Blockade of King's Cross

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:04:10 +0000, Peter Parry
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:43:11 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

What you did not provide, then or now, was any credible evidence of a
problem needing fixing, in the shape of actual figures.

Ah, "I'm basing what I say on the blind acceptance of figures I know
are wildly inaccurate and will continue unthinkingly until someone
produces figures which are more accurate". Commonly called the three
monkeys approach to research.

No, as you see above, someone else has provided some objective data
indicating the size of the problem. I am well aware that the supposed
problem is subject to much anecdote inflation ("nearly hit" = missed
after all) so that's why I wanted some actual objective data rather
than the opinion of someone with an overt bias (and yes I have an
overt bias too, hence again why any productive discussion has to be
based on objective data).

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

On 30/12/2011 13:32, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:17:57 +0000,
wrote:

On 29/12/2011 04:57, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:49:42 +0000,
wrote:

On 29/12/2011 04:38, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:47:50 +0000,
wrote:

In , "Just zis Guy,
you writes
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:14:52 +0000,
wrote:

I would suggest that all road users should require insurance, if not
then maybe occasional or leisure users of cars should lobby the
government to remove the need for them to have insurance.

Why? There is no credible evidence of a problem to fix. Only users of
motorised vehicles are required to be insured because they bring
disproportionate danger (most serious& fatal road injuries involve a
motor vehicle). There's no reason why pedestrians or cyclists should
be insured, and indeed the actuarial estimate of risk is so low that
many cycle clubs are able to offer third party insurance completely
free, as indeed do many home insurance policies.


So, if as a pedestrian and I am in a collision with a car and I suffer a
permanent life changing injury, due to the driver loosing control the
driver saves himself a lot of grief, both financial and moral by having
insurance and at least knowing that I will receive suitable financial
compensation to allow me some amount of independence and care for the
rest of my days.

If the same thing happens with a cyclist, which is what we were talking
about, then if the cyclist has no insurance my only resort, to get any
form of support for the future is to sue the cyclist themselves and hope
that they are a very wealthy person and can provide for me.

The likelihood is that they are not wealthy, so we both loose out. I
live poorer life than was planned and they are bankrupt and face living
the rest of their life with the thought that they have destroyed someone
else's.

To quote "I would suggest that all road users should require
insurance," This would not only include motorists, cyclists but also
horse riders and anyone else, even pedestrians that could possibly be in
a position to cause "accidental" harm to others.

If you, and any others, wish to take the risk then please do it a long
way away from me and those that I love. I don't bet but even the
longest odds are not worth that 1 in a million chance of something going
wrong, when there is at least a way of insuring that if things do go
wrong it gives a glimmer of hope and does not totally destroy lives.

How about having a national scheme to protect those against otherwise
unisured risk from the slight chance of injury by cyclists,
pedestrians, golfers and the like. This could be imposed by an income
related premium, so the richer people pay more than the unwaged or
poorer people in society. Let's call this insurance National
Insurance. ... Oh... Hang on... don't we already pay such an
insurance premium?

A. Cyclists are simply not in the same category as "pedestrians, golfers and
the like" (IOW, they aren't "the like" of those others and pose much more of
a threat).

B. National Insurance is not an insurance scheme and is not intended and does
not attempt to restore the victim's economic status to the same as that which
existed before they were attacked or injured.

C. Wther "we" pay "such an insurance premium" (one assumes you mean National
Insurance contributions, which, of course, is not an insurance premium)
depends on who "we" are. I pay, for instance. Many people here will not be
paying, for various reasons.

So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by
a three year old on a tricycle in a public space?

The child's parents or guardians are responsible in any case. They ned to be
insured against that risk.

That's making the sweeping assumption that any civilised adult would allow a
toddler out onto the highway on a bike or trike. As I am sure you will agree
without demur, doing so would come perilously close to culpable child neglect.

