Time spent to travel

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 20:46:52 +0100, "Simonb"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>I think I came across those pics of your banger long before I came to UKRC.

Either that or you went to Southampton Uni in the late 80's...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 20:25:37 +0100, "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> Actually it is not made up, merely a misquote. It was 75% travelling
>> by bike or walking, now down to 2% by bike and (from memory) under 25%
>> walking. The source is Hillman & Whitelegg's "One False Move",
>> probably.

> Which is either wrong, or your memory is.

Which bit is wrong? Hillman & Whitelegg being the source? I can
probably go and find it if I can be bothered.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 22 May 2004 20:59:41 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Death rates are plummetting in France.

Impossible. They have introduced Killer Speed Cameras, which increase
fatality rates by a third [(c) Psmith's Believe It Or Not].

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Jon Senior]

Stuffed [email protected] opined the following...
> And what would your mother say!?

"How old are you? Why do you still live with us? When are you going to
get your own house?"

Jon

 

[PeterE]

Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> Stuffed [email protected] opined the following...
>> And what would your mother say!?
>
> "How old are you? Why do you still live with us? When are you going to
> get your own house?"

Given the current level of house prices, probably "when I inherit this one"

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)

 

[Stuffed]

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Stuffed [email protected] opined the following...
> > And what would your mother say!?
>
> "How old are you? Why do you still live with us? When are you going to
> get your own house?"

You're not acquainted with Peter I take it?

So far his mother is an accomplice to driving on possibly illegal tyres.
Actually, she's the reason he's driving on suspect tyres it seems. Try
looking his posts up on uk.r.c.m for a laugh/ horror story

 

[Lordy]

> > > > HC simply says "you MUST NOT ride when under the influence of
> > > > drink or drugs". No mention of being drunk.
> > >
> > > There's a difference between the HC and the law.
> >
> > But, as I'm sure you know, where the HC uses the phrase "MUST" or
> > "MUST NOT" then it directly relates to Road Traffic Law and would
> > be an offence.
>
> The RTA states 'to such an extent as to be incable of
> having proper control of a bicycle'.

So basically the same as "under the influence of drink or drugs" then.


--
Lordy

 

[Paul Rudin]

"PeterE" <peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> writes:

> Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
> > Stuffed [email protected] opined the following...
> >> And what would your mother say!?
> >
> > "How old are you? Why do you still live with us? When are you going to
> > get your own house?"
>
> Given the current level of house prices, probably "when I inherit this one"

"Ah... we've left it to Batersea Dogs Home"

 

[Rachel Schaufeld]

[email protected] (Jim Higgons) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/Wardlaw.on.Barnes.html
> >
> > (Dated 2001)
> >
> > > while in Great Britain, an hour of average cycling incurs 2.5 times
> > > the risk of death when driving,
> >
> > GB cycling person year was 5.3 hours, compared with 137 driving.
> > Deaths were 130 compared with 1100. Looks like 3 times.
>
> Wardlaw was writing in August 2001. Clearly he was *not* basing his
> figures on 2001 stats.
>
> > >but here the comparison is biased
> > > because half of British cyclists are young males. Accounting for this
> >
> > If forty-somethings are young.
>
> I suspect Wardlaw was referring to the fact that about 45% of cycling
> in the UK is done by males under the age of 18.

I wonder where Wardlaw got his figures from. I started cycling 17
years ago when I was 30 as I worked on the edge of town and the bus
services were poor. I have never had anyone with a clipboard ask me
about cycling and neither has anyone I know.
>
> > > bias suggests that British cyclists face risks no greater than the
> > > European average for car occupants, or for US car occupants.
> >
> > That's still 3 times the risk for British drivers then (per hour).
> >
> > There seems to be an implication that deaths per cycling-hour
> > are not much different in Europe to Britain.
>
> How do you work that out?
>
> Even if this were true as an average, obviously there would be some
> countries doing better than us, and others doing worse.
>
> Jim.

 

[Nick Finnigan]

"Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Death rates are plummetting in France. IIRC last year's total was 5000, down
> from around 7 or 8000 3 or 4 years ago.

5,358 in 1997; 5,804 in 1998; 5,455 in 1999; 5,291 in 2000.
7,267 in 1980 (according to IRTAD).

 

[Steve Firth]

Nick Finnigan <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Ambrose Nankivell" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Death rates are plummetting in France. IIRC last year's total was 5000, down
> > from around 7 or 8000 3 or 4 years ago.
>
> 5,358 in 1997; 5,804 in 1998; 5,455 in 1999; 5,291 in 2000.
> 7,267 in 1980 (according to IRTAD).

Hmm, so that's rather flat for not far off an entire decade. And it
looks like greater clampdown on speed is having little effect. Rather
different from the propaganda put about by the speedweenies.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 23 May 2004 16:48:35 +0100, [email protected] (Steve
Firth) wrote in message <1ge8yor.1pl8omjyd7a2oN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:

>> 5,358 in 1997; 5,804 in 1998; 5,455 in 1999; 5,291 in 2000.
>> 7,267 in 1980 (according to IRTAD).

>Hmm, so that's rather flat for not far off an entire decade. And it
>looks like greater clampdown on speed is having little effect. Rather
>different from the propaganda put about by the speedweenies.

