|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists are like lemmings
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:35:45 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:43:05 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote: On 07/04/2014 13:39, Ian Smith wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:33:16 GMT, Cassandra wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 23:58:48 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote: is there such a thing as a mandatory cycle lane? Mandatory in the sense cyclists don't have to use them but other road can't. which is obviously a cyclists definition of madatory Which is the UK legal system's definition of mandatory, when applied to cycle lanes. If you don't like it, get it changed - voting UKIP seems like it would be a start. (I think that particular legislation is UK-wide, but possibly NI has something different.) regards, Ian SMith compulsory use of cycle lanes where available was one of Herr Hitler's better ideas (1934 onward) Godwins. Child (Have you noticed how it is only the ****wits who do what you did: it was one of Porky's favourites) |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists are like lemmings
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:43:44 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:01:44 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 07/04/2014 20:35, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:15:58 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote: On 07/04/2014 10:54, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:57:06 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 06/04/2014 18:48, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:50:36 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 06/04/2014 12:45, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:57:47 GMT, (Cassandra) wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:15:43 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:34:39 GMT, (Cassandra) wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:49:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:52 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote: On 05/04/2014 10:09, Mrcheerful wrote: Yet another following sat nav onto a motorway, how thick are they? Why don't they get sat nav that supports cycling? Nearly as dim as these London cyclists that keep going up the inside of tipper lorries at junctions, they hear one has died doing it so they all try it. http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...v-onto-6919692 "It is the third time this year police have been called to deal with a cyclist pedalling along a Surrey motorway. In February, a cyclist was fined £50 after a mobile phone app sent him onto the M25 between junctions 11 and 12 , for Chertsey and the M3. And in March, another cyclist was fined after again following an app onto the M3 westbound, between Sunbury and the M25 junction". Unbelievable. How can they be that dim? I don't know. Likewise, I cannot understand how motorists stray into cycle and bus lanes during restricted periods, or why they don't seem to understand what advance stop lines are. I wonder what happens more frequently, cyclists on roads from which they are prohibited, or motorists on lanes from which they are prohibited - and if frequency rates of infringement are related to dimness. Lets see, what happens more often - cyclists on footpaths, or drivers in mandatory cycle lanes ? It depends on the calculation. The best way to calculate would be motorist infringements per mile of mandatory cycle lane plus bus lane pus advance stop reservoir compared with cyclist infringements per mile of motorway plus footway. As its the "best way" to calculate such things, whats the killed and injured per mile for cyclists compared to drivers ? Very few people are killed or injured by cyclists per mile travelled. Indeed, killing by cyclists is so rare that any case often makes headline news. A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled. Indeed, killing by motorists is so common that cases rarely make headline news. Ze Plane! Ze Plane! "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows. When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers". Can you work out the percentage and then tell me if it is an insignificant difference. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? Oh... I'm sorry, I forgot that you are unable to perform simple mathematical calculations. If your 21 and 24 figures are accurate, the difference is over 14%, which, according to an earlier post by Judith, is a very significant percentage. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? 14% more - if your figures are correct. So, that's "a great many more" is it? I know that mathematics is not your strong point. If the cost of fuel increased by 14% overnight (e.g. from £1.36 to £1.55 per litre), would that be a: 1. very large increase; 2. large increase; 3. small increase; 4. steady price; 5. small decrease; 6. large decrease; 7. very large decrease. Here is a better one for you: If someone who claims he was once a primary school teacher wanted to prove that he was indeed the ****wit people claimed he was: what would he have to do to prove the point? Keep up the good work. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists are like lemmings
