|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Hit & run cyclist injures elderly woman on pavement
On Aug 16, 6:54*pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote: On 16/08/2012 16:12, pensive hamster wrote: [...] I did not say that the research itself was 'selective' or 'misleading'. I said your quote from what appears to be an interim assessment (not the final research) was selective and misleading. You seem to be cherry- picking the research. Not at all. *The research said, quite clearly; "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange. For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a regular basis." Do let me know if you have trouble with some of the big words. Further, you do not provide a link to the actual research report so that the reader can judge the research for themselves. You expect them to accept your summary of the research. I have in the past. *It's public domain, GIFFS. I am guessing that you are probably quoting from the Guardian article on the research. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...ling-campaigns http://preview.tinyurl.com/4xozyvx The Guardian article does contain the quote from Dave Horton that you like so much that you have adopted it for your sig. But it also contains the following, which for some reason you have omitted from your sig: 'A key finding was that the small numbers of people who do try cycling tend to be intimidated by overwhelmingly car-oriented urban layouts. 'Even to experienced riders these often resemble "a dangerous obstacle course", Horton said. "The minority of people who cycle in English cities tend to do so despite, not because of, existing conditions. Some people try cycling, but are quickly put off." ' So part of the reason why many people do not cycle, according to Dave Horton, is that they find the roads to be dangerous. Looking again at the part which you do quote, it includes the following: " [For] Many people... the bicycle ... is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange ... For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing' Have you read the full report? I would be impressed if you have. I haven't, I'm not that bothered. The reason I ask, is because I wonder if the report analyses the socio-economic profile of those holding the views that you quote. I expect it skirts round that issue. I would imagine the kind of people who see cycling as a bit embarrassing, something fit only for the poor and/or strange, are people who are sensitive to the way they think other people might see them. They are predominantly lower-class and aspirant lower middle- class, who would be embarrassed to think that others might see them as the kind of people who couldn't afford to run a car, who are forced by necessity to cycle. They couldn't bear the shame. As an April 2012 newspaper article put it: __________________ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/me...mpetitive.html http://preview.tinyurl.com/cc3g2ol [...] In Britain, cycling has long been sniffed at as the forced option of the working class, rank with images of flat-capped factory hands and straw-chewing codgers weaving down farm tracks. This is no longer the case. According to Mintel, the leading retail analyst, the wealthier people are, the more likely they are to ride bikes. ... __________________ So how about you, Dave? Where are you on the socio-economic scale? Do you sniff at cycling because you don't want to be seen as working class, as a strange straw-chewing codger? Or are you more like Dave (Cameron) and Boris? You seem to have, as the fragrant Mary Archer said of her husband, 'a talent for inaccurate précis'. How do you know Mary Archer is fragrant? You should follow your own advice and GIFFS. Admittedly, I do not personally know for sure that Mary Archer is fragrant, but I see no reason to doubt the opinion of Mr Justice Caulfield, who, after all, oversaw her cross-examination. I suppose she would be compared to a sweaty, smellycyclisthusband. What makes you think her husband might be a sweaty, smelly cyclist? I have no reason to suppose that Jeffrey is anything other than perfectly groomed at all times. In any case, he might well consider you a lower-class oik who is not worth suing. So you are probably safe. [...] Grown men riding children's toys? *Clad in fluorescent lycra? OK, I agree about the fluorescent lycra. As Mr Clarkson said "dressed like extras in a gay rave movie". Unlike Mr Clarkson, I am a stranger to gay rave movies. [...] If cyclists had any social skills & interacted with normal people, they would realise how they are perceived. You really haven't got the hang of this snobbery thing, have you? If you had better social skills, you would realise that over-generalising about any category of people can be a bit of a give away; people may perceive you as a bit weird, someone with a bee in their bonnet. Yes there are some strange cyclists, but there are plenty of normal ones too, and even some posh ones. Perhaps you just haven't met any? |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Hit & run cyclist injures elderly woman on pavement
On Aug 16, 7:42*pm, JNugent wrote:
You'd better write pdq to David Horton at the University of Lancaster and tell him he got his research and his conclusions all wrong. He needn't have bothered doing any field work, interviews, etc. He could have just sat in an armchair opposite you and you'd have fed him all the answers. I don't think David Horton has got his research and his conclusions all wrong, far from it. But Dave the 'Voice of Reason' seems to have misunderstood the research, given his selective and misleading quotes from it. He may just be a troll, or he may be a rampant pedalophobe. Difficult to tell. At any rate, he doesn't seem all that bright. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Hit & run cyclist injures elderly woman on pavement
On 18/08/2012 15:44, pensive hamster wrote:
On Aug 16, 6:54 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote: On 16/08/2012 16:12, pensive hamster wrote: [...] I did not say that the research itself was 'selective' or 'misleading'. I said your quote from what appears to be an interim assessment (not the final research) was selective and misleading. You seem to be cherry- picking the research. Not at all. The research said, quite clearly; "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange. For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a regular basis." Do let me know if you have trouble with some of the big words. Further, you do not provide a link to the actual research report so that the reader can judge the research for themselves. You expect them to accept your summary of the research. I have in the past. It's public domain, GIFFS. I am guessing that you are probably quoting from the Guardian article on the research. I have read the original as well. http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...ling-campaigns http://preview.tinyurl.com/4xozyvx The Guardian article does contain the quote from Dave Horton that you like so much that you have adopted it for your sig. But it also contains the following, which for some reason you have omitted from your sig: 'A key finding was that the small numbers of people who do try cycling tend to be intimidated by overwhelmingly car-oriented urban layouts. Small numbers. 