Cycle Responders

On 15/11/2019 19:21, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 19:15, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:56, Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:34:14 PM UTC, Bod wrote:
I've had a full motorbike licence since I was sixteen. I had about 5
different M/bikes over the years. Full licence for cars at 17. Passed
both tests first time. I also drove an artic tanker for a while.

I believe that you could only ride mopeds of 49 cm3 and less at 16
and could only take a full m/c test at 17. I passed my m/c test at
age 17.

Â* Not back in 1964 when I took my M/bike test. If I remember
correctly, it was provisional licence at 16 for bikes up to 250cc,
when you passed you could then ride any size.

I bought a brand new M/bike on my 16th birthday and passed my test
about 3 months later. I started work at 15 years old and saved for a
whole year to get the bike on my b/day.

Ah! found the law for 1964:

A brief history of the law changes that have effected learning to ride a
motorcycle since 1960
1960 - Learner laws introducedChanges to Motorcycle Learner Law

All new riders are limited to riding 250cc machines with L-plates

https://www.lightningpass.com/change...le-learner-law

I forgot this bit:

1971 - New learner age raised to 17 (in the link)

--
Bod

Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:37:45 PM UTC, Bod wrote:

Anyway, you're claim that motorbikes are faster, does not apply in
congested areas like London where the max speed in the rush hour can
be as low as 11mph. My Ebike can do 30mph.

Motorcycles are too wide to filter through traffic like a road bike
can. I know, as I have ridden both.

London is a ********, always has been and always will be.
What kind of vehicle took you to hospital when you chucked yourself off that
bridge Simon?
Was it some ****** on a silly bicycle?

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 7:43:31 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:37:45 PM UTC, Bod wrote:

Anyway, you're claim that motorbikes are faster, does not apply in
congested areas like London where the max speed in the rush hour can
be as low as 11mph. My Ebike can do 30mph.

Motorcycles are too wide to filter through traffic like a road bike
can. I know, as I have ridden both.

London is a ********, always has been and always will be.
What kind of vehicle took you to hospital when you chucked yourself off that
bridge Simon?

I don't know as I wasn't conscious.

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 7:26:05 PM UTC, Bod wrote:

https://www.lightningpass.com/change...le-learner-law

I forgot this bit:

1971 - New learner age raised to 17 (in the link)

I passed my test in 1976.

On 15/11/2019 20:18, Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 7:26:05 PM UTC, Bod wrote:

https://www.lightningpass.com/change...le-learner-law

I forgot this bit:

1971 - New learner age raised to 17 (in the link)

I passed my test in 1976.

Ok.

--
Bod

Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 7:43:31 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire
wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:37:45 PM UTC, Bod wrote:

Anyway, you're claim that motorbikes are faster, does not apply
in congested areas like London where the max speed in the rush
hour can be as low as 11mph. My Ebike can do 30mph.

Motorcycles are too wide to filter through traffic like a road bike
can. I know, as I have ridden both.

London is a ********, always has been and always will be.
What kind of vehicle took you to hospital when you chucked yourself
off that bridge Simon?

I don't know as I wasn't conscious.

Ha!

Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 7:26:05 PM UTC, Bod wrote:

https://www.lightningpass.com/change...le-learner-law

I forgot this bit:

1971 - New learner age raised to 17 (in the link)

I passed my test in 1976.

1970 here.

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 9:16:58 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 7:26:05 PM UTC, Bod wrote:

https://www.lightningpass.com/change...le-learner-law

I forgot this bit:

1971 - New learner age raised to 17 (in the link)

I passed my test in 1976.

1970 here.

You need to be re-tested to show you can cope with 21st century driving.
'Walking your (little) dog' whilst driving may have been acceptable then but not now.

On 15/11/2019 18:34, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:25, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 17:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:03, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:00, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:49, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:47, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:46, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:15, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:07, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 11:57, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 11:56, Bod wrote:

A cycle responder is a medically trained responder, such
as a paramedic or first aider that uses a bicycle to
respond to a medical emergency. They are used by
professional ambulance services to respond to emergency
calls and also by private and voluntary providers of
medical cover at events.

https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/c...cle-responder/

Â* Mr Pounder will respond with "utter ********".

