A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old May 18th 18, 05:33 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,154
Default Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show

On 18/05/2018 16:45, colwyn wrote:
On 18/05/2018 11:27, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2018 11:08, colwyn wrote:
On 17/05/2018 23:56, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2018 20:26, MrCheerful wrote:
On 17/05/2018 18:22, colwyn wrote:
On 17/05/2018 16:11, MrCheerful wrote:
On 17/05/2018 14:08, colwyn wrote:
On 17/05/2018 13:08, MrCheerful wrote:
On 17/05/2018 11:35, colwyn wrote:
Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show
Graeme Paton, Transport Correspondent
May 17 2018, 12:01am,
The Times


British cyclists are four times as likely to be killed as
those in the Netherlands

The number of cyclists being injured on British roads could be
almost seven times higher than previously thought.

Huge under-reporting of cycling injuries, often involving
minor collisions with cars and other vehicles, has been found
by researchers. About a third of incidents did “not involve
anyone else”, suggesting that they were linked to potholes in
the road or other obstacles such as bollards.

The report by Rachel Aldred, a reader in transport at
Westminster University, will fuel demands for an increase in
the number of segregated cycle lanes. She said that British
cyclists were four times as likely to be killed as those in
the Netherlands, where cycle lanes are far more common.

The study also unearthed great under-reporting in the number
of people injured while walking, with pedestrians three times
more likely to be hurt than official police accident figures
show. It revealed that people with disabilities and those from
poorer homes, who are less likely to be able to afford their
own car or public transport, were more likely to be injured
than the national average.

Dr Aldred analysed feedback from the National Travel Survey,
an annual poll of the transport habits of 147,000 people. She
compared this with road accident figures based on police
reports, which recorded 18,477 cycling casualties on roads in
2016, including 14,978 slight injuries and 3,499 people who
were killed or seriously injured.

Analysis of the National Travel Survey showed that the risk of
cycling injuries was much higher, although most of these
additional injuries were likely to be slight, Dr Aldred said,
suggesting that the true scale of injuries could exceed 125,000.

Figures published by the Department for Transport at the start
of the year showed that the number of people cycling has
flatlined over the past decade as traffic has risen steeply.
The average adult made 15 journeys by bicycle in 2016, two
fewer than ten years earlier. The number has fluctuated
between 14 and 18 trips since the mid-1990s.

The government has launched a review of cycle safety to
increase the use of bicycles. It is likely to consider
imposing mandatory passing distances to prevent motorists
overtaking too close to cyclists on busy roads. It could also
investigate the possibility of fines for “car dooring”, when
motorists or car passengers negligently swing open doors and
hit passing cyclists.

Cyclists do not use segregated cycle lanes in the UK

There are no figures to show how she has arrived at her
conclusions.

Eh? This is a newspaper article analysing responses form 147,000
people!
18,477 cycling casualties in 2016 etc - I suggest you read the
article or why not contact Dr Aldred?

Cycling in the UK overall is actually declining.

And again, read the article. Here it is again:
"Figures published by the Department for Transport at the start
of the
year showed that the number of people cycling has flatlined over
the
past decade as traffic has risen steeply. The average adult made 15
journeys by bicycle in 2016, two fewer than ten years earlier. The
number has fluctuated between 14 and 18 trips since the mid-1990s."

If it is, then it is high time government does something
something about it!



So you agree, cycling is declining.

There is no link for me to follow, in order to read and analyse
the figures she gives.


Here you a* http://rachelaldred.org/

I am sure she'll be able to explain.

Nothing recent on there, where is the 4 times more likely to be
killed bit?

Rachel Aldred... a rabid cyclist byh er own admission...
Exercise a *little* source criticism, for God's sake.
If you were quoting a sociologist you'd be prepared to discount
their "findings" to take acount of their predilections.
If Jeremy Clarkson came up with findings about transport, you'd pull
them to pieces before even thinking about them.
Be consistent be critical and be reasonable (clearly difficult for
cyclists, admittedly, but that's the way that academia is supposed
to work).