I said "public space" not "highway". What makes you think the two are
synonymous?

Road Traffic Acts refer to "public places" rather than to the highway. I
assumed you knew that.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:35:23 +0000, Judith
wrote:

OH hello - the Porker has reset his kill-file yet again.

Nope, I just chose to look at one of your posts despite it being
marked as read on arrival, as they all are.

Hey, wait, I already explained that and - gasp! - you chose to
continue to misrepresent the facts. Who'd have thought?

Guy
--
Guy Chapman, http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
to be worth at least what you paid for them.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:35:51 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:37:31 +0000, Nick Finnigan
wrote:

On 30/12/2011 10:43, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

snip obfuscation

What you did not provide, then or now, was any credible evidence of a
problem needing fixing, in the shape of actual figures.

No point discussing this again until you have that data.


http://www.transportresearchfoundation.co.uk/PDF/HES_STATS19_final%20140909.doc.pdf

shows 1,860 emergency admissions for pedestrians hit by pedal cycles over
10 years. Assuming they were all 'serious injuries' with an average cost of
prevention around £200,000, the size of the problem is something over £1
per cyclist per year.

As an upper limit that is plausible, though no record of fault
(pedestrians are known to be at fault in most road collisions where
they are injured, whereas the opposite is true of cyclists).


Do you have figures to back that up - or have you made it up - you little
Porker you!!

It seems surprising given that in more than half the accidents involving
cyclists - the cyclists are at fault.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:40:46 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:35:23 +0000, Judith
wrote:

OH hello - the Porker has reset his kill-file yet again.

Nope, I just chose to look at one of your posts despite it being
marked as read on arrival, as they all are.



Yes of course you did.

Do you chose to read all my posts which arrive as read?

If you do - then you may as well do away with the fictional kill-file
altogether.

Why are you called Porkie?

On 30/12/2011 16:58, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:35:51 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:37:31 +0000, Nick
wrote:

On 30/12/2011 10:43, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

snip obfuscation

What you did not provide, then or now, was any credible evidence of a
problem needing fixing, in the shape of actual figures.

No point discussing this again until you have that data.


http://www.transportresearchfoundation.co.uk/PDF/HES_STATS19_final%20140909.doc.pdf

shows 1,860 emergency admissions for pedestrians hit by pedal cycles over
10 years. Assuming they were all 'serious injuries' with an average cost of
prevention around £200,000, the size of the problem is something over £1
per cyclist per year.

As an upper limit that is plausible, though no record of fault
(pedestrians are known to be at fault in most road collisions where
they are injured, whereas the opposite is true of cyclists).

Do you have figures to back that up - or have you made it up - you little
Porker you!!

It seems surprising given that in more than half the accidents involving
cyclists - the cyclists are at fault.

It's only more than half those reported to the police.

There must be many others where the owner of the motor vehicle doesn't bother
with a report to the police because he knows that the cyclist (who, of
course, has scarpered) won't be caught and that even if he were, he'd be
uninsured.

On 30/12/2011 16:35, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:37:31 +0000, Nick
wrote:

On 30/12/2011 10:43, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

snip obfuscation

What you did not provide, then or now, was any credible evidence of a
problem needing fixing, in the shape of actual figures.

No point discussing this again until you have that data.


http://www.transportresearchfoundation.co.uk/PDF/HES_STATS19_final%20140909.doc.pdf

shows 1,860 emergency admissions for pedestrians hit by pedal cycles over
10 years. Assuming they were all 'serious injuries' with an average cost of
prevention around £200,000, the size of the problem is something over £1
per cyclist per year.

As an upper limit that is plausible, though no record of fault
(pedestrians are known to be at fault in most road collisions where
they are injured, whereas the opposite is true of cyclists).

Do you have any credible evidence in the shape of actual figures?


So it
seems to me like it's not actually a big enough problem to be worth
bothering about as a matter of public policy, other than to try to
make the roads less hostile so that pedestrians and cyclists are not
so often in conflict. I am certainly not a fan of most shared-use
facilities.