And Nugent will say that TMS320 will say that it has
nothing to do with cycling.

You said without prompting:

"...it has nothing to do with cycling...".

Anyway, motor-bikes (including Vespa-type scooters) would
be better, faster and more capacious.
Â*
Â* I don't think that a motorbike responder would regard it
safe to do short cuts through pedestrian areas and shopping
centres like the cycle responders do.
Anyway, the average time for the cycle ones to arrive on the
scene is 6 mins. They are usually the first which can be
vital to saving a life.

As usual, you/Cheerless and Mr Pounder will find any
pedantic reason to diss cyclists.
You are the 3 SENILE MOANY OLD FARTS.

A cycle-riding "responder" (though much depends on the exact
meaning of that word - "paramedic" is what we look for these
days) is better than no "responder" at all.

A "responder" who gets there quicker and carries more
equipment and supplies is even better than a cycle-riding
"responder".

Is that better?

It's really all I said first time round, but you obviously
didn't understand it.
Â*
Â* Correct, I don't understand ********.

...or courtesy or grace, clearly...

Â*
Â*Â*Up until today I have tried that, but talking reasonably with
someone who is clearly obsessed with taking any opportunity to
diss any and every cycling post, has its limits.
I assume that you practice arguing in an empty room, because you
are an expert pedant.
Your argument against cycling first responders is typical of
you, even when shown the facts that they are usually first to
arrive on the scene and

They can only arrive first on the scene if they happen to be the
nearest. There is no way a cyclist can beat a motor-cyclist over
even a short distance, and for medium and long distances, there
is no contest.

To remark on those facts is not to "diss" anybody. It is a
stright statement of fact.

There is also the load-carrying issue.

"they resolve over 50 per cent of all incidents at the scene"

"Their average response time to calls is six minutes"

All very well, but they have to be very near to get there in six
minutes, never mind less than six minutes.

"Cycle responders are experienced frontline paramedics, fully
trained to work on their own and operate in busy areas that are
difficult to travel through in a car or ambulance. Staff on
bikes can get through narrow streets, pedestrian areas and
shopping centres very easily.They are able to reach patients
quickly and start to give life-saving treatment while an
ambulance is on the way"

Why not support them rather than pedantically bloody arguing
over trivial nothings.

A motor-bike is faster and better (particularly at load-carrying).

Why not just accept that obvious fact?

I should have added that your argument is clearly based on city
travel.

What about a county location where the distance to be covered to
get to an emergency might easily be ten or twenty miles?

Oh dear! it was clearly stated in the report I posted where they
were deployed:

"They respond to emergency calls in particularly congested areas of
the capital such as the West End, Heathrow Airport, Kingston town
centre, the City of London and St Pancras"

That makes some sense. A motor-bike would STILL be faster.
Especially since speed limits do not apply to emergency vehicles in
genuine cases of emergency. Have you ever noticed how motor bikes
take off at traffic lights (when the light has changed to green)?

It's hard to see what your objection to plain fact might be. You
surely can't argue that the bike is in any way faster or better than
a motor-bike?

If motorbikes are quicker, why do they use cycles?

That is the unanswered question.

Motor-cycles ARE faster. That is bleedin' obvious.

But of course, not everyone has the skill, confidence or licence to
ride a motor-bike.

Not me for a start (I rode on a provisional licence, back in the days
of yore, but never progressed to a motor-bike test, because an upgrade
to a car - actually, a van - beckoned.

How about you?

I've had a full motorbike licence since I was sixteen. I had about 5
different M/bikes over the years. Full licence for cars at 17. Passed
both tests first time. I also drove an artic tanker for a while.

I'm impressed.

But you know that you are unusual.

On 15/11/2019 18:37, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:34, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:25, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 17:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:03, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:00, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:49, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:47, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:46, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:15, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:07, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 11:57, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 11:56, Bod wrote:

A cycle responder is a medically trained responder,
such as a paramedic or first aider that uses a bicycle
to respond to a medical emergency. They are used by
professional ambulance services to respond to emergency
calls and also by private and voluntary providers of
medical cover at events.

https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/c...cle-responder/

Â* Mr Pounder will respond with "utter ********".