**Rabid cyclist?


You might take issue with "rabid", but that's only a matter of degree.
She is certainly exceptionally pre-biased. Too much to have her work
and "findings" accepted uncritically.

Read and listen to her research ( something Cheerful was having
problems with - not being able to assimilate cycling related
information)

Most of her papers can be found without difficulty and even a cyclist
can make sense of it!


That's not the point.

I remind you of my observation above about Clarkson.

http://rachelaldred.org/


Well, exactly.

http://www.ciht.org.uk/en/media-cent...nars/index.cfm
http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/21111/
https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/do...jmuen.16.00068
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...ev-2017-042498

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01457518301076

And more for frothing anti cyclists!



Pre-biased ? (What's that?)


Not neutral, and therefore predictably inclined to make "findings" which
favour cyclists and cycling and which excoriate people who are minding
their own business as they drive to work, the shops or otherwise about
their lawful occasions.

Fancy that, a cyclist in favour of push bikes, whatever next?


Exactly.

Are you unable to see what that means?

Have you forgotten the question I asked about your reaction to a
publication on transport by Jeremy Clarkson (were he to write one)?

You'll be praising the neutrality of Loony David Begg next.

Not only having a doctorate to her name, contrary to limited
intelligence according to newsgroup critics,


?????

she has the ability to get
approval from august bodies such as the BMJ.


And?

But hey, what do you expect from someone with a degree.


Nick Griffin has a degree (and of course, he is very far from being the
only one to have one).

Does that mean that he is authoritative on any of the matters on which
he writes and speaks?

[I assume that you don't have a degree, based purely on your
forelock-tugging in the presence of Ms Aldred, who has a degree, after all.]

Ads
  #32  
Old May 18th 18, 06:49 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
colwyn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show

On 18/05/2018 17:33, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2018 16:45, colwyn wrote:
On 18/05/2018 11:27, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2018 11:08, colwyn wrote:
On 17/05/2018 23:56, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2018 20:26, MrCheerful wrote:
On 17/05/2018 18:22, colwyn wrote:
On 17/05/2018 16:11, MrCheerful wrote:
On 17/05/2018 14:08, colwyn wrote:
On 17/05/2018 13:08, MrCheerful wrote:
On 17/05/2018 11:35, colwyn wrote:
Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show
Graeme Paton, Transport Correspondent
May 17 2018, 12:01am,
The Times


British cyclists are four times as likely to be killed as
those in the Netherlands

The number of cyclists being injured on British roads could
be almost seven times higher than previously thought.

Huge under-reporting of cycling injuries, often involving
minor collisions with cars and other vehicles, has been found
by researchers. About a third of incidents did “not involve
anyone else”, suggesting that they were linked to potholes in
the road or other obstacles such as bollards.

The report by Rachel Aldred, a reader in transport at
Westminster University, will fuel demands for an increase in
the number of segregated cycle lanes. She said that British
cyclists were four times as likely to be killed as those in
the Netherlands, where cycle lanes are far more common.

The study also unearthed great under-reporting in the number
of people injured while walking, with pedestrians three times
more likely to be hurt than official police accident figures
show. It revealed that people with disabilities and those
from poorer homes, who are less likely to be able to afford
their own car or public transport, were more likely to be
injured than the national average.

Dr Aldred analysed feedback from the National Travel Survey,
an annual poll of the transport habits of 147,000 people. She
compared this with road accident figures based on police
reports, which recorded 18,477 cycling casualties on roads in
2016, including 14,978 slight injuries and 3,499 people who
were killed or seriously injured.

Analysis of the National Travel Survey showed that the risk
of cycling injuries was much higher, although most of these
additional injuries were likely to be slight, Dr Aldred said,
suggesting that the true scale of injuries could exceed 125,000.