"Judith" wrote in message ... On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:43:44 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:01:44 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 07/04/2014 20:35, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:15:58 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote: On 07/04/2014 10:54, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:57:06 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 06/04/2014 18:48, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:50:36 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 06/04/2014 12:45, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:57:47 GMT, (Cassandra) wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:15:43 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:34:39 GMT, (Cassandra) wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:49:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:52 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote: On 05/04/2014 10:09, Mrcheerful wrote: Yet another following sat nav onto a motorway, how thick are they? Why don't they get sat nav that supports cycling? Nearly as dim as these London cyclists that keep going up the inside of tipper lorries at junctions, they hear one has died doing it so they all try it. http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...v-onto-6919692 "It is the third time this year police have been called to deal with a cyclist pedalling along a Surrey motorway. In February, a cyclist was fined £50 after a mobile phone app sent him onto the M25 between junctions 11 and 12 , for Chertsey and the M3. And in March, another cyclist was fined after again following an app onto the M3 westbound, between Sunbury and the M25 junction". Unbelievable. How can they be that dim? I don't know. Likewise, I cannot understand how motorists stray into cycle and bus lanes during restricted periods, or why they don't seem to understand what advance stop lines are. I wonder what happens more frequently, cyclists on roads from which they are prohibited, or motorists on lanes from which they are prohibited - and if frequency rates of infringement are related to dimness. Lets see, what happens more often - cyclists on footpaths, or drivers in mandatory cycle lanes ? It depends on the calculation. The best way to calculate would be motorist infringements per mile of mandatory cycle lane plus bus lane pus advance stop reservoir compared with cyclist infringements per mile of motorway plus footway. As its the "best way" to calculate such things, whats the killed and injured per mile for cyclists compared to drivers ? Very few people are killed or injured by cyclists per mile travelled. Indeed, killing by cyclists is so rare that any case often makes headline news. A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled. Indeed, killing by motorists is so common that cases rarely make headline news. Ze Plane! Ze Plane! "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows. When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers". Can you work out the percentage and then tell me if it is an insignificant difference. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? Oh... I'm sorry, I forgot that you are unable to perform simple mathematical calculations. If your 21 and 24 figures are accurate, the difference is over 14%, which, according to an earlier post by Judith, is a very significant percentage. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? 14% more - if your figures are correct. So, that's "a great many more" is it? I know that mathematics is not your strong point. If the cost of fuel increased by 14% overnight (e.g. from £1.36 to £1.55 per litre), would that be a: 1. very large increase; 2. large increase; 3. small increase; 4. steady price; 5. small decrease; 6. large decrease; 7. very large decrease. Here is a better one for you: If someone who claims he was once a primary school teacher wanted to prove that he was indeed the ****wit people claimed he was: what would he have to do to prove the point? Keep up the good work. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists are like lemmings
On 07/04/2014 21:43, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:01:44 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 07/04/2014 20:35, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:15:58 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote: On 07/04/2014 10:54, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:57:06 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 06/04/2014 18:48, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:50:36 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 06/04/2014 12:45, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:57:47 GMT, (Cassandra) wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:15:43 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:34:39 GMT, (Cassandra) wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:49:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:52 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote: On 05/04/2014 10:09, Mrcheerful wrote: Yet another following sat nav onto a motorway, how thick are they? Why don't they get sat nav that supports cycling? Nearly as dim as these London cyclists that keep going up the inside of tipper lorries at junctions, they hear one has died doing it so they all try it. http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...v-onto-6919692 "It is the third time this year police have been called to deal with a cyclist pedalling along a Surrey motorway. In February, a cyclist was fined £50 after a mobile phone app sent him onto the M25 between junctions 11 and 12 , for Chertsey and the M3. And in March, another cyclist was fined after again following an app onto the M3 westbound, between Sunbury and the M25 junction". Unbelievable. How can they be that dim? I don't know. Likewise, I cannot understand how motorists stray into cycle and bus lanes during restricted periods, or why they don't seem to understand what advance stop lines are. I wonder what happens more frequently, cyclists on