Indeed. As far as I recall the speed weenie propaganda has it that a
third of deaths are due to cameras, so there should have been a
substantial rise in France following their recent clampdown.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[PeterE]

Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 May 2004 16:48:35 +0100, [email protected] (Steve
> Firth) wrote in message <1ge8yor.1pl8omjyd7a2oN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:
>
>>> 5,358 in 1997; 5,804 in 1998; 5,455 in 1999; 5,291 in 2000.
>>> 7,267 in 1980 (according to IRTAD).
>
>> Hmm, so that's rather flat for not far off an entire decade. And it
>> looks like greater clampdown on speed is having little effect. Rather
>> different from the propaganda put about by the speedweenies.
>
> Indeed. As far as I recall the speed weenie propaganda has it that a
> third of deaths are due to cameras, so there should have been a
> substantial rise in France following their recent clampdown.

No, it will take several years to spoil a previously favourable trend. AIUI
the greater part of recent improvements in France is due to tougher
drink-drive enforcement.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sun, 23 May 2004 18:52:08 +0100, "PeterE"
<peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>it will take several years to spoil a previously favourable trend. AIUI
>the greater part of recent improvements in France is due to tougher
>drink-drive enforcement.

AIUI the greater part of recent improvements in France is due to
tougher enforcement, full stop.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Steve Firth]

Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:

> Indeed. As far as I recall the speed weenie propaganda has it that a
> third of deaths are due to cameras, so there should have been a
> substantial rise in France following their recent clampdown.

Perhaps that explains why despite a claim for a huge fall in deaths,
deaths have stayed level. The deaths that were saved by the reduction in
speed were balanced exactly by the deaths caused by speed cameras.

Errm BTW, France still has bugger all GATSOs. So I don't think they
figure in accident stats either way.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.

 

[Steve Firth]

Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:

> AIUI the greater part of recent improvements in France is due to
> tougher enforcement, full stop.

By human beings, not by robot fund raisers.

I appreciate the fact that les flics patrol the autoroutes, I wonder why
we never see police cars patrolling our motorways anymore? Ah yes,
because stupid people think that you can replace policemen with cameras.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.

 

[JohnB]

PeterE wrote:

> > Indeed. As far as I recall the speed weenie propaganda has it that a
> > third of deaths are due to cameras, so there should have been a
> > substantial rise in France following their recent clampdown.
>
> No, it will take several years to spoil a previously favourable trend. AIUI
> the greater part of recent improvements in France is due to tougher
> drink-drive enforcement.

Would you care to separate out the effects of greater enforcement on
drink driving with the increased effect of speed cameras then?
You may find that enforcement over a whole range of motorists
misdemeanours is being addressed.

John B

 

[Nick Finnigan]

"Steve Firth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1ge8yor.1pl8omjyd7a2oN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>
> Hmm, so that's rather flat for not far off an entire decade.

A bit of a mistake there - I picked cars fatalities instead of
total, and later figures are now out. 1997 to 2002 was:
8,444 8,918 8,487 8,079 8,160 7,655

(13,000 in 1980)

 

[Adrian Miles-Davros]

"Rachel Schaufeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] (Jim Higgons) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/Wardlaw.on.Barnes.html
> > >
> > > (Dated 2001)
> > >
> > > > while in Great Britain, an hour of average cycling incurs 2.5 times
> > > > the risk of death when driving,
> > >
> > > GB cycling person year was 5.3 hours, compared with 137 driving.
> > > Deaths were 130 compared with 1100. Looks like 3 times.
> >
> > Wardlaw was writing in August 2001. Clearly he was *not* basing his
> > figures on 2001 stats.
> >
> > > >but here the comparison is biased
> > > > because half of British cyclists are young males. Accounting for
this
> > >
> > > If forty-somethings are young.
> >
> > I suspect Wardlaw was referring to the fact that about 45% of cycling
> > in the UK is done by males under the age of 18.
>
> I wonder where Wardlaw got his figures from. I started cycling 17 > years
ago when I was 30 as I worked on the edge of town and the bus > services
were poor. I have never had anyone with a clipboard ask me > about cycling
and neither has anyone I know.
> >
This might help:-

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/SteppingStones.htm

Adrian

 

[Jim Higgons]

"JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Jim Higgons wrote:
>
> > I wrote:
>
> >> I don't know, but it isn't that relevant. Even here in Britain, 75%
> >> of children used to cycle to school forty years ago. Now it's 2%.
>
> > For those who had the manners to ask me what my source was, rather
> > than coming straight out and accusing me of making it up,
>
> There was no point in asking you the source, since whatever the source is,
> it is clearly wrong (as you quoted it at least). You really ought to have
> sensed that before you quoted it.

I'll be happy to confirm that the figure is "clearly wrong" just as
soon as you (or anyone else) produces some "authoritative" figures
demonstrating the fact.

It isn't clear to me that the figure is obviously wrong. Why should it
be, when I wasn't even alive at the time?

> > that figure
> > comes from the Policy Studies Institute, "One False Move", 1990.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> They did not say that forty years ago, 75% of children cycles to school,
> which is what you "quoted" (or, if they did, they are away with the mixer).

Why are you pretending not to comprehend my last post?

> I would be shocked to learn (authoritatively) that there has ever been a
> moment at which 75% of children at school simultaneously owned bicycles, let
> alone rode them to school.

Shocked? I know dozens of children and I can't think of a single one
who does not own a bicycle (or at least, in the case of my two-year
old, a tricycle). However out of touch I may be with the youth of
forty years ago, you are at least as out of touch with the youth of
today.

> And the fact that the whole thing is a pure fabrication does not necessarily
> imply that *you* made it up.

No, it's the way you wrote it that implied that.

Jim.