|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show
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 British cyclists in the Netherlands? Dutch cyclists in the Netherlands? The number of cyclists being injured on British roads could be almost seven times higher than previously thought. Collisions more common than thought among UK cyclists? It makes sense. [ ... ] 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. I appreeciate what the article meant to say there, but whilst it is not impossible for a carelessly-opened vehicle door to hit a passing cyclist, it is more usual for the passing cyclist to hit the carelessly-opened door. Oddly, though, and despite usually moving a fair bit faster, it is very rare for other motor vehicles to hit carelessly-opened doors. Observation and due care and attention (by all involved) seem to be the key to avoidance, as I'm sure you'll agree. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show
On 17/05/2018 14:33, colwyn wrote:
[ ... ] Brussels slaps Britain with LAWSUIT: Germany and France also targeted over pollution BRITAIN is being sued by the European Commission over its failure to meet air quality targets in dozens of towns and cities across the country. That lark will come to an abrupt stop before too long. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show
On 17/05/2018 16:47, colwyn wrote:
The average cycling distance per person cycled in the UK is 52 miles per annum, whilst a person in the Netherlands cycles 1000 km a year. Ah yes... that old favourite: the abrupt switching of metric half-way through the "calculation". You can get any result you want like that. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists hurt seven times more often than figures show
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? What is the connection between the first two and the second two? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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?) Fancy that, a cyclist in favour of push bikes, whatever next? A cyclist who tries to be even-handed when conducting "research" on transport? Nah, I agree: it's vanishingly unlikely. 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. But hey, what do you expect from someone with a degree. Lots of people have degrees, including lots who would disagree with Aldred. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |