You couldn't make it up.

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by John B, Jun 26, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. John B

    John B Guest

    I'm not going to cross post as it will bring a certain troll over here, but if anyone wants to see
    his latest nonsense visit uk.tosspot and see "Who's vulnerable". There, he writes:

    "I hear a lot of bleating about so called "vulnerable" road users."

    "Today's new figures show that it's motor vehicle users who are more vulnerable in practice."

    No, I'm not making it up and its not April 1st.

    John B
     
    Tags:


  2. In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > I'm not going to cross post as it will bring a certain troll over here, but if anyone wants to see
    > his latest nonsense visit uk.tosspot and see "Who's vulnerable". There, he writes:
    >
    >
    > "I hear a lot of bleating about so called "vulnerable" road users."
    >
    > "Today's new figures show that it's motor vehicle users who are more vulnerable in practice."
    >
    > No, I'm not making it up and its not April 1st.

    Yes, this once again comes down to his total (and some might say willful) cluelessness where
    statistics are concerned.

    Colin
     
  3. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    In news:[email protected], John B <[email protected]> typed:
    >
    > "I hear a lot of bleating about so called "vulnerable" road users."
    >
    > "Today's new figures show that it's motor vehicle users who are more vulnerable in practice."
    >

    If you interpret "motor vehicle users" as those people who use motor vehicles to go under/bounce off
    on their way to hospital he would be correct in that statement ;-J

    Tony

    --
    http://www.raven-family.com

    "All truth goes through three steps: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.
    Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer
     
  4. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Colin Blackburn wrote:

    > Yes, this once again comes down to his total (and some might say willful) cluelessness where
    > statistics are concerned.

    Colin, I don't really see why you make a point of limiting your point to statistics... ;-/

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email protected]
    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
  5. In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > Colin Blackburn wrote:
    >
    > > Yes, this once again comes down to his total (and some might say willful) cluelessness where
    > > statistics are concerned.
    >
    > Colin, I don't really see why you make a point of limiting your point to statistics... ;-/

    His partner might consider him very good in bed, I can't damn the guy as inadequate in all
    things surely?

    Colin
     
  6. A Lee

    A Lee Guest

    John B <[email protected]> wrote:

    > I'm not going to cross post as it will bring a certain troll over here, but if anyone wants to see
    > his latest nonsense visit uk.tosspot and see "Who's vulnerable". There, he writes:
    >
    >
    > "I hear a lot of bleating about so called "vulnerable" road users."
    >
    > "Today's new figures show that it's motor vehicle users who are more vulnerable in practice."

    Yes, he was in uk.rec.motorcycles on Tuesday, trying to get support for some 'anti-speed camera'
    rallies, but he got no response, even from a group that is generally against the cameras. Alan.

    --
    Change the 'minus' to 'plus' to reply by e-mail. http://www.dvatc.co.uk - Off-road Cycling in the
    North Midlands.
     
  7. Peter B

    Peter B Guest

    "John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > I'm not going to cross post as it will bring a certain troll over here, but if anyone wants to see
    > his latest nonsense visit uk.tosspot and see "Who's vulnerable". There, he writes:
    >
    >
    > "I hear a lot of bleating about so called "vulnerable" road users."
    >
    > "Today's new figures show that it's motor vehicle users who are more vulnerable in practice."
    >
    > No, I'm not making it up and its not April 1st.

    Maybe in the land where people are killed by speed cameras there is the new danger of peds,
    cyclists and mcyclists hurling themselves at innocent motorists getting a few zeds between 'phone
    calls as they are forced to drive at a pace that deprives the brain of sufficient stimulation to
    keep it active.

    Meanwhile back in the everyday world......

    Pete
     
  8. John B

    John B Guest

    Peter B wrote:

    > "John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > I'm not going to cross post as it will bring a certain troll over here, but if anyone wants to
    > > see his latest nonsense visit uk.tosspot and see "Who's vulnerable". There, he writes:
    > >
    > >
    > > "I hear a lot of bleating about so called "vulnerable" road users."
    > >
    > > "Today's new figures show that it's motor vehicle users who are more vulnerable in practice."
    > >
    > > No, I'm not making it up and its not April 1st.
    >
    > Maybe in the land where people are killed by speed cameras there is the new danger of peds,
    > cyclists and mcyclists hurling themselves at innocent motorists...

    Well in his world, motorcyclists are lumped in with other drivers in order to show a higher actual
    death figure. This supports his bizarre conclusion that motor vehicles (by which he means cars) are
    the more vulnerable road users <shakes head in disbelief>. Personally, I now think this latest troll
    is a feeble plea for attention by a sick man. I think I'll challenge him. Me in a car, him on a bike
    to see is the most vulnerable.

