Cyclists are like lemmings

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:35:45 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:43:05 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 13:39, Ian Smith wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:33:16 GMT, Cassandra wrote:
On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 23:58:48 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

is there such a thing as a mandatory cycle lane?

Mandatory in the sense cyclists don't have to use them but other
road can't.

which is obviously a cyclists definition of madatory

Which is the UK legal system's definition of mandatory, when applied
to cycle lanes. If you don't like it, get it changed - voting UKIP
seems like it would be a start.

(I think that particular legislation is UK-wide, but possibly NI has
something different.)

regards, Ian SMith


compulsory use of cycle lanes where available was one of Herr Hitler's
better ideas (1934 onward)

Godwins.


Child

(Have you noticed how it is only the ****wits who do what you did: it was one
of Porky's favourites)

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:43:44 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:01:44 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 20:35, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:15:58 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 10:54, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:57:06 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 06/04/2014 18:48, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:50:36 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 06/04/2014 12:45, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:57:47 GMT,
(Cassandra) wrote:

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:15:43 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:34:39 GMT,
(Cassandra) wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:49:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:52 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 05/04/2014 10:09, Mrcheerful wrote:
Yet another following sat nav onto a motorway, how thick are they? Why
don't they get sat nav that supports cycling?

Nearly as dim as these London cyclists that keep going up the inside of
tipper lorries at junctions, they hear one has died doing it so they all
try it.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...v-onto-6919692


"It is the third time this year police have been called to deal with a
cyclist pedalling along a Surrey motorway.

In February, a cyclist was fined £50 after a mobile phone app sent him
onto the M25 between junctions 11 and 12 , for Chertsey and the M3.

And in March, another cyclist was fined after again following an app
onto the M3 westbound, between Sunbury and the M25 junction".

Unbelievable. How can they be that dim?

I don't know.

Likewise, I cannot understand how motorists stray into cycle and bus
lanes during restricted periods, or why they don't seem to understand
what advance stop lines are.

I wonder what happens more frequently, cyclists on roads from which
they are prohibited, or motorists on lanes from which they are
prohibited - and if frequency rates of infringement are related to
dimness.

Lets see, what happens more often - cyclists on footpaths, or drivers
in mandatory cycle lanes ?

It depends on the calculation.

The best way to calculate would be motorist infringements per mile of
mandatory cycle lane plus bus lane pus advance stop reservoir compared
with cyclist infringements per mile of motorway plus footway.

As its the "best way" to calculate such things, whats the killed and
injured per mile for cyclists compared to drivers ?

Very few people are killed or injured by cyclists per mile travelled.
Indeed, killing by cyclists is so rare that any case often makes
headline news.

A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile
travelled. Indeed, killing by motorists is so common that cases rarely
make headline news.

Ze Plane! Ze Plane!

"Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to
pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows.

When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance
travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in
2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers".

Can you work out the percentage and then tell me if it is an
insignificant difference.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?

Oh... I'm sorry, I forgot that you are unable to perform simple
mathematical calculations.

If your 21 and 24 figures are accurate, the difference is over 14%,
which, according to an earlier post by Judith, is a very significant
percentage.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?

14% more - if your figures are correct.

So, that's "a great many more" is it?

I know that mathematics is not your strong point.

If the cost of fuel increased by 14% overnight (e.g. from £1.36 to
£1.55 per litre), would that be a:
1. very large increase;
2. large increase;
3. small increase;
4. steady price;
5. small decrease;
6. large decrease;
7. very large decrease.


Here is a better one for you:

If someone who claims he was once a primary school teacher wanted to prove that
he was indeed the ****wit people claimed he was: what would he have to do to
prove the point?

Keep up the good work.