roads from which they are prohibited, or motorists on lanes from which they are prohibited - and if frequency rates of infringement are related to dimness. Lets see, what happens more often - cyclists on footpaths, or drivers in mandatory cycle lanes ? It depends on the calculation. The best way to calculate would be motorist infringements per mile of mandatory cycle lane plus bus lane pus advance stop reservoir compared with cyclist infringements per mile of motorway plus footway. As its the "best way" to calculate such things, whats the killed and injured per mile for cyclists compared to drivers ? Very few people are killed or injured by cyclists per mile travelled. Indeed, killing by cyclists is so rare that any case often makes headline news. A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled. Indeed, killing by motorists is so common that cases rarely make headline news. Ze Plane! Ze Plane! "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows. When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers". Can you work out the percentage and then tell me if it is an insignificant difference. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? Oh... I'm sorry, I forgot that you are unable to perform simple mathematical calculations. If your 21 and 24 figures are accurate, the difference is over 14%, which, according to an earlier post by Judith, is a very significant percentage. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? 14% more - if your figures are correct. So, that's "a great many more" is it? I know that mathematics is not your strong point. If the cost of fuel increased by 14% overnight (e.g. from £1.36 to £1.55 per litre), would that be a: 1. very large increase; 2. large increase; 3. small increase; 4. steady price; 5. small decrease; 6. large decrease; 7. very large decrease. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? -- Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their lives, certainly on a regular basis." |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists are like lemmings
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:33:11 +0100, Mrcheerful
wrote: On 07/04/2014 13:06, John B. wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:57:06 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 06/04/2014 18:48, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:50:36 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 06/04/2014 12:45, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:57:47 GMT, (Cassandra) wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:15:43 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:34:39 GMT, (Cassandra) wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:49:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:52 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote: On 05/04/2014 10:09, Mrcheerful wrote: Yet another following sat nav onto a motorway, how thick are they? Why don't they get sat nav that supports cycling? Nearly as dim as these London cyclists that keep going up the inside of tipper lorries at junctions, they hear one has died doing it so they all try it. http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...v-onto-6919692 "It is the third time this year police have been called to deal with a cyclist pedalling along a Surrey motorway. In February, a cyclist was fined £50 after a mobile phone app sent him onto the M25 between junctions 11 and 12 , for Chertsey and the M3. And in March, another cyclist was fined after again following an app onto the M3 westbound, between Sunbury and the M25 junction". Unbelievable. How can they be that dim? I don't know. Likewise, I cannot understand how motorists stray into cycle and bus lanes during restricted periods, or why they don't seem to understand what advance stop lines are. I wonder what happens more frequently, cyclists on roads from which they are prohibited, or motorists on lanes from which they are prohibited - and if frequency rates of infringement are related to dimness. Lets see, what happens more often - cyclists on footpaths, or drivers in mandatory cycle lanes ? It depends on the calculation. The best way to calculate would be motorist infringements per mile of mandatory cycle lane plus bus lane pus advance stop reservoir compared with cyclist infringements per mile of motorway plus footway. As its the "best way" to calculate such things, whats the killed and injured per mile for cyclists compared to drivers ? Very few people are killed or injured by cyclists per mile travelled. Indeed, killing by cyclists is so rare that any case often makes headline news. A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled. Indeed, killing by motorists is so common that cases rarely make headline news. Ze Plane! Ze Plane! "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows. When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers". Can you work out the percentage and then tell me if it is an insignificant difference. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? I don't believe that you can make a "miles traveled" comparison between autos and bicycles, Example: 20,000 motorists drive 20,000 miles each and fatal accidents kill eight people. The fatality rate, per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (the recognized standard for measuring fatalities), is two Next year, the number of drivers doubles to 40,000, with each of them driving 20,000 miles per year. It would seem that possibly 16 people will die in accidents. However, assuming 16 deaths, the fatality rate remains identical: Two deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. I believe you will find that a billion is the recognised number used for calculating these things and a billion is a thousand million, not a 100 million. in any case the the methodolgy is entirely accurate, it doesn't matter if one driver drives a billion miles, or a thousand drivers drive one million, the rate per mile driven is the same. Regardless, the formula provides the same information and calculating accidents based on miles/kilometers traveled is not going to provide informative data. As you have explained it, a single driver driving a billion miles would have to die 5.79 times which, unless you practice resurrection in the U.K., is impossible. -- Cheers, John B. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists are like lemmings
