What do you do?

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:53:48 GMT, Ewan wrote:
On 05 Feb 2007 14:55:07 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:


Ian, can I just ask you not to snip other people's posts to make
them appear to say things they didn't?

I have done no such thing.

Yes you did, Ian, and lying about it is pointless as the evidence
is archived for all to see.

Precisely. I am entirely happy the record supports my assertions as
being accurate.

The main point of which was an assertion of a *relative*: "more or
less the same as the number"

No. You might have decided that was the main point. I do not agree.
My quoting accurately addressed what I consider the main point -
pedestrians on the pavement are not safe from cars.

Tricky quoting is a sleazy activity and best not indulged in by
people who want to be taken seriously.

Indeed, which is why I do not do it.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007, Roger wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:

I have done no such thing.

'fraid you did mate.

All the above are direct quotes, said by the people in question in
that context. No-one is misrepresented.

yes they are. You left out a chunk of what someone said.

p.k. said a pedestrian on the pavement is safe from cars.

no he didn't. he said they were safer than someone on a bike in the
road. major difference.

No, he did not.

He said, in total in that posting:

"the difference is that the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from
the hazard and chooses when to share road space with cars - ie chooses
when to cross the road. A cyclist is permenamtly sharing the road
space with cars.

"By that arguemnt, cycling is inherently more dangerous"

He said "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazard".
Note - SAFE, not SAFER.

That is what I commented on, truthfully and accurately.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 05 Feb 2007 16:08:07 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:53:48 GMT, Ewan wrote:
On 05 Feb 2007 14:55:07 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:


Ian, can I just ask you not to snip other people's posts to make
them appear to say things they didn't?

I have done no such thing.

Yes you did, Ian, and lying about it is pointless as the evidence
is archived for all to see.

Precisely. I am entirely happy the record supports my assertions as
being accurate.

Well, you're an idiot, then.

Anyone who looks can see that you dishonestly left a large chunk off what you
quoted and then made out that the OP was correct because what was left said
something entirely different to what the whole thing said.

The main point of which was an assertion of a *relative*: "more or
less the same as the number"

No. You might have decided that was the main point. I do not agree.

Well, that just proves you're an idiot.

The part you dishonestly snipped contained the phase "which is more or less the
same" which, to anyone with even the most basic understanding of English, makes
the statement relative.

My quoting accurately addressed what I consider the main point -
pedestrians on the pavement are not safe from cars.

No ****, Sherlock

Tricky quoting is a sleazy activity and best not indulged in by
people who want to be taken seriously.

Indeed, which is why I do not do it.

Sadly, the evidence is very much to the contrary.

Ian Smith wrote:

Tricky quoting is a sleazy activity and best not indulged in by
people who want to be taken seriously.

Indeed, which is why I do not do it.


Come now Ian, you are the list Maestro when it comes to selective quoting!!

pk

Ewan wrote on 05/02/2007 14:38 +0100:

Can you quote audited statistics for that assertion?

Road Casualties Great Britain 2005 Table 52. Deaths per billion journey
km: Pedestrians 49, cyclists 38.

It seems well wide of the mark to me.

Are you sure you are not including time spent crossing roads and
using streets without pavements for the pedestrians?

There are few journeys that do not involve crossing the road at some
(and usually multiple) points.


The person you quoted specified walking along a pavement, not
travelling by foot.


p.k. stated "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the
hazard" meaning cars which they clearly are not. 40 a year of them are
killed by cars on the pavement.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Roger wrote on 05/02/2007 16:05 +0100:

you did mess with the quoting and now you're busted.

Funny isn't it how Ewan turns up having only ever posted in urc and only
in the last 48hrs and then you turn up having never posted anywhere
before to defend him. Are you related?

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Ian Smith wrote:
He said "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazard".
Note - SAFE, not SAFER.


But later clarified to:

"There is of course no such thing as "safe" just relative safety, but in the
normal way of the world I am safer standing on a pavement than crossing a
road. I am safer walking along a pavement than I am cycling along the road"

If this group is asked "Is cycling safe?" the majority will answer "Yes!"
Are you suggest in the answer should be "No", or couched in layers of
Caveat?