    John B
     
  9. Will Plummer

    Will Plummer Guest

    "John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Peter B wrote:
    >
    > > "John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > I'm not going to cross post as it will bring a certain troll over
    here,
    > > > but if anyone wants to see his latest nonsense visit uk.tosspot and
    see
    > > > "Who's vulnerable". There, he writes:
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > "I hear a lot of bleating about so called "vulnerable" road users."
    > > >
    > > > "Today's new figures show that it's motor vehicle users who are more vulnerable in practice."
    > > >
    > > > No, I'm not making it up and its not April 1st.
    > >
    > > Maybe in the land where people are killed by speed cameras there is the
    new
    > > danger of peds, cyclists and mcyclists hurling themselves at innocent motorists...
    >
    > Well in his world, motorcyclists are lumped in with other drivers in order
    to
    > show a higher actual death figure. This supports his bizarre conclusion that motor vehicles (by
    > which he
    means
    > cars) are the more vulnerable road users <shakes head in disbelief>. Personally, I now think this
    > latest troll is a feeble plea for attention
    by a
    > sick man. I think I'll challenge him. Me in a car, him on a bike to see is the most vulnerable.
    >
    > John B
    >
    If drivers are as vulnerable as he seems to think, shouldn`t they be wearing polystyrene helmets
    as TPTB suggest. Perhaps their insurers should kick up a fuss if they weren`t wearing one and they
    are injured.

    Perhaps too, all cars should be painted flourescent green/orange and have Scotchlite tape all over
    them - that way everybody else wouldn`t be able to say that we didn`t see them...

    Perhaps though the best thing to do would be to make them use only substandard "car tracks" that
    make them go much slower than they otherwise could, make them yield priority at every junction and
    always take the most indirect route to a destination - perhaps disappearing for no apparent reason
    every now and then just to keep drivers on their toes.
     
  10. John B

    John B Guest

    Will Plummer wrote:

    >
    > If drivers are as vulnerable as he seems to think, shouldn`t they be wearing polystyrene helmets
    > as TPTB suggest. Perhaps their insurers should kick up a fuss if they weren`t wearing one and they
    > are injured.
    >
    > Perhaps too, all cars should be painted flourescent green/orange and have Scotchlite tape all over
    > them - that way everybody else wouldn`t be able to say that we didn`t see them...
    >
    > Perhaps though the best thing to do would be to make them use only substandard "car tracks" that
    > make them go much slower than they otherwise could, make them yield priority at every junction and
    > always take the most indirect route to a destination - perhaps disappearing for no apparent reason
    > every now and then just to keep drivers on their toes.

    LOL

    But don't forget the BELL

    John B
     
  11. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:04:46 +0100, John B <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Who's vulnerable".

    ROFLMAO! I couldn't resist replying:

    On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 14:53:25 +0100, Mohammed Saeed Al-Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Today's new figures show that it's motor vehicle users who are more vulnerable in practice.

    In all fairness it is just conceivable that you might merely be monumentally stupid rather than
    deliberately misrepresenting the facts. But given your history, notably the risible 12mph Comedy Web
    Page of blessed memory, I suggest you advance your level of understanding of statistics - something
    corresponding to Foundation or Key Stage 1 should represent a marked improvement - before attempting
    further analysis.

    In the mean time we need merely consider (a) exposure and (b) the proportion of the car drivers
    killed by pedestrians vs. pedestrians killed by car drivers and we can immediately recognise your
    ludicrous posting for the fatuous drivel it is.

    But do please write to the Secretary of State with your conclusions, in the usual green ink on SS
    headed notepaper. He could probably do with a good belly laugh right now.

    I wonder why you missed the golden opportunity to crosspost this and offer the "benefit" of your
    "wisdom" to those whose vulnerability you so casually dismiss, such as uk.rec.cycling,
    uk.rec.motorcycles and uk.rec.walking?

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
    notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
    between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
    the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.
     
  12. W K

    W K Guest

    "John B" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

    > Well in his world, motorcyclists are lumped in with other drivers in order
    to
    > show a higher actual death figure. This supports his bizarre conclusion that motor vehicles (by
    > which he
    means
    > cars) are the more vulnerable road users <shakes head in disbelief>.

    Also truck drivers and cyclists have virtually the same level of "vulnerability".

    > Personally, I now think this latest troll is a feeble plea for attention
    by a
    > sick man.

    Theres a posh word for it.

    Somewhere in the spectrum from "sad bloke, spends to much time on the computer" ... [who? me?
    you? us?] to completely unable to comprehend anyone or any social context. I had already come to
    this conclusion before, but his recent comments on disability, and this (+ other things), lead me
    to believe that he is way down that spectrum. I say this as someone who has to interact on a
    personal level with computer programmers .... people who Mr. Spock would be taking the piss out
    of down the pub.
     