Figures published by the Department for Transport at the
start of the year showed that the number of people cycling
has flatlined over the past decade as traffic has risen
steeply. The average adult made 15 journeys by bicycle in
2016, two fewer than ten years earlier. The number has
fluctuated between 14 and 18 trips since the mid-1990s.

The government has launched a review of cycle safety to
increase the use of bicycles. It is likely to consider
imposing mandatory passing distances to prevent motorists
overtaking too close to cyclists on busy roads. It could also
investigate the possibility of fines for “car dooring”, when
motorists or car passengers negligently swing open doors and
hit passing cyclists.

Cyclists do not use segregated cycle lanes in the UK

There are no figures to show how she has arrived at her
conclusions.

Eh? This is a newspaper article analysing responses form
147,000 people!
18,477 cycling casualties in 2016 etc - I suggest you read the
article or why not contact Dr Aldred?

Cycling in the UK overall is actually declining.

And again, read the article. Here it is again:
"Figures published by the Department for Transport at the start
of the
year showed that the number of people cycling has flatlined
over the
past decade as traffic has risen steeply. The average adult
made 15
journeys by bicycle in 2016, two fewer than ten years earlier. The
number has fluctuated between 14 and 18 trips since the
mid-1990s."

If it is, then it is high time government does something
something about it!



So you agree, cycling is declining.

There is no link for me to follow, in order to read and analyse
the figures she gives.


Here you a* http://rachelaldred.org/

I am sure she'll be able to explain.

Nothing recent on there, where is the 4 times more likely to be
killed bit?

Rachel Aldred... a rabid cyclist byh er own admission...
Exercise a *little* source criticism, for God's sake.
If you were quoting a sociologist you'd be prepared to discount
their "findings" to take acount of their predilections.
If Jeremy Clarkson came up with findings about transport, you'd
pull them to pieces before even thinking about them.
Be consistent be critical and be reasonable (clearly difficult for
cyclists, admittedly, but that's the way that academia is supposed
to work).

**Rabid cyclist?

You might take issue with "rabid", but that's only a matter of
degree. She is certainly exceptionally pre-biased. Too much to have
her work and "findings" accepted uncritically.

Read and listen to her research ( something Cheerful was having
problems with - not being able to assimilate cycling related
information)

Most of her papers can be found without difficulty and even a
cyclist can make sense of it!

That's not the point.

I remind you of my observation above about Clarkson.

http://rachelaldred.org/

Well, exactly.

http://www.ciht.org.uk/en/media-cent...nars/index.cfm
http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/21111/
https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/do...jmuen.16.00068
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...ev-2017-042498

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01457518301076

And more for frothing anti cyclists!


Pre-biased ? (What's that?)


Not neutral, and therefore predictably inclined to make "findings" which
favour cyclists and cycling and which excoriate people who are minding
their own business as they drive to work, the shops or otherwise about
their lawful occasions.

Sorry, no such word exists, you are making it up!


Fancy that, a cyclist in favour of push bikes, whatever next?


Exactly.

Are you unable to see what that means?

Have you forgotten the question I asked about your reaction to a
publication on transport by Jeremy Clarkson (were he to write one)?

You'll be praising the neutrality of Loony David Begg next.

Not only having a doctorate to her name, contrary to limited
intelligence according to newsgroup critics,


?????

Attempted sarcasm. (all cyclists are stupid).Poor- I know

she has the ability to get approval from august bodies such as the BMJ.


And?

But hey, what do you expect from someone with a degree.



Nick Griffin has a degree (and of course, he is very far from being the
only one to have one).

Does that mean that he is authoritative on any of the matters on which
he writes and speaks?

Stupid statement

[I assume that you don't have a degree, based purely on your
forelock-tugging in the presence of Ms Aldred, who has a degree, after
all.]

Attempted phishing noted!


