Bloody hell, a cyclist that admits his mistake

He won't last long.
Too fast, too close and hangs around after the crash.

http://www.fetcheveryone.com/viewtop...d=44292&page=1

On Sun, 13 Mar 2011 13:52:47 -0000, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

He won't last long.
Too fast, too close and hangs around after the crash.

http://www.fetcheveryone.com/viewtop...d=44292&page=1



I do not believe it is a serious post; surely we have been told many times that people's house
contents insurance always covers cyclists for these eventualities

--
2009 per billion passenger kilometres:

Cyclists Killed or seriously injured : 567
Pedestrians Killed or seriously injured : 415

Which is the safer form of transport?

On Mar 13, 7:03*pm, Judith wrote:

I do not believe it is a serious post; surely we have been told many times that people's house
contents insurance always covers cyclists for these eventualities

-- * * *

You haven't followed the link and read what is there, then. Typical!

2009 per billion passenger kilometres:

Cyclists Killed or seriously injured : 567
Pedestrians Killed or seriously injured : 415

Which is the safer form of transport?

Only presenting the one half of the figures that support your beliefs.
Typical!

Why do you never rise to the challenge of quoting the "Killed" figures
from the same source.
Is it because you don't want people to know you are more likely to die
walking a mile than cycling a mile?

On 13/03/2011 21:42, PhilO wrote:

Why do you never rise to the challenge of quoting the "Killed" figures
from the same source.
Is it because you don't want people to know you are more likely to die
walking a mile than cycling a mile?


You have to be careful with language.

Even if the figures show that more people die per km walking as opposed
to cycling the conclusion you state does not necessarily follow. I
suspect as higher risk individuals are overrepresented in walkers it is
not true. See Simpson's paradox.

On 13/03/2011 13:52, Mrcheerful wrote:
He won't last long.
Too fast, too close and hangs around after the crash.

http://www.fetcheveryone.com/viewtop...d=44292&page=1


I'm a bit surprised about the £270 quid damage. Normally when a bike
rear ends a car the only significant damage is to the bicycle frame.

On steel framed bikes it causes a ripple where the downtube meets the
head tube. I'm not sure what happens on aluminium or carbon frames?

Nick wrote:
On 13/03/2011 13:52, Mrcheerful wrote:
He won't last long.
Too fast, too close and hangs around after the crash.

http://www.fetcheveryone.com/viewtop...d=44292&page=1


I'm a bit surprised about the £270 quid damage. Normally when a bike
rear ends a car the only significant damage is to the bicycle frame.

On steel framed bikes it causes a ripple where the downtube meets the
head tube. I'm not sure what happens on aluminium or carbon frames?

Mondeo back bumper is brittle painted plastic and would cost about 270 on
its own when painted and fitted, I am surprised the figure was so low.

On Mar 13, 11:52*pm, Nick wrote:
On 13/03/2011 21:42, PhilO wrote:

Why do you never rise to the challenge of quoting the "Killed" figures
from the same source.
Is it because you don't want people to know you are more likely to die
walking a mile than cycling a mile?

You have to be careful with language.

Even if the figures show that more people die per km walking as opposed
to cycling the conclusion you state does not necessarily follow. I
suspect as higher risk individuals are overrepresented in walkers it is
not true. See Simpson's paradox.

Let's not go there. Yes, higher risk individuals are overrepresented
in walkers, but a walker suffering a heart attack is not counted
wheras a cyclist suffering the same fate is.
I don't believe the figures show anything more than cycling is not
significantly more dangerous than walking (or that you can't actually
tell from the figures). I just object to Judith deliberately missing
out the data that she doesn't like and repeating the bits she does
like again and again and again.

On Mar 13, 11:57*pm, Nick wrote:
On 13/03/2011 13:52, Mrcheerful wrote: He won't last long.
Too fast, too close and hangs around after the crash.

http://www.fetcheveryone.com/viewtop...d=44292&page=1

I'm a bit surprised about the 270 quid damage. Normally when a bike
rear ends a car the only significant damage is to the bicycle frame.

On steel framed bikes it causes a ripple where the downtube meets the
head tube. I'm not sure what happens on aluminium or carbon frames?

If you had bothered to read the whole thing, the original poster goes
on to say that the damage was to the car, not the bike. He admits that
he was riding too close behind the car and was unable to stop when it
braked suddenly. So much for bikes being able to stop on a proverbial
sixpence, as claimed by some on this forum!

Derek C

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 03:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
PhilO wrote:

I just object to Judith deliberately missing
out the data that she doesn't like and repeating the bits she does
like again and again and again.

Why? It's Judith, not a real person or anything of consequence - you
might as well try having a decent conversation with a potato.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:37:57 +0000, Rob Morley wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 03:51:46 -0700 (PDT)
PhilO wrote:

I just object to Judith deliberately missing
out the data that she doesn't like and repeating the bits she does
like again and again and again.

Why? It's Judith, not a real person or anything of consequence - you
might as well try having a decent conversation with a potato.

And a aggressively chippy one at that.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|