  13. Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    >> Colin Blackburn wrote:
    >>
    >> > Yes, this once again comes down to his total (and some might say willful) cluelessness where
    >> > statistics are concerned.
    >>
    >> Colin, I don't really see why you make a point of limiting your point to statistics... ;-/
    >
    > His partner might consider him very good in bed, I can't damn the guy as inadequate in all
    > things surely?

    But we've already established that his partner is a small furry animal that he has to wrap in
    sticky tape just so it doesn't burst. Actually, he's such a big dick I suppose they still end up
    bursting, but that'd be through shame. He'd undoubtedly got a whole corral of small furry animals
    up there in Scotland.

    What's the name of that Pink Floyd track? Something about a Pict in a Cave with a lot of small
    furry animals?

    Ugh

    --
    Trev
     
  14. John B <[email protected]> writes:

    > I'm not going to cross post as it will bring a certain troll over here, but if anyone wants to see
    > his latest nonsense visit uk.tosspot and see "Who's vulnerable". There, he writes:
    >
    >
    > "I hear a lot of bleating about so called "vulnerable" road users."
    >
    > "Today's new figures show that it's motor vehicle users who are more vulnerable in practice."
    >
    > No, I'm not making it up and its not April 1st.

    Bizarrely, there is an interpretation of the figures that shows that car drivers are more vulnerable
    than cyclists. The thought experiment goes like this:

    Imagine God told you that you had to have a road accident, and you could choose to have it in
    car or on a bike. Which should you choose? The answer is that you should choose a bike since,
    on average, a car accident is very slightly more likely to kill or seriously injure you than a
    bike accident.

    Of course, this scenario disregards the probabilities of actually having a road accident when in a
    car or on a bike. I'm not sure what the probabilities of these are, or whether one should calculate
    them per mile, or per journey, or per hour travelled, or ...

    Cheers,

    Richard Stamper
     
  15. Graeme

    Graeme Guest

    Trevor Barton <[email protected]> wrote in news:slrn[email protected]:

    > What's the name of that Pink Floyd track?

    "Several Species of Small Furry Animal Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict" - lots
    of squeeking and wailing, probably very apt in this case.

    Have (groovy) fun!

    Graeme
     
  16. "Will Plummer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news> Perhaps though the best thing to
    do would be to make them use only
    > substandard "car tracks" that make them go much slower than they otherwise could, make them yield
    > priority at every junction and always take the most indirect route to a destination - perhaps
    > disappearing for no apparent reason every now and then just to keep drivers on their toes.

    Don't forget the signs that say (for no apparent reason) "Get out and push"

    Robert
     
  17. W K

    W K Guest

    "Richard Stamper" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > John B <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    > > I'm not going to cross post as it will bring a certain troll over here, but if anyone wants to
    > > see his latest nonsense visit uk.tosspot and see "Who's vulnerable". There, he writes:
    > >
    > >
    > > "I hear a lot of bleating about so called "vulnerable" road users."
    > >
    > > "Today's new figures show that it's motor vehicle users who are more vulnerable in practice."
    > >
    > > No, I'm not making it up and its not April 1st.
    >
    > Bizarrely, there is an interpretation of the figures that shows that car drivers are more
    > vulnerable than cyclists. The thought experiment goes like this:
    >
    > Imagine God told you that you had to have a road accident, and you could choose to have it in
    > car or on a bike. Which should you choose? The answer is that you should choose a bike since, on
    > average, a car accident is very slightly more likely to kill or seriously injure you than a bike
    > accident.

    Actually smithlogic would have that to be correct. As in a car you'd be more likely to have that
    accident at 70mph rather than about 12.

    Note: this does not compute as it suggest "s***** k****"
     
  18. In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    > Trevor Barton <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
    >
    > > What's the name of that Pink Floyd track?
    >
    > "Several Species of Small Furry Animal Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict" -
    > lots of squeeking and wailing, probably very apt in this case.

    Recorded live in a cave near Inverness.

    Colin
     
  19. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

  20. "Will Plummer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > Perhaps though the best thing to do would be to make them use only substandard "car tracks"

    Or as they're known in parts of the Midlands, "the M54" - the surface is so bad, Dad often thinks
    the car has loose wheel nuts [1] and/or flat tyres whilst driving on it. Fortunately, as it's a
    motorway (or so the signs would have us believe), bikes don't have to endure it - much better to
    explore the far more pleasant back lanes of Staffordshire & Shropshire instead [2].

    David E. Belcher

    Dept. of Chemistry, University of York

    [1] On one occasion it was sufficiently bad so as to do this whilst off on our hols. Made it as far
    north as Corwen before realising something was amiss!
    [2] Including the very pleasant pub at a little place called Kiddemore Green, half-way between
    Brewood and Bishop's Wood. Met Stuart Dangerfield in the beer garden there once, y'know.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...