"Judith" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:43:44 +0100, Bertie Wooster

wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:01:44 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 20:35, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:15:58 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 10:54, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:57:06 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 06/04/2014 18:48, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:50:36 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 06/04/2014 12:45, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:57:47 GMT,
(Cassandra) wrote:

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:15:43 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:34:39 GMT,
(Cassandra) wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:49:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:52 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 05/04/2014 10:09, Mrcheerful wrote:
Yet another following sat nav onto a motorway, how thick are
they? Why
don't they get sat nav that supports cycling?

Nearly as dim as these London cyclists that keep going up
the inside of
tipper lorries at junctions, they hear one has died doing it
so they all
try it.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...v-onto-6919692


"It is the third time this year police have been called to
deal with a
cyclist pedalling along a Surrey motorway.

In February, a cyclist was fined £50 after a mobile phone app
sent him
onto the M25 between junctions 11 and 12 , for Chertsey and
the M3.

And in March, another cyclist was fined after again following
an app
onto the M3 westbound, between Sunbury and the M25 junction".

Unbelievable. How can they be that dim?

I don't know.

Likewise, I cannot understand how motorists stray into cycle
and bus
lanes during restricted periods, or why they don't seem to
understand
what advance stop lines are.

I wonder what happens more frequently, cyclists on roads from
which
they are prohibited, or motorists on lanes from which they are
prohibited - and if frequency rates of infringement are
related to
dimness.

Lets see, what happens more often - cyclists on footpaths, or
drivers
in mandatory cycle lanes ?

It depends on the calculation.

The best way to calculate would be motorist infringements per
mile of
mandatory cycle lane plus bus lane pus advance stop reservoir
compared
with cyclist infringements per mile of motorway plus footway.

As its the "best way" to calculate such things, whats the killed
and
injured per mile for cyclists compared to drivers ?

Very few people are killed or injured by cyclists per mile
travelled.
Indeed, killing by cyclists is so rare that any case often makes
headline news.

A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per
mile
travelled. Indeed, killing by motorists is so common that cases
rarely
make headline news.

Ze Plane! Ze Plane!

"Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury
to
pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows.

When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance
travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled
in
2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers".

Can you work out the percentage and then tell me if it is an
insignificant difference.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many
more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?

Oh... I'm sorry, I forgot that you are unable to perform simple
mathematical calculations.

If your 21 and 24 figures are accurate, the difference is over 14%,
which, according to an earlier post by Judith, is a very significant
percentage.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?

14% more - if your figures are correct.

So, that's "a great many more" is it?

I know that mathematics is not your strong point.

If the cost of fuel increased by 14% overnight (e.g. from £1.36 to
£1.55 per litre), would that be a:
1. very large increase;
2. large increase;
3. small increase;
4. steady price;
5. small decrease;
6. large decrease;
7. very large decrease.


Here is a better one for you:

If someone who claims he was once a primary school teacher wanted to prove
that
he was indeed the ****wit people claimed he was: what would he have to do
to
prove the point?

Keep up the good work.

On 07/04/2014 21:43, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:01:44 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 20:35, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:15:58 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 10:54, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:57:06 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 06/04/2014 18:48, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:50:36 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 06/04/2014 12:45, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:57:47 GMT,
(Cassandra) wrote:

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:15:43 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:34:39 GMT,
(Cassandra) wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:49:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:52 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 05/04/2014 10:09, Mrcheerful wrote:
Yet another following sat nav onto a motorway, how thick are they? Why
don't they get sat nav that supports cycling?

Nearly as dim as these London cyclists that keep going up the inside of
tipper lorries at junctions, they hear one has died doing it so they all
try it.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...v-onto-6919692


"It is the third time this year police have been called to deal with a
cyclist pedalling along a Surrey motorway.

In February, a cyclist was fined £50 after a mobile phone app sent him
onto the M25 between junctions 11 and 12 , for Chertsey and the M3.

And in March, another cyclist was fined after again following an app
onto the M3 westbound, between Sunbury and the M25 junction".

Unbelievable. How can they be that dim?

I don't know.

Likewise, I cannot understand how motorists stray into cycle and bus
lanes during restricted periods, or why they don't seem to understand
what advance stop lines are.