Come on, your endeavour to put J.Clarkson (CV try Wikipeadia) good with
words in the same category as DR Aldred with a string of letters (CV
he
http://rachelaldred.org/wp-content/u...V-twopager.pdf)
is tantamount to asking Russel Grant to discuss the birth of the
universe with Stephen Hawkins.

Don't you tire of this game? I give in!





  #33  
Old May 18th 18, 10:33 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,223
Default Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show

On 18/05/2018 17:33, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2018 16:45, colwyn wrote:
On 18/05/2018 11:27, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2018 11:08, colwyn wrote:
On 17/05/2018 23:56, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2018 20:26, MrCheerful wrote:
On 17/05/2018 18:22, colwyn wrote:
On 17/05/2018 16:11, MrCheerful wrote:
On 17/05/2018 14:08, colwyn wrote:
On 17/05/2018 13:08, MrCheerful wrote:
On 17/05/2018 11:35, colwyn wrote:
Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show
Graeme Paton, Transport Correspondent
May 17 2018, 12:01am,
The Times


British cyclists are four times as likely to be killed as
those in the Netherlands

The number of cyclists being injured on British roads could
be almost seven times higher than previously thought.

Huge under-reporting of cycling injuries, often involving
minor collisions with cars and other vehicles, has been found
by researchers. About a third of incidents did “not involve
anyone else”, suggesting that they were linked to potholes in
the road or other obstacles such as bollards.

The report by Rachel Aldred, a reader in transport at
Westminster University, will fuel demands for an increase in
the number of segregated cycle lanes. She said that British
cyclists were four times as likely to be killed as those in
the Netherlands, where cycle lanes are far more common.

The study also unearthed great under-reporting in the number
of people injured while walking, with pedestrians three times
more likely to be hurt than official police accident figures
show. It revealed that people with disabilities and those
from poorer homes, who are less likely to be able to afford
their own car or public transport, were more likely to be
injured than the national average.

Dr Aldred analysed feedback from the National Travel Survey,
an annual poll of the transport habits of 147,000 people. She
compared this with road accident figures based on police
reports, which recorded 18,477 cycling casualties on roads in
2016, including 14,978 slight injuries and 3,499 people who
were killed or seriously injured.

Analysis of the National Travel Survey showed that the risk
of cycling injuries was much higher, although most of these
additional injuries were likely to be slight, Dr Aldred said,
suggesting that the true scale of injuries could exceed 125,000.

Figures published by the Department for Transport at the
start of the year showed that the number of people cycling
has flatlined over the past decade as traffic has risen
steeply. The average adult made 15 journeys by bicycle in
2016, two fewer than ten years earlier. The number has
fluctuated between 14 and 18 trips since the mid-1990s.

The government has launched a review of cycle safety to
increase the use of bicycles. It is likely to consider
imposing mandatory passing distances to prevent motorists
overtaking too close to cyclists on busy roads. It could also
investigate the possibility of fines for “car dooring”, when
motorists or car passengers negligently swing open doors and
hit passing cyclists.

Cyclists do not use segregated cycle lanes in the UK

There are no figures to show how she has arrived at her
conclusions.

Eh? This is a newspaper article analysing responses form
147,000 people!
18,477 cycling casualties in 2016 etc - I suggest you read the
article or why not contact Dr Aldred?

Cycling in the UK overall is actually declining.

And again, read the article. Here it is again:
"Figures published by the Department for Transport at the start
of the
year showed that the number of people cycling has flatlined
over the
past decade as traffic has risen steeply. The average adult
made 15
journeys by bicycle in 2016, two fewer than ten years earlier. The
number has fluctuated between 14 and 18 trips since the
mid-1990s."

If it is, then it is high time government does something
something about it!



So you agree, cycling is declining.

There is no link for me to follow, in order to read and analyse
the figures she gives.


Here you a* http://rachelaldred.org/

I am sure she'll be able to explain.

Nothing recent on there, where is the 4 times more likely to be
killed bit?

