Cycle Responders

On 16/11/2019 12:03, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 11:37, TMS320 wrote:
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.

I am glad that you agree that motor-bikes are the fastest thing on the
road and so are the optimum choice for transporting medical responders
who may be equipped with a smaller amount of equipment than a proper
ambulance.

Right... This looks like a new rule that if I have never given an
opinion about something, it must mean I agree with your opinion.

Well, unlike you, I have no (or ever claimed to have) expertise in first
response and have no ambition to tell the NHS how to do it.

On 16/11/2019 13:01, TMS320 wrote:
On 16/11/2019 11:55, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 10:35, TMS320 wrote:
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.

It is possible that the bicycle is, in all the circumstances, all that
is available. Only a small proportion of the population have
motor-cycle licences and the skills and experience needed to use a
motor-bike safely.

The idea that any organisation (even a public one) does not procure
tools and training to do a job properly is frankly pathetic.

On the other hand, as we all know, anyone can be redeployed at short
or no notice onto a bicycle as it requires no skill, knowledge or
experience (as is daily demonstrated by cyclists).

And as we all know, Nugent hasn't got a clue.

TRANSLATION: "Damn! I cannot think of anything remotely like a witty
rejoinder, so will act daft instead".

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 12:37:17 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 12:10, Bod wrote:
On 16/11/2019 11:53, MrCheerful wrote:
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.Â* and of course why is
it being mentioned in a cycling group?

Because they have pedals and are classed as electric bicycles.

A motorcycle is classed as a bicycle (or for larger ones, a two-wheeled
vehicle powered by...). A Bond Bug or Reliant Robin was, and still is,
classed as a [motor-]tricycle (hence the different licence requirements
as compared with a motor-car).

Is that what your argument has been about?

Are these "responders" riding electric bicycles capable of 30mph without
propulsion effort on the part of the rider?

If the answer to that is "yes", my remarks above will need to be read in
an accordingly different sense. I still say that something capable of 70
mph is better.

All that matters is that you think you know better than the NHS over which vehicle they use for first responders. Why don't you write to Simon Stevens and tell him how he is wrong. Better still post your final draft of your letter here so we can critique it.

On 16/11/2019 15:40, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 12:37:17 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 12:10, Bod wrote:
On 16/11/2019 11:53, MrCheerful wrote:
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.Â* and of course why is
it being mentioned in a cycling group?

Because they have pedals and are classed as electric bicycles.

A motorcycle is classed as a bicycle (or for larger ones, a two-wheeled
vehicle powered by...). A Bond Bug or Reliant Robin was, and still is,
classed as a [motor-]tricycle (hence the different licence requirements
as compared with a motor-car).

Is that what your argument has been about?

Are these "responders" riding electric bicycles capable of 30mph without
propulsion effort on the part of the rider?

If the answer to that is "yes", my remarks above will need to be read in
an accordingly different sense. I still say that something capable of 70
mph is better.

All that matters is that you think you know better than the NHS over which vehicle they use for first responders. Why don't you write to Simon Stevens and tell him how he is wrong. Better still post your final draft of your letter here so we can critique it.

And good luck with trying to do 70mph in the rush hour in London.

--
Bod

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 3:44:41 PM UTC, Bod wrote:
On 16/11/2019 15:40, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 12:37:17 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:

If the answer to that is "yes", my remarks above will need to be read in
an accordingly different sense. I still say that something capable of 70
mph is better.

All that matters is that you think you know better than the NHS over which vehicle they use for first responders. Why don't you write to Simon Stevens and tell him how he is wrong. Better still post your final draft of your letter here so we can critique it.

And good luck with trying to do 70mph in the rush hour in London.


My 24yo Niece is a first responder for SJA. Even though she has been driving for several years she is not allowed to drive an ambulance until trained. If the NHS wanted motorcycle paramedics they would either recruit people with motorcycle licences or send volunteers on a motorcycle training course.

Obviously things are different in Nugentworld.

Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 13:56:16 GMT, Simon Mason
wrote:

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 1:43:52 PM UTC, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:29, Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 1:17:18 PM UTC, Bod wrote:
On 15/11/2019 13:04, Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 11:56:23 AM UTC, 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...ill-treat-you/
single-responder/cycle-responder/ --
Bod

Wasn't the ex-troll, Medway Handyman's daughter a cycle
responder?

I don't know.

--
Bod

I don't suppose he will let us know now as he, along with "Judith",
has vanished from Usenet.

It would be difficult to trace them, because there are just too
many
bridges to check.
They could be under any one of them.

--
Bod

I must admit that it is a lot better not having to killfile so many
people though. At one time there was Judith, Mr Benn, Medwit,
Cheerless and Nuglet. I do not count Mr Pounder as he is a decent
bloke underneath his angry exterior.

Beyond the pale; threatening people with a chisel.

Which I have never done. It would be good if you apologised for your
ignorance.

Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 12:37:15 GMT, JNugent
wrote:

On 16/11/2019 12:10, Bod wrote:
On 16/11/2019 11:53, MrCheerful wrote:
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:


What wide screens you all have.

Prat.

Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:28:38 GMT, Bod wrote:

On 15/11/2019 20:18, Simon Mason wrote:
On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 7:26:05 PM UTC, Bod wrote:

https://www.lightningpass.com/change...le-learner-law

I forgot this bit:

1971 - New learner age raised to 17 (in the link)

I passed my test in 1976.

Ok.

Mind out, you'll be in Pounders database of test takers!

Prat.

On 16/11/2019 15:40, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 12:37:17 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 12:10, Bod wrote:
On 16/11/2019 11:53, MrCheerful wrote:
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.Â* and of course why is
it being mentioned in a cycling group?

Because they have pedals and are classed as electric bicycles.

A motorcycle is classed as a bicycle (or for larger ones, a two-wheeled
vehicle powered by...). A Bond Bug or Reliant Robin was, and still is,
classed as a [motor-]tricycle (hence the different licence requirements
as compared with a motor-car).

Is that what your argument has been about?

Are these "responders" riding electric bicycles capable of 30mph without
propulsion effort on the part of the rider?

If the answer to that is "yes", my remarks above will need to be read in
an accordingly different sense. I still say that something capable of 70
mph is better.

All that matters is that you think you know better than the NHS over which vehicle they use for first responders.

Has the NHS moved over to bicycles instead of ambulances, then?

I hadn't heard that, but you've obviously got it from somewhere.

Where was it reported? A link will do.

Why don't you write to Simon Stevens and tell him how he is wrong. Better still post your final draft of your letter here so we can critique it.

Why don't you just type out a link which shows that there is some
substance in what you claim?

On 16/11/2019 15:44, Bod wrote:
On 16/11/2019 15:40, Simon Jester wrote:
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 12:37:17 PM UTC, JNugent wrote:
On 16/11/2019 12:10, Bod wrote:
On 16/11/2019 11:53, MrCheerful wrote:
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*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*
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*
Â*Â* Correct, I don't understand ********.

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

Â*Â*
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*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*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*
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.Â* and of course why is
it being mentioned in a cycling group?
Â*
Â* Because they have pedals and are classed as electric bicycles.

A motorcycle is classed as a bicycle (or for larger ones, a two-wheeled
vehicle powered by...). A Bond Bug or Reliant Robin was, and still is,
classed as a [motor-]tricycle (hence the different licence requirements
as compared with a motor-car).

Is that what your argument has been about?

Are these "responders" riding electric bicycles capable of 30mph without
propulsion effort on the part of the rider?

If the answer to that is "yes", my remarks above will need to be read in
an accordingly different sense. I still say that something capable of 70
mph is better.

All that matters is that you think you know better than the NHS over
which vehicle they use for first responders. Why don't you write to
Simon Stevens and tell him how he is wrong. Better still post your
final draft of your letter here so we can critique it.

And good luck with trying to do 70mph in the rush hour in London.

It isn't rush hour all day and all night.

Do you think that ambulances could reasonable by limited to 30mph or less?

If not, why not?