I wonder what happens more frequently, cyclists on roads from which
they are prohibited, or motorists on lanes from which they are
prohibited - and if frequency rates of infringement are related to
dimness.

Lets see, what happens more often - cyclists on footpaths, or drivers
in mandatory cycle lanes ?

It depends on the calculation.

The best way to calculate would be motorist infringements per mile of
mandatory cycle lane plus bus lane pus advance stop reservoir compared
with cyclist infringements per mile of motorway plus footway.

As its the "best way" to calculate such things, whats the killed and
injured per mile for cyclists compared to drivers ?

Very few people are killed or injured by cyclists per mile travelled.
Indeed, killing by cyclists is so rare that any case often makes
headline news.

A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile
travelled. Indeed, killing by motorists is so common that cases rarely
make headline news.

Ze Plane! Ze Plane!

"Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to
pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows.

When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance
travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in
2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers".

Can you work out the percentage and then tell me if it is an
insignificant difference.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?

Oh... I'm sorry, I forgot that you are unable to perform simple
mathematical calculations.

If your 21 and 24 figures are accurate, the difference is over 14%,
which, according to an earlier post by Judith, is a very significant
percentage.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?

14% more - if your figures are correct.

So, that's "a great many more" is it?

I know that mathematics is not your strong point.

If the cost of fuel increased by 14% overnight (e.g. from £1.36 to
£1.55 per litre), would that be a:
1. very large increase;
2. large increase;
3. small increase;
4. steady price;
5. small decrease;
6. large decrease;
7. very large decrease.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?


--
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."

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:33:11 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 13:06, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:57:06 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 06/04/2014 18:48, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:50:36 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 06/04/2014 12:45, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:57:47 GMT,
(Cassandra) wrote:

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:15:43 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:34:39 GMT,
(Cassandra) wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:49:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:52 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 05/04/2014 10:09, Mrcheerful wrote:
Yet another following sat nav onto a motorway, how thick are they? Why
don't they get sat nav that supports cycling?

Nearly as dim as these London cyclists that keep going up the inside of
tipper lorries at junctions, they hear one has died doing it so they all
try it.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...v-onto-6919692


"It is the third time this year police have been called to deal with a
cyclist pedalling along a Surrey motorway.

In February, a cyclist was fined £50 after a mobile phone app sent him
onto the M25 between junctions 11 and 12 , for Chertsey and the M3.

And in March, another cyclist was fined after again following an app
onto the M3 westbound, between Sunbury and the M25 junction".

Unbelievable. How can they be that dim?

I don't know.

Likewise, I cannot understand how motorists stray into cycle and bus
lanes during restricted periods, or why they don't seem to understand
what advance stop lines are.

I wonder what happens more frequently, cyclists on roads from which
they are prohibited, or motorists on lanes from which they are
prohibited - and if frequency rates of infringement are related to
dimness.

Lets see, what happens more often - cyclists on footpaths, or drivers
in mandatory cycle lanes ?

It depends on the calculation.

The best way to calculate would be motorist infringements per mile of
mandatory cycle lane plus bus lane pus advance stop reservoir compared
with cyclist infringements per mile of motorway plus footway.

As its the "best way" to calculate such things, whats the killed and
injured per mile for cyclists compared to drivers ?

Very few people are killed or injured by cyclists per mile travelled.
Indeed, killing by cyclists is so rare that any case often makes
headline news.

A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile
travelled. Indeed, killing by motorists is so common that cases rarely
make headline news.

Ze Plane! Ze Plane!

"Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to
pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows.

When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance
travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in
2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers".

Can you work out the percentage and then tell me if it is an
insignificant difference.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?

