What do you do?

Ian Smith said:

I was not commenting on any point other than that it is not true to
say that a pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazards caused
by cars. That is all. What I said was and is true.

That is all I commented on. That is all I meant to comment on. Your
relentless misrepresentation of this as meaning I must mean something
about the safety of cyclists is very peculiar.

By commenting on pedestrians, I didn't mean anything about the safety
of airline passengers either, nor of lion taming or scuba diving - are
you going to accuse me of thinking they are unreasonably dangerous
too?

Ian,

Is cycling safe?

pk

Ian Smith said:

Ewan said:

Ian Smith said:

No. You might have decided that was the main point. I do not agree.

Well, that just proves you're an idiot.

Disagreeing with you proves someone to be an idiot?

No, being incapable of understanding the difference between an absolute and a
relative statement and not admitting you have been thoroughly dishonest when the
evidence is plain to see makes you an idiot.

Quoted message said:

Idiot I am then.

Good, we're getting somewhere. Self knowledge is a wonderful thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The part you dishonestly snipped contained the phase "which is more
or less the same" which, to anyone with even the most basic
understanding of English, makes the statement relative.

I didn't comment on teh relative severity. I commented that
pedestrians on teh p[avement are not safe from danger from cars. That
is a true statement. I'm slightly suprprised it upsets you so much.

It doesn't upset me at all. What upsets me is that you have so little honour
that you twist what one poster said, argue the twisted point (which is *not* the
one the original poster made) and then insist on trying to brazen it out.

That makes you not only an idiot but a lair as well.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My quoting accurately addressed what I consider the main point -
pedestrians on the pavement are not safe from cars.

No [censored], Sherlock 😉

Oh, so now you agree?

Your attempts to sidestep the issue are getting a little pathetic.

We're not arguing about the fact that no one is absolutely safe. That is a
given.

What we are arguing about is that you dishonestly twisted what one poster said
to make it appear that his point was other than it was and then argued that
irrelevant point.

Quoted message said:

Why, if you agree with what I said, are you getting so frantic about
it?

No one's getting frantic. I'm just not prepared to see you succeed in lying your
way out of your dishonourable conduct.

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:49:13 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The latest response to the suggestion of cycle training of the sort Tom
does is to demand evidence that training is effective having ignored
repeated requests for any evidence that the big investment over many
years in building facilities has had any positive effect on the numbers
cycling or the safety of those that do cycle.

Certain cycle routes have had a very positive effect on certain
catagories of cyclists. The Camel Trail, for example, sees a huge
number of leisure and family cyclists every weekend.

However, it seems a sad fact that the London tube bombing did more to
increase cycling on the Capital than all the millions which have been
poured into London's cycling infrustructure.

As for safety, there are good cycle routes and poor cycle routes. For
inexperienced cyclists the perception is that using a cycle lane or
path is safer than the road, and an increase in the number of cycle
lanes is something which gets more new cyclists out.

Ewan wrote on 05/02/2007 17:30 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

p.k. stated "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the
hazard" meaning cars which they clearly are not. 40 a year of them
are killed by cars on the pavement.

Oh, dear, you really do have a lot of trouble with interpreting
statistics, don't you?

According to what you have just written, you're saying that only 9
pedestrians were killed on the roads, whereas 40 were killed on the
pavement.

That is arrant nonsense, just as was your original comment.

<plonk>

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

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

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:32:41 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ewan wrote on 05/02/2007 14:38 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Can you quote audited statistics for that assertion?

Road Casualties Great Britain 2005 Table 52. Deaths per billion journey
km: Pedestrians 49, cyclists 38.

Quoted message said:

Oh, dear, you really do have a lot of trouble with interpreting
statistics,
don't you?

According to what you have just written, you're saying that only 9
pedestrians
were killed on the roads, whereas 40 were killed on the pavement.

That is arrant nonsense, just as was your original comment.

Erm - it might be worth re-reading all the stuff above (I've snipped the
irrelevancies) and then apologising to Tony. Particularly for the comment
about him having trouble interpreting statistics.

clive

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

Tony Raven said:

Ewan wrote on 05/02/2007 14:38 +0100:

Quoted message said:

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.

If that's the case, then your figure for genuine pedestrians
goes down to about 25.

Or even less, because we may reasonably suppose that the
genuine pedestrians account for more of those billion
journey km than the ones getting into or out of a vehicle.

Of course, ICBW. But that kind of statistics are always
at some level an artifact of quirks of definition.

--
not me guv

Ewan said:

Tony Raven said:

Roger wrote on 05/02/2007 16:05 +0100:

Quoted message said:

you did mess with the quoting and now you're busted.

Funny isn't it how Ewan turns up having only ever posted in urc and only
in the last 48hrs and then you turn up having never posted anywhere
before to defend him. Are you related?

No.

Before I started to read USENET I read a very interesting little guide where it
mentioned lamers who, when they are losing an argument try and make out that all
the people who are against them are the same person (sock-puppets?).

I predict that he will now use their second favourite weapon - the
'killfile'. His clique will then look for, and find, excuses to do the
same. ;-)

--
Matt B

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:52:45 -0000, "Clive George" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:32:41 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message 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.

Quoted message said:

Oh, dear, you really do have a lot of trouble with interpreting
statistics,
don't you?

According to what you have just written, you're saying that only 9
pedestrians
were killed on the roads, whereas 40 were killed on the pavement.

That is arrant nonsense, just as was your original comment.

Erm - it might be worth re-reading all the stuff above (I've snipped the
irrelevancies) and then apologising to Tony. Particularly for the comment
about him having trouble interpreting statistics.

Sorry, Clive, I think it's you who needs to re-read some of the posts above,
paying particular attention to the stuff that you have snipped as you are quite
wrong in assuming it's irrelevant.

I'll try and make it easy for you to understand.

Deaths per billion journey km: Pedestrians 49.

Now, unless you are animal stupid, you will realise that most of those were
killed on the road, *NOT on the pavement*.

That isn't a pedantic point in this case because what pk originally said was:

|the difference is that the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the
|hazard and chooses when to share road space with cars - ie chooses when to
|cross the road.

Note that the point he was making was that if a pedestrian is reasonably careful
he will only share space with cars *on his terms*, whereas the cyclist has to
share the space most of the time.

So, no, Tony does not deserve an apology, but I would be happy to accept one
from you for further wasting time by not properly reading *and understanding*
what was written.

Ian Smith said:

That is all I commented on. That is all I meant to comment on. Your
relentless misrepresentation of this as meaning I must mean something
about the safety of cyclists is very peculiar.

Ian, come now, don't be silly.

The thread is about CYCLING safety. I made a point relating pedestrian
safety to cycling safety clearly a relative point. you chose to take a
section from Tony's post and twist it and now pretend you are just talking
about absolute pedestrian safety.

Is cycling safe?

pk

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:08:14 +0000, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com>

Quoted message said:

Ewan said:

Tony Raven said:

Roger wrote on 05/02/2007 16:05 +0100:
> you did mess with the quoting and now you're busted.
Funny isn't it how Ewan turns up having only ever posted in urc and only
in the last 48hrs and then you turn up having never posted anywhere
before to defend him. Are you related?

No.

Before I started to read USENET I read a very interesting little guide where it
mentioned lamers who, when they are losing an argument try and make out that all
the people who are against them are the same person (sock-puppets?).

I predict that he will now use their second favourite weapon - the
'killfile'. His clique will then look for, and find, excuses to do the
same. ;-)

From what I've read, a whole bunch of the clique will very vocally announce they
are putting someone in their killfile (which, apparantly is pure posturing - who
cares?), but they will always have a couple of people don't so that they can
quote what the nemesis says thus giving the plonkers the chance to both have
their cake (killfiling) and eat it (getting to badmouth the person they're
supposedly ignoring.

And all this to defend someone who doesn't understand stats very well and a
dishonest snipper (there's a whole section on their tactics).

Tony Raven said:

Ewan wrote on 05/02/2007 17:30 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
p.k. stated "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the
hazard" meaning cars which they clearly are not. 40 a year of them
are killed by cars on the pavement.

Oh, dear, you really do have a lot of trouble with interpreting
statistics, don't you?

According to what you have just written, you're saying that only 9
pedestrians were killed on the roads, whereas 40 were killed on the
pavement.

That is arrant nonsense, just as was your original comment.

<plonk>

This is, apparantly, a very predicatable response form someone who cannot
continue an argument.

After trying to make out their adversary is someone else (or several other
people) they throw in the towel and admit they're a plonker.

I suppose I should be grateful that he didn't try one of the other mainstays of
the lamer's armoury: "you're an AI program gone wrong".

