Cycle Responders

On 15/11/2019 19:59, Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 7:43:31 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:37:45 PM UTC, Bod wrote:

Anyway, you're claim that motorbikes are faster, does not apply in
congested areas like London where the max speed in the rush hour can
be as low as 11mph. My Ebike can do 30mph.

Motorcycles are too wide to filter through traffic like a road bike
can. I know, as I have ridden both.

London is a ********, always has been and always will be.
What kind of vehicle took you to hospital when you chucked yourself off that
bridge Simon?

I don't know as I wasn't conscious.

You REALLY don't know whether you were taken to hospital by a cyclist on
a bike or by an ambulance crew in a proper vehicle?

Do you think anyone believes that?

On 16/11/2019 00:03, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:37, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:34, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:25, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 17:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:03, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:00, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:49, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:47, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:46, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:15, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:07, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 11:57, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 11:56, Bod wrote:

A cycle responder is a medically trained responder,
such as a paramedic or first aider that uses a bicycle
to respond to a medical emergency. They are used by
professional ambulance services to respond to
emergency calls and also by private and voluntary
providers of medical cover at events.

https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/c...cle-responder/

Â* Mr Pounder will respond with "utter ********".

And Nugent will say that TMS320 will say that it has
nothing to do with cycling.

You said without prompting:

"...it has nothing to do with cycling...".

Anyway, motor-bikes (including Vespa-type scooters) would
be better, faster and more capacious.
Â*
Â* I don't think that a motorbike responder would regard
it safe to do short cuts through pedestrian areas and
shopping centres like the cycle responders do.
Anyway, the average time for the cycle ones to arrive on
the scene is 6 mins. They are usually the first which can
be vital to saving a life.

As usual, you/Cheerless and Mr Pounder will find any
pedantic reason to diss cyclists.
You are the 3 SENILE MOANY OLD FARTS.

A cycle-riding "responder" (though much depends on the
exact meaning of that word - "paramedic" is what we look
for these days) is better than no "responder" at all.

A "responder" who gets there quicker and carries more
equipment and supplies is even better than a cycle-riding
"responder".

Is that better?

It's really all I said first time round, but you obviously
didn't understand it.
Â*
Â* Correct, I don't understand ********.

...or courtesy or grace, clearly...

Â*
Â*Â*Up until today I have tried that, but talking reasonably
with someone who is clearly obsessed with taking any
opportunity to diss any and every cycling post, has its limits.
I assume that you practice arguing in an empty room, because
you are an expert pedant.
Your argument against cycling first responders is typical of
you, even when shown the facts that they are usually first to
arrive on the scene and

They can only arrive first on the scene if they happen to be
the nearest. There is no way a cyclist can beat a motor-cyclist
over even a short distance, and for medium and long distances,
there is no contest.

To remark on those facts is not to "diss" anybody. It is a
stright statement of fact.

There is also the load-carrying issue.

"they resolve over 50 per cent of all incidents at the scene"

"Their average response time to calls is six minutes"

All very well, but they have to be very near to get there in
six minutes, never mind less than six minutes.

"Cycle responders are experienced frontline paramedics, fully
trained to work on their own and operate in busy areas that
are difficult to travel through in a car or ambulance. Staff
on bikes can get through narrow streets, pedestrian areas and
shopping centres very easily.They are able to reach patients
quickly and start to give life-saving treatment while an
ambulance is on the way"

Why not support them rather than pedantically bloody arguing
over trivial nothings.

A motor-bike is faster and better (particularly at load-carrying).

Why not just accept that obvious fact?

I should have added that your argument is clearly based on city
travel.

What about a county location where the distance to be covered to
get to an emergency might easily be ten or twenty miles?

Oh dear! it was clearly stated in the report I posted where they
were deployed:

"They respond to emergency calls in particularly congested areas
of the capital such as the West End, Heathrow Airport, Kingston
town centre, the City of London and St Pancras"

That makes some sense. A motor-bike would STILL be faster.
Especially since speed limits do not apply to emergency vehicles
in genuine cases of emergency. Have you ever noticed how motor
bikes take off at traffic lights (when the light has changed to
green)?

It's hard to see what your objection to plain fact might be. You
surely can't argue that the bike is in any way faster or better
than a motor-bike?

If motorbikes are quicker, why do they use cycles?

That is the unanswered question.

Motor-cycles ARE faster. That is bleedin' obvious.