I don't believe that you can make a "miles traveled" comparison
between autos and bicycles, Example:

20,000 motorists drive 20,000 miles each and fatal accidents kill
eight people. The fatality rate, per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled (the recognized standard for measuring fatalities), is two

Next year, the number of drivers doubles to 40,000, with each of them
driving 20,000 miles per year. It would seem that possibly 16 people
will die in accidents. However, assuming 16 deaths, the fatality rate
remains identical: Two deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.



I believe you will find that a billion is the recognised number used for
calculating these things and a billion is a thousand million, not a 100
million.

in any case the the methodolgy is entirely accurate, it doesn't matter
if one driver drives a billion miles, or a thousand drivers drive one
million, the rate per mile driven is the same.

Regardless, the formula provides the same information and calculating
accidents based on miles/kilometers traveled is not going to provide
informative data.

As you have explained it, a single driver driving a billion miles
would have to die 5.79 times which, unless you practice resurrection
in the U.K., is impossible.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 22:38:50 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 21:43, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:01:44 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 20:35, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:15:58 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 10:54, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:57:06 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 06/04/2014 18:48, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:50:36 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 06/04/2014 12:45, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:57:47 GMT,
(Cassandra) wrote:

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:15:43 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:34:39 GMT,
(Cassandra) wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:49:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:52 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 05/04/2014 10:09, Mrcheerful wrote:
Yet another following sat nav onto a motorway, how thick are they? Why
don't they get sat nav that supports cycling?

Nearly as dim as these London cyclists that keep going up the inside of
tipper lorries at junctions, they hear one has died doing it so they all
try it.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...v-onto-6919692


"It is the third time this year police have been called to deal with a
cyclist pedalling along a Surrey motorway.

In February, a cyclist was fined £50 after a mobile phone app sent him
onto the M25 between junctions 11 and 12 , for Chertsey and the M3.

And in March, another cyclist was fined after again following an app
onto the M3 westbound, between Sunbury and the M25 junction".

Unbelievable. How can they be that dim?

I don't know.

Likewise, I cannot understand how motorists stray into cycle and bus
lanes during restricted periods, or why they don't seem to understand
what advance stop lines are.

I wonder what happens more frequently, cyclists on roads from which
they are prohibited, or motorists on lanes from which they are
prohibited - and if frequency rates of infringement are related to
dimness.

Lets see, what happens more often - cyclists on footpaths, or drivers
in mandatory cycle lanes ?

It depends on the calculation.

The best way to calculate would be motorist infringements per mile of
mandatory cycle lane plus bus lane pus advance stop reservoir compared
with cyclist infringements per mile of motorway plus footway.

As its the "best way" to calculate such things, whats the killed and
injured per mile for cyclists compared to drivers ?

Very few people are killed or injured by cyclists per mile travelled.
Indeed, killing by cyclists is so rare that any case often makes
headline news.

A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile
travelled. Indeed, killing by motorists is so common that cases rarely
make headline news.

Ze Plane! Ze Plane!

"Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to
pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows.

When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance
travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in
2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers".

Can you work out the percentage and then tell me if it is an
insignificant difference.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?

Oh... I'm sorry, I forgot that you are unable to perform simple
mathematical calculations.

If your 21 and 24 figures are accurate, the difference is over 14%,
which, according to an earlier post by Judith, is a very significant
percentage.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?

14% more - if your figures are correct.

So, that's "a great many more" is it?

I know that mathematics is not your strong point.

If the cost of fuel increased by 14% overnight (e.g. from £1.36 to
£1.55 per litre), would that be a:
1. very large increase;
2. large increase;
3. small increase;
4. steady price;
5. small decrease;
6. large decrease;
7. very large decrease.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?

I know numbers are not your strong point, so I won't ask you again to
answer the question above. Others can do so.

If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was completely and
utterly wrong if the correct answer to my question above is either 4,
5, 6 or 7.

If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was completely wrong
if the correct answer to my question above is 3.

If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was wrong if the
correct answer to my question above is 2.

Regardless of the correctness or otherwise of your figures, I will not
accept that I was completely and utterly wrong if the correct answer
to my question above is 1.