Rachel Aldred... a rabid cyclist byh er own admission...
Exercise a *little* source criticism, for God's sake.
If you were quoting a sociologist you'd be prepared to discount
their "findings" to take acount of their predilections.
If Jeremy Clarkson came up with findings about transport, you'd
pull them to pieces before even thinking about them.
Be consistent be critical and be reasonable (clearly difficult for
cyclists, admittedly, but that's the way that academia is supposed
to work).

**Rabid cyclist?

You might take issue with "rabid", but that's only a matter of
degree. She is certainly exceptionally pre-biased. Too much to have
her work and "findings" accepted uncritically.

Read and listen to her research ( something Cheerful was having
problems with - not being able to assimilate cycling related
information)

Most of her papers can be found without difficulty and even a
cyclist can make sense of it!

That's not the point.

I remind you of my observation above about Clarkson.

http://rachelaldred.org/

Well, exactly.

http://www.ciht.org.uk/en/media-cent...nars/index.cfm
http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/21111/
https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/do...jmuen.16.00068
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...ev-2017-042498

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01457518301076

And more for frothing anti cyclists!


Pre-biased ? (What's that?)


Not neutral, and therefore predictably inclined to make "findings" which
favour cyclists and cycling and which excoriate people who are minding
their own business as they drive to work, the shops or otherwise about
their lawful occasions.

Fancy that, a cyclist in favour of push bikes, whatever next?


Exactly.

Are you unable to see what that means?

Have you forgotten the question I asked about your reaction to a
publication on transport by Jeremy Clarkson (were he to write one)?

You'll be praising the neutrality of Loony David Begg next.

Not only having a doctorate to her name, contrary to limited
intelligence according to newsgroup critics,


?????

she has the ability to get approval from august bodies such as the BMJ.


And?

But hey, what do you expect from someone with a degree.


Nick Griffin has a degree (and of course, he is very far from being the
only one to have one).

Does that mean that he is authoritative on any of the matters on which
he writes and speaks?

[I assume that you don't have a degree, based purely on your
forelock-tugging in the presence of Ms Aldred, who has a degree, after
all.]


Ah, but has she got 7 law degrees?
  #34  
Old May 18th 18, 10:34 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,223
Default Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show

On 18/05/2018 18:49, colwyn wrote:
On 18/05/2018 17:33, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2018 16:45, colwyn wrote:
On 18/05/2018 11:27, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2018 11:08, colwyn wrote:
On 17/05/2018 23:56, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2018 20:26, MrCheerful wrote:
On 17/05/2018 18:22, colwyn wrote:
On 17/05/2018 16:11, MrCheerful wrote:
On 17/05/2018 14:08, colwyn wrote:
On 17/05/2018 13:08, MrCheerful wrote:
On 17/05/2018 11:35, colwyn wrote:
Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show
Graeme Paton, Transport Correspondent
May 17 2018, 12:01am,
The Times


British cyclists are four times as likely to be killed as
those in the Netherlands

The number of cyclists being injured on British roads could
be almost seven times higher than previously thought.

Huge under-reporting of cycling injuries, often involving
minor collisions with cars and other vehicles, has been
found by researchers. About a third of incidents did “not
involve anyone else”, suggesting that they were linked to
potholes in the road or other obstacles such as bollards.

The report by Rachel Aldred, a reader in transport at
Westminster University, will fuel demands for an increase in
the number of segregated cycle lanes. She said that British
cyclists were four times as likely to be killed as those in
the Netherlands, where cycle lanes are far more common.

The study also unearthed great under-reporting in the number
of people injured while walking, with pedestrians three
times more likely to be hurt than official police accident
figures show. It revealed that people with disabilities and
those from poorer homes, who are less likely to be able to
afford their own car or public transport, were more likely
to be injured than the national average.