Pedestrians & cyclists are only in conflict because cyclists ride on
pavements & jump lights.

Pedestrians don't in general find roads hostile. They are provided with
facilities to keep them safe.

If cyclists find roads hostile they should stop using a non viable form
of transport.



--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On Dec 30, 1:32*pm, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:17:57 +0000, JNugent
wrote:





On 29/12/2011 04:57, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:49:42 +0000,
wrote:

On 29/12/2011 04:38, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:47:50 +0000,
wrote:

In , "Just zis Guy,
you * writes
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 18:14:52 +0000,
wrote:

I would suggest that all road users should require insurance, if not
then maybe occasional or leisure users of cars should lobby the
government to remove the need for them to have insurance.

Why? There is no credible evidence of a problem to fix. Only users of
motorised vehicles are required to be insured because they bring
disproportionate danger (most serious& * fatal road injuries involve a
motor vehicle). There's no reason why pedestrians or cyclists should
be insured, and indeed the actuarial estimate of risk is so low that
many cycle clubs are able to offer third party insurance completely
free, as indeed do many home insurance policies.

So, if as a pedestrian and I am in a collision with a car and I suffer a
permanent life changing injury, *due to the driver loosing control the
driver saves himself a lot of grief, both financial and moral by having
insurance and at least knowing that I will receive suitable financial
compensation to allow me some amount of independence and care for the
rest of my days.

If the same thing happens with a cyclist, which is what we were talking
about, then if the cyclist has no insurance my only resort, to get any
form of support for the future is to sue the cyclist themselves and hope
that they are a very wealthy person and can provide for me.

The likelihood is that they are not wealthy, so we both loose out. I
live poorer life than was planned and they are bankrupt and face living
the rest of their life with the thought that they have destroyed someone
else's.

To quote *"I would suggest that all road users should require
insurance," This would not only include motorists, cyclists but also
horse riders and anyone else, even pedestrians that could possibly be in
a position to cause "accidental" harm to others.

If you, and any others, wish to take the risk then please do it a long
way away from me and those that I love. *I don't bet but even the
longest odds are not worth that 1 in a million chance of something going
wrong, when there is at least a way of insuring that if things do go
wrong it gives a glimmer of hope and does not totally destroy lives..

How about having a national scheme to protect those against otherwise
unisured risk from the slight chance of injury by cyclists,
pedestrians, golfers and the like. This could be imposed by an income
related premium, so the richer people pay more than the unwaged or
poorer people in society. Let's call this insurance National
Insurance. *... Oh... Hang on... don't we already pay such an
insurance premium?

A. Cyclists are simply not in the same category as "pedestrians, golfers and
the like" (IOW, they aren't "the like" of those others and pose much more of
a threat).

B. National Insurance is not an insurance scheme and is not intended and does
not attempt to restore the victim's economic status to the same as that which
existed before they were attacked or injured.

C. Wther "we" pay "such an insurance premium" (one assumes you mean National
Insurance contributions, which, of course, is not an insurance premium)
depends on who "we" are. I pay, for instance. Many people here will not be
paying, for various reasons.

So how would you propose to insure against the miniscule risk posed by
a three year old on a tricycle in a public space?

The child's parents or guardians are responsible in any case. They ned to be
insured against that risk.

That's making the sweeping assumption that any civilised adult would allow a
toddler out onto the highway on a bike or trike. As I am sure you will agree
without demur, doing so would come perilously close to culpable child neglect.

I said "public space" not "highway". What makes you think the two are
synonymous?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Don't ask Numpty a serious question - he is just a thick troll.
Killfile the tedious numbnut - I have.

--
Simon Mason

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 11:35:23 +0000, Judith wrote:





the Porker



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:01:30 +0000, Judith wrote:




Porkie?





--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.