Cyclist gets it wrong - again.

On another newsgroup, far, far away, a cyclist gets it badly wrong - again.


Trying to defend cyclists against the accusation that they are pedal
powered organ donors, he came up with the classic cyclists SOP;


Perhaps you should get your facts right. You are way out:

ROAD DEATHS IN 2010-11

Car occupants: 883 (up 6%)
Pedestrians: 453 (up 12%)
Motorcyclists: 362 (down 10%)
Cyclists: 107 (down 4%)
Source: Department of Transport

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18881049

Typically he forgot to compare cyclists death rates with the distance
they travel;

In 2012, cars 643 billion passenger kilometres, cyclists & motorcyclists
each 5 bpk.

Eight times as many car occupants as cyclists died. But since they
traveled 128 times as far it's not surprising.

Just goes to show you can't trust a cyclist.



--


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 08/04/2015 18:45, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On another newsgroup, far, far away, a cyclist gets it badly wrong - again.


Trying to defend cyclists against the accusation that they are pedal
powered organ donors, he came up with the classic cyclists SOP;


Perhaps you should get your facts right. You are way out:

ROAD DEATHS IN 2010-11

Car occupants: 883 (up 6%)
Pedestrians: 453 (up 12%)
Motorcyclists: 362 (down 10%)
Cyclists: 107 (down 4%)
Source: Department of Transport

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18881049

Typically he forgot to compare cyclists death rates with the distance
they travel;

In 2012, cars 643 billion passenger kilometres, cyclists & motorcyclists
each 5 bpk.

Eight times as many car occupants as cyclists died. But since they
traveled 128 times as far it's not surprising.

Just goes to show you can't trust a cyclist.



107 cyclists v 883 car occupants.
Car occupants provide over 8 times the amount of donors compared to
cyclists. Why would distance travelled change the fact that car
occupants provide far more than cyclists? scratches head

On 08/04/2015 19:12, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 18:45, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On another newsgroup, far, far away, a cyclist gets it badly wrong -
again.


Trying to defend cyclists against the accusation that they are pedal
powered organ donors, he came up with the classic cyclists SOP;


Perhaps you should get your facts right. You are way out:

ROAD DEATHS IN 2010-11

Car occupants: 883 (up 6%)
Pedestrians: 453 (up 12%)
Motorcyclists: 362 (down 10%)
Cyclists: 107 (down 4%)
Source: Department of Transport

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18881049

Typically he forgot to compare cyclists death rates with the distance
they travel;

In 2012, cars 643 billion passenger kilometres, cyclists & motorcyclists
each 5 bpk.

Eight times as many car occupants as cyclists died. But since they
traveled 128 times as far it's not surprising.

Just goes to show you can't trust a cyclist.



107 cyclists v 883 car occupants.
Car occupants provide over 8 times the amount of donors compared to
cyclists. Why would distance travelled change the fact that car
occupants provide far more than cyclists? scratches head


If you really can't work that out - you really are thicker than most
cyclists - and that's saying something.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 08/04/2015 21:09, The Medway Handyman wrote:

107 cyclists v 883 car occupants.
Car occupants provide over 8 times the amount of donors compared to
cyclists. Why would distance travelled change the fact that car
occupants provide far more than cyclists? scratches head


If you really can't work that out - you really are thicker than most
cyclists - and that's saying something.

What was the question?

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
news
On 08/04/2015 19:12, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 18:45, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On another newsgroup, far, far away, a cyclist gets it badly wrong -
again.


Trying to defend cyclists against the accusation that they are pedal
powered organ donors, he came up with the classic cyclists SOP;


Perhaps you should get your facts right. You are way out:

ROAD DEATHS IN 2010-11

Car occupants: 883 (up 6%)
Pedestrians: 453 (up 12%)
Motorcyclists: 362 (down 10%)
Cyclists: 107 (down 4%)
Source: Department of Transport

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18881049

Typically he forgot to compare cyclists death rates with the distance
they travel;

In 2012, cars 643 billion passenger kilometres, cyclists & motorcyclists
each 5 bpk.

Eight times as many car occupants as cyclists died. But since they
traveled 128 times as far it's not surprising.

Just goes to show you can't trust a cyclist.



107 cyclists v 883 car occupants.
Car occupants provide over 8 times the amount of donors compared to
cyclists. Why would distance travelled change the fact that car
occupants provide far more than cyclists? scratches head


If you really can't work that out - you really are thicker than most
cyclists - and that's saying something.