But of course, not everyone has the skill, confidence or licence to
ride a motor-bike.

Not me for a start (I rode on a provisional licence, back in the
days of yore, but never progressed to a motor-bike test, because an
upgrade to a car - actually, a van - beckoned.

How about you?

Â* I've had a full motorbike licence since I was sixteen. I had about
5 different M/bikes over the years. Full licence for cars at 17.
Passed both tests first time. I also drove an artic tanker for a while.

Â*Â*Anyway, you're claim that motorbikes are faster, does not apply in
congested areas like London where the max speed in the rush hour can
be as low as 11mph. My Ebike can do 30mph.

The maximum speed (especially for a motorbike) is not the same as the
average speed. And it is the average speed you are quoting. The
motorbike (as you know) is faster than that.

Not much good being faster if you're restricted by heavily congested
traffic or doing short cuts through pedestrianised areas.

--
Bod

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 12:05:52 AM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 19:59, Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 7:43:31 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 6:37:45 PM UTC, Bod wrote:

Anyway, you're claim that motorbikes are faster, does not apply in
congested areas like London where the max speed in the rush hour can
be as low as 11mph. My Ebike can do 30mph.

Motorcycles are too wide to filter through traffic like a road bike
can. I know, as I have ridden both.

London is a ********, always has been and always will be.
What kind of vehicle took you to hospital when you chucked yourself off that
bridge Simon?

I don't know as I wasn't conscious.

You REALLY don't know whether you were taken to hospital by a cyclist on
a bike or by an ambulance crew in a proper vehicle?


So motorcycles are no longer 'proper' vehicles in Nugentworld. How strange given your motorcycle flag waving throughout this thread.

On 16/11/2019 00:03, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:37, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:34, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:25, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 17:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:03, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:00, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:49, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:47, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:46, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:15, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:07, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 11:57, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 11:56, Bod wrote:

A cycle responder is a medically trained responder,
such as a paramedic or first aider that uses a bicycle
to respond to a medical emergency. They are used by
professional ambulance services to respond to
emergency calls and also by private and voluntary
providers of medical cover at events.

https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/c...cle-responder/

Â* Mr Pounder will respond with "utter ********".

And Nugent will say that TMS320 will say that it has
nothing to do with cycling.

You said without prompting:

"...it has nothing to do with cycling...".

Anyway, motor-bikes (including Vespa-type scooters) would
be better, faster and more capacious.
Â*
Â* I don't think that a motorbike responder would regard
it safe to do short cuts through pedestrian areas and
shopping centres like the cycle responders do.
Anyway, the average time for the cycle ones to arrive on
the scene is 6 mins. They are usually the first which can
be vital to saving a life.

As usual, you/Cheerless and Mr Pounder will find any
pedantic reason to diss cyclists.
You are the 3 SENILE MOANY OLD FARTS.

A cycle-riding "responder" (though much depends on the
exact meaning of that word - "paramedic" is what we look
for these days) is better than no "responder" at all.

A "responder" who gets there quicker and carries more
equipment and supplies is even better than a cycle-riding
"responder".

Is that better?

It's really all I said first time round, but you obviously
didn't understand it.
Â*
Â* Correct, I don't understand ********.

...or courtesy or grace, clearly...

Â*
Â*Â*Up until today I have tried that, but talking reasonably
with someone who is clearly obsessed with taking any
opportunity to diss any and every cycling post, has its limits.
I assume that you practice arguing in an empty room, because
you are an expert pedant.
Your argument against cycling first responders is typical of
you, even when shown the facts that they are usually first to
arrive on the scene and

They can only arrive first on the scene if they happen to be
the nearest. There is no way a cyclist can beat a motor-cyclist
over even a short distance, and for medium and long distances,
there is no contest.

To remark on those facts is not to "diss" anybody. It is a
stright statement of fact.

There is also the load-carrying issue.

"they resolve over 50 per cent of all incidents at the scene"

"Their average response time to calls is six minutes"

All very well, but they have to be very near to get there in
six minutes, never mind less than six minutes.

"Cycle responders are experienced frontline paramedics, fully
trained to work on their own and operate in busy areas that
are difficult to travel through in a car or ambulance. Staff
on bikes can get through narrow streets, pedestrian areas and
shopping centres very easily.They are able to reach patients
quickly and start to give life-saving treatment while an
ambulance is on the way"

Why not support them rather than pedantically bloody arguing
over trivial nothings.

