Women cyclists 'at greater risk from lorry deaths'

[Uncle Spam]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents

[Squashme]

On 21 May, 20:08, Uncle Spam > wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents

Bring it up it at your feminist consciousness-raising group:-
"Structural sexism in the haulage vehicle industry: a tentative
hypothesis."

[Doug[_3_]]

On 21 May, 22:12, Squashme > wrote:
> On 21 May, 20:08, Uncle Spam > wrote:
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents
>
> Bring it up it at your feminist consciousness-raising group:-
> "Structural sexism in the haulage vehicle industry: a tentative
> hypothesis."
>
Its because women cyclists are more law abiding and the laws are made
for drivers not vulnerable road users like cyclists..

--
UK Radical Campaigns.
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[Peter Hill]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 12:08:40 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Spam
> wrote:

>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents

Anyone got stats on how many women v's male drivers have accidents
with lorries in London?

Bet it's just as disproportionate.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

[Marie]

On May 22, 6:25*am, Doug > wrote:
> On 21 May, 22:12, Squashme > wrote:> On 21 May, 20:08, Uncle Spam > wrote:
>
> > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents
>
> > Bring it up it at your feminist consciousness-raising group:-
> > "Structural sexism in the haulage vehicle industry: a tentative
> > hypothesis."
>
> Its because women cyclists are more law abiding and the laws are made
> for drivers not vulnerable road users like cyclists..
>
> --
> UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> A driving licence is a licence to kill.


here we go again, the serial lawbreaker Doug, tells us that cyclists
are more law abiding, but then he is not a 'real cyclist', by his own
daffinition.

Marie

[Mark Lewis]

Women are soft. Men harden to being run over by trucks:

http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/news/news/Bristol-cyclist-lorry-crash/article-1230465-detail/article.html

Broken thigh.

--
Mark Lewis, North Somerset

[Colin McKenzie]

On Fri, 21 May 2010 20:08:40 +0100, Uncle Spam >
wrote:

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents

.... but at lower risk overall.

Must be something to do with how they ride. Can anyone think of something
that is alleged to make cyclists safer but actually makes no detectable
difference? Would you rather trust your safety to improving your skills
and awareness of the road around you, or to something not designed to
resist life-threatening impacts?

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[roger merriman]

Uncle Spam > wrote:

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents

have a look at the stats.

13 died last year in london.

of those 13, 10 where women.

13 is a low number, a very low number, a number so low that using it for
a hypothesis is rather brave.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Squashme]

On 22 May, 13:34, (Roger Merriman) wrote:
> Uncle Spam > wrote:
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents
>
> have a look at the stats.
>
> 13 died last year in london.
>
> of those 13, 10 where women.
>
> 13 is a low number, a very low number, a number so low that using it for
> a hypothesis is rather brave.

It's an unlucky number, a very unlucky number too.

[Colin Trunt]

"Roger Merriman" > wrote in message
...
> Uncle Spam > wrote:
>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents
>
> have a look at the stats.
>
> 13 died last year in london.
>
> of those 13, 10 where women.
>
> 13 is a low number, a very low number, a number so low that using it for
> a hypothesis is rather brave.



No it isn't.

Given the smaller mumber of women cyclists, the chances of that
happening as a stastical blip are over 8,000 to 1.
I worded it out.

Prior to that data over a lober period shows IIRC
18 out of 21 lorry deaths being women, there is clearly a significant
difference men nd women in this type of accident.
Taking the two stats togreathher would give a likey hood of chance
bing the answer as millions to 1.



>
> roger
> --
> www.rogermerriman.com

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Colin Trunt wrote:
> "Roger Merriman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Uncle Spam > wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents
>>
>> have a look at the stats.
>>
>> 13 died last year in london.
>>
>> of those 13, 10 where women.
>>
>> 13 is a low number, a very low number, a number so low that using it
>> for a hypothesis is rather brave.
>
>
>
> No it isn't.
>
> Given the smaller mumber of women cyclists, the chances of that
> happening as a stastical blip are over 8,000 to 1.
> I worded it out.
>
> Prior to that data over a lober period shows IIRC
> 18 out of 21 lorry deaths being women, there is clearly a significant
> difference men nd women in this type of accident.
> Taking the two stats togreathher would give a likey hood of chance
> bing the answer as millions to 1.
>