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 22:38:50 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote: On 07/04/2014 21:43, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:01:44 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 07/04/2014 20:35, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:15:58 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote: On 07/04/2014 10:54, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:57:06 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 06/04/2014 18:48, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:50:36 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 06/04/2014 12:45, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:57:47 GMT, (Cassandra) wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:15:43 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:34:39 GMT, (Cassandra) wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:49:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:52 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote: On 05/04/2014 10:09, Mrcheerful wrote: Yet another following sat nav onto a motorway, how thick are they? Why don't they get sat nav that supports cycling? Nearly as dim as these London cyclists that keep going up the inside of tipper lorries at junctions, they hear one has died doing it so they all try it. http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...v-onto-6919692 "It is the third time this year police have been called to deal with a cyclist pedalling along a Surrey motorway. In February, a cyclist was fined £50 after a mobile phone app sent him onto the M25 between junctions 11 and 12 , for Chertsey and the M3. And in March, another cyclist was fined after again following an app onto the M3 westbound, between Sunbury and the M25 junction". Unbelievable. How can they be that dim? I don't know. Likewise, I cannot understand how motorists stray into cycle and bus lanes during restricted periods, or why they don't seem to understand what advance stop lines are. I wonder what happens more frequently, cyclists on roads from which they are prohibited, or motorists on lanes from which they are prohibited - and if frequency rates of infringement are related to dimness. Lets see, what happens more often - cyclists on footpaths, or drivers in mandatory cycle lanes ? It depends on the calculation. The best way to calculate would be motorist infringements per mile of mandatory cycle lane plus bus lane pus advance stop reservoir compared with cyclist infringements per mile of motorway plus footway. As its the "best way" to calculate such things, whats the killed and injured per mile for cyclists compared to drivers ? Very few people are killed or injured by cyclists per mile travelled. Indeed, killing by cyclists is so rare that any case often makes headline news. A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled. Indeed, killing by motorists is so common that cases rarely make headline news. Ze Plane! Ze Plane! "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows. When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers". Can you work out the percentage and then tell me if it is an insignificant difference. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? Oh... I'm sorry, I forgot that you are unable to perform simple mathematical calculations. If your 21 and 24 figures are accurate, the difference is over 14%, which, according to an earlier post by Judith, is a very significant percentage. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? 14% more - if your figures are correct. So, that's "a great many more" is it? I know that mathematics is not your strong point. If the cost of fuel increased by 14% overnight (e.g. from £1.36 to £1.55 per litre), would that be a: 1. very large increase; 2. large increase; 3. small increase; 4. steady price; 5. small decrease; 6. large decrease; 7. very large decrease. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? I know numbers are not your strong point, so I won't ask you again to answer the question above. Others can do so. If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was completely and utterly wrong if the correct answer to my question above is either 4, 5, 6 or 7. If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was completely wrong if the correct answer to my question above is 3. If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was wrong if the correct answer to my question above is 2. Regardless of the correctness or otherwise of your figures, I will not accept that I was completely and utterly wrong if the correct answer to my question above is 1. What you need to do now if find someone competent in number to tell you what the answer to my question above is, and post the correct answer here with his or her explanation. If the correct answer is not given as 1, you will then need to find the source data for your KSI figures so that I can verify their correctness. You can then accept my conditional admission that I was either wrong, completely wrong, or completely and utterly wrong, and I need not make a further post on the matter unless either: 1. the incorrect answer to my question above is given; or, 2. your source data does not match your figures; or, 3. both. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists are like lemmings
