Campervan traps cyclist in ditch

Quoted message said:

The two drivers of the vans were uninjured. The cyclist was suffering
hypothermia and was taken to hospital.

Quoted message said:

Tricky things to handle, those campervans.

No wonder it crashed with two people trying to drive it. Too many cooks
and all that.

He should have been riding on the pavement, then he would have been ok ;-)

Now, if he'd haddahaton..........

--
John Clayton
www.calder-clarion.co.uk

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The two drivers of the vans were uninjured. The cyclist was suffering
hypothermia and was taken to hospital.

Quoted message said:

Tricky things to handle, those campervans.

No wonder it crashed with two people trying to drive it. Too many cooks
and all that.

Ric said:

He should have been riding on the pavement, then he would have been ok ;-)

Well, there was no pavement, so he was riding in the ditch, I guess.

Quoted message said:

Ric said:

He should have been riding on the pavement, then he would have been
ok ;-)

Well, there was no pavement, so he was riding in the ditch, I guess.

I thought everyone here was in favour of ditching cycle lanes?

pk

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

Quoted message said:

Ric said:

He should have been riding on the pavement, then he would have been ok
;-)

Well, there was no pavement, so he was riding in the ditch, I guess.

If there had been a pavement, and he had been riding on it, he wouldn't have
fallen in the ditch. This is therefore proof that riding on pavements is
safer than riding in ditches. And he wasn't killed, but if the campervan had
squashed him in the road, he probably would have been. Therefore riding in
ditches is safer than riding in the road. Ergo by inference, riding on the
pavement is safer than riding on the road.

You can prove anything with statistics!

Ric said:

If there had been a pavement, and he had been riding on it, he wouldn't have
fallen in the ditch. This is therefore proof that riding on pavements is
safer than riding in ditches. And he wasn't killed, but if the campervan had
squashed him in the road, he probably would have been. Therefore riding in
ditches is safer than riding in the road. Ergo by inference, riding on the
pavement is safer than riding on the road.

You can prove anything with statistics!

I think you need to learn the difference between statistics and
inference. Its quite obvious from the above that you do not and its
quite fundamental.

What you have just done above was not prove anything with statistics but
use fallacious inference to convince yourself of your unsustainable
position.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

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

Quoted message said:

Ric said:

He should have been riding on the pavement, then he would have been ok

;-)

Quoted message said:

Well, there was no pavement, so he was riding in the ditch, I guess.

Bog snorkelling, anyone? Myra?

--
MatSav

in message <[email hidden]>, Ric

(') said:

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

Quoted message said:

Ric said:

He should have been riding on the pavement, then he would have been
ok ;-)

Well, there was no pavement, so he was riding in the ditch, I guess.

If there had been a pavement, and he had been riding on it, he wouldn't
have fallen in the ditch. This is therefore proof that riding on
pavements is safer than riding in ditches. And he wasn't killed, but if
the campervan had squashed him in the road, he probably would have
been. Therefore riding in ditches is safer than riding in the road.
Ergo by inference, riding on the pavement is safer than riding on the
road.

If you shine a torch in one of your ears, does the light come out the
other? That must be quite a party trick.

Hint: incidents where a cyclist in the primary position on the road is
hit from behind by another vehicle travelling in the same direction on
the same road are very, very rare indeed. Incidents involving serious
injury or death to cyclists are made up, primarily, of 'doorings' -
where a cyclist passing too close to parked cars strikes or is struck by
the suddenly opened door of a car - and incidents at junctions.
Incidents where motor vehicles travelling in the opposite direction hit
cyclists head on (as in the recent North Wales incident) are more common
than same-direction incidents.

We all know that 'common sense' says cycling on the pavement is safer,
just as 'common sense' says walking must be safer than cycling. 'Common
sense' just happens to be wrong.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'Victories are not solutions.'
;; John Hume, Northern Irish politician, on Radio Scotland 1/2/95
;; Nobel Peace Prize laureate 1998; few have deserved it so much

Simon Brooke said:

If you shine a torch in one of your ears, does the light come out the
other? That must be quite a party trick.

Ric wasn't being serious.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:43:12 GMT someone who may be Mark Thompson
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The two drivers of the vans were uninjured. The cyclist was suffering
hypothermia and was taken to hospital.

Quoted message said:

Tricky things to handle, those campervans.

No wonder it crashed with two people trying to drive it. Too many cooks
and all that.

The police did once stop a college friend. He was operating a
traction engine (returning from a rally). Someone had laid out the
cones in a one way system in such a way that it was not possible to
pass through without doing some damage to the cones.

Young PC plod asked, "who is driving."

The reply was, "I'm driving, but he is steering."

--
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

in message <[email hidden]>, Tom Crispin

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

If you shine a torch in one of your ears, does the light come out the
other? That must be quite a party trick.