LOL

Ewan said:

Quoted message said:

Note that the point he was making was that if a pedestrian is
reasonably careful he will only share space with cars *on his terms*,
whereas the cyclist has to share the space most of the time.

Exactly!

irony of this thread running concurrently with:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd value input from you all as to what to do in this scenario (which

happened this afternoon):
- End of club run, group strung out, approaching a railway bridge that's
single carriageway
- Motorist (high gear engine sreaming) overtakes part of group but not
safely as bridge is imminent
- Gets alongside me, edges past, starts pulling over towards curb and
nearside bridge wall (only the driver is past me, the rest if the car is
not!)>>

And the "I've been there too" anecdotes in that thread

is wryly amusing.

pk

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

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:52:45 -0000, "Clive George"
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:32:41 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>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.

Quoted message said:

Oh, dear, you really do have a lot of trouble with interpreting
statistics,
don't you?

According to what you have just written, you're saying that only 9
pedestrians
were killed on the roads, whereas 40 were killed on the pavement.

That is arrant nonsense, just as was your original comment.

Erm - it might be worth re-reading all the stuff above (I've snipped the
irrelevancies) and then apologising to Tony. Particularly for the comment
about him having trouble interpreting statistics.

Sorry, Clive, I think it's you who needs to re-read some of the posts
above,
paying particular attention to the stuff that you have snipped as you are
quite
wrong in assuming it's irrelevant.

I'm quite confident you're wrong. Let's see how long it takes you to work
out why. I'll give you a hint - its the sort of mistake physics and maths
teachers to berate people for. (ok, don't 'like' to - but they have to do it
quite a lot, because people like you will keep making it).

Quoted message said:

I'll try and make it easy for you to understand.

Deaths per billion journey km: Pedestrians 49.

Now, unless you are animal stupid, you will realise that most of those
were
killed on the road, *NOT on the pavement*.

That isn't a pedantic point in this case because what pk originally said
was:

|the difference is that the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the
|hazard and chooses when to share road space with cars - ie chooses when
to
|cross the road.

Note that the point he was making was that if a pedestrian is reasonably
careful
he will only share space with cars *on his terms*, whereas the cyclist has
to
share the space most of the time.

So, no, Tony does not deserve an apology, but I would be happy to accept
one
from you for further wasting time by not properly reading *and
understanding*
what was written.

Well, I apologise for my incorrect snipping - I'll restore the relevant bit
:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

p.k. stated "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the
hazard" meaning cars which they clearly are not. 40 a year of them
are killed by cars on the pavement.

Now, how about that apology for Tony? And for me, for accusing me of failing
to read and understand what was written.

clive

Ewan said:

Tony Raven said:

Ewan wrote on 05/02/2007 14:38 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Can you quote audited statistics for that assertion?

Road Casualties Great Britain 2005 Table 52. Deaths per billion
journey km: Pedestrians 49, cyclists 38.

Yes, but you need to show the number of pedestrians killed *on the
pavement* which is what pk refered to.

Quoted message said:

p.k. stated "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the
hazard" meaning cars which they clearly are not. 40 a year of them
are killed by cars on the pavement.

Oh, dear, you really do have a lot of trouble with interpreting
statistics, don't you?

LOL.
Wait for it, this is good...

Quoted message said:

According to what you have just written, you're saying that only 9
pedestrians were killed on the roads, whereas 40 were killed on the
pavement.

That is arrant nonsense, just as was your original comment.

49 PER BILLION JOURNEY KM.
40 per year.

Just because two numbers appear in teh same post, you can't just
subtract one from teh other and hope to come up with something
meaningful. It may come as a surprise to you, but there are probably
more than 1 billion pedestrian km per year in the uk.

And yet you see fit to say to Tony "you really do have a lot of
trouble with interpreting statistics"!
Priceless! Couldn't make it up if I tried.

If teh rest of you comprehension is that poor... No, scrub that,
we've already seen that the rest of your comprehension _is_ that poor.

It's not Tony that's posting arrant nonsense, is it?

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

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:25:23 -0000, "Clive George" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I'm quite confident you're wrong. Let's see how long it takes you to work
out why. I'll give you a hint - its the sort of mistake physics and maths
teachers to berate people for. (ok, don't 'like' to - but they have to do it
quite a lot, because people like you will keep making it).