There was an interminable thread a while ago about drafting kids cycling
guide where the majority wanted a bald statement that Cycling is safe, I do
not recall you bridling at that usage.

In the same sense: Standing on the pavement is safe. Walking on the pavement
is safe. Crossing roads is less safe. Cycling is less safe.


By delving into the semantics instead of the substantive meaning which you
full well understand, you are doing exactly what you do so often - distract
from the substantive point which you cannot properly refute.

I'm glad others are picking you on it!

pk

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 16:36:48 -0000, p.k. wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
He said "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazard".
Note - SAFE, not SAFER.


But later clarified to:

But not in the posting I responded to.

When I respond to postings, I'm responding to postings made in the
past, not anything you might ever say in the future. Sorry, but
that's the best I can do.

If this group is asked "Is cycling safe?" the majority will answer
"Yes!" Are you suggest in the answer should be "No", or couched in
layers of Caveat?

Eh? I have no idea where that came from.

I said being a pedestrian is not as safe as you claim, and you
extrapolate that to me meaning that cycling is not safe? I was not
commenting about the safety of cyclists, I was commenting about the
safety of pedestrians. I made no comment about the safety of cycling
(relative or absolute or otherwise).

guide where the majority wanted a bald statement that Cycling is
safe, I do not recall you bridling at that usage.

I'm not commenting about cycling safety. I am commenting about what
you said about pedestrian safety. I don't know why your choosing to
put words into my mouth about cycling - I say again - I made no
comment about cyclist safety.

By delving into the semantics instead of the substantive meaning
which you full well understand, you are doing exactly what you do
so often - distract from the substantive point which you cannot
properly refute.

I was not commenting on any point other than that it is not true to
say that a pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazards caused
by cars. That is all. What I said was and is true.

That is all I commented on. That is all I meant to comment on. Your
relentless misrepresentation of this as meaning I must mean something
about the safety of cyclists is very peculiar.

By commenting on pedestrians, I didn't mean anything about the safety
of airline passengers either, nor of lion taming or scuba diving - are
you going to accuse me of thinking they are unreasonably dangerous
too?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:15:43 GMT, Ewan wrote:
On 05 Feb 2007 16:08:07 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

No. You might have decided that was the main point. I do not agree.

Well, that just proves you're an idiot.

Disagreeing with you proves someone to be an idiot?
Idiot I am then.

The part you dishonestly snipped contained the phase "which is more
or less the same" which, to anyone with even the most basic
understanding of English, makes the statement relative.

I didn't comment on teh relative severity. I commented that
pedestrians on teh p[avement are not safe from danger from cars. That
is a true statement. I'm slightly suprprised it upsets you so much.

My quoting accurately addressed what I consider the main point -
pedestrians on the pavement are not safe from cars.

No ****, Sherlock

Oh, so now you agree?

Why, if you agree with what I said, are you getting so frantic about
it?

regards, Ian Smith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:32:41 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:

Ewan wrote on 05/02/2007 14:38 +0100:

Can you quote audited statistics for that assertion?

Road Casualties Great Britain 2005 Table 52. Deaths per billion journey
km: Pedestrians 49, cyclists 38.

Yes, but you need to show the number of pedestrians killed *on the pavement*
which is what pk refered to.


It seems well wide of the mark to me.

Are you sure you are not including time spent crossing roads and
using streets without pavements for the pedestrians?

There are few journeys that do not involve crossing the road at some
(and usually multiple) points.

That's irrelevant, pk's point was that the pedestrian *on the pavement* was safe
from cars and that he could *choose* when to mix it with them (i.e. when to
cross the road). Cyclists, on the other hand, if they are cycling legally, have
to spend most of their time on the roads with cars.



The person you quoted specified walking along a pavement, not
travelling by foot.


p.k. stated "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the
hazard" meaning cars which they clearly are not. 40 a year of them are
killed by cars on the pavement.

Oh, dear, you really do have a lot of trouble with interpreting statistics,
don't you?

According to what you have just written, you're saying that only 9 pedestrians
were killed on the roads, whereas 40 were killed on the pavement.

That is arrant nonsense, just as was your original comment.