On 08/04/2014 07:38, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 22:38:50 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote: On 07/04/2014 21:43, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:01:44 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 07/04/2014 20:35, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:15:58 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote: On 07/04/2014 10:54, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:57:06 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 06/04/2014 18:48, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:50:36 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 06/04/2014 12:45, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:57:47 GMT, (Cassandra) wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:15:43 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:34:39 GMT, (Cassandra) wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:49:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:52 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote: On 05/04/2014 10:09, Mrcheerful wrote: Yet another following sat nav onto a motorway, how thick are they? Why don't they get sat nav that supports cycling? Nearly as dim as these London cyclists that keep going up the inside of tipper lorries at junctions, they hear one has died doing it so they all try it. http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...v-onto-6919692 "It is the third time this year police have been called to deal with a cyclist pedalling along a Surrey motorway. In February, a cyclist was fined £50 after a mobile phone app sent him onto the M25 between junctions 11 and 12 , for Chertsey and the M3. And in March, another cyclist was fined after again following an app onto the M3 westbound, between Sunbury and the M25 junction". Unbelievable. How can they be that dim? I don't know. Likewise, I cannot understand how motorists stray into cycle and bus lanes during restricted periods, or why they don't seem to understand what advance stop lines are. I wonder what happens more frequently, cyclists on roads from which they are prohibited, or motorists on lanes from which they are prohibited - and if frequency rates of infringement are related to dimness. Lets see, what happens more often - cyclists on footpaths, or drivers in mandatory cycle lanes ? It depends on the calculation. The best way to calculate would be motorist infringements per mile of mandatory cycle lane plus bus lane pus advance stop reservoir compared with cyclist infringements per mile of motorway plus footway. As its the "best way" to calculate such things, whats the killed and injured per mile for cyclists compared to drivers ? Very few people are killed or injured by cyclists per mile travelled. Indeed, killing by cyclists is so rare that any case often makes headline news. A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled. Indeed, killing by motorists is so common that cases rarely make headline news. Ze Plane! Ze Plane! "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows. When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers". Can you work out the percentage and then tell me if it is an insignificant difference. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? Oh... I'm sorry, I forgot that you are unable to perform simple mathematical calculations. If your 21 and 24 figures are accurate, the difference is over 14%, which, according to an earlier post by Judith, is a very significant percentage. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? 14% more - if your figures are correct. So, that's "a great many more" is it? I know that mathematics is not your strong point. If the cost of fuel increased by 14% overnight (e.g. from £1.36 to £1.55 per litre), would that be a: 1. very large increase; 2. large increase; 3. small increase; 4. steady price; 5. small decrease; 6. large decrease; 7. very large decrease. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? I know numbers are not your strong point, so I won't ask you again to answer the question above. Others can do so. If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was completely and utterly wrong if the correct answer to my question above is either 4, 5, 6 or 7. If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was completely wrong if the correct answer to my question above is 3. If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was wrong if the correct answer to my question above is 2. Regardless of the correctness or otherwise of your figures, I will not accept that I was completely and utterly wrong if the correct answer to my question above is 1. What you need to do now if find someone competent in number to tell you what the answer to my question above is, and post the correct answer here with his or her explanation. If the correct answer is not given as 1, you will then need to find the source data for your KSI figures so that I can verify their correctness. You can then accept my conditional admission that I was either wrong, completely wrong, or completely and utterly wrong, and I need not make a further post on the matter unless either: 1. the incorrect answer to my question above is given; or, 2. your source data does not match your figures; or, 3. both. So, in a nutshell - you admit you were wrong. -- Dave - Cyclists VORC Bicycles are for Children. Like masturbation, something you should grow out of. There is something seriously sick and stunted about grown men who want to ride a bike." |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists are like lemmings
