Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:17:19 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:22:04 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

I have no idea if the hospital added the incident into the stats, do you?

I think you'll find that hospitals add *all* admission incidents to
the stats.

Guy


Cunning Guy - not the use of the word "admission".

If she was not admitted in to a hospital ward - ie she was only
treated in A&E - would she appear in the stats?

But you know the answer to that one - don't you? - the answer is *no*.

You know that the Hospital data is very skewed and under-reported.

"Slight injury figures are terribly inaccurate due to
under-reporting, as anyone even slightly clued up on the subject is
well aware." Guy Chapman September 2008

Why do you have to be so devious and despicable?

Do you think that as a pedestrian you are more likely to be hit by a
bike being intentionally ridden along the path than you are by a car
being intentionally driven along the path?


judith

--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:26:44 +0000, Tony Dragon
wrote:

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:22:04 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

I have no idea if the hospital added the incident into the stats, do you?

I think you'll find that hospitals add *all* admission incidents to
the stats.

Guy

If you say so, but this has nothing to do with the problem & don't
forget not ever incident would end with a hospital visit.


He is being devious and despicable - she will not have been included
in the stats if all she did was visit A&E - he knows this but fails to
mention it.

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:18:50 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:48:28 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

You missed the word deliberately after ridden.

You missed the point. If large numbers of cycles are deliberately
ridden on the footway, legally or not, and vehicles are rarely
driven deliberately on the footway, then how much more stark is the
contrast between the injury figures, with motor vehicles accounting
for many times more reported injuries to pedestrians on the footway
than cycles.

Guy

No Guy - you are intentionally missing the point.

This is why I find you so despicable - you know the reasons but you
just cannot admit them.

how about because most accidents between bikes and pedestrians are not
reported to the police - and most accidents between motor vehicles and
pedestrians are reported to the police.

Any chance of an answer:

Do you think that as a pedestrian you are more likely to be hit by a
bike being intentionally ridden along the path than you are by a car
being intentionally driven along the path?

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:05:02 +0000, David Hansen
wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:07:39 +0000 someone who may be Jolly Polly
wrote this:-

The pavement is the sole preserve of the pedestrian

However, councils are adding white paint and blue signs to
pavements. By magic that turns the pavement into a "cycle facility",
which cyclists are supposed to be grateful for and want to use.

These farcilities are not looked on with favour by many cyclists,
but when they ignore them in favour of the roads they are
"encouraged" by some motorists to get on the pavement. Even where
there is no magic paint and signs some motorists "encourage"
cyclists to get on the pavement "where they belong".


ho, ho, go - two in one message:

Examples from the definition of psycholist:

2) They cannot bring themselves to use the word: "facility" in
the context of a "cycling facility". Whatever the facility - they
must try and ridicule it as they will not be able to fully comprehend
the benefits as seen for all road users. This is achieved by using
the alternative "farcility".

4) "Magic paint" - only used by the most inflicted psycholists.
Used to describe signage to cyclist on pavements. Origin unknown.

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:28:55 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:05:02 +0000, David Hansen
said in
:

However, councils are adding white paint and blue signs to
pavements. By magic that turns the pavement into a "cycle facility",
which cyclists are supposed to be grateful for and want to use.

And woe betide them if they fail to show the proper gratitude. It
is of course Perfectly Reasonable to drive a 38T artic at them in
order to educate them as to the folly of failing to use a narrow
grit-strewn footpath instead of a road when Magic White Paint (TM)
is in place.

Guy


Now then Guy - any chance of an answer:

Do you think that as a pedestrian you are more likely to be hit by a
bike being intentionally ridden along the path than you are by a car
being intentionally driven along the path?

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

Rob Morley wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:09:32 +0000
_ wrote:

Fit the
******* with number plates and there will be an amazing reduction in
lawbreaking cycling.

It works so well with motorists, after all ...

You're right, it does. Here's a single example - I was driving on the
Oban peninsula last week past a set of roadworks posted at 40 rather
than the usual 60, late evening, nobody in sight. Were it not for the
identification on my car I'd definitely have exceeded that limit, but
didn't for fear of a camera catching me out. As, I reckon, do many
motorists every day. So, *thousands* of offences not committed then!

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

_ wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:49:47 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

So you agree with cyclist's breaking the law, glad we have
established that.

Nope.

As I said you agree with cyclist's breaking the law, glad we have
established that.

I agree with removing the prime incentive for them to do so,
which also as it turns out is the major source of risk to
pedestrians (on or off the footway) and cyclists alike. You
probably didn't notice but I did point out that in many places
cycling on the footway is now perfectly legal, due to the
application of Magic White Paint (TM).

They are now classed a duel use, not footways as yiu well know.
You also know that we are talking about pedestrian footways.

Note that in many places there are no footways, pedestrians are
forced to use the carriageway.

So


It is long past time that people stopped making excuses for motor
danger.

Guy

Who has done that

You're (unfortunately) wasting your time, because you're arguing a point
with someone who not only doesn't agree with your view but refuses to
accept that it even exists. Guy is fervently, passionately, anti *any*
legislation on cycling, and uses the Bollenlogic (TM) of saying "its
nowhere near as bad as what someone else does". Using that logic its
okay for us all to drive everywhere at 150mph, because someone else has
already been caught at 172 so we're not as bad as him.

The key difference between Chapman and the motorist groups he so
despises is that the motorists are quick to condemn lawbreaking by their
peers while Chapman insists that lawbreaking cyclists should be excused
because "they're only breaking the law to hide from those dangerous
motorists!". What I think is the funny bit is that despite that somewhat
blinkered perspective Chapman keeps calling other sociopathic!

And that is one of the best & truest posts I have read for a long time

--
Tony the Dragon

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

_ wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:06:14 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:49:47 +0000, Tony Dragon
said in
:

So you agree with cyclist's breaking the law, glad we have
established that.
Nope. I agree with removing the prime incentive for them to do so,
which also as it turns out is the major source of risk to
pedestrians (on or off the footway) and cyclists alike. You
probably didn't notice but I did point out that in many places
cycling on the footway is now perfectly legal, due to the
application of Magic White Paint (TM).

Note that in many places there are no footways, pedestrians are
forced to use the carriageway.

I doubt "many places" - but they do have every right to be in the
carriageway.


It is long past time that people stopped making excuses for motor
danger.

Guy

Any chance of an answer yet:

Do you think that as a pedestrian you are more likely to be hit by a
bike being intentionally ridden along the path than you are by a car
being intentionally driven along the path?

No, he cant answer that, because if he did so he's stuck between two
rocks - either he says the car's more likely, in which case everyone
points and laughs (well, those without their own anticar agenda, anyway)
or he says the bike's more likely and ruins his argument. As with many
other questions put to him, then, he's forced to stick his fingers in
his ears and sing "I cant hear you hahahaha". Poor sod, we should pity
him really...

Maybe we should, but do we have to?

--
Tony the Dragon

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton
 

Rob Morley wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:09:32 +0000
_ wrote:

Fit the
******* with number plates and there will be an amazing reduction in
lawbreaking cycling.

It works so well with motorists, after all ...


All I though is my daughter probably would have got the number of the
car, but could not have got the number of the bike.

--
Tony the Dragon

Cyclist hits granny in pavement crash in Brighton