Matt Seaton in the gradian: "Parris, je ne t'aime pas"

Martin Dann said:

<http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matt_seaton/2008/01/parris_je_ne_t
aime_pas.html>

Seems a well written, balanced repost to parris's peice, although some
of the comments are a bit OT, e.g. "cyclists kill 80 pedestrians a year"

What ought to cause concern to a number of responsible cyclists is the
general dislike of cyclists apparent there from people who profess to
live or work in London.

I do wonder, however, whether I ought to fit a bell and be accused of
arrogantly urging people to get out of my way or not fit a bell and be
accused of hurtling past people without warning. I'm not convinced that
I'm guilty of either but there are enough odd people about (many seem to
be attached to t'interweb even more than I).

Cheers,
Luke

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

Martin Dann said:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matt_seaton/2008/01/parris_je_ne_taime_pas.html

Quoted message said:

Seems a well written, balanced repost to parris's peice, although some
of the comments are a bit OT, e.g. "cyclists kill 80 pedestrians a year"

Quoted message said:

Martin.

Have you read the comments?

drman?
marienkaefer?
TheMole?
Lombardi?
freepoland?
Hotbed?
CharlesLetterman?

Most of the comments seem to be on Parris's "side" and it's all quite
refreshing for Grauniad readers; certainly not what I would have
expected, though I suspect that all the quality papers have two
distinct sets of readers for their paid-for and online versions.

Even the article itself, as you say, is reasonably-balanced and not an
attempt at whitewash of the Lycra-on-pavement brigade who had
obviously got up Matthew Parris's nose (as they clearly have with many
other people's noses).

Ekul Namsob said:

Martin Dann <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matt_seaton/2008/01/parris_je_ne_t
aime_pas.html>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Seems a well written, balanced repost to parris's peice, although some
of the comments are a bit OT, e.g. "cyclists kill 80 pedestrians a year"

Quoted message said:

What ought to cause concern to a number of responsible cyclists is the
general dislike of cyclists apparent there from people who profess to
live or work in London.

Concern, certainly.

Surprise, certainly not.

Quoted message said:

I do wonder, however, whether I ought to fit a bell and be accused of
arrogantly urging people to get out of my way or not fit a bell and be
accused of hurtling past people without warning.

But why would that be? Drivers don't get accused of the second of
those. Why should I, as a sometime London pedestrian be bothered by a
bike passing me - as long as it's on the carriageway?

JNugent said:

Martin Dann said:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matt_seaton/2008/01/parris_je_ne_taime_pas.html

Quoted message said:

Seems a well written, balanced repost to parris's peice, although some
of the comments are a bit OT, e.g. "cyclists kill 80 pedestrians a year"

Quoted message said:

Martin.

Have you read the comments?

Yes, many in favour of random murder etc.

Quoted message said:

drman?
marienkaefer?
TheMole?
Lombardi?
freepoland?
Hotbed?
CharlesLetterman?

EvilTorry:

Quoted message said:

I'd be quite happy for cyclists to pedal along happily, if they didn't seem to have the mistaken beliefs that
a) their vehicles are built for the pavement
b) red lights and traffic signs don't apply to them
c) nor do litter bins.

So now it seems that cyclists could be getting a reputation as litter
bugs (which we all know is untrue), as a direct result of Mr Parris's
article.
Some people are too easily led, especially if that view is similar to
already held beliefs and prejudices.

As Joseph Stalin said: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes truth."

Quoted message said:

Most of the comments seem to be on Parris's "side" and it's all quite
refreshing for Grauniad readers; certainly not what I would have
expected, though I suspect that all the quality papers have two distinct
sets of readers for their paid-for and online versions.

Even the article itself, as you say, is reasonably-balanced and not an
attempt at whitewash of the Lycra-on-pavement brigade who had obviously
got up Matthew Parris's nose (as they clearly have with many other
people's noses).

Martin Dann said:

JNugent said:

Martin Dann said:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matt_seaton/2008/01/parris_je_ne_taime_pas.html

Quoted message said:

Seems a well written, balanced repost to parris's peice, although
some of the comments are a bit OT, e.g. "cyclists kill 80 pedestrians
a year"

Quoted message said:

Martin.

