A Peloton of Knobs

On 26/08/2013 18:55, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:17:33 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 21:15:15 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

snip
Please excuse me then, I must have been mistaken. Maybe it was all a dream
and I was asleep in bed all Sunday afternoon.



It could be that we both have access to the pleasant country and B roads -
whereas Crispin lives in a large urban conurbation.

I am not surprised that the cyclists do not go out for a nice ride in
Crispin's area.

I wonder why cycling in London is so popular...


Because it gives very cheap door to door transport for some people for
some journeys.

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:17:33 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 21:15:15 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

snip
Please excuse me then, I must have been mistaken. Maybe it was all a
dream
and I was asleep in bed all Sunday afternoon.



It could be that we both have access to the pleasant country and B roads -
whereas Crispin lives in a large urban conurbation.

I am not surprised that the cyclists do not go out for a nice ride in
Crispin's area.

I wonder why cycling in London is so popular...

I wonder why not living in London is so popular.

"John Benn" wrote in message
...
"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:17:33 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 21:15:15 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

snip
Please excuse me then, I must have been mistaken. Maybe it was all a
dream
and I was asleep in bed all Sunday afternoon.



It could be that we both have access to the pleasant country and B
roads -
whereas Crispin lives in a large urban conurbation.

I am not surprised that the cyclists do not go out for a nice ride in
Crispin's area.

I wonder why cycling in London is so popular...

I wonder why not living in London is so popular.

+ 1

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:21:07 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:20:25 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:41:30 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

Do only those killed count?

It is a good measure of risk. If the number of fatalities is zero or
close to zero, the next best measure is reported serious injuries.

Actually both are a pretty useless measure of cycling attributable
injuries and hopelessly under estimate their numbers. Which of
course is why they are popular with bicyclists organizations who
want to promote the illusion that cycling is incredibly safe.

Don't be silly. Fatalities are generally the best statistic precisely
to avoid under-reporting. It is not likely that someone will die in a
traffic collision and not end up in the statistics. Unless your
theory that there's a gang of CTC-agents who break into the high
security traffic statistics building and delete the cyclist
fatalities?

The police can only report details of the accidents of which they are
aware. Most cycling accidents never make into police visibility

Which is why fatalities are the preferred measure. You are arguing
against yourself, and it makes you look a fool.

How many cyclist fatalities do you think the police are unaware of?
What proportion of cyclist fatalities get hushed up, that causes you
to declare that they are "hopelessly" under-estimated?

All the reasoning you give applies to minor injuries. So why did you
give it as a reason for disregarding fatalities? My guess is either
you don't understand what you're regurgitating, or you're just
disagreeing for the sake of it. In either case, you look a fool.

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 25/08/2013 18:44, Judith wrote:


Out today in the car when I caught up with a bunch of cyclists riding two
abreast on a quite B road. About twenty-thirty in number - with the necessity
to overtake them all in one go as they were inconsiderate enough to leave no
gaps between themselves.

There was quite a build up of traffic as they waited/tried to overtake them.

Of course when I overtook them I found it necessary to wash my windscreen: it
really is a pity the windscreen washers are so badly aligned. I would guess
that something like 80% of them got their mandatory sun-shades splattered


Jimdeth, given your indeterminate sexuality, are you sure that it was
washer fluid you were squirting over them?

Imcidentally, you REALLY should consider that your actions could cause a
cyclist to crash and that recent news stories prove that boasting about
it online could put you in the frame for a right royal legal kicking.

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 19:25:03 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote:

On 26/08/2013 18:55, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:17:33 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 21:15:15 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

snip
Please excuse me then, I must have been mistaken. Maybe it was all a dream
and I was asleep in bed all Sunday afternoon.



It could be that we both have access to the pleasant country and B roads -
whereas Crispin lives in a large urban conurbation.

I am not surprised that the cyclists do not go out for a nice ride in
Crispin's area.

I wonder why cycling in London is so popular...


Because it gives very cheap door to door transport for some people for
some journeys.