I hope your maths are better than your English.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Tony Dragon]

Colin Trunt wrote:
> "Roger Merriman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Uncle Spam > wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents
>> have a look at the stats.
>>
>> 13 died last year in london.
>>
>> of those 13, 10 where women.
>>
>> 13 is a low number, a very low number, a number so low that using it for
>> a hypothesis is rather brave.
>
>
>
> No it isn't.
>
> Given the smaller mumber of women cyclists, the chances of that
> happening as a stastical blip are over 8,000 to 1.
> I worded it out.
>
> Prior to that data over a lober period shows IIRC
> 18 out of 21 lorry deaths being women, there is clearly a significant
> difference men nd women in this type of accident.
> Taking the two stats togreathher would give a likey hood of chance
> bing the answer as millions to 1.
>
>
>
>> roger
>> --
>> www.rogermerriman.com
>
>

Could somebody translate that into English please.

--
Tony Dragon

[Colin Trunt]

"The Medway Handyman" > wrote in message
...
> Colin Trunt wrote:
>> "Roger Merriman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Uncle Spam > wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents
>>>
>>> have a look at the stats.
>>>
>>> 13 died last year in london.
>>>
>>> of those 13, 10 where women.
>>>
>>> 13 is a low number, a very low number, a number so low that using it
>>> for a hypothesis is rather brave.
>>
>>
>>
>> No it isn't.
>>
>> Given the smaller mumber of women cyclists, the chances of that
>> happening as a stastical blip are over 8,000 to 1.
>> I worded it out.
>>
>> Prior to that data over a lober period shows IIRC
>> 18 out of 21 lorry deaths being women, there is clearly a significant
>> difference men nd women in this type of accident.
>> Taking the two stats togreathher would give a likey hood of chance
>> bing the answer as millions to 1.
>>
>
> I hope your maths are better than your English.

IT is signifacnly better tna my english and defianlty better than your
maths.
the figure I calculated is accurate, I doublt you would even no haow to
start doing the calculation.

>
>
> --
> Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not
> a viable form of transport.
>

[Colin Trunt]

"Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
...
> Colin Trunt wrote:
>> "Roger Merriman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Uncle Spam > wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents
>>> have a look at the stats.
>>>
>>> 13 died last year in london.
>>>
>>> of those 13, 10 where women.
>>>
>>> 13 is a low number, a very low number, a number so low that using it for
>>> a hypothesis is rather brave.
>>
>>
>>
>> No it isn't.
>>

---------- now available in english!!------------


>> Given the smaller mumber of women cyclists, the chances of that
>> happening as a stastical blip are over 8,000 to 1.
>> I worked it out.
>>
>> Prior to that data over a longer period shows IIRC
>> 18 out of 21 lorry deaths being women, there is clearly a significant
>> difference men and women in this type of accident.
>> Taking the two stats togreathher would give a likelyhood of chance
>> being the answer as millions to 1.
#

---------- now in english!!------------

>>
>>
>>
>>> roger
>>> --
>>> www.rogermerriman.com
>>
>>
>
> Could somebody translate that into English please.


Done!!!




>
> --
> Tony Dragon

[Tony Dragon]

Colin Trunt wrote:
> "Tony Dragon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Colin Trunt wrote:
>>> "Roger Merriman" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Uncle Spam > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-accidents
>>>> have a look at the stats.
>>>>
>>>> 13 died last year in london.
>>>>
>>>> of those 13, 10 where women.
>>>>
>>>> 13 is a low number, a very low number, a number so low that using it for
>>>> a hypothesis is rather brave.
>>>
>>>
>>> No it isn't.
>>>
>
> ---------- now available in english!!------------
>
>
>>> Given the smaller mumber of women cyclists, the chances of that
>>> happening as a stastical blip are over 8,000 to 1.
>>> I worked it out.
>>>
>>> Prior to that data over a longer period shows IIRC
>>> 18 out of 21 lorry deaths being women, there is clearly a significant
>>> difference men and women in this type of accident.
>>> Taking the two stats togreathher would give a likelyhood of chance
>>> being the answer as millions to 1.
> #
>
> ---------- now in english!!------------
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> roger
>>>> --
>>>> www.rogermerriman.com
>>>
>> Could somebody translate that into English please.
>
>
> Done!!!
>
>
>
>
>> --
>> Tony Dragon
>
>
Ifanku

--
Tony Dragon