You really couldn't make it up...

On Monday, 22 July 2013 10:20:31 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
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.

You're nowhere near as clever as you think you are.

"Mrcheerful" wrote
TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 20/07/2013 18:16, TMS320 wrote:

I didn't say "stationary motor vehicles represent the far greater
threat to pedestrians". I said that "motor vehicles represent the
far greater threat to pedestrians". Is there a factual error?

There is an error in ignoring the correct context, which was the
topic of stationary motor vehicles (with a later comparison between
such stationary vehicles and moving bicycles).

I couldn't give a stuff about context. When I go from place to place,
in order to complete my journey succesfully my actions have to take
into account all sources of danger. It's about absolutes, not about
trying to categorise against some kind of "motive". The wailing and
gnashing of teeth that goes on over the occasional cyclist is totally
out of proportion. Motor vehicles are by far the greatest danger to
pedestrians.

So is there a level below which it just doesn't matter? I mean is it OK
if I only kill one cyclist per year for instance?

That really makes you look like an incredibly stupid person. If any one
cyclist killed one pedestrian every year, that would be serious enough. Now
if all cyclists killed one pedestrian a year...

That would not represent much danger to cyclists would it? Could I
incapacitate two per year? or perhaps 4 broken bones in a year, all
without censure of course, since it doesn't represent much danger to
cyclists in general.

You don't really understand what I mean by "absolute". It is this - if I go
out and need a ride in an ambulance, what is the most likely cause?

All you seem to do is trawl through press reports, think "how
terrible it is" and don't have the slightest inkling.

On 22/07/2013 10:22, wrote:
On Monday, 22 July 2013 10:20:31 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
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.

You're nowhere near as clever as you think you are.

That is of no consequence.

"Phil W Lee" wrote
"TMS320"
"Mrcheerful" wrote

Due to the age of housing stock pavement parking is a necessary evil.

Pity things have gone too far to introduce Japanese style restrictions.

I don't think they have.
We have residents parking permits in many places, and from there it's
only a small step to only issuing the permits if a space can be
allocated, and from there only a small one to reduce the number of
publicly funded spaces - eventually to zero.

I was also thinking of the requirement to prove that you have space to park
before you are allowed to own a car and that the regulations covering car
design include practicality, rather than encouraging larding up for spurious
safety concerns.

I think the real opportunity occurred about 40 years ago, while streets were
still quiet. Except that after spending lots of money to prop up an
unproductive industry that was making out of date product, the government
was hoping everybody would buy a Marina or Cortina.

TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 20/07/2013 18:16, TMS320 wrote:

I didn't say "stationary motor vehicles represent the far greater
threat to pedestrians". I said that "motor vehicles represent the
far greater threat to pedestrians". Is there a factual error?

There is an error in ignoring the correct context, which was the
topic of stationary motor vehicles (with a later comparison between
such stationary vehicles and moving bicycles).

I couldn't give a stuff about context. When I go from place to
place, in order to complete my journey succesfully my actions have
to take into account all sources of danger. It's about absolutes,
not about trying to categorise against some kind of "motive". The
wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes on over the occasional
cyclist is totally out of proportion. Motor vehicles are by far the
greatest danger to pedestrians.

So is there a level below which it just doesn't matter? I mean is
it OK if I only kill one cyclist per year for instance?

That really makes you look like an incredibly stupid person. If any
one cyclist killed one pedestrian every year, that would be serious
enough. Now if all cyclists killed one pedestrian a year...

That would not represent much danger to cyclists would it? Could I
incapacitate two per year? or perhaps 4 broken bones in a year, all
without censure of course, since it doesn't represent much danger to
cyclists in general.

You don't really understand what I mean by "absolute". It is this -
if I go out and need a ride in an ambulance, what is the most likely
cause?
All you seem to do is trawl through press reports, think "how
terrible it is" and don't have the slightest inkling.

I see more pedestrians inconvenienced by cyclists than I do cars.
I also see a far higher percentage of lawbreaking cyclists than I do cars,
going by the evidence of your own eyes is often a good plan.
Saying that not many people (reportedly) are hurt by cyclists does not make
their illegal and selfish actions OK or legal.

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 20/07/2013 18:16, TMS320 wrote:

I didn't say "stationary motor vehicles represent the far greater
threat to pedestrians". I said that "motor vehicles represent the
far greater threat to pedestrians". Is there a factual error?

There is an error in ignoring the correct context, which was the
topic of stationary motor vehicles (with a later comparison between
such stationary vehicles and moving bicycles).

I couldn't give a stuff about context. When I go from place to
place, in order to complete my journey succesfully my actions have
to take into account all sources of danger. It's about absolutes,
not about trying to categorise against some kind of "motive". The
wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes on over the occasional
cyclist is totally out of proportion. Motor vehicles are by far the
greatest danger to pedestrians.

So is there a level below which it just doesn't matter? I mean is
it OK if I only kill one cyclist per year for instance?

That really makes you look like an incredibly stupid person. If any
one cyclist killed one pedestrian every year, that would be serious
enough. Now if all cyclists killed one pedestrian a year...

That would not represent much danger to cyclists would it? Could I
incapacitate two per year? or perhaps 4 broken bones in a year, all
without censure of course, since it doesn't represent much danger to
cyclists in general.