And Nugent will say that TMS320 will say that it has
nothing to do with cycling.

You said without prompting:

"...it has nothing to do with cycling...".

Anyway, motor-bikes (including Vespa-type scooters) would
be better, faster and more capacious.
Â*
Â* I don't think that a motorbike responder would regard it
safe to do short cuts through pedestrian areas and shopping
centres like the cycle responders do.
Anyway, the average time for the cycle ones to arrive on
the scene is 6 mins. They are usually the first which can
be vital to saving a life.

As usual, you/Cheerless and Mr Pounder will find any
pedantic reason to diss cyclists.
You are the 3 SENILE MOANY OLD FARTS.

A cycle-riding "responder" (though much depends on the exact
meaning of that word - "paramedic" is what we look for these
days) is better than no "responder" at all.

A "responder" who gets there quicker and carries more
equipment and supplies is even better than a cycle-riding
"responder".

Is that better?

It's really all I said first time round, but you obviously
didn't understand it.
Â*
Â* Correct, I don't understand ********.

...or courtesy or grace, clearly...

Â*
Â*Â*Up until today I have tried that, but talking reasonably with
someone who is clearly obsessed with taking any opportunity to
diss any and every cycling post, has its limits.
I assume that you practice arguing in an empty room, because
you are an expert pedant.
Your argument against cycling first responders is typical of
you, even when shown the facts that they are usually first to
arrive on the scene and

They can only arrive first on the scene if they happen to be the
nearest. There is no way a cyclist can beat a motor-cyclist over
even a short distance, and for medium and long distances, there
is no contest.

To remark on those facts is not to "diss" anybody. It is a
stright statement of fact.

There is also the load-carrying issue.

"they resolve over 50 per cent of all incidents at the scene"

"Their average response time to calls is six minutes"

All very well, but they have to be very near to get there in six
minutes, never mind less than six minutes.

"Cycle responders are experienced frontline paramedics, fully
trained to work on their own and operate in busy areas that are
difficult to travel through in a car or ambulance. Staff on
bikes can get through narrow streets, pedestrian areas and
shopping centres very easily.They are able to reach patients
quickly and start to give life-saving treatment while an
ambulance is on the way"

Why not support them rather than pedantically bloody arguing
over trivial nothings.

A motor-bike is faster and better (particularly at load-carrying).

Why not just accept that obvious fact?

I should have added that your argument is clearly based on city
travel.

What about a county location where the distance to be covered to
get to an emergency might easily be ten or twenty miles?

Oh dear! it was clearly stated in the report I posted where they
were deployed:

"They respond to emergency calls in particularly congested areas
of the capital such as the West End, Heathrow Airport, Kingston
town centre, the City of London and St Pancras"

That makes some sense. A motor-bike would STILL be faster.
Especially since speed limits do not apply to emergency vehicles in
genuine cases of emergency. Have you ever noticed how motor bikes
take off at traffic lights (when the light has changed to green)?

It's hard to see what your objection to plain fact might be. You
surely can't argue that the bike is in any way faster or better
than a motor-bike?

If motorbikes are quicker, why do they use cycles?

That is the unanswered question.

Motor-cycles ARE faster. That is bleedin' obvious.

But of course, not everyone has the skill, confidence or licence to
ride a motor-bike.

Not me for a start (I rode on a provisional licence, back in the days
of yore, but never progressed to a motor-bike test, because an
upgrade to a car - actually, a van - beckoned.

How about you?

Â* I've had a full motorbike licence since I was sixteen. I had about
5 different M/bikes over the years. Full licence for cars at 17.
Passed both tests first time. I also drove an artic tanker for a while.

Â*Anyway, you're claim that motorbikes are faster, does not apply in
congested areas like London where the max speed in the rush hour can be
as low as 11mph. My Ebike can do 30mph.

The maximum speed (especially for a motorbike) is not the same as the
average speed. And it is the average speed you are quoting. The
motorbike (as you know) is faster than that.