A motor-bike is faster and better (particularly at load-carrying).

Why not just accept that obvious fact?

I should have added that your argument is clearly based on city
travel.

What about a county location where the distance to be covered to
get to an emergency might easily be ten or twenty miles?

Oh dear! it was clearly stated in the report I posted where they
were deployed:

"They respond to emergency calls in particularly congested areas
of the capital such as the West End, Heathrow Airport, Kingston
town centre, the City of London and St Pancras"

That makes some sense. A motor-bike would STILL be faster.
Especially since speed limits do not apply to emergency vehicles
in genuine cases of emergency. Have you ever noticed how motor
bikes take off at traffic lights (when the light has changed to
green)?

It's hard to see what your objection to plain fact might be. You
surely can't argue that the bike is in any way faster or better
than a motor-bike?

If motorbikes are quicker, why do they use cycles?

That is the unanswered question.

Motor-cycles ARE faster. That is bleedin' obvious.

But of course, not everyone has the skill, confidence or licence to
ride a motor-bike.

Not me for a start (I rode on a provisional licence, back in the
days of yore, but never progressed to a motor-bike test, because an
upgrade to a car - actually, a van - beckoned.

How about you?

Â* I've had a full motorbike licence since I was sixteen. I had about
5 different M/bikes over the years. Full licence for cars at 17.
Passed both tests first time. I also drove an artic tanker for a while.

Â*Â*Anyway, you're claim that motorbikes are faster, does not apply in
congested areas like London where the max speed in the rush hour can
be as low as 11mph. My Ebike can do 30mph.

The maximum speed (especially for a motorbike) is not the same as the
average speed. And it is the average speed you are quoting. The
motorbike (as you know) is faster than that.

an ebike that can power itself to 30mph is a motorcycle

On 16/11/2019 08:41, MrCheerful wrote:
On 16/11/2019 00:03, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:37, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:34, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:25, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 17:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:03, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:00, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:49, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:47, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:46, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:15, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:07, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 11:57, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 11:56, Bod wrote:

A cycle responder is a medically trained responder,
such as a paramedic or first aider that uses a
bicycle to respond to a medical emergency. They are
used by professional ambulance services to respond to
emergency calls and also by private and voluntary
providers of medical cover at events.

https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/c...cle-responder/

Â* Mr Pounder will respond with "utter ********".

And Nugent will say that TMS320 will say that it has
nothing to do with cycling.

You said without prompting:

"...it has nothing to do with cycling...".

Anyway, motor-bikes (including Vespa-type scooters)
would be better, faster and more capacious.
Â*
Â* I don't think that a motorbike responder would regard
it safe to do short cuts through pedestrian areas and
shopping centres like the cycle responders do.
Anyway, the average time for the cycle ones to arrive on
the scene is 6 mins. They are usually the first which can
be vital to saving a life.

As usual, you/Cheerless and Mr Pounder will find any
pedantic reason to diss cyclists.
You are the 3 SENILE MOANY OLD FARTS.

A cycle-riding "responder" (though much depends on the
exact meaning of that word - "paramedic" is what we look
for these days) is better than no "responder" at all.

A "responder" who gets there quicker and carries more
equipment and supplies is even better than a cycle-riding
"responder".

Is that better?

It's really all I said first time round, but you obviously
didn't understand it.
Â*
Â* Correct, I don't understand ********.

...or courtesy or grace, clearly...

Â*
Â*Â*Up until today I have tried that, but talking reasonably
with someone who is clearly obsessed with taking any
opportunity to diss any and every cycling post, has its limits.
I assume that you practice arguing in an empty room, because
you are an expert pedant.
Your argument against cycling first responders is typical of
you, even when shown the facts that they are usually first to
arrive on the scene and

They can only arrive first on the scene if they happen to be
the nearest. There is no way a cyclist can beat a
motor-cyclist over even a short distance, and for medium and
long distances, there is no contest.

To remark on those facts is not to "diss" anybody. It is a
stright statement of fact.

There is also the load-carrying issue.

"they resolve over 50 per cent of all incidents at the scene"

"Their average response time to calls is six minutes"

All very well, but they have to be very near to get there in
six minutes, never mind less than six minutes.