What you need to do now if find someone competent in number to tell
you what the answer to my question above is, and post the correct
answer here with his or her explanation. If the correct answer is not
given as 1, you will then need to find the source data for your KSI
figures so that I can verify their correctness.

You can then accept my conditional admission that I was either wrong,
completely wrong, or completely and utterly wrong, and I need not make
a further post on the matter unless either: 1. the incorrect answer to
my question above is given; or, 2. your source data does not match
your figures; or, 3. both.

On 08/04/2014 07:38, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 22:38:50 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 21:43, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:01:44 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 20:35, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:15:58 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 10:54, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:57:06 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 06/04/2014 18:48, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:50:36 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 06/04/2014 12:45, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:57:47 GMT,
(Cassandra) wrote:

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:15:43 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:34:39 GMT,
(Cassandra) wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:49:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:52 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 05/04/2014 10:09, Mrcheerful wrote:
Yet another following sat nav onto a motorway, how thick are they? Why
don't they get sat nav that supports cycling?

Nearly as dim as these London cyclists that keep going up the inside of
tipper lorries at junctions, they hear one has died doing it so they all
try it.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...v-onto-6919692


"It is the third time this year police have been called to deal with a
cyclist pedalling along a Surrey motorway.

In February, a cyclist was fined £50 after a mobile phone app sent him
onto the M25 between junctions 11 and 12 , for Chertsey and the M3.

And in March, another cyclist was fined after again following an app
onto the M3 westbound, between Sunbury and the M25 junction".

Unbelievable. How can they be that dim?

I don't know.

Likewise, I cannot understand how motorists stray into cycle and bus
lanes during restricted periods, or why they don't seem to understand
what advance stop lines are.

I wonder what happens more frequently, cyclists on roads from which
they are prohibited, or motorists on lanes from which they are
prohibited - and if frequency rates of infringement are related to
dimness.

Lets see, what happens more often - cyclists on footpaths, or drivers
in mandatory cycle lanes ?

It depends on the calculation.

The best way to calculate would be motorist infringements per mile of
mandatory cycle lane plus bus lane pus advance stop reservoir compared
with cyclist infringements per mile of motorway plus footway.

As its the "best way" to calculate such things, whats the killed and
injured per mile for cyclists compared to drivers ?

Very few people are killed or injured by cyclists per mile travelled.
Indeed, killing by cyclists is so rare that any case often makes
headline news.

A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile
travelled. Indeed, killing by motorists is so common that cases rarely
make headline news.

Ze Plane! Ze Plane!

"Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to
pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows.

When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance
travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in
2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers".

Can you work out the percentage and then tell me if it is an
insignificant difference.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?

Oh... I'm sorry, I forgot that you are unable to perform simple
mathematical calculations.

If your 21 and 24 figures are accurate, the difference is over 14%,
which, according to an earlier post by Judith, is a very significant
percentage.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?

14% more - if your figures are correct.

So, that's "a great many more" is it?

I know that mathematics is not your strong point.

If the cost of fuel increased by 14% overnight (e.g. from £1.36 to
£1.55 per litre), would that be a:
1. very large increase;
2. large increase;
3. small increase;
4. steady price;
5. small decrease;
6. large decrease;
7. very large decrease.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?

I know numbers are not your strong point, so I won't ask you again to
answer the question above. Others can do so.

If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was completely and
utterly wrong if the correct answer to my question above is either 4,
5, 6 or 7.

If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was completely wrong
if the correct answer to my question above is 3.

If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was wrong if the
correct answer to my question above is 2.

Regardless of the correctness or otherwise of your figures, I will not
accept that I was completely and utterly wrong if the correct answer
to my question above is 1.

What you need to do now if find someone competent in number to tell
you what the answer to my question above is, and post the correct
answer here with his or her explanation. If the correct answer is not
given as 1, you will then need to find the source data for your KSI
figures so that I can verify their correctness.

You can then accept my conditional admission that I was either wrong,
completely wrong, or completely and utterly wrong, and I need not make
a further post on the matter unless either: 1. the incorrect answer to
my question above is given; or, 2. your source data does not match
your figures; or, 3. both.

So, in a nutshell - you admit you were wrong.


--
Dave - Cyclists VORC
Bicycles are for Children. Like masturbation, something you should grow
out of.
There is something seriously sick and stunted about grown men who want
to ride a bike."

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 07:51:39 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 08/04/2014 07:38, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 22:38:50 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 21:43, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:01:44 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 20:35, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:15:58 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 10:54, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:57:06 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 06/04/2014 18:48, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:50:36 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 06/04/2014 12:45, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:57:47 GMT,
(Cassandra) wrote:

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:15:43 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:34:39 GMT,
(Cassandra) wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:49:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:52 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 05/04/2014 10:09, Mrcheerful wrote:
Yet another following sat nav onto a motorway, how thick are they? Why
don't they get sat nav that supports cycling?

Nearly as dim as these London cyclists that keep going up the inside of
tipper lorries at junctions, they hear one has died doing it so they all
try it.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...v-onto-6919692


"It is the third time this year police have been called to deal with a
cyclist pedalling along a Surrey motorway.

In February, a cyclist was fined £50 after a mobile phone app sent him
onto the M25 between junctions 11 and 12 , for Chertsey and the M3.

And in March, another cyclist was fined after again following an app
onto the M3 westbound, between Sunbury and the M25 junction".

Unbelievable. How can they be that dim?

I don't know.

Likewise, I cannot understand how motorists stray into cycle and bus
lanes during restricted periods, or why they don't seem to understand
what advance stop lines are.

I wonder what happens more frequently, cyclists on roads from which
they are prohibited, or motorists on lanes from which they are
prohibited - and if frequency rates of infringement are related to
dimness.

Lets see, what happens more often - cyclists on footpaths, or drivers
in mandatory cycle lanes ?

It depends on the calculation.

The best way to calculate would be motorist infringements per mile of
mandatory cycle lane plus bus lane pus advance stop reservoir compared
with cyclist infringements per mile of motorway plus footway.

As its the "best way" to calculate such things, whats the killed and
injured per mile for cyclists compared to drivers ?

Very few people are killed or injured by cyclists per mile travelled.
Indeed, killing by cyclists is so rare that any case often makes
headline news.

A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile
travelled. Indeed, killing by motorists is so common that cases rarely
make headline news.

Ze Plane! Ze Plane!

"Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to
pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows.

When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance
travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in
2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers".

Can you work out the percentage and then tell me if it is an
insignificant difference.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?

Oh... I'm sorry, I forgot that you are unable to perform simple
mathematical calculations.

If your 21 and 24 figures are accurate, the difference is over 14%,
which, according to an earlier post by Judith, is a very significant
percentage.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?

14% more - if your figures are correct.

So, that's "a great many more" is it?

I know that mathematics is not your strong point.

If the cost of fuel increased by 14% overnight (e.g. from £1.36 to
£1.55 per litre), would that be a:
1. very large increase;
2. large increase;
3. small increase;
4. steady price;
5. small decrease;
6. large decrease;
7. very large decrease.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?

I know numbers are not your strong point, so I won't ask you again to
answer the question above. Others can do so.

If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was completely and
utterly wrong if the correct answer to my question above is either 4,
5, 6 or 7.

If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was completely wrong
if the correct answer to my question above is 3.

If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was wrong if the
correct answer to my question above is 2.

Regardless of the correctness or otherwise of your figures, I will not
accept that I was completely and utterly wrong if the correct answer
to my question above is 1.

What you need to do now if find someone competent in number to tell
you what the answer to my question above is, and post the correct
answer here with his or her explanation. If the correct answer is not
given as 1, you will then need to find the source data for your KSI
figures so that I can verify their correctness.