Quoted message said:

Well, I apologise for my incorrect snipping - I'll restore the relevant bit

Quoted message said:

Now, how about that apology for Tony? And for me, for accusing me of failing
to read and understand what was written.

Any chance that you can stop the childish posturing and say what you mean.

I've indicated TR's error quite clearly.

All you've done is post a sort of smirking riposte which says precisely nothing.

And if you entire point is that PK said the pedestrians on the pavement are safe
from the hazard when there is a very small chance that a vehicle will mount the
pavement and kill them, all I can say is 'grow up and get a life'. I'll be
disapointed if you're going for such a pedantic stunt but your sneering,
self-satisfied tone suggests that you have something like that in mind.

Remember my point about TR's (and apparantly your) fundamental inability to
grasp stats stems from his two statements:

|Road Casualties Great Britain 2005 Table 52. Deaths per billion journey
|km: Pedestrians 49, cyclists 38.

and

|p.k. stated "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the
|hazard" meaning cars which they clearly are not. 40 a year of them are
|killed by cars on the pavement.

Implying, oviously erroneously, that 40 peds were killed by cars mounting the
pavement and only 9 on the roads.

Ewan said:

Tony Raven said:

Ewan wrote on 05/02/2007 17:30 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Oh, dear, you really do have a lot of trouble with interpreting
statistics, don't you?

According to what you have just written, you're saying that only 9
pedestrians were killed on the roads, whereas 40 were killed on the
pavement.

<plonk>

This is, apparantly, a very predicatable response form someone who
cannot continue an argument.

Also when faced with someone who's not worth arguing with - say, the
sort of person that subtracts the figure of deaths per year from teh
figure of deaths per billion km, thinks this will give a useful
number, and then accuses some _else_ of being no good with statistics.

Brilliant. Keep it up - Tony might have plonked you, but you're
providing me with more laughs than anyone else today.

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

Ewan said:

Clive George said:

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

Quoted message said:

Oh, dear, you really do have a lot of trouble with interpreting
statistics, don't you?

According to what you have just written, you're saying that only 9
pedestrians were killed on the roads, whereas 40 were killed on
the pavement.

That is arrant nonsense, just as was your original comment.

Erm - it might be worth re-reading all the stuff above (I've
snipped the irrelevancies) and then apologising to Tony.
Particularly for the comment about him having trouble interpreting
statistics.

Sorry, Clive, I think it's you who needs to re-read some of the
posts above, paying particular attention to the stuff that you have
snipped as you are quite wrong in assuming it's irrelevant.

I'll try and make it easy for you to understand.

Ho ho. Fantastic.
Do you want a new shovel down there?

Quoted message said:

So, no, Tony does not deserve an apology, but I would be happy to
accept one from you for further wasting time by not properly
reading *and understanding* what was written.

Oooh, I think I'm going to die laughing.

Dig. Dig. Dig. Found any kangaroos yet?

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

Ewan said:

And as you and Ian both seem to have the same blind spot when it
comes to understanding the difference between an absolute and a
relative,

On the bright side, I know the difference between "per billion km" and
"per year".

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

p.k. said:

Ian Smith said:

I was not commenting on any point other than that it is not true to
say that a pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazards caused
by cars. That is all. What I said was and is true.

Ian,

Is cycling safe?

p.k.,

Are pedestrians on a pavement safe from cars?

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

p.k. said:

Ian Smith said:

That is all I commented on. That is all I meant to comment on.
Your relentless misrepresentation of this as meaning I must mean
something about the safety of cyclists is very peculiar.

Ian, come now, don't be silly.

The thread is about CYCLING safety. I made a point relating
pedestrian safety to cycling safety clearly a relative point.

You made a comment about pedestrians immunity from motor-vehicles.
I responded to that. That is all.

Quoted message said:

section from Tony's post and twist it and now pretend you are just
talking about absolute pedestrian safety.

That IS all I am talking about. If I had intended to talk about
cyclist safety I would have mentioned cyclist safety. If I had
intende dto compare relative safety I would have mentioned relative
safety. I did not.

I do find it very peculiar that I can comment on one, specific,
narrowly defined point and you decide I must be talking about
something else entirely, and criticise me for opinions I have not
expressed, and insist I _MUST_ have meant to talk about something
else.

Does it really seem impossible to you that I meant to say what
I actually said, and did not say what I did not intend to say?

I said what I meant to say, about what I meant to say. I don't need
you deciding I was really talking about something else entirely.

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