On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 07:51:39 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC
wrote: On 08/04/2014 07:38, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 22:38:50 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote: On 07/04/2014 21:43, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:01:44 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 07/04/2014 20:35, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:15:58 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote: On 07/04/2014 10:54, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:57:06 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 06/04/2014 18:48, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:50:36 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 06/04/2014 12:45, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:57:47 GMT, (Cassandra) wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:15:43 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:34:39 GMT, (Cassandra) wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:49:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:52 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote: On 05/04/2014 10:09, Mrcheerful wrote: Yet another following sat nav onto a motorway, how thick are they? Why don't they get sat nav that supports cycling? Nearly as dim as these London cyclists that keep going up the inside of tipper lorries at junctions, they hear one has died doing it so they all try it. http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...v-onto-6919692 "It is the third time this year police have been called to deal with a cyclist pedalling along a Surrey motorway. In February, a cyclist was fined £50 after a mobile phone app sent him onto the M25 between junctions 11 and 12 , for Chertsey and the M3. And in March, another cyclist was fined after again following an app onto the M3 westbound, between Sunbury and the M25 junction". Unbelievable. How can they be that dim? I don't know. Likewise, I cannot understand how motorists stray into cycle and bus lanes during restricted periods, or why they don't seem to understand what advance stop lines are. I wonder what happens more frequently, cyclists on roads from which they are prohibited, or motorists on lanes from which they are prohibited - and if frequency rates of infringement are related to dimness. Lets see, what happens more often - cyclists on footpaths, or drivers in mandatory cycle lanes ? It depends on the calculation. The best way to calculate would be motorist infringements per mile of mandatory cycle lane plus bus lane pus advance stop reservoir compared with cyclist infringements per mile of motorway plus footway. As its the "best way" to calculate such things, whats the killed and injured per mile for cyclists compared to drivers ? Very few people are killed or injured by cyclists per mile travelled. Indeed, killing by cyclists is so rare that any case often makes headline news. A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled. Indeed, killing by motorists is so common that cases rarely make headline news. Ze Plane! Ze Plane! "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows. When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers". Can you work out the percentage and then tell me if it is an insignificant difference. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? Oh... I'm sorry, I forgot that you are unable to perform simple mathematical calculations. If your 21 and 24 figures are accurate, the difference is over 14%, which, according to an earlier post by Judith, is a very significant percentage. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? 14% more - if your figures are correct. So, that's "a great many more" is it? I know that mathematics is not your strong point. If the cost of fuel increased by 14% overnight (e.g. from £1.36 to £1.55 per litre), would that be a: 1. very large increase; 2. large increase; 3. small increase; 4. steady price; 5. small decrease; 6. large decrease; 7. very large decrease. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? I know numbers are not your strong point, so I won't ask you again to answer the question above. Others can do so. If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was completely and utterly wrong if the correct answer to my question above is either 4, 5, 6 or 7. If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was completely wrong if the correct answer to my question above is 3. If your figures are correct, I will accept that I was wrong if the correct answer to my question above is 2. Regardless of the correctness or otherwise of your figures, I will not accept that I was completely and utterly wrong if the correct answer to my question above is 1. What you need to do now if find someone competent in number to tell you what the answer to my question above is, and post the correct answer here with his or her explanation. If the correct answer is not given as 1, you will then need to find the source data for your KSI figures so that I can verify their correctness. You can then accept my conditional admission that I was either wrong, completely wrong, or completely and utterly wrong, and I need not make a further post on the matter unless either: 1. the incorrect answer to my question above is given; or, 2. your source data does not match your figures; or, 3. both. So, in a nutshell - you admit you were wrong. Only if: 1. you can show that a fuel increase from £1.36 to £1.55 is a large increase as opposed to a very large increase, and; 2. you can provide the data source for your 24 and 21 KSI figures per billion vehicle Kms, and your figures can be verified as broadly correct. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists are like lemmings
