On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:30:36 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 17:05, Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:03:19 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:00, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:49, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:47, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:46, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:15, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:07, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 11:57, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 11:56, Bod wrote:

A cycle responder is a medically trained responder, such as
a paramedic or first aider that uses a bicycle to respond to
a medical emergency. They are used by professional ambulance
services to respond to emergency calls and also by private
and voluntary providers of medical cover at events.

https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/c...cle-responder/

Â* Mr Pounder will respond with "utter ********".

And Nugent will say that TMS320 will say that it has nothing
to do with cycling.

You said without prompting:

"...it has nothing to do with cycling...".

Anyway, motor-bikes (including Vespa-type scooters) would be
better, faster and more capacious.
Â*
Â* I don't think that a motorbike responder would regard it safe
to do short cuts through pedestrian areas and shopping centres
like the cycle responders do.
Anyway, the average time for the cycle ones to arrive on the
scene is 6 mins. They are usually the first which can be vital
to saving a life.

As usual, you/Cheerless and Mr Pounder will find any pedantic
reason to diss cyclists.
You are the 3 SENILE MOANY OLD FARTS.

A cycle-riding "responder" (though much depends on the exact
meaning of that word - "paramedic" is what we look for these
days) is better than no "responder" at all.

A "responder" who gets there quicker and carries more equipment
and supplies is even better than a cycle-riding "responder".

Is that better?

It's really all I said first time round, but you obviously didn't
understand it.
Â*
Â* Correct, I don't understand ********.

...or courtesy or grace, clearly...

Â*
Â*Â*Up until today I have tried that, but talking reasonably with
someone who is clearly obsessed with taking any opportunity to diss
any and every cycling post, has its limits.
I assume that you practice arguing in an empty room, because you are
an expert pedant.
Your argument against cycling first responders is typical of you,
even when shown the facts that they are usually first to arrive on
the scene and

They can only arrive first on the scene if they happen to be the
nearest. There is no way a cyclist can beat a motor-cyclist over even
a short distance, and for medium and long distances, there is no
contest.

To remark on those facts is not to "diss" anybody. It is a stright
statement of fact.

There is also the load-carrying issue.

"they resolve over 50 per cent of all incidents at the scene"

"Their average response time to calls is six minutes"

All very well, but they have to be very near to get there in six
minutes, never mind less than six minutes.

"Cycle responders are experienced frontline paramedics, fully
trained to work on their own and operate in busy areas that are
difficult to travel through in a car or ambulance. Staff on bikes
can get through narrow streets, pedestrian areas and shopping
centres very easily.They are able to reach patients quickly and
start to give life-saving treatment while an ambulance is on the way"

Why not support them rather than pedantically bloody arguing over
trivial nothings.

A motor-bike is faster and better (particularly at load-carrying).

Why not just accept that obvious fact?

I should have added that your argument is clearly based on city travel.

What about a county location where the distance to be covered to get
to an emergency might easily be ten or twenty miles?

Oh dear! it was clearly stated in the report I posted where they were
deployed:

"They respond to emergency calls in particularly congested areas of the
capital such as the West End, Heathrow Airport, Kingston town centre,
the City of London and St Pancras"

That makes some sense. A motor-bike would STILL be faster. Especially
since speed limits do not apply to emergency vehicles in genuine cases
of emergency. Have you ever noticed how motor bikes take off at traffic
lights (when the light has changed to green)?

It's hard to see what your objection to plain fact might be. You surely
can't argue that the bike is in any way faster or better than a motor-bike?

Maybe you should write to the NHS and tell them they made a mistake in choosing pedal cycles over motor cycles.

"Responders" would need a licence for a motor-bike.


Do you have a licence for your goalposts?