You don't really understand what I mean by "absolute". It is this -
if I go out and need a ride in an ambulance, what is the most likely
cause?
All you seem to do is trawl through press reports, think "how
terrible it is" and don't have the slightest inkling.

I see more pedestrians inconvenienced by cyclists than I do cars.

Where is this nirvana where pedestrians can freely move around without
having to take the presence of motor vehicles into account?

I also see a far higher percentage of lawbreaking cyclists than I do cars,

A bicycle user can take a judgement with considrably lower chances of error
or consequence than a driver.

going by the evidence of your own eyes is often a good plan.

The view from an air conditioned cocoon will give a very distorted
perspective.

Saying that not many people (reportedly) are hurt by cyclists does not
make their illegal and selfish actions OK or legal.

Saying that drivers don't break the law doesn't remove the danger they
create.

TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 20/07/2013 18:16, TMS320 wrote:

I didn't say "stationary motor vehicles represent the far
greater threat to pedestrians". I said that "motor vehicles
represent the far greater threat to pedestrians". Is there a
factual error?

There is an error in ignoring the correct context, which was the
topic of stationary motor vehicles (with a later comparison
between such stationary vehicles and moving bicycles).

I couldn't give a stuff about context. When I go from place to
place, in order to complete my journey succesfully my actions have
to take into account all sources of danger. It's about absolutes,
not about trying to categorise against some kind of "motive". The
wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes on over the occasional
cyclist is totally out of proportion. Motor vehicles are by far
the greatest danger to pedestrians.

So is there a level below which it just doesn't matter? I mean is
it OK if I only kill one cyclist per year for instance?

That really makes you look like an incredibly stupid person. If any
one cyclist killed one pedestrian every year, that would be serious
enough. Now if all cyclists killed one pedestrian a year...

That would not represent much danger to cyclists would it? Could I
incapacitate two per year? or perhaps 4 broken bones in a year,
all without censure of course, since it doesn't represent much
danger to cyclists in general.

You don't really understand what I mean by "absolute". It is this -
if I go out and need a ride in an ambulance, what is the most likely
cause?
All you seem to do is trawl through press reports, think "how
terrible it is" and don't have the slightest inkling.

I see more pedestrians inconvenienced by cyclists than I do cars.

Where is this nirvana where pedestrians can freely move around without
having to take the presence of motor vehicles into account?

I also see a far higher percentage of lawbreaking cyclists than I do
cars,

A bicycle user can take a judgement with considrably lower chances of
error or consequence than a driver.

going by the evidence of your own eyes is often a good plan.

The view from an air conditioned cocoon will give a very distorted
perspective.

Saying that not many people (reportedly) are hurt by cyclists does
not make their illegal and selfish actions OK or legal.

Saying that drivers don't break the law doesn't remove the danger they
create.

What a good job that no-one said that.

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 20/07/2013 18:16, TMS320 wrote:

I didn't say "stationary motor vehicles represent the far
greater threat to pedestrians". I said that "motor vehicles
represent the far greater threat to pedestrians". Is there a
factual error?

There is an error in ignoring the correct context, which was the
topic of stationary motor vehicles (with a later comparison
between such stationary vehicles and moving bicycles).

I couldn't give a stuff about context. When I go from place to
place, in order to complete my journey succesfully my actions have
to take into account all sources of danger. It's about absolutes,
not about trying to categorise against some kind of "motive". The
wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes on over the occasional
cyclist is totally out of proportion. Motor vehicles are by far
the greatest danger to pedestrians.

So is there a level below which it just doesn't matter? I mean is
it OK if I only kill one cyclist per year for instance?

That really makes you look like an incredibly stupid person. If any
one cyclist killed one pedestrian every year, that would be serious
enough. Now if all cyclists killed one pedestrian a year...

That would not represent much danger to cyclists would it? Could I
incapacitate two per year? or perhaps 4 broken bones in a year,
all without censure of course, since it doesn't represent much
danger to cyclists in general.

You don't really understand what I mean by "absolute". It is this -
if I go out and need a ride in an ambulance, what is the most likely
cause?
All you seem to do is trawl through press reports, think "how
terrible it is" and don't have the slightest inkling.

I see more pedestrians inconvenienced by cyclists than I do cars.

Where is this nirvana where pedestrians can freely move around without
having to take the presence of motor vehicles into account?

I also see a far higher percentage of lawbreaking cyclists than I do
cars,

A bicycle user can take a judgement with considrably lower chances of
error or consequence than a driver.

going by the evidence of your own eyes is often a good plan.

The view from an air conditioned cocoon will give a very distorted
perspective.

Saying that not many people (reportedly) are hurt by cyclists does
not make their illegal and selfish actions OK or legal.

Saying that drivers don't break the law doesn't remove the danger they
create.

What a good job that no-one said that.

I just have. It seems that there are some here (you, in particular) that are
completely unwilling to want to look at relative danger and simply want to
compare instances of law breaking - as though it has some connection to
consequences.

TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
TMS320 wrote:
"Mrcheerful" wrote
TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 20/07/2013 18:16, TMS320 wrote:

I didn't say "stationary motor vehicles represent the far
greater threat to pedestrians". I said that "motor vehicles
represent the far greater threat to pedestrians". Is there a
factual error?

There is an error in ignoring the correct context, which was
the topic of stationary motor vehicles (with a later comparison
between such stationary vehicles and moving bicycles