On 08/04/2014 03:02, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:33:11 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote: On 07/04/2014 13:06, John B. wrote: On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:57:06 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 06/04/2014 18:48, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:50:36 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VORK wrote: On 06/04/2014 12:45, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:57:47 GMT, (Cassandra) wrote: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 07:15:43 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 22:34:39 GMT, (Cassandra) wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 13:49:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote: On Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:29:52 +0100, Dave- Cyclists VORC wrote: On 05/04/2014 10:09, Mrcheerful wrote: Yet another following sat nav onto a motorway, how thick are they? Why don't they get sat nav that supports cycling? Nearly as dim as these London cyclists that keep going up the inside of tipper lorries at junctions, they hear one has died doing it so they all try it. http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...v-onto-6919692 "It is the third time this year police have been called to deal with a cyclist pedalling along a Surrey motorway. In February, a cyclist was fined £50 after a mobile phone app sent him onto the M25 between junctions 11 and 12 , for Chertsey and the M3. And in March, another cyclist was fined after again following an app onto the M3 westbound, between Sunbury and the M25 junction". Unbelievable. How can they be that dim? I don't know. Likewise, I cannot understand how motorists stray into cycle and bus lanes during restricted periods, or why they don't seem to understand what advance stop lines are. I wonder what happens more frequently, cyclists on roads from which they are prohibited, or motorists on lanes from which they are prohibited - and if frequency rates of infringement are related to dimness. Lets see, what happens more often - cyclists on footpaths, or drivers in mandatory cycle lanes ? It depends on the calculation. The best way to calculate would be motorist infringements per mile of mandatory cycle lane plus bus lane pus advance stop reservoir compared with cyclist infringements per mile of motorway plus footway. As its the "best way" to calculate such things, whats the killed and injured per mile for cyclists compared to drivers ? Very few people are killed or injured by cyclists per mile travelled. Indeed, killing by cyclists is so rare that any case often makes headline news. A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled. Indeed, killing by motorists is so common that cases rarely make headline news. Ze Plane! Ze Plane! "Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows. When serious injuries are measured as a proportion of distance travelled, cyclists injured 21 pedestrians per billion km travelled in 2012 compared with 24 pedestrians injured by drivers". Can you work out the percentage and then tell me if it is an insignificant difference. Can you stop wriggling & admit that your statement " A great many more people are killed or injured by motorists per mile travelled" is completely & utterly wrong? I don't believe that you can make a "miles traveled" comparison between autos and bicycles, Example: 20,000 motorists drive 20,000 miles each and fatal accidents kill eight people. The fatality rate, per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (the recognized standard for measuring fatalities), is two Next year, the number of drivers doubles to 40,000, with each of them driving 20,000 miles per year. It would seem that possibly 16 people will die in accidents. However, assuming 16 deaths, the fatality rate remains identical: Two deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. I believe you will find that a billion is the recognised number used for calculating these things and a billion is a thousand million, not a 100 million. in any case the the methodolgy is entirely accurate, it doesn't matter if one driver drives a billion miles, or a thousand drivers drive one million, the rate per mile driven is the same. Regardless, the formula provides the same information and calculating accidents based on miles/kilometers traveled is not going to provide informative data. As you have explained it, a single driver driving a billion miles would have to die 5.79 times which, unless you practice resurrection in the U.K., is impossible. I think you are a little confused. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Cyclists are like lemmings
On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:53:31 +0100, Judith wrote:
****wits Why do people insult others? they are insecure of themselves, and so, look for the flaws or "downfalls" in others |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The apocolypse is he Cyclists attack cyclists. | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 3 | September 19th 12 09:42 AM |
Cyclists imitate lemmings? | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 7 | October 20th 11 07:03 PM |
OT 8 cyclists dead in one hit: groups of cyclists should be illegal | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 144 | December 17th 10 07:34 AM |
when will cyclists learn that pedestrian crossings are for .....pedestrians, not cyclists | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 7 | August 12th 10 07:08 AM |
Are women cyclists in more danger than men cyclists? | Claude[_3_] | Australia | 2 | October 23rd 09 08:24 PM |