"Cycle responders are experienced frontline paramedics, fully
trained to work on their own and operate in busy areas that
are difficult to travel through in a car or ambulance. Staff
on bikes can get through narrow streets, pedestrian areas and
shopping centres very easily.They are able to reach patients
quickly and start to give life-saving treatment while an
ambulance is on the way"

Why not support them rather than pedantically bloody arguing
over trivial nothings.

A motor-bike is faster and better (particularly at
load-carrying).

Why not just accept that obvious fact?

I should have added that your argument is clearly based on city
travel.

What about a county location where the distance to be covered
to get to an emergency might easily be ten or twenty miles?

Oh dear! it was clearly stated in the report I posted where they
were deployed:

"They respond to emergency calls in particularly congested areas
of the capital such as the West End, Heathrow Airport, Kingston
town centre, the City of London and St Pancras"

That makes some sense. A motor-bike would STILL be faster.
Especially since speed limits do not apply to emergency vehicles
in genuine cases of emergency. Have you ever noticed how motor
bikes take off at traffic lights (when the light has changed to
green)?

It's hard to see what your objection to plain fact might be. You
surely can't argue that the bike is in any way faster or better
than a motor-bike?

If motorbikes are quicker, why do they use cycles?

That is the unanswered question.

Motor-cycles ARE faster. That is bleedin' obvious.

But of course, not everyone has the skill, confidence or licence to
ride a motor-bike.

Not me for a start (I rode on a provisional licence, back in the
days of yore, but never progressed to a motor-bike test, because an
upgrade to a car - actually, a van - beckoned.

How about you?

Â* I've had a full motorbike licence since I was sixteen. I had
about 5 different M/bikes over the years. Full licence for cars at
17. Passed both tests first time. I also drove an artic tanker for a
while.

Â*Â*Anyway, you're claim that motorbikes are faster, does not apply in
congested areas like London where the max speed in the rush hour can
be as low as 11mph. My Ebike can do 30mph.

The maximum speed (especially for a motorbike) is not the same as the
average speed. And it is the average speed you are quoting. The
motorbike (as you know) is faster than that.

an ebike that can power itself to 30mph is a motorcycle

Agreed, which makes a powerful EBike like mine at least equal to a
combustion motorbike in very congested areas, in regards to getting to
the accident scene quickly.

--
Bod

On 15/11/2019 12:56, JNugent wrote:

Anyway, motor-bikes (including Vespa-type scooters) would be better,
faster and more capacious.

Maybe it's never occurred to them. If you write to them, perhaps you
will be the first person to let them know that they're doing it all wrong.

On 15/11/2019 18:30, JNugent wrote:

It doesn't maytter what cyclists can or cannot do. Motor-bikes are
faster than anything else on the road*, in a city or elsewhere. There's
nothing you, TMS320, the NHS or John presott could do to change that.

Please quote a post where I have attempted to do so.

And what's a presott?

On 16/11/2019 03:38, Bod wrote:
On 16/11/2019 00:03, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:37, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:34, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:25, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 17:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:03, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:00, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:49, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:47, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:46, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:15, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:07, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 11:57, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 11:56, Bod wrote:

A cycle responder is a medically trained responder,
such as a paramedic or first aider that uses a
bicycle to respond to a medical emergency. They are
used by professional ambulance services to respond to
emergency calls and also by private and voluntary
providers of medical cover at events.

https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/c...cle-responder/

Â* Mr Pounder will respond with "utter ********".

And Nugent will say that TMS320 will say that it has
nothing to do with cycling.

You said without prompting:

"...it has nothing to do with cycling...".

Anyway, motor-bikes (including Vespa-type scooters)
would be better, faster and more capacious.
Â*
Â* I don't think that a motorbike responder would regard
it safe to do short cuts through pedestrian areas and
shopping centres like the cycle responders do.
Anyway, the average time for the cycle ones to arrive on
the scene is 6 mins. They are usually the first which can
be vital to saving a life.

As usual, you/Cheerless and Mr Pounder will find any
pedantic reason to diss cyclists.
You are the 3 SENILE MOANY OLD FARTS.

A cycle-riding "responder" (though much depends on the
exact meaning of that word - "paramedic" is what we look
for these days) is better than no "responder" at all.

A "responder" who gets there quicker and carries more
equipment and supplies is even better than a cycle-riding
"responder".

Is that better?

It's really all I said first time round, but you obviously
didn't understand it.
Â*
Â* Correct, I don't understand ********.

...or courtesy or grace, clearly...