Dr Aldred analysed feedback from the National Travel Survey,
an annual poll of the transport habits of 147,000 people.
She compared this with road accident figures based on police
reports, which recorded 18,477 cycling casualties on roads
in 2016, including 14,978 slight injuries and 3,499 people
who were killed or seriously injured.

Analysis of the National Travel Survey showed that the risk
of cycling injuries was much higher, although most of these
additional injuries were likely to be slight, Dr Aldred
said, suggesting that the true scale of injuries could
exceed 125,000.

Figures published by the Department for Transport at the
start of the year showed that the number of people cycling
has flatlined over the past decade as traffic has risen
steeply. The average adult made 15 journeys by bicycle in
2016, two fewer than ten years earlier. The number has
fluctuated between 14 and 18 trips since the mid-1990s.

The government has launched a review of cycle safety to
increase the use of bicycles. It is likely to consider
imposing mandatory passing distances to prevent motorists
overtaking too close to cyclists on busy roads. It could
also investigate the possibility of fines for “car dooring”,
when motorists or car passengers negligently swing open
doors and hit passing cyclists.

Cyclists do not use segregated cycle lanes in the UK

There are no figures to show how she has arrived at her
conclusions.

Eh? This is a newspaper article analysing responses form
147,000 people!
18,477 cycling casualties in 2016 etc - I suggest you read the
article or why not contact Dr Aldred?

Cycling in the UK overall is actually declining.

And again, read the article. Here it is again:
"Figures published by the Department for Transport at the
start of the
year showed that the number of people cycling has flatlined
over the
past decade as traffic has risen steeply. The average adult
made 15
journeys by bicycle in 2016, two fewer than ten years earlier.
The
number has fluctuated between 14 and 18 trips since the
mid-1990s."

If it is, then it is high time government does something
something about it!



So you agree, cycling is declining.

There is no link for me to follow, in order to read and analyse
the figures she gives.


Here you a* http://rachelaldred.org/

I am sure she'll be able to explain.

Nothing recent on there, where is the 4 times more likely to be
killed bit?

Rachel Aldred... a rabid cyclist byh er own admission...
Exercise a *little* source criticism, for God's sake.
If you were quoting a sociologist you'd be prepared to discount
their "findings" to take acount of their predilections.
If Jeremy Clarkson came up with findings about transport, you'd
pull them to pieces before even thinking about them.
Be consistent be critical and be reasonable (clearly difficult for
cyclists, admittedly, but that's the way that academia is supposed
to work).

**Rabid cyclist?

You might take issue with "rabid", but that's only a matter of
degree. She is certainly exceptionally pre-biased. Too much to have
her work and "findings" accepted uncritically.

Read and listen to her research ( something Cheerful was having
problems with - not being able to assimilate cycling related
information)

Most of her papers can be found without difficulty and even a
cyclist can make sense of it!

That's not the point.

I remind you of my observation above about Clarkson.

http://rachelaldred.org/

Well, exactly.

http://www.ciht.org.uk/en/media-cent...nars/index.cfm
http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/21111/
https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/do...jmuen.16.00068
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...ev-2017-042498

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...01457518301076

And more for frothing anti cyclists!


Pre-biased ? (What's that?)


Not neutral, and therefore predictably inclined to make "findings"
which favour cyclists and cycling and which excoriate people who are
minding their own business as they drive to work, the shops or
otherwise about their lawful occasions.

Sorry, no such word exists, you are making it up!


Fancy that, a cyclist in favour of push bikes, whatever next?


Exactly.

Are you unable to see what that means?

Have you forgotten the question I asked about your reaction to a
publication on transport by Jeremy Clarkson (were he to write one)?

You'll be praising the neutrality of Loony David Begg next.

Not only having a doctorate to her name, contrary to limited
intelligence according to newsgroup critics,


?????

Attempted sarcasm. (all cyclists are stupid).Poor- I know

she has the ability to get approval from august bodies such as the BMJ.


And?

But hey, what do you expect from someone with a degree.