You can then accept my conditional admission that I was either wrong,
completely wrong, or completely and utterly wrong, and I need not make
a further post on the matter unless either: 1. the incorrect answer to
my question above is given; or, 2. your source data does not match
your figures; or, 3. both.

So, in a nutshell - you admit you were wrong.

Only if:
1. you can show that a fuel increase from £1.36 to £1.55 is a large
increase as opposed to a very large increase, and;
2. you can provide the data source for your 24 and 21 KSI figures per
billion vehicle Kms, and your figures can be verified as broadly
correct.

On 08/04/2014 03:02, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:33:11 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 07/04/2014 13:06, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:57:06 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 06/04/2014 18:48, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:50:36 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK
wrote:

On 06/04/2014 12:45, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:57:47 GMT,
(Cassandra) wrote:

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:15:43 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:34:39 GMT,
(Cassandra) wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:49:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:52 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote:

On 05/04/2014 10:09, Mrcheerful wrote:
Yet another following sat nav onto a motorway, how thick are they? Why
don't they get sat nav that supports cycling?

Nearly as dim as these London cyclists that keep going up the inside of
tipper lorries at junctions, they hear one has died doing it so they all
try it.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...v-onto-6919692


"It is the third time this year police have been called to deal with a
cyclist pedalling along a Surrey motorway.

In February, a cyclist was fined £50 after a mobile phone app sent him
onto the M25 between junctions 11 and 12 , for Chertsey and the M3.

And in March, another cyclist was fined after again following an app
onto the M3 westbound, between Sunbury and the M25 junction".

Unbelievable. How can they be that dim?

I don't know.

Likewise, I cannot understand how motorists stray into cycle and bus
lanes during restricted periods, or why they don't seem to understand
what advance stop lines are.

I wonder what happens more frequently, cyclists on roads from which
they are prohibited, or motorists on lanes from which they are
prohibited - and if frequency rates of infringement are related to
dimness.

Lets see, what happens more often - cyclists on footpaths, or drivers
in mandatory cycle lanes ?

It depends on the calculation.

The best way to calculate would be motorist infringements per mile of
mandatory cycle lane plus bus lane pus advance stop reservoir compared
with cyclist infringements per mile of motorway plus footway.

As its the "best way" to calculate such things, whats the killed and
injured per mile for cyclists compared to drivers ?

Very few people are killed or injured by cyclists per mile travelled.
Indeed, killing by cyclists is so rare that any case often makes
headline news.

A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile
travelled. Indeed, killing by motorists is so common that cases rarely
make headline news.

Ze Plane! Ze Plane!

"Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to
pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows.

When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance
travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in
2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers".

Can you work out the percentage and then tell me if it is an
insignificant difference.

Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more
people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is
completely & utterly wrong?

I don't believe that you can make a "miles traveled" comparison
between autos and bicycles, Example:

20,000 motorists drive 20,000 miles each and fatal accidents kill
eight people. The fatality rate, per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled (the recognized standard for measuring fatalities), is two

Next year, the number of drivers doubles to 40,000, with each of them
driving 20,000 miles per year. It would seem that possibly 16 people
will die in accidents. However, assuming 16 deaths, the fatality rate
remains identical: Two deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.



I believe you will find that a billion is the recognised number used for
calculating these things and a billion is a thousand million, not a 100
million.

in any case the the methodolgy is entirely accurate, it doesn't matter
if one driver drives a billion miles, or a thousand drivers drive one
million, the rate per mile driven is the same.

Regardless, the formula provides the same information and calculating
accidents based on miles/kilometers traveled is not going to provide
informative data.

As you have explained it, a single driver driving a billion miles
would have to die 5.79 times which, unless you practice resurrection
in the U.K., is impossible.


I think you are a little confused.

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:53:31 +0100, Judith wrote:

****wits

Why do people insult others?

they are insecure of themselves, and so, look for the flaws or
"downfalls" in others