What do you do?

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:34:22 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:

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?

No.

Before I started to read USENET I read a very interesting little guide where it
mentioned lamers who, when they are losing an argument try and make out that all
the people who are against them are the same person (sock-puppets?).

I never dreamed I'd encounter it so soon.

As far as I can see, it's pk who Roger is defending against your drivel, not me.

And as you and Ian both seem to have the same blind spot when it comes to
understanding the difference between an absolute and a relative, can we be sure
that he is not your sock-puppet or vice-versa?

Ian Smith wrote:
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?


Ian,

Is cycling safe?

pk

On 05 Feb 2007 17:13:35 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

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?

No, being incapable of understanding the difference between an absolute and a
relative statement and not admitting you have been thoroughly dishonest when the
evidence is plain to see makes you an idiot.

Idiot I am then.

Good, we're getting somewhere. Self knowledge is a wonderful thing.

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.

It doesn't upset me at all. What upsets me is that you have so little honour
that you twist what one poster said, argue the twisted point (which is *not* the
one the original poster made) and then insist on trying to brazen it out.

That makes you not only an idiot but a lair as well.

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?

Your attempts to sidestep the issue are getting a little pathetic.

We're not arguing about the fact that no one is absolutely safe. That is a
given.

What we are arguing about is that you dishonestly twisted what one poster said
to make it appear that his point was other than it was and then argued that
irrelevant point.

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

No one's getting frantic. I'm just not prepared to see you succeed in lying your
way out of your dishonourable conduct.

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:49:13 +0000, Tony Raven
wrote:


The latest response to the suggestion of cycle training of the sort Tom
does is to demand evidence that training is effective having ignored
repeated requests for any evidence that the big investment over many
years in building facilities has had any positive effect on the numbers
cycling or the safety of those that do cycle.

Certain cycle routes have had a very positive effect on certain
catagories of cyclists. The Camel Trail, for example, sees a huge
number of leisure and family cyclists every weekend.

However, it seems a sad fact that the London tube bombing did more to
increase cycling on the Capital than all the millions which have been
poured into London's cycling infrustructure.

As for safety, there are good cycle routes and poor cycle routes. For
inexperienced cyclists the perception is that using a cycle lane or
path is safer than the road, and an increase in the number of cycle
lanes is something which gets more new cyclists out.

Ewan wrote on 05/02/2007 17:30 +0100:


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.


plonk


--
Tony

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

"Ewan" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

Erm - it might be worth re-reading all the stuff above (I've snipped the
irrelevancies) and then apologising to Tony. Particularly for the comment
about him having trouble interpreting statistics.

clive

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.

AIUI, the pedestrian figure includes casualties whilst getting
into or out of a motor vehicle, and I've also heard that those
account for about half of all the pedestrian deaths.

If that's the case, then your figure for genuine pedestrians
goes down to about 25.

Or even less, because we may reasonably suppose that the
genuine pedestrians account for more of those billion
journey km than the ones getting into or out of a vehicle.

Of course, ICBW. But that kind of statistics are always
at some level an artifact of quirks of definition.

--
not me guv

Ewan wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:34:22 +0000, Tony Raven wrote:

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?

No.

Before I started to read USENET I read a very interesting little guide where it
mentioned lamers who, when they are losing an argument try and make out that all
the people who are against them are the same person (sock-puppets?).

I predict that he will now use their second favourite weapon - the
'killfile'. His clique will then look for, and find, excuses to do the
same. ;-)

--
Matt B

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 17:52:45 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Ewan" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

Erm - it might be worth re-reading all the stuff above (I've snipped the
irrelevancies) and then apologising to Tony. Particularly for the comment
about him having trouble interpreting statistics.

Sorry, Clive, I think it's you who needs to re-read some of the posts above,
paying particular attention to the stuff that you have snipped as you are quite
wrong in assuming it's irrelevant.

I'll try and make it easy for you to understand.

Deaths per billion journey km: Pedestrians 49.

Now, unless you are animal stupid, you will realise that most of those were
killed on the road, *NOT on the pavement*.

That isn't a pedantic point in this case because what pk originally said was:

|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.

Note that the point he was making was that if a pedestrian is reasonably careful
he will only share space with cars *on his terms*, whereas the cyclist has to
share the space most of the time.

So, no, Tony does not deserve an apology, but I would be happy to accept one
from you for further wasting time by not properly reading *and understanding*
what was written.

Ian Smith wrote:
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.


Ian, come now, don't be silly.

The thread is about CYCLING safety. I made a point relating pedestrian
safety to cycling safety clearly a relative point. you chose to take a
section from Tony's post and twist it and now pretend you are just talking
about absolute pedestrian safety.

Is cycling safe?

pk