Have you read the comments?

Yes, many in favour of random murder etc.

Quoted message said:

drman?
marienkaefer?
TheMole?
Lombardi?
freepoland?
Hotbed?
CharlesLetterman?

EvilTorry:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd be quite happy for cyclists to pedal along happily, if they didn't
seem to have the mistaken beliefs that
a) their vehicles are built for the pavement
b) red lights and traffic signs don't apply to them
c) nor do litter bins.

Quoted message said:

So now it seems that cyclists could be getting a reputation as litter
bugs (which we all know is untrue), as a direct result of Mr Parris's
article.
Some people are too easily led, especially if that view is similar to
already held beliefs and prejudices.

Quoted message said:

As Joseph Stalin said: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes
truth."

Wasn't that Goebbels?

In any case, that commentator may just as easily have come to that
view in the same way that he probably came to the others - from direct
observation and experience.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Most of the comments seem to be on Parris's "side" and it's all quite
refreshing for Grauniad readers; certainly not what I would have
expected, though I suspect that all the quality papers have two
distinct sets of readers for their paid-for and online versions.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even the article itself, as you say, is reasonably-balanced and not an
attempt at whitewash of the Lycra-on-pavement brigade who had
obviously got up Matthew Parris's nose (as they clearly have with many
other people's noses).

"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As Joseph Stalin said: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes
truth."

Wasn't that Goebbels?

Both wrong. Lenin.

burtthebike said:

"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As Joseph Stalin said: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes
truth."

Quoted message said:

Wasn't that Goebbels?

Both wrong.  Lenin.

"The great masses of the people more easily fall victim to a great lie
than a little one".

A [censored].

Martin Dann said:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matt_seaton/2008/01/parris_je_ne_taime_pas.html

Seems a well written, balanced repost to parris's peice, although some
of the comments are a bit OT, e.g. "cyclists kill 80 pedestrians a year"

Martin.

That sounds like a reasonable ball park figure.

Does anyone know the equivalent global per annum figure for pedestrians
killed by cars?

Quoted message said:

burtthebike said:

"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

>As Joseph Stalin said: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes
>truth."

Quoted message said:

Wasn't that Goebbels?

Both wrong. Lenin.

"The great masses of the people more easily fall victim to a great lie
than a little one".

Quoted message said:

A [censored].

OK, but which one?

"Nick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Martin Dann said:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matt_seaton/2008/01/parris_je_ne_taime_pas.html
Seems a well written, balanced repost to parris's peice, although some of
the comments are a bit OT, e.g. "cyclists kill 80 pedestrians a year"

Martin.

That sounds like a reasonable ball park figure.

Globally possibly. The average for peds killed by cyclists in the UK annual
average figure is less than one. It is not clear whether the majority of
these are on the pavement or the carriageway.

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:37:36 GMT someone who may be "burtthebike"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

The average for peds killed by cyclists in the UK annual
average figure is less than one. It is not clear whether the majority of
these are on the pavement or the carriageway.

That distinction sounds rather close to the motoring lobby's view
that pedestrians should get out of the way of motorists.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen said:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:37:36 GMT someone who may be "burtthebike"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

The average for peds killed by cyclists in the UK annual
average figure is less than one.  It is not clear whether the majority of
these are on the pavement or the carriageway.

That distinction sounds rather close to the motoring lobby's view
that pedestrians should get out of the way of motorists.

The point was to show that no distinction was made between those
killed due to the actions of the cyclists and those killed where the
cyclist was not to blame. One could ask how many cyclists are killed
by pedestrians in a year.

David Lloyd

Nick said:

Martin Dann said:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matt_seaton/2008/01/parris_je_ne_...

Quoted message said:

Seems a well written, balanced repost to parris's peice, although some
of the comments are a bit OT, e.g. "cyclists kill 80 pedestrians a year"

Quoted message said:

Martin.

That sounds like a reasonable ball park figure.

Does anyone know the equivalent global per annum figure for pedestrians
killed by cars?

That's garbage , one person has been killed by a cyclist in the last
year- and that's in ALL circumstances, including a pedestrian running
into the road.