It's the cycling mentality - believe what you want to believe, not what has
actually been presented to you.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 08/04/2015 19:12, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 18:45, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On another newsgroup, far, far away, a cyclist gets it badly wrong -
again.


Trying to defend cyclists against the accusation that they are pedal
powered organ donors, he came up with the classic cyclists SOP;


Perhaps you should get your facts right. You are way out:

ROAD DEATHS IN 2010-11

Car occupants: 883 (up 6%)
Pedestrians: 453 (up 12%)
Motorcyclists: 362 (down 10%)
Cyclists: 107 (down 4%)
Source: Department of Transport

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18881049

Typically he forgot to compare cyclists death rates with the distance
they travel;

In 2012, cars 643 billion passenger kilometres, cyclists & motorcyclists
each 5 bpk.

Eight times as many car occupants as cyclists died. But since they
traveled 128 times as far it's not surprising.

Just goes to show you can't trust a cyclist.



107 cyclists v 883 car occupants.
Car occupants provide over 8 times the amount of donors compared to
cyclists. Why would distance travelled change the fact that car
occupants provide far more than cyclists? scratches head


SIGH It's like talking to a child.

The reference to organ donors isn't literal, it's the black humour used
by the emergency services so they can cope with what they see on a daily
basis.

About a third of the population carry organ donor cards but nobody knows
how many are motorists and how many are cyclists.

Paramedics call cyclists organ donors because they believe, based on
their considerable experience, that cycling is a very dangerous
occupation, not because they find organ donor cards on the bodies.

Since motorists are exposed to fatal accidents 128 times more than
cyclists it's clearly much more dangerous.

Have you got that, or do I need Janet & John to tell you?






--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 09/04/2015 18:19, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 08/04/2015 19:12, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 18:45, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On another newsgroup, far, far away, a cyclist gets it badly wrong -
again.


Trying to defend cyclists against the accusation that they are pedal
powered organ donors, he came up with the classic cyclists SOP;


Perhaps you should get your facts right. You are way out:

ROAD DEATHS IN 2010-11

Car occupants: 883 (up 6%)
Pedestrians: 453 (up 12%)
Motorcyclists: 362 (down 10%)
Cyclists: 107 (down 4%)
Source: Department of Transport

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18881049

Typically he forgot to compare cyclists death rates with the distance
they travel;

In 2012, cars 643 billion passenger kilometres, cyclists & motorcyclists
each 5 bpk.

Eight times as many car occupants as cyclists died. But since they
traveled 128 times as far it's not surprising.

Just goes to show you can't trust a cyclist.



107 cyclists v 883 car occupants.
Car occupants provide over 8 times the amount of donors compared to
cyclists. Why would distance travelled change the fact that car
occupants provide far more than cyclists? scratches head


SIGH It's like talking to a child.

The reference to organ donors isn't literal, it's the black humour used
by the emergency services so they can cope with what they see on a daily
basis.

About a third of the population carry organ donor cards but nobody knows
how many are motorists and how many are cyclists.

Paramedics call cyclists organ donors because they believe, based on
their considerable experience, that cycling is a very dangerous
occupation, not because they find organ donor cards on the bodies.

Since motorists are exposed to fatal accidents 128 times more than
cyclists it's clearly much more dangerous.

Have you got that, or do I need Janet & John to tell you?


Thanks for the offer of your favourite books, but no thanks.

On 09/04/2015 19:56, Bod wrote:
On 09/04/2015 18:19, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 08/04/2015 19:12, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 18:45, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On another newsgroup, far, far away, a cyclist gets it badly wrong -
again.


Trying to defend cyclists against the accusation that they are pedal
powered organ donors, he came up with the classic cyclists SOP;


Perhaps you should get your facts right. You are way out:

ROAD DEATHS IN 2010-11

Car occupants: 883 (up 6%)
Pedestrians: 453 (up 12%)
Motorcyclists: 362 (down 10%)
Cyclists: 107 (down 4%)
Source: Department of Transport

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18881049

Typically he forgot to compare cyclists death rates with the distance
they travel;

In 2012, cars 643 billion passenger kilometres, cyclists &
motorcyclists
each 5 bpk.

Eight times as many car occupants as cyclists died. But since they
traveled 128 times as far it's not surprising.

Just goes to show you can't trust a cyclist.



107 cyclists v 883 car occupants.
Car occupants provide over 8 times the amount of donors compared to
cyclists. Why would distance travelled change the fact that car
occupants provide far more than cyclists? scratches head


SIGH It's like talking to a child.

The reference to organ donors isn't literal, it's the black humour used
by the emergency services so they can cope with what they see on a daily
basis.

About a third of the population carry organ donor cards but nobody knows
how many are motorists and how many are cyclists.

Paramedics call cyclists organ donors because they believe, based on
their considerable experience, that cycling is a very dangerous
occupation, not because they find organ donor cards on the bodies.

Since motorists are exposed to fatal accidents 128 times more than
cyclists it's clearly much more dangerous.

Have you got that, or do I need Janet & John to tell you?


Thanks for the offer of your favourite books, but no thanks.

I was going to suggest you got an adult to read them to you.



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On 09/04/2015 22:19, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 09/04/2015 19:56, Bod wrote:
On 09/04/2015 18:19, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On 08/04/2015 19:12, Bod wrote:
On 08/04/2015 18:45, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On another newsgroup, far, far away, a cyclist gets it badly wrong -
again.


Trying to defend cyclists against the accusation that they are pedal
powered organ donors, he came up with the classic cyclists SOP;


Perhaps you should get your facts right. You are way out:

ROAD DEATHS IN 2010-11

Car occupants: 883 (up 6%)
Pedestrians: 453 (up 12%)
Motorcyclists: 362 (down 10%)
Cyclists: 107 (down 4%)
Source: Department of Transport

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18881049

Typically he forgot to compare cyclists death rates with the distance
they travel;

In 2012, cars 643 billion passenger kilometres, cyclists &
motorcyclists
each 5 bpk.

Eight times as many car occupants as cyclists died. But since they
traveled 128 times as far it's not surprising.

Just goes to show you can't trust a cyclist.



107 cyclists v 883 car occupants.
Car occupants provide over 8 times the amount of donors compared to
cyclists. Why would distance travelled change the fact that car
occupants provide far more than cyclists? scratches head


SIGH It's like talking to a child.

The reference to organ donors isn't literal, it's the black humour used
by the emergency services so they can cope with what they see on a daily
basis.

About a third of the population carry organ donor cards but nobody knows
how many are motorists and how many are cyclists.

Paramedics call cyclists organ donors because they believe, based on
their considerable experience, that cycling is a very dangerous
occupation, not because they find organ donor cards on the bodies.

Since motorists are exposed to fatal accidents 128 times more than
cyclists it's clearly much more dangerous.

Have you got that, or do I need Janet & John to tell you?


Thanks for the offer of your favourite books, but no thanks.

I was going to suggest you got an adult to read them to you.



They sound too complicated for me. Have they got pictures to go with the
words?

On 08/04/2015 18:45, The Medway Handyman wrote:
On another newsgroup, far, far away, a cyclist gets it badly wrong - again.


Trying to defend cyclists against the accusation that they are pedal
powered organ donors, he came up with the classic cyclists SOP;


Perhaps you should get your facts right. You are way out:

ROAD DEATHS IN 2010-11

Car occupants: 883 (up 6%)
Pedestrians: 453 (up 12%)
Motorcyclists: 362 (down 10%)
Cyclists: 107 (down 4%)
Source: Department of Transport

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18881049

Typically he forgot to compare cyclists death rates with the distance
they travel;

In 2012, cars 643 billion passenger kilometres, cyclists & motorcyclists
each 5 bpk.

Eight times as many car occupants as cyclists died. But since they
traveled 128 times as far it's not surprising.

Just goes to show you can't trust a cyclist.

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpres...london-report/

Table 3.9.
Cycle trips NTS 2012 1.7%, car driver + passenger 64.4%. 38 times as
many trips are by car, yet only 8 1/4 times the number of deaths. Each
trip by cycling you are 4.6 times more likely to become an organ donor
than by car.

In London with low traffic speeds, where cyclists can brag they are
faster than cars, when measured by casualty/distance it's such a big
disparity that they have to use a LOG scale Fig 5.2. From age 24 to 60
there is about a factor of about 15 between casualties for cycling to
car driver/passenger.

The only thing more dangerous is motorcycles and the real issue for them
is the disparity in speed.

The stats don't show when these casualties occur. I doubt many of the
young car drivers are injured at peak times in slow traffic, I think
it's far more likely to be at night when the roads are empty and speeds
higher.

Going on the car driver stats there is a good case that public transport
divers should retire before the accident rate starts to climb.
Casualties for 65-69 age group are 2x that of 60-64.

And if you get to 85 you are 10 times more likely to become a casualty
on any trip out by car/bus/foot than you were at 60. Being old is even
more dangerous than being a youth.