Â*
Â*Â*Up until today I have tried that, but talking reasonably
with someone who is clearly obsessed with taking any
opportunity to diss any and every cycling post, has its limits.
I assume that you practice arguing in an empty room, because
you are an expert pedant.
Your argument against cycling first responders is typical of
you, even when shown the facts that they are usually first to
arrive on the scene and

They can only arrive first on the scene if they happen to be
the nearest. There is no way a cyclist can beat a
motor-cyclist over even a short distance, and for medium and
long distances, there is no contest.

To remark on those facts is not to "diss" anybody. It is a
stright statement of fact.

There is also the load-carrying issue.

"they resolve over 50 per cent of all incidents at the scene"

"Their average response time to calls is six minutes"

All very well, but they have to be very near to get there in
six minutes, never mind less than six minutes.

"Cycle responders are experienced frontline paramedics, fully
trained to work on their own and operate in busy areas that
are difficult to travel through in a car or ambulance. Staff
on bikes can get through narrow streets, pedestrian areas and
shopping centres very easily.They are able to reach patients
quickly and start to give life-saving treatment while an
ambulance is on the way"

Why not support them rather than pedantically bloody arguing
over trivial nothings.

A motor-bike is faster and better (particularly at
load-carrying).

Why not just accept that obvious fact?

I should have added that your argument is clearly based on city
travel.

What about a county location where the distance to be covered
to get to an emergency might easily be ten or twenty miles?

Oh dear! it was clearly stated in the report I posted where they
were deployed:

"They respond to emergency calls in particularly congested areas
of the capital such as the West End, Heathrow Airport, Kingston
town centre, the City of London and St Pancras"

That makes some sense. A motor-bike would STILL be faster.
Especially since speed limits do not apply to emergency vehicles
in genuine cases of emergency. Have you ever noticed how motor
bikes take off at traffic lights (when the light has changed to
green)?

It's hard to see what your objection to plain fact might be. You
surely can't argue that the bike is in any way faster or better
than a motor-bike?

If motorbikes are quicker, why do they use cycles?

That is the unanswered question.

Motor-cycles ARE faster. That is bleedin' obvious.

But of course, not everyone has the skill, confidence or licence to
ride a motor-bike.

Not me for a start (I rode on a provisional licence, back in the
days of yore, but never progressed to a motor-bike test, because an
upgrade to a car - actually, a van - beckoned.

How about you?

Â* I've had a full motorbike licence since I was sixteen. I had
about 5 different M/bikes over the years. Full licence for cars at
17. Passed both tests first time. I also drove an artic tanker for a
while.

Â*Â*Anyway, you're claim that motorbikes are faster, does not apply in
congested areas like London where the max speed in the rush hour can
be as low as 11mph. My Ebike can do 30mph.

The maximum speed (especially for a motorbike) is not the same as the
average speed. And it is the average speed you are quoting. The
motorbike (as you know) is faster than that.

Not much good being faster if you're restricted by heavily congested
traffic or doing short cuts through pedestrianised areas.

I have no objection to a motorbike (or any other vehicle) being used as
an official emergency response vehicle traversing a pedestrian area
whilst *on* *an* *emergency* *call*.

Have you?

It's allowed, BTW. Even on a green in Cambridge.

You're not going to succeed with any line to the effect that a motorbike
can't get through "congested" traffic. You know that that is nonsense.

On 16/11/2019 08:59, Bod wrote:
On 16/11/2019 08:41, MrCheerful wrote:
On 16/11/2019 00:03, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:37, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:34, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:25, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 17:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:03, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:00, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:49, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:47, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:46, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:15, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:07, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 11:57, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 11:56, Bod wrote:

A cycle responder is a medically trained responder,
such as a paramedic or first aider that uses a
bicycle to respond to a medical emergency. They are
used by professional ambulance services to respond
to emergency calls and also by private and voluntary
providers of medical cover at events.

https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/c...cle-responder/

Â* Mr Pounder will respond with "utter ********".

And Nugent will say that TMS320 will say that it has
nothing to do with cycling.

You said without prompting:

"...it has nothing to do with cycling...".

Anyway, motor-bikes (including Vespa-type scooters)
would be better, faster and more capacious.
Â*
Â* I don't think that a motorbike responder would regard
it safe to do short cuts through pedestrian areas and
shopping centres like the cycle responders do.
Anyway, the average time for the cycle ones to arrive on
the scene is 6 mins. They are usually the first which
can be vital to saving a life.

