#31
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Responders
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. -- Bod |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Responders
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. 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. -- Bod |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Responders
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:30:36 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 17:05, Simon Jester wrote: On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:03:19 PM UTC, 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? Maybe you should write to the NHS and tell them they made a mistake in choosing pedal cycles over motor cycles. "Responders" would need a licence for a motor-bike. Do you have a licence for your goalposts? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Responders
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Responders
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Responders
Simon Jester wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:30:36 PM UTC, JNugent wrote: On 15/11/2019 17:05, Simon Jester wrote: On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 3:03:19 PM UTC, 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/ 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. 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. Correct, I don't understand ********. ...or courtesy or grace, clearly... 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? Maybe you should write to the NHS and tell them they made a mistake in choosing pedal cycles over motor cycles. "Responders" would need a licence for a motor-bike. Do you have a licence for your goalposts? Every post you send gets more stupid. But you are the clown of the group. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Responders
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:56:02 PM UTC, 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. Me2. I had a 1977 Suzuki AP50, made just before the 30mph restriction came into affect. Then a Honda 125 because the learner limit from 250 to 125 came into effect shortly after my 17th birthday and I had to take the 2 part test. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Responders
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. 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. -- Bod |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Responders
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 7:15:16 PM UTC, 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. 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. -- Bod OK. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Cycle Responders
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. 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 -- Bod |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cycle Speed Limits on a normal Cycle Path? | [email protected] | UK | 184 | February 15th 07 08:59 PM |
Cycle insurance that covers bikes locked to car mounted cycle rack? | Curious_Orange | UK | 0 | May 8th 06 07:38 PM |
Idiot Vandeman & the His Idiot Responders | Gary S. | Mountain Biking | 0 | August 30th 05 03:15 AM |
spin bikes (aka spinning cycle or group cycle) | Chris Bastock | Techniques | 13 | March 4th 05 11:10 PM |
Which cycle computers do not use coaxial wires? [was: Tandem trike - How to mount cycle computer?] | FLM | Recumbent Biking | 6 | September 19th 04 08:00 PM |