Bicycle, crash hat and accident

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:27:30 +0100, Capitol wrote:

Bod wrote:
On 25/08/2014 15:55, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 25/08/2014 14:24, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
On 25/08/2014 10:17, Capitol wrote:
Peter Keller wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:40:36 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 10:21:46 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 23/08/2014 20:45, Uncle Peter wrote:




Then compare walking with cycling.

No. Because it's comfortable to run.

The percussive effect of running on ones knees suggest to me
and most others that is not the case.

Or don't you have knees?

Then why do so many people run for exercise?

Because runners look less of a tit than cyclists.

If cyclists wear everyday clothes like jeans and tshirt, they
look quite normal. But a hi-vis jacket, a helmet, and shorts
designed to castrate you, do look very silly indeed.

Agreed. Bicycling is a very good everyday means of transport.

If you like getting wet.

Only if you don't wear appropriate wet weather clothes, the same
goes for motorcyclists.


I've done both, you still get wet.

I too have done both, but now I've retired I only cycle in dry
weather.
If it's wet, I'll use the car.

So it is not really a viable and practical means of transport.


If you don't don't mind getting wet, of course it is.

Of course it is. So what would you say to the people who have a bicycle
as their *only* form of transport? There are many.



Top Gear answered your question. Work harder and get a car!

No thanks.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:24:45 +0100, Mr Pounder wrote:

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 25/08/2014 15:55, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 25/08/2014 14:24, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
On 25/08/2014 10:17, Capitol wrote:
Peter Keller wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:40:36 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 10:21:46 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 23/08/2014 20:45, Uncle Peter wrote:




Then compare walking with cycling.

No. Because it's comfortable to run.

The percussive effect of running on ones knees suggest to me
and most others that is not the case.

Or don't you have knees?

Then why do so many people run for exercise?

Because runners look less of a tit than cyclists.

If cyclists wear everyday clothes like jeans and tshirt, they
look quite normal. But a hi-vis jacket, a helmet, and shorts
designed to castrate you, do look very silly indeed.

Agreed. Bicycling is a very good everyday means of transport.

If you like getting wet.

Only if you don't wear appropriate wet weather clothes, the same
goes for motorcyclists.


I've done both, you still get wet.

I too have done both, but now I've retired I only cycle in dry
weather.
If it's wet, I'll use the car.

So it is not really a viable and practical means of transport.


Of course it is. So what would you say to the many people who have a
bicycle as their *only* form of transport?

I would say that it is not really a viable and practical means of
transport.
The fact that you do not cycle in the rain supports this.





It is very viable.
And I do ride a bicycle in the rain.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:03:17 +0100, Mr Pounder wrote:

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 25/08/2014 17:24, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 25/08/2014 15:55, Mr Pounder wrote:
"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 25/08/2014 14:24, Capitol wrote:
Bod wrote:
On 25/08/2014 10:17, Capitol wrote:
Peter Keller wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 13:40:36 +0100, Uncle Peter wrote:

On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 10:21:46 +0100, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

On 23/08/2014 20:45, Uncle Peter wrote:




Then compare walking with cycling.

No. Because it's comfortable to run.

The percussive effect of running on ones knees suggest to
me and most others that is not the case.

Or don't you have knees?

Then why do so many people run for exercise?

Because runners look less of a tit than cyclists.

If cyclists wear everyday clothes like jeans and tshirt, they
look quite normal. But a hi-vis jacket, a helmet, and shorts
designed to castrate you, do look very silly indeed.

Agreed. Bicycling is a very good everyday means of transport.

If you like getting wet.

Only if you don't wear appropriate wet weather clothes, the same
goes for motorcyclists.


I've done both, you still get wet.

I too have done both, but now I've retired I only cycle in dry
weather.
If it's wet, I'll use the car.

So it is not really a viable and practical means of transport.


Of course it is. So what would you say to the many people who have a
bicycle as their *only* form of transport?

I would say that it is not really a viable and practical means of
transport.
The fact that you do not cycle in the rain supports this.


I wasn't talking for other people, just my preference. I also choose to
have a car, many choose not to have a car.

Are you really suggesting that apart from yourself other cyclepaths
actually like to ride in the ****ing down rain?
I would dispute your statement that "many choose not to have a car".




Yes.

On 26/08/2014 09:26, Peter Keller wrote:

No need.
"Bicyclists" and "organ donors" have no connection with each other.

There is, presumably, a reason why London Ambulance service operational
staff have been known to refer to cyclists as pedal powered organ
donors. Possibly apart from the death rate on the capital's roads?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 26/08/2014 10:11, John Williamson wrote:
On 26/08/2014 09:26, Peter Keller wrote:

No need.
"Bicyclists" and "organ donors" have no connection with each other.

There is, presumably, a reason why London Ambulance service operational
staff have been known to refer to cyclists as pedal powered organ
donors. Possibly apart from the death rate on the capital's roads?

That does not compute.

