You really couldn't make it up...

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:11:57 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:00:18 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 14:37:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

snip


For example, outside the Kebab shop just off the A20 in Lee is
particularly bad between 7pm and midnight. Eltham High Street is bad
daytime with delivery drivers. Residential areas seem to be worse
overnight than during the day. Outside schools can be diabolical 8.30am
to 9.30am and again 3pm to 4pm, just at the most dangerous times when
children are meeting their parents.


I hope you don't mind if I return to cycling matters:

I have known of a cyclist who claimed that it was OK for him to exceed
the speed limit of 20mph out side schools - because the speed limit does
not apply to cyclists.

Mind you - he was not very bright. He came from Hull.

Is this another Pavlovian response?

Yes.

One can see the eyes light up, the tongue drool out, the blood flowing
from the tooth sockets in anticipation given the right stimulus.

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:57:42 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:11:57 +0100, Bertie Wooster wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:00:18 +0100, Judith
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 14:37:55 +0100, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

snip


For example, outside the Kebab shop just off the A20 in Lee is
particularly bad between 7pm and midnight. Eltham High Street is bad
daytime with delivery drivers. Residential areas seem to be worse
overnight than during the day. Outside schools can be diabolical 8.30am
to 9.30am and again 3pm to 4pm, just at the most dangerous times when
children are meeting their parents.


I hope you don't mind if I return to cycling matters:

I have known of a cyclist who claimed that it was OK for him to exceed
the speed limit of 20mph out side schools - because the speed limit does
not apply to cyclists.

Mind you - he was not very bright. He came from Hull.

Is this another Pavlovian response?

Yes.

One can see the eyes light up, the tongue drool out, the blood flowing
from the tooth sockets in anticipation given the right stimulus.

The key words in this instance seem to be "schools" and "dangerous",
and the diatribe followed.

On 21/07/2013 11:06, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 01:05:50 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

As I said, I do not condone the practice. But neither do I think that
cyclists using the footway with consideration for other footway users
do much harm.

The owners of illegal firearms taking adequately careful and considerate
aim on discharge of their weapons don't do much harm either.

But...

...of course there is a huge difference with an object designed to
kill and one designed for personal transport, so the analogy is
rubbish.

There may be a practical difference between a bicycle and a gun, but
there is no difference in principle between them in that they can both
cause serious injuries or worse. The analogy is an excellent one.

JNugent wrote:
On 21/07/2013 11:06, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 01:05:50 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

As I said, I do not condone the practice. But neither do I think
that cyclists using the footway with consideration for other
footway users do much harm.

The owners of illegal firearms taking adequately careful and
considerate aim on discharge of their weapons don't do much harm
either. But...

...of course there is a huge difference with an object designed to
kill and one designed for personal transport, so the analogy is
rubbish.

There may be a practical difference between a bicycle and a gun, but
there is no difference in principle between them in that they can both
cause serious injuries or worse. The analogy is an excellent one.

Since gun owners have to be vetted and licenced, why not introduce the same
for cyclists?

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:24:14 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 21/07/2013 11:06, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 01:05:50 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

As I said, I do not condone the practice. But neither do I think that
cyclists using the footway with consideration for other footway users
do much harm.

The owners of illegal firearms taking adequately careful and considerate
aim on discharge of their weapons don't do much harm either.

But...

...of course there is a huge difference with an object designed to
kill and one designed for personal transport, so the analogy is
rubbish.

There may be a practical difference between a bicycle and a gun, but
there is no difference in principle between them in that they can both
cause serious injuries or worse. The analogy is an excellent one.

I note that the economist, Steven Levitt, was roundly criticised for
his stance on gun ownership in the US. He considered guns relatively
harmless by comparing them with swimming pools, and deciding that
swimming pools caused far more accidental deaths than guns.

On Sunday, 21 July 2013 16:57:17 UTC+1, Judith wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 06:27:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

So you are claiming that you have often(?) had to move smartly out of the way
of a vehicle which was going to actually hit you on the pavement.

How many times do you think that this has happened to you over the last year?

No idea, I do it automatically then carry on about my business. I don't count the number of motorists I see talking into phones while they drive either.

On Monday, 22 July 2013 00:24:14 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

There may be a practical difference between a bicycle and a gun, but
there is no difference in principle between them in that they can both
cause serious injuries or worse. The analogy is an excellent one.

This from the chap who claimed I was "hysterical" for pointing out the danger from parked cars to blind people. The thread title is so appropriate.

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:25:01 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sunday, 21 July 2013 16:57:17 UTC+1, Judith wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 06:27:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

So you are claiming that you have often(?) had to move smartly out of the way
of a vehicle which was going to actually hit you on the pavement.

How many times do you think that this has happened to you over the last year?

No idea, I do it automatically then carry on about my business. I don't count the number of motorists I see talking into phones while they drive either.


Oh - so it hasn't happened often enough for you to hazard a guess - it is
obviously not a regular event. Perhaps it is just you it happens to.

many thanks.

(Unless you made it up of course)

On 22/07/2013 08:19, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 00:24:14 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 21/07/2013 11:06, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2013 01:05:50 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

As I said, I do not condone the practice. But neither do I think that
cyclists using the footway with consideration for other footway users
do much harm.

The owners of illegal firearms taking adequately careful and considerate
aim on discharge of their weapons don't do much harm either.

But...

...of course there is a huge difference with an object designed to
kill and one designed for personal transport, so the analogy is
rubbish.

There may be a practical difference between a bicycle and a gun, but
there is no difference in principle between them in that they can both
cause serious injuries or worse. The analogy is an excellent one.

I note that the economist, Steven Levitt, was roundly criticised for
his stance on gun ownership in the US. He considered guns relatively
harmless by comparing them with swimming pools, and deciding that
swimming pools caused far more accidental deaths than guns.

What was his stance, in terms of the theories of rational
decision-making which underpin the science, dismal or otherwise, of
economics?

On 22/07/2013 08:27, wrote:

On Monday, 22 July 2013 00:24:14 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

There may be a practical difference between a bicycle and a gun, but
there is no difference in principle between them in that they can both
cause serious injuries or worse. The analogy is an excellent one.

This from the chap who claimed I was "hysterical" for pointing out the danger from parked cars to blind people. The thread title is so appropriate.

Thank you for confirming (as if confirmation were necessary) that you
have no grasp of abstract concepts, modelling or theory. It's so helpful.