In other words, a nice ride.

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 19:46:18 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:17:33 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 21:15:15 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

snip
Please excuse me then, I must have been mistaken. Maybe it was all a
dream
and I was asleep in bed all Sunday afternoon.



It could be that we both have access to the pleasant country and B roads -
whereas Crispin lives in a large urban conurbation.

I am not surprised that the cyclists do not go out for a nice ride in
Crispin's area.

I wonder why cycling in London is so popular...

I wonder why not living in London is so popular.

Most odd. London is the most popular place in the UK. It is also one
of the most popular cities for tourists worldwide.

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:21:07 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 13:20:25 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:41:30 +0100, Peter Parry
wrote:

Do only those killed count?

It is a good measure of risk. If the number of fatalities is zero or
close to zero, the next best measure is reported serious injuries.

Actually both are a pretty useless measure of cycling attributable
injuries and hopelessly under estimate their numbers. Which of
course is why they are popular with bicyclists organizations who
want to promote the illusion that cycling is incredibly safe.

Don't be silly. Fatalities are generally the best statistic precisely
to avoid under-reporting.

Under reporting of what? There is ample evidence that cycling related
injuries are grossly under reported. Measuring deaths alone is
meaningless unless you can in some way correlate them with injuries
overall.

It is not likely that someone will die in a traffic collision and not end up in the statistics.

Indeed, but also irrelevant if, as is the case, the vast majority of
cycling accidents are both self inflicted and simply lead to injury
rather than death. There is no accurate measure of how many such
accidents take place, all we know is that relatively few make it to
Stats19. That doesn't make the minor, or unimportant.

The police can only report details of the accidents of which they are
aware. Most cycling accidents never make into police visibility

Which is why fatalities are the preferred measure.

Of course they are preferred by propagandists, they dramatically
understate the accident risk. Merely because you can measure one
isolated event in an activity does not make it an accurate measure of
all events connected with the activity. The self inflicted injuries I
mentioned are, in one case at least, life changing in that the
individual concerned can no longer even walk any distance and that is
going to get worse. Their accident will appear in no statistic.

How many cyclist fatalities do you think the police are unaware of?
What proportion of cyclist fatalities get hushed up, that causes you
to declare that they are "hopelessly" under-estimated?

I did not say cycling fatalities were hopelessly underestimated but
that cycling related injuries are hopelessly underestimated.

All the reasoning you give applies to minor injuries.

No, it relates to injuries, many of which are quite serious and will
have life long effects. Those injuries are grossly under reported and
that under reporting creates a wholly false impression of the safety
of cycling, which of course suits those peddling the lie. To dismiss
anything which doesn't lead to death as "minor" and unimportant may
suit your agenda but bears no relationship to reality.

On 26/08/2013 22:33, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 19:46:18 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:17:33 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 21:15:15 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

snip
Please excuse me then, I must have been mistaken. Maybe it was all a
dream
and I was asleep in bed all Sunday afternoon.



It could be that we both have access to the pleasant country and B roads -
whereas Crispin lives in a large urban conurbation.

I am not surprised that the cyclists do not go out for a nice ride in
Crispin's area.

I wonder why cycling in London is so popular...

I wonder why not living in London is so popular.

Most odd. London is the most popular place in the UK...

....in the estate agent details sense of the word "popular".

On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 23:01:15 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 26/08/2013 22:33, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 19:46:18 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

"Bertie Wooster" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:17:33 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 21:15:15 +0100, "John Benn"
wrote:

snip
Please excuse me then, I must have been mistaken. Maybe it was all a
dream
and I was asleep in bed all Sunday afternoon.



It could be that we both have access to the pleasant country and B roads -
whereas Crispin lives in a large urban conurbation.

I am not surprised that the cyclists do not go out for a nice ride in
Crispin's area.

I wonder why cycling in London is so popular...

I wonder why not living in London is so popular.

Most odd. London is the most popular place in the UK...

...in the estate agent details sense of the word "popular".

Where in the UK do you think is more popular?