As usual, you/Cheerless and Mr Pounder will find any
pedantic reason to diss cyclists.
You are the 3 SENILE MOANY OLD FARTS.

A cycle-riding "responder" (though much depends on the
exact meaning of that word - "paramedic" is what we look
for these days) is better than no "responder" at all.

A "responder" who gets there quicker and carries more
equipment and supplies is even better than a cycle-riding
"responder".

Is that better?

It's really all I said first time round, but you
obviously didn't understand it.
Â*
Â* Correct, I don't understand ********.

...or courtesy or grace, clearly...

Â*
Â*Â*Up until today I have tried that, but talking reasonably
with someone who is clearly obsessed with taking any
opportunity to diss any and every cycling post, has its limits.
I assume that you practice arguing in an empty room, because
you are an expert pedant.
Your argument against cycling first responders is typical of
you, even when shown the facts that they are usually first
to arrive on the scene and

They can only arrive first on the scene if they happen to be
the nearest. There is no way a cyclist can beat a
motor-cyclist over even a short distance, and for medium and
long distances, there is no contest.

To remark on those facts is not to "diss" anybody. It is a
stright statement of fact.

There is also the load-carrying issue.

"they resolve over 50 per cent of all incidents at the scene"

"Their average response time to calls is six minutes"

All very well, but they have to be very near to get there in
six minutes, never mind less than six minutes.

"Cycle responders are experienced frontline paramedics,
fully trained to work on their own and operate in busy areas
that are difficult to travel through in a car or ambulance.
Staff on bikes can get through narrow streets, pedestrian
areas and shopping centres very easily.They are able to
reach patients quickly and start to give life-saving
treatment while an ambulance is on the way"

Why not support them rather than pedantically bloody arguing
over trivial nothings.

A motor-bike is faster and better (particularly at
load-carrying).

Why not just accept that obvious fact?

I should have added that your argument is clearly based on
city travel.

What about a county location where the distance to be covered
to get to an emergency might easily be ten or twenty miles?

Oh dear! it was clearly stated in the report I posted where
they were deployed:

"They respond to emergency calls in particularly congested
areas of the capital such as the West End, Heathrow Airport,
Kingston town centre, the City of London and St Pancras"

That makes some sense. A motor-bike would STILL be faster.
Especially since speed limits do not apply to emergency vehicles
in genuine cases of emergency. Have you ever noticed how motor
bikes take off at traffic lights (when the light has changed to
green)?

It's hard to see what your objection to plain fact might be. You
surely can't argue that the bike is in any way faster or better
than a motor-bike?

If motorbikes are quicker, why do they use cycles?

That is the unanswered question.

Motor-cycles ARE faster. That is bleedin' obvious.

But of course, not everyone has the skill, confidence or licence
to ride a motor-bike.

Not me for a start (I rode on a provisional licence, back in the
days of yore, but never progressed to a motor-bike test, because
an upgrade to a car - actually, a van - beckoned.

How about you?

Â* I've had a full motorbike licence since I was sixteen. I had
about 5 different M/bikes over the years. Full licence for cars at
17. Passed both tests first time. I also drove an artic tanker for
a while.

Â*Â*Anyway, you're claim that motorbikes are faster, does not apply in
congested areas like London where the max speed in the rush hour can
be as low as 11mph. My Ebike can do 30mph.

The maximum speed (especially for a motorbike) is not the same as the
average speed. And it is the average speed you are quoting. The
motorbike (as you know) is faster than that.

an ebike that can power itself to 30mph is a motorcycle

Agreed, which makes a powerful EBike like mine at least equal to a
combustion motorbike in very congested areas, in regards to getting to
the accident scene quickly.

And?

On 16/11/2019 11:49, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 08:59, Bod wrote:
On 16/11/2019 08:41, MrCheerful wrote:
On 16/11/2019 00:03, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:37, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:34, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 18:25, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 17:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:03, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 15:00, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:49, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 14:04, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:47, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:46, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:32, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:15, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:56, JNugent wrote:
On 15/11/2019 12:07, TMS320 wrote:

On 15/11/2019 11:57, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 11:56, Bod wrote:

A cycle responder is a medically trained responder,
such as a paramedic or first aider that uses a
bicycle to respond to a medical emergency. They are
used by professional ambulance services to respond
to emergency calls and also by private and
voluntary providers of medical cover at events.

https://www.londonambulance.nhs.uk/c...cle-responder/

Â* Mr Pounder will respond with "utter ********".

