikers, passed one fellow with a single dull yellow led
attached to his coat. now the fact he had put it there suggest some
thought, in the rain he could easly be missed, particly from the rear
where the LED couldn't be seen.

some adverts on tv about speed maybe some targeted ones in large urban
areas for bikes?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The other problem with his argument is that he assumes that people are
unaffected by the media. People can judge their own capabilities, but
if they continually hear that "cycling is dangerous", they may be
comparing their capabilities against misunderstood requirements ("it's
too dangerous for me"😉. If there was a continual stream of stories from
ordinary folks who showed how they safely commute while avoiding nasty
bits of roadway, those same people might judge that their capabilities
were sufficient to try it themselves.

Most people, cyclists or not, overestimate how hazardous cycling is
overall, and haven't a clue how to cycle to minimise the danger. How
can they know, when the answers are counter-intuitive and the loudest
voices are saying it's lethal whatever you do?

This is why National Standards training is so important.

Colin McKenzie

roger

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Ewan said:

Ian Smith said:

Ewan said:

On 05 Feb 2007 20:16:06 GMT, Ian Smith <[email hidden]> wrote:

>On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:27:18 GMT, Ewan <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 19:19:15 -0000, "p.k." <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Avoiding the question by posing another?
>
>Like you have been doing and did just now?

Not only are you a past master of selective quoting, you're also now making it
appear that I said something that was actually said by another poster.

No, if you read the attributions (you know - read what people actually
posted) you will see that pk wrote what I claimed pk wrote. There
were two '>' marks - you can count to 2, can't you?

Your ham-fisted/dishonest quoting style makes it appear, to anyone who doesn't
bother count '>'s as if U said what pk said.

I have no doubt that if someone doesn't bother to read what is
actually written, they may leap to all sorts of barmy conclusions.
You are, indeed a prime example of that.

It's hardly my problem, however.

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

Ian Smith said:

Quoted message said:

And yet I was quite correct.

If you say it's correct to subtract 'per year' from 'per billion km'
figures, then who am I to argue. Of course, you must be right, and
everyone else must be cretinous imbecile. Absolutely.

oh the delicious irony! in a thread that grew from a deceitful snipping
which you have strenuously denied, you do it again!

You choose to bang on accusing Ewan of something his post make clear he is
NOT doing, yet you snip quote to distort what he says:

"And yet I was quite correct.

The difference between Tony and myself is that whereas I made a simple
mistake
in noting a change of units (and instantly understood the error when you and
Clive stopped your childish baiting and pointed it out) Tony seems to be
fundamentally unable to handle statistics whether as a matter of honesty or
competance, I can't tell."

The meaning of Ewan's post is clear when read in full: He thinks his
substantive point correct despite the clear and acknowledged error in the
subtraction

Ian, why do you do it?

Whatever value there is in your argument (and there is often much good
stuff) is it lost by such snide, sniggering & underhand tactics.

pk