Ric wasn't being serious.

He wasn't?

You know, Tom, I think I liked you better as the charming and seductive
Tilly.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

... a mild, inoffensive sadist...

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Tom Crispin

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

If you shine a torch in one of your ears, does the light come out the
other? That must be quite a party trick.

Ric wasn't being serious.

He wasn't?

You know, Tom, I think I liked you better as the charming and seductive
Tilly.

I've just gone back through all Ric's posts for the last 3 months.

I retract my earlier remark. I didn't realise anyone could be quite
so daft.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

Simon Brooke said:

Quoted message said:

Ric wasn't being serious.

He wasn't?

I read Ric's comment as having tongue very firmly in cheek.

Til^H^H^H Mike

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

Quoted message said:

I think you need to learn the difference between statistics and inference.
Its quite obvious from the above that you do not and its quite
fundamental.

What you have just done above was not prove anything with statistics but
use fallacious inference to convince yourself of your unsustainable
position.

The inference is equally as fallacious as your continued claim that "riding
on pavements is dangerous" because riding off the end of pavements into
traffic is dangerous.

And you still haven't explained why you don't advise pedestrians to walk in
the road instead of on the pavement.

A few threads back you were making the pompous, ireresponsible and
ridiculously generalised statement that "pavement cycling is dangerous". You
are advocating that people slavishly follow rigid rules, rather than use
their judgement of the circumstances, which sets a dangerous precedent.
There are clearly circuimstances when taking to the pavement is a safer
option than riding on the road - you should use your judgement and
experience to decide when it is appropriate.

You (and Tony Raven) are still trying to intimate that I am somehow daft in
suggesting that pavement cycling is sometimes a safer option. In any risky
activity, those who rigidly follow poorly conceived rules, and fail to use
their judgement to act on prevailing circumstances, are usually those who
come to grief.

Ric said:

You (and Tony Raven) are still trying to intimate that I am somehow daft in
suggesting that pavement cycling is sometimes a safer option. In any risky
activity, those who rigidly follow poorly conceived rules, and fail to use
their judgement to act on prevailing circumstances, are usually those who
come to grief.

Not suggesting you are daft at all although I am coming to wonder
whether you are a Troll. Cycling is not a risky activity by any
measure. What you seem unable to accept is that all the studies show
cyclepaths and pavement cycling to be far more risky than road cycling.
You have not been able to produce a single shred of evidence to the
contrary despite being asked several times against a weight of evidence
from multiple countries with multiple different approaches to cycle
facilities and road cycling. It seems the only argument you have is
that it offends your faith to believe it and therefore it must be wrong.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Ric said:

The inference is equally as fallacious as your continued claim that "riding
on pavements is dangerous" because riding off the end of pavements into
traffic is dangerous.

I've challenged you once before to point to where I make that claim and
you couldn't but instead you repeat it. You seem quite content to
fabricate without the slightest regard to the facts.

Begone Troll <plonk>

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

in message <[email hidden]>, Ric

(') said:

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

Quoted message said:

I think you need to learn the difference between statistics and
inference. Its quite obvious from the above that you do not and its
quite fundamental.

What you have just done above was not prove anything with statistics
but use fallacious inference to convince yourself of your
unsustainable position.

The inference is equally as fallacious as your continued claim that
"riding on pavements is dangerous" because riding off the end of
pavements into traffic is dangerous.

And you still haven't explained why you don't advise pedestrians to
walk in the road instead of on the pavement.

In Britian, roughly three and a half thousand people a year are injured
by motor vehicles while on the pavement. Roughly three and a half
thousand people a year are injured while walking on the road but not
crossing it. Roughly fourteen thousand people a year - four times as
many - are injured while crossing the road. Whether you walk or cycle,
on the road or pavement, the overwhelming risk is at junctions and
crossings. By contrast, the difference in risk between being on the
pavement and being on the road away from junctions is relatively small
for pedestrians, and probably for cyclists too.

At junctions, if you are where the motorist expects danger to come from
(and consequently where (s)he's looking), you are much safer than if
you're somewhere that the motorist doesn't expect danger to come from.
The additional safety that the cyclist gets from being in the traffic at
junctions far outweighs any hazard of being on the road between
junctions (and indeed this is very small; incidents in which cyclists
are hit from behind are extremely rare).

So it's not at all surprising that cycling on the road is safer than
cycling on the pavement, and it's quite probable that walking on the
road in an orderly manner is also safer than walking on the pavement.
Yes, the number of people injured while walking on the road but not
crossing it is disproportionate to the number doing so, but it's
probable that many of them were drunk and/or fooling around.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Iraq war: it's time for regime change...
... go now, Tony, while you can still go with dignity.
[update 18 months after this .sig was written: it's still relevant]