And Nugent will say that TMS320 will say that it has
nothing to do with cycling.

You said without prompting:

"...it has nothing to do with cycling...".

Anyway, motor-bikes (including Vespa-type scooters)
would be better, faster and more capacious.
Â*
Â* I don't think that a motorbike responder would
regard it safe to do short cuts through pedestrian
areas and shopping centres like the cycle responders do.
Anyway, the average time for the cycle ones to arrive
on the scene is 6 mins. They are usually the first
which can be vital to saving a life.

As usual, you/Cheerless and Mr Pounder will find any
pedantic reason to diss cyclists.
You are the 3 SENILE MOANY OLD FARTS.

A cycle-riding "responder" (though much depends on the
exact meaning of that word - "paramedic" is what we look
for these days) is better than no "responder" at all.

A "responder" who gets there quicker and carries more
equipment and supplies is even better than a
cycle-riding "responder".

Is that better?

It's really all I said first time round, but you
obviously didn't understand it.
Â*
Â* Correct, I don't understand ********.

...or courtesy or grace, clearly...

Â*
Â*Â*Up until today I have tried that, but talking reasonably
with someone who is clearly obsessed with taking any
opportunity to diss any and every cycling post, has its
limits.
I assume that you practice arguing in an empty room,
because you are an expert pedant.
Your argument against cycling first responders is typical
of you, even when shown the facts that they are usually
first to arrive on the scene and

They can only arrive first on the scene if they happen to be
the nearest. There is no way a cyclist can beat a
motor-cyclist over even a short distance, and for medium and
long distances, there is no contest.

To remark on those facts is not to "diss" anybody. It is a
stright statement of fact.

There is also the load-carrying issue.

"they resolve over 50 per cent of all incidents at the scene"

"Their average response time to calls is six minutes"

All very well, but they have to be very near to get there in
six minutes, never mind less than six minutes.

"Cycle responders are experienced frontline paramedics,
fully trained to work on their own and operate in busy
areas that are difficult to travel through in a car or
ambulance. Staff on bikes can get through narrow streets,
pedestrian areas and shopping centres very easily.They are
able to reach patients quickly and start to give
life-saving treatment while an ambulance is on the way"

Why not support them rather than pedantically bloody
arguing over trivial nothings.

A motor-bike is faster and better (particularly at
load-carrying).

Why not just accept that obvious fact?

I should have added that your argument is clearly based on
city travel.

What about a county location where the distance to be covered
to get to an emergency might easily be ten or twenty miles?

Oh dear! it was clearly stated in the report I posted where
they were deployed:

"They respond to emergency calls in particularly congested
areas of the capital such as the West End, Heathrow Airport,
Kingston town centre, the City of London and St Pancras"

That makes some sense. A motor-bike would STILL be faster.
Especially since speed limits do not apply to emergency
vehicles in genuine cases of emergency. Have you ever noticed
how motor bikes take off at traffic lights (when the light has
changed to green)?

It's hard to see what your objection to plain fact might be.
You surely can't argue that the bike is in any way faster or
better than a motor-bike?

If motorbikes are quicker, why do they use cycles?

That is the unanswered question.

Motor-cycles ARE faster. That is bleedin' obvious.

But of course, not everyone has the skill, confidence or licence
to ride a motor-bike.

Not me for a start (I rode on a provisional licence, back in the
days of yore, but never progressed to a motor-bike test, because
an upgrade to a car - actually, a van - beckoned.

How about you?

Â* I've had a full motorbike licence since I was sixteen. I had
about 5 different M/bikes over the years. Full licence for cars at
17. Passed both tests first time. I also drove an artic tanker for
a while.

Â*Â*Anyway, you're claim that motorbikes are faster, does not apply
in congested areas like London where the max speed in the rush hour
can be as low as 11mph. My Ebike can do 30mph.

The maximum speed (especially for a motorbike) is not the same as
the average speed. And it is the average speed you are quoting. The
motorbike (as you know) is faster than that.

an ebike that can power itself to 30mph is a motorcycle
Â*
Â* Agreed, which makes a powerful EBike like mine at least equal to a
combustion motorbike in very congested areas, in regards to getting to
the accident scene quickly.

And?

is the ebike registered, insured and does he have a licence to ride it
and of course wear an appropriate crash helmet. and of course why is it
being mentioned in a cycling group?