T
Trevor Barton
Guest
Richard Stamper <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 ...
Don't be silly, it goes like this: Many more people are killed in cars each year than on bikes in
Britain. Therefore, cars are far more dangerous. Full stop.
Y'know, I'm not a violent person by any means, but there are some thankfully very rare people who
are so stupid, and soo intractible to argument, that I sometimes feel that the only way to make them
see sense is to punch them in the face. PS is one of those. He is a stupid, dangerous, ****.
--
Trev
> 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 ...
Don't be silly, it goes like this: Many more people are killed in cars each year than on bikes in
Britain. Therefore, cars are far more dangerous. Full stop.
Y'know, I'm not a violent person by any means, but there are some thankfully very rare people who
are so stupid, and soo intractible to argument, that I sometimes feel that the only way to make them
see sense is to punch them in the face. PS is one of those. He is a stupid, dangerous, ****.
--
Trev