"Car occupants comprised by far the largest category of road-user
casualties in 2009 - 12,046, or 43 percent - so in one sense it is they
rather than pedestrians or two-wheel travellers who are at the greatest
risk."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/davehi...ham-forst-blog

On 26/08/2014 10:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 10:11, John Williamson wrote:
On 26/08/2014 09:26, Peter Keller wrote:

No need.
"Bicyclists" and "organ donors" have no connection with each other.

There is, presumably, a reason why London Ambulance service operational
staff have been known to refer to cyclists as pedal powered organ
donors. Possibly apart from the death rate on the capital's roads?

That does not compute.

"Car occupants comprised by far the largest category of road-user
casualties in 2009 - 12,046, or 43 percent - so in one sense it is they
rather than pedestrians or two-wheel travellers who are at the greatest
risk."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/davehi...ham-forst-blog


Now compare the number of drivers and the distance they travel per year
with the number of cyclists and how far *they* travel per year, and
generate your own figure for the number of fatalities and injuries per
mile travelled. Then compare the number of pedestrian casualties per
year per thousand pedestrians against the number of cyclist casualties
per year per thousand.

You will find that it is far more dangerous to cycle in London than use
any other mode of transport. This is the main reason I refuse to cycle
in London.

I just love statistics, if you twist them enough, you can "prove" just
about anything. On the other hand, understanding the figures lets you
form a true idea of the problem.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 26/08/2014 10:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 10:11, John Williamson wrote:
On 26/08/2014 09:26, Peter Keller wrote:

No need.
"Bicyclists" and "organ donors" have no connection with each other.

There is, presumably, a reason why London Ambulance service operational
staff have been known to refer to cyclists as pedal powered organ
donors. Possibly apart from the death rate on the capital's roads?

That does not compute.

"Car occupants comprised by far the largest category of road-user
casualties in 2009 - 12,046, or 43 percent - so in one sense it is they
rather than pedestrians or two-wheel travellers who are at the greatest
risk."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/davehi...ham-forst-blog


And while we're at it, from the same article:-

"Pedal cyclist casualties [of all severities] showed a 14% increase in
inner London, and a 16% increase in outer London."

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 26/08/2014 11:39, John Williamson wrote:
On 26/08/2014 10:59, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 10:11, John Williamson wrote:
On 26/08/2014 09:26, Peter Keller wrote:

No need.
"Bicyclists" and "organ donors" have no connection with each other.

There is, presumably, a reason why London Ambulance service operational
staff have been known to refer to cyclists as pedal powered organ
donors. Possibly apart from the death rate on the capital's roads?

That does not compute.

"Car occupants comprised by far the largest category of road-user
casualties in 2009 - 12,046, or 43 percent - so in one sense it is they
rather than pedestrians or two-wheel travellers who are at the greatest
risk."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/davehi...ham-forst-blog



And while we're at it, from the same article:-

"Pedal cyclist casualties [of all severities] showed a 14% increase in
inner London, and a 16% increase in outer London."

Yes, but there has been a very large take up of cycling in London over
the last couple of years. I would assume that a fair proportion of those
are newbies to cycling in such a congested city and hence inexperienced.
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large lorries who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back from any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

On 26/08/2014 12:08, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 11:39, John Williamson wrote:
On 26/08/2014 10:59, Bod wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/davehi...ham-forst-blog

And while we're at it, from the same article:-

"Pedal cyclist casualties [of all severities] showed a 14% increase in
inner London, and a 16% increase in outer London."

Yes, but there has been a very large take up of cycling in London over
the last couple of years. I would assume that a fair proportion of those
are newbies to cycling in such a congested city and hence inexperienced.
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large lorries who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back from any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

Which may be the first admission I've ever seen in this debate that a
cyclist could *possibly* be at fault in any incident involving one.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , John Williamson
writes
On 26/08/2014 12:08, Bod wrote:
On 26/08/2014 11:39, John Williamson wrote:
On 26/08/2014 10:59, Bod wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/davehi...transport-for-
london-road-safety-statistics-crap-cycling-waltham-forst-blog

And while we're at it, from the same article:-

"Pedal cyclist casualties [of all severities] showed a 14% increase in
inner London, and a 16% increase in outer London."

Yes, but there has been a very large take up of cycling in London over
the last couple of years. I would assume that a fair proportion of those
are newbies to cycling in such a congested city and hence inexperienced.
Stupid mistakes like turning left on the inside of large lorries who
were also turning left. An experienced cyclist would hang back from any
lorries......Darwin strikes again :-)

Which may be the first admission I've ever seen in this debate that a
cyclist could *possibly* be at fault in any incident involving one.

Hmm.. I was knocked off my bike by a lorry. Age 16, 7.20am, straight
road.

Long while before tacho limits or mobile phones so the driver probably
nodded off. He edged me into the kerb and I bounced off each of the rope
tie hooks and fell into the road behind him. Too shocked to get a
registration so he never knew!


--
Tim Lamb