A survey by the RAC found that, yes, a lot of cyclists run red lights.
It also found that one in ten drivers in Manchester and London crossed
traffic lights more than three seconds after the lights turned red,
and one in five bus drivers ran red lights. There are ten thousand
traffic light camera prosecutions annually in London alone, a small
part of the 1.5 million prosecutions annually based on camera evidence
(I don't know what proportion are speed versus red lights), in turn
the tip of the iceberg of twelve million prosecutions and cautions for
motoring offences by UK police forces in 2002.

Lawbreaking, then, is not restricted to bikes. Motorists break the law
in vast numbers. Speeding, in particular , is rife, and despite the
evidence that the faster you go the more likely you are to kill or be
killed if you crash, when speed cameras are erected we don't laugh at
the idiots who get caught, we rail against the "stealth tax" on
motorists.

Nick said:

Martin Dann said:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/matt_seaton/2008/01/parris_je_ne_taime_pas.html

Seems a well written, balanced repost to parris's peice, although some
of the comments are a bit OT, e.g. "cyclists kill 80 pedestrians a year"

Martin.

That sounds like a reasonable ball park figure.

Does anyone know the equivalent global per annum figure for pedestrians
killed by cars?

Or pedestrians killed accidentally by other pedestrians?

--
Matt B

David Hansen said:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:37:36 GMT someone who may be "burtthebike"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

The average for peds killed by cyclists in the UK annual
average figure is less than one. It is not clear whether the majority of
these are on the pavement or the carriageway.

That distinction sounds rather close to the motoring lobby's view
that pedestrians should get out of the way of motorists.

Which "motoring lobby", and can you cite references please. The
progressive view is that, in community spaces, all users, foot, bike,
car, should have equal priority.

--
Matt B

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 00:42:30 -0800 (PST) someone who may be David
Lloyd <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The average for peds killed by cyclists in the UK annual
average figure is less than one.  It is not clear whether the majority of
these are on the pavement or the carriageway.

That distinction sounds rather close to the motoring lobby's view
that pedestrians should get out of the way of motorists.

The point was to show that no distinction was made between those
killed due to the actions of the cyclists and those killed where the
cyclist was not to blame.

Cyclists are not to blame if they kill a pedestrian who is on the
road? That just makes it sound more like the motoring lobby's view.

Quoted message said:

One could ask how many cyclists are killed by pedestrians in a year.

Undoubtedly more than the converse.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen said:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:37:36 GMT someone who may be "burtthebike"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The average for peds killed by cyclists in the UK annual
average figure is less than one. It is not clear whether the majority of
these are on the pavement or the carriageway.

That distinction sounds rather close to the motoring lobby's view
that pedestrians should get out of the way of motorists.

Its main relevance is to the constant whingeing about pavement
cyclists. Not only is less than one pedestrian killed by a cyclist in
an average year, but also less than less than one is killed by a
pavement cyclist. Or fewer.

(Not that I think that pavement cycling is a good thing).

That 80 figure could be the annual average number of pedestrians
killed on footways by motor vehicles - hundreds more are of course
killed on carriageways.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

Matt B said:

David Hansen said:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 06:37:36 GMT someone who may be "burtthebike"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

The average for peds killed by cyclists in the UK annual
average figure is less than one. It is not clear whether the majority of
these are on the pavement or the carriageway.

That distinction sounds rather close to the motoring lobby's view
that pedestrians should get out of the way of motorists.

Which "motoring lobby", and can you cite references please. The
progressive view is that, in community spaces, all users, foot, bike,
car, should have equal priority.

That is, to my mind, nonsense: equal priority is not priority. In any
case, that is /a/ progressive view. Another progressive view is that, in
community spaces, the most vulnerable road users should have priority
over the least vulnerable.

I don't, by the way, intend this to develop into a long, protracted
debate. By now, I think our views on these matters are fairly clear.

Cheers,
Luke

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

David Hansen said:

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 00:42:30 -0800 (PST) someone who may be David
Lloyd <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One could ask how many cyclists are killed by pedestrians in a year.

Undoubtedly more than the converse.

Really?

Cheers,
Luke

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