Nick Griffin has a degree (and of course, he is very far from being
the only one to have one).

Does that mean that he is authoritative on any of the matters on which
he writes and speaks?

Stupid statement

[I assume that you don't have a degree, based purely on your
forelock-tugging in the presence of Ms Aldred, who has a degree, after
all.]

Attempted phishing noted!


Come on, your endeavour to put J.Clarkson (CV try Wikipeadia) good with
words in the same category as DR Aldred with a string of letters (CV
he
http://rachelaldred.org/wp-content/u...V-twopager.pdf)
is tantamount to asking Russel Grant to discuss the birth of the
universe with Stephen Hawkins.

Don't you tire of this game? I give in!


Where did you find her original missive about four times as likely etc.?

  #35  
Old May 19th 18, 12:15 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,118
Default Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show

On 18/05/18 17:23, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2018 15:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 18/05/18 13:46, JNugent wrote:
On 18/05/2018 12:56, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/18 23:52, JNugent wrote:
On 17/05/2018 19:50, TMS320 wrote:
On 17/05/18 17:48, MrCheerful wrote:

It is annoying that everybody's money is thrown in the
wrong direction all the time.

The money comes from a minority. I repeat my post of 21:52
on the 14th.

[quote] This article is a few years old:-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-get-back.html



It is estimated that 60% of households are net
beneficiaries of the tax system, getting back more in
benefits than they contribute. The neutral point is a gross
income of between £35,000 and £38,000.

There's a heck of a lot of necessary detail which is being
left out there because it makes the argument far less
convincing when included.

It boils down to dependent children. The more of them a
family has, the more they are in debit to the Exchequer (not
only for CHB and tax credits, but also for primary and
secondary education).

Families with fewer children will meet their "breal-even"
point at a lower level of gross income, and families with no
dependent children at all (eg, before any arrive or after
they have flown the coop) at a lower level of gross income
still.

Yes, it is the nature of populations that there will be spread
around an average.

On the other hand, there's an argument that bringing up
children (the better-socialised the ... er ... better) is of
advantage to society in the mid-term. We will all need our
penions paid for a few more years yet, we hope.

So, many motorists are paying their vehicle taxes with one
hand what they receive from taxpayers with the other. If I
am a beneficiary, then by cycling I am doing taxpayers a
favour. If I am a taxpayer then by cycling I am not giving
away as much to a bunch of freeloaders. [Unquote]

It's plainly not true, but it must be of comfort to cyclists
with small brains.

£6bn in - ved £28bn in - fuel duty £30bn out - tax credits
£56bn out - welfare

You have figures that allow a different conclusion?

Show how the payments in are exclusively - or even nearly so -
made by the people receiving the payments out.


Nobody said anything about exclusivity. You tell me I am wrong and
you insult me, yet you cannot show where I am wrong.


Your "argument" was that car-owners (whom you choose to call
"motorists" as though it were still 1910) are subsidised.


Yes, it is quite plain that a proportion of receipts for motoring taxes
are merely recycled benefits.

So... are you going to provide a different viewpoint or are you just
going to follow your normal habit of repeating using a different set of
words - which often do not reflect what was originally written?

(likewise calling people that ride bicycles "cyclists" and
vehicle tax "road tax".)

You have not even begun to prove it.

And you shan't be able to do so.


You have yet to point out where the error is.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Racing cyclists fall off and hurt themselves. Mrcheerful UK 0 July 1st 14 05:23 PM
This guy has been mown down by cyclists three times in three months ! Mrcheerful[_3_] UK 16 July 3rd 12 11:44 AM
OT cyclists do not hurt pedestrians Marie UK 0 May 23rd 10 08:25 PM
Cyclists are a Perverted Pestulance [Times Article 18/02] David Off UK 70 February 24th 04 10:50 PM
New BBC Show needs super fit cyclists kingsley Australia 2 July 11th 03 10:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.