'Even to experienced riders these often resemble "a dangerous obstacle course", Horton said. "The minority of people who cycle in English cities tend to do so despite, not because of, existing conditions. Some people try cycling, but are quickly put off." ' We certainly should not waste public money on making roads more suitable for a tiny minority. Cyclists need to adapt to the way roads are. So part of the reason why many people do not cycle, according to Dave Horton, is that they find the roads to be dangerous. The unsuitable mode of transport is what's dangerous. Looking again at the part which you do quote, it includes the following: " [For] Many people... the bicycle ... is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange ... For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing' Have you read the full report? I would be impressed if you have. Be impressed. I haven't, I'm not that bothered. You don't look bothered. Your face isn't bothered. The reason I ask, is because I wonder if the report analyses the socio-economic profile of those holding the views that you quote. I expect it skirts round that issue. No, it doesn't skirt around those issues at all. It ignores them because they are completely irrelevant. I would imagine the kind of people who see cycling as a bit embarrassing, something fit only for the poor and/or strange, are people who are sensitive to the way they think other people might see them. You do have a vivid imagination don't you? Bordering on pure fantasy. They are predominantly lower-class and aspirant lower middle- class, who would be embarrassed to think that others might see them as the kind of people who couldn't afford to run a car, who are forced by necessity to cycle. They couldn't bear the shame. As an April 2012 newspaper article put it: Here we go again. The standard, oft repeated, cyclists mantra that cyclists are more intelligent, better educated & wealthier than non cyclists. Ze Plane, Ze Plane! .... __________________ So how about you, Dave? Where are you on the socio-economic scale? Confident. Do you sniff at cycling because you don't want to be seen as working class, as a strange straw-chewing codger? Or are you more like Dave (Cameron) and Boris? I don't want to be seen as a lycra encrusted bell end certainly, but it has nothing to do with social class, education or wealth. Cyclists are immature overgrown schoolboys using a child's toy as a form of transport. They account for less than 2% of journeys, contribute nothing, break the law constantly, get in the way and are a general irritation. You seem to have, as the fragrant Mary Archer said of her husband, 'a talent for inaccurate précis'. How do you know Mary Archer is fragrant? You should follow your own advice and GIFFS. Admittedly, I do not personally know for sure that Mary Archer is fragrant, but I see no reason to doubt the opinion of Mr Justice Caulfield, who, after all, oversaw her cross-examination. Ah. A fragrance trained judge. Whatever next. I suppose she would be compared to a sweaty, smellycyclisthusband. What makes you think her husband might be a sweaty, smelly cyclist? I have no reason to suppose that Jeffrey is anything other than perfectly groomed at all times. Does he not ride a push bike? I rather thought he did. If so he is highly likely to be sweaty & smelly. In any case, he might well consider you a lower-class oik who is not worth suing. So you are probably safe. [...] Grown men riding children's toys? Clad in fluorescent lycra? OK, I agree about the fluorescent lycra. As Mr Clarkson said "dressed like extras in a gay rave movie". Unlike Mr Clarkson, I am a stranger to gay rave movies. [...] If cyclists had any social skills & interacted with normal people, they would realise how they are perceived. You really haven't got the hang of this snobbery thing, have you? If you had better social skills, you would realise that over-generalising about any category of people can be a bit of a give away; people may perceive you as a bit weird, someone with a bee in their bonnet. Strange how generalising is so accurate though isn't it? People see me as a warm & wonderful person. Yes there are some strange cyclists, but there are plenty of normal ones too, and even some posh ones. Perhaps you just haven't met any? Father Xmas, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Sasquatch. And now you expect me to believe there are normal cyclists? -- Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a regular basis." |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Hit & run cyclist injures elderly woman on pavement
On 18/08/2012 15:47, pensive hamster wrote:
On Aug 16, 7:42 pm, JNugent wrote: You'd better write pdq to David Horton at the University of Lancaster and tell him he got his research and his conclusions all wrong. He needn't have bothered doing any field work, interviews, etc. He could have just sat in an armchair opposite you and you'd have fed him all the answers. I don't think David Horton has got his research and his conclusions all wrong, far from it. But Dave the 'Voice of Reason' seems to have misunderstood the research, given his selective and misleading quotes from it. He may just be a troll, or he may be a rampant pedalophobe. Difficult to tell. At any rate, he doesn't seem all that bright. But bright enough to run rings around you. Dave Horton is himself a bicyclist. At least he was able to face up to the truth & acknowledge the facts. -- Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a regular basis." |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Hit & run cyclist injures elderly woman on pavement
"Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in message
... On 18/08/2012 15:44, pensive hamster wrote: Yes there are some strange cyclists, but there are plenty of normal ones too, and even some posh ones. Perhaps you just haven't met any? Father Xmas, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Sasquatch. And now you expect me to believe there are normal cyclists? ============== Oi!! :-) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Hit & run cyclist injures elderly woman on pavement
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:48:38 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
The unsuitable mode of transport is what's dangerous. No it isn't particularly. -- Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Yet another pavement motorist kills and injures pedestrians. | Doug[_10_] | UK | 12 | April 20th 12 06:07 PM |
Red light-jumping cyclist seriously injures woman | Mr. Benn[_9_] | UK | 70 | March 5th 12 05:47 PM |
Pavement motorist injures woman. | Doug[_12_] | UK | 0 | September 21st 11 07:40 AM |
Pavement motorist injures woman. | Doug[_12_] | UK | 22 | September 16th 11 10:13 AM |
an elderly woman ... died after being struck dumb by Ed Dolan's 'tardness | Bruce Jensen | Social Issues | 7 | September 29th 10 08:15 AM |