Car Accident

"Gary K" wrote in message
.au...

Phil Allison wrote:
"Gary K"

"Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity,
cycling
is no more dangerous than driving.


** Your claim is ambiguously worded.

Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death
statistics ?

Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do
?

They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.



Exactly as i said. Stats according to number of deaths.


** That does ***NOT*** demonstrate your "no more dangerous" conclusion.


No one can predict probabilities for any particular person.


** Straw man.



Safer riders are safer, unsafe riders aren't. No surprise.


** Yawn.


But the overall is similar in Canada, USA and Australia.


** Red herring.


Drivers are killed at very similar rates to cyclist.


** Lies , dam lies and statistics that do not apply.


Maybe most those victims are weighted by the bad drivers, also by the
bad cyclist,

its not the point anyway


** Sure isn't.

Cycling in traffic is extremely dangerous - often reckless.

Only fools do it and even bigger ones like you downplay the risk.




............ Phil

hehe
Gee, great points u have there.. Nothing like an intelligent debate!
I suppose cycling IS a horrendously dangerous because YOU SAY SO.

Whatever mate, dont let me disturb your cosy little worldview.
U and speedfreak must be married.

Phil Allison wrote:

"Gary K" wrote in message
.au...

Phil Allison wrote:
"Gary K"

"Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity,
cycling
is no more dangerous than driving.


** Your claim is ambiguously worded.

Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death
statistics ?

Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do
?

They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.



Exactly as i said. Stats according to number of deaths.


** That does ***NOT*** demonstrate your "no more dangerous" conclusion.


No one can predict probabilities for any particular person.


** Straw man.



Safer riders are safer, unsafe riders aren't. No surprise.


** Yawn.


But the overall is similar in Canada, USA and Australia.


** Red herring.


Drivers are killed at very similar rates to cyclist.


** Lies , dam lies and statistics that do not apply.


Maybe most those victims are weighted by the bad drivers, also by the
bad cyclist,

its not the point anyway


** Sure isn't.

Cycling in traffic is extremely dangerous - often reckless.

Only fools do it and even bigger ones like you downplay the risk.




............ Phil

hehe
Gee, great points u have there.. Nothing like an intelligent debate!
I suppose cycling IS a horrendously dangerous because YOU SAY SO.

Whatever mate, dont let me disturb your cosy little worldview.
U and speedfreak must be married.

Phil Allison wrote:

"Gary K" wrote in message
.au...

Phil Allison wrote:
"Gary K"

"Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity,
cycling
is no more dangerous than driving.


** Your claim is ambiguously worded.

Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death
statistics ?

Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do
?

They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.



Exactly as i said. Stats according to number of deaths.


** That does ***NOT*** demonstrate your "no more dangerous" conclusion.


No one can predict probabilities for any particular person.


** Straw man.



Safer riders are safer, unsafe riders aren't. No surprise.


** Yawn.


But the overall is similar in Canada, USA and Australia.


** Red herring.


Drivers are killed at very similar rates to cyclist.


** Lies , dam lies and statistics that do not apply.


Maybe most those victims are weighted by the bad drivers, also by the
bad cyclist,

its not the point anyway


** Sure isn't.

Cycling in traffic is extremely dangerous - often reckless.

Only fools do it and even bigger ones like you downplay the risk.




............ Phil

Gary K wrote in message
.au...

Exactly as i said. Stats according to number of deaths. No one can
predict probabilities for any particular person. Safer riders are safer,
unsafe riders aren't. No surprise. But the overall is similar in Canada,
USA and Australia. Drivers are killed at very similar rates to cyclist.

Not in built up areas they aint, liar.


Phil Allison wrote:

"Gary K"


"Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity, cycling
is no more dangerous than driving.



** Your claim is ambiguously worded.

Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death statistics
?

Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do ?

They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.





............ Phil

Gary K wrote in message
.au...

Exactly as i said. Stats according to number of deaths. No one can
predict probabilities for any particular person. Safer riders are safer,
unsafe riders aren't. No surprise. But the overall is similar in Canada,
USA and Australia. Drivers are killed at very similar rates to cyclist.

Not in built up areas they aint, liar.


Phil Allison wrote:

"Gary K"


"Potentiality" and "nearly" or any othe "made up" facts dont count. How
many are dead at the end of the year does. Per hour of activity, cycling
is no more dangerous than driving.



** Your claim is ambiguously worded.

Do you mean "no more dangerous" - according to death statistics
?

Do you mean "no more dangerous" - for any given person to do ?

They are not the same thing and you are telling lies.





............ Phil

"Gary K" wrote in message
.au...

hehe

** Only idiots giggle - and brain dead top posters.


Gee, great points u have there..


** So you top posted to avoid them.


Nothing like an intelligent debate!


** When have you ever had one ??????


I suppose cycling IS a horrendously dangerous because YOU SAY SO.


** The risks are only too obvious - to anyoone with a brain.


Whatever mate, dont let me disturb your cosy little worldview.



** You could not disturb a sick cat.



............ Phil

"Gary K" wrote in message
.au...

hehe

** Only idiots giggle - and brain dead top posters.


Gee, great points u have there..


** So you top posted to avoid them.


Nothing like an intelligent debate!


** When have you ever had one ??????


I suppose cycling IS a horrendously dangerous because YOU SAY SO.


** The risks are only too obvious - to anyoone with a brain.


Whatever mate, dont let me disturb your cosy little worldview.



** You could not disturb a sick cat.



............ Phil

u missed one.
So you & speedfreak *are* married.

Phil Allison wrote:

"Gary K" wrote in message
.au...

hehe

** Only idiots giggle - and brain dead top posters.


Gee, great points u have there..


** So you top posted to avoid them.


Nothing like an intelligent debate!


** When have you ever had one ??????


I suppose cycling IS a horrendously dangerous because YOU SAY SO.


** The risks are only too obvious - to anyoone with a brain.


Whatever mate, dont let me disturb your cosy little worldview.



** You could not disturb a sick cat.



........... Phil

u missed one.
So you & speedfreak *are* married.

Phil Allison wrote:

"Gary K" wrote in message
.au...

hehe

** Only idiots giggle - and brain dead top posters.


Gee, great points u have there..


** So you top posted to avoid them.


Nothing like an intelligent debate!


** When have you ever had one ??????


I suppose cycling IS a horrendously dangerous because YOU SAY SO.


** The risks are only too obvious - to anyoone with a brain.


Whatever mate, dont let me disturb your cosy little worldview.



** You could not disturb a sick cat.



........... Phil

I missed most of this. Has anyone posted any REAL evidence for their POV or
is it all just anecdotal "I read somewhere" stuff.

Pete