Richard Madeley's rant.

"Judith M Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:26:15 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

Yawn - yet another lazy, ignorant rant by a TV has-been. Don't know what
"exuse" means though.

http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/130100


Why not say precisely what he has said that you disagree with.

I already have done.

"That's right: no collision, whether it be with a car, bus, motorbike or
pedestrian, would ever be the bike rider's responsibility."

That is plainly factually inaccurate.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

Daniel Barlow wrote:

JNugent writes:

For anything of which one might have knowledge, there is a time before
one acquires that knowledge, and there might (or might not) be a time
when one has acquired that knowledge. The second phase is largely a
matter of chance.

Most responsible people, if tasked with writing a newspaper article
concerning something of which they have no knowledge, would make some
effort to acquire said knowledge before putting pen to paper rather than
leaving the second phase to chance.

I am happy, therefore, that I will never be expected to write about
"Richard and Judy" in a newspaper, because on the evidence so far he
doesn't appear to be anything I want to have knowledge of.

Have you really never heard of columnists - the supreme example being the
late, great, Keith Waterhouse - being engaged to write *opinion* pieces?

Or do you simply insist that opinions you can't support are invalid and must
be suppressed?

Simon Mason wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

Yawn - yet another lazy, ignorant rant by a TV has-been. Don't know
what "exuse" means though.

http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/130100

Repeat after me:

"Journalists, pundits, travel-writers, doctors and any other form of
road-user may bloody well not criticise any cyclist in particular or
cyclists in general, or any sub-set between those extremes. Not never,
not no-how".

If what they write is fatually correct, then fine, but to write a load
of claptrap and then stop any comments correcting the mistakes is just
plain cowardly.

It's called "opinion", old chap.

Yours is different, obviously.

Which is nearer the truth?

Who knows? It's a matter of opinion.

Simon Mason wrote:

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
Simon Mason wrote:

"Mr Benn" wrote:

... he makes two spelling mistakes in his headline, or has allowed
some other illiterate to do so.

If you think that columnists stand over the sub-eds to check their
spelling, think again.

If that was me, I'd personally get the headline corrected lest it cast a
slur on my English language skills and I'm not a journalist paid to
write in national newspapers.

I see.

So can you suggest a mechanism by which a freelance columnist can get all the
printed copies* of a newspaper edition (including all those sold) recalled
for correction?

No, neither can I.

[*That's assuming the mistake isn't only in the online edition.]

"Old Skullface" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:34:03 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Old Skullface" wrote in message
. ..

When a cyclist causes a collision
between themselves and a motorist, do you think the cyclist should be
100% liable or not?

It's rare but I guess it does happen. So on those rare occasions where the
cyclist *does* cause the accident I guess that the cyclist ought to bear
part of the responsibility at least. The car driver on the other hand
ought
to be deemed as at fault if there is any doubt whatsoever.

Why? Because you personally don't like motorists?

Don't you think it's a good idea to make cyclists
less liable than they otherwise would be, in order to "encourage
cycling" (and discourage motoring)?

What deters cycling is fear, not of the law, but of traffic.

In that case, why fight so hard against sensible, lifesaving helmet
laws on the basis that they'll "discourage cycling"?


Where have they ever been shown to be effective?

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:04:46 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:


"Mr Benn" wrote in message
...
"Simon Mason" wrote in message
...
Yawn - yet another lazy, ignorant rant by a TV has-been. Don't know what
"exuse" means though.

http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/130100

"Lazy, ignorant"?

Do you always use these words to describe someone you disagree with? I
thought his article was spot on and I totally agree with him 100%.


I'm sure you would - you fit the bill for his target audience.

Lazy as he makes two spelling mistakes in his headline, or has allowed some
other illiterate to do so. Ignorant as he has never heard of Cycling England
and believes that:

If you think that "Cycling England" is a well known term - just ask
people (non-cyclists) that you know.

I will of course ask in the pub tonight and report back- whether you
believe that report will be another thing ;-)

--

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:15:10 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:26:44 +0100 someone who may be "Mr Benn"
wrote this:-

I had never heard of Cycling England either until recently.

On the other hand I had heard of them and I don't even live in that
country. I venture to suggest that what this demonstrates is that
you don't know that much about transport.


Or you have a Google set up so that every cycling, cyclists, accident,
death and combination thereof are all trigger words for alerts for
you.

--
Latest DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 527 Pedestrians 371
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3494 Pedestrians : 1631
Which is more dangerous?

JNugent writes:

Have you really never heard of columnists - the supreme example being
the late, great, Keith Waterhouse - being engaged to write *opinion*
pieces?

Or do you simply insist that opinions you can't support are invalid
and must be suppressed?

Richard is of course entitled to his opinion and I would not seek to
suppress it. My opinion, to which I am equally entitled by the same
token, is that his opinion on this occasion is not worth spit, that the
manner in which it was expressed was derivative, and in short that
reading it has neither entertained nor informed me.

I don't know for certain that my opinion is widely shared, but I will be
surprised if, when Richard Madeley finally shuffles off this mortal sofa,
I often hear him described as the "late, great" Richard Madeley.


-dan

On 29 Sep, 16:34, "mileburner" wrote:
"Old Skullface" wrote in message

...

When a cyclist causes a collision

between themselves and a motorist, do you think the cyclist should be
100% liable or not?

It's rare but I guess it does happen. So on those rare occasions where the
cyclist *does* cause the accident I guess that the cyclist ought to bear
part of the responsibility at least.

Agreed, Why not 100% if it was his fault?

The car driver on the other hand ought
to be deemed as at fault if there is any doubt whatsoever.

Why? If it wasn't his fault he should be held blameless. If there is
doubt why should it not be shared doubt?

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:38:05 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

It's rare but I guess it does happen. So on those rare occasions where the
cyclist *does* cause the accident I guess that the cyclist ought to bear
part of the responsibility at least.

Agreed, Why not 100% if it was his fault?

It's an egregious misrepresentation of what happens in places like
..NL, and it's actually much the same as the previous Fifth Insurance
Directive. As usual, misrepresentation, sterotyping, bigotry and
targeting the "out" group pass for journalism.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc