Oxford cyclists too dim to take the break that was offered

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 28/11/2010 23:07, Marc wrote:


You mean more than fatal injuries?

You can hardly fail to be aware by now that the number of pedestrians
killed on the footway by cyclists is tiny. Most years, zero. I think
you'll find that pedestrians kill as many cyclists as the other way
round, and tiny numbers in both cases.

Drivers kill one or two pedestrians per fortnight *on the pavement*.
That's in addition to all those they kill while crossing the road.

There are risks to pedestrians on pavements, as far as can objectively
quantified cyclists are not a significant risk.

They are a source of annoyance. Cycling on the pavement is a terrible
idea for lots of reasons, and we in thie groupa re mystified why
councils encourage it, but as far as the data goes it's more of a risk
to the cyclist than to the pedestrians. Riding on the footway against he
direction of traffic is one of the most dangerous things a cyclist can
do, as far as I recall.

If you want to make a fuss about nuisance, go right ahead, you'll not
find a lot of dissent here. But danger? Come back when you have credible
evidence of a significant problem.
- --

I think you have got your attributions mixed again.

Snipped to show the comment I was responding to. I read that as the
usual "somebody died once, therefore all pavement cyclists are murdering
scum" twaddle; if that was not what you meant then feel free to amplify
and clarify what you /did/ mean.

- --
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.
PGP public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJM8uTfAAoJEJx9ogI8T+W/bHEH/jDyVibzZ/QVP+3AWjTOJSVc
sUIMgi/KH7BC5HBjELHJVZShrUaxg1lZ//XhQxrp6TWmJINqY6MSBFQwhRQF83pR
8eQDFqG3Oi16THlgAu2o3RHQlZF6iv7gEN+4V6h63Eov1EZECb jO/hmamWz2YRZx
11CJC4jOt2y0KcYhxZrZ5d/7kimEzeqRfz/HkdiJfeWbZn6qwfHC5RhJJxHhmtcl
bhoSbNzYn+fn5ZiP/2JYZjTlyNtMwd0a53HVitRM7OpctwCGn8sfktHA0sNszuu/
8ua/UpKbPztHodIRmUEQoHlw28nJkzZPxmBIr9OSF91whR2f1it7OU i+jS/7jH4=
=G33/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 28/11/2010 23:07, Tony Raven wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

They are a source of annoyance. Cycling on the pavement is a terrible
idea for lots of reasons, and we in thie groupa re mystified why
councils encourage it

According to a Cambridge Councillor, its because of popular demand from his
constituents. Which kind of makes a nonsense of the argument that the
population is against it.

Alternatively, it just makes a nonsense of what that Cambridge councillor
says (especially since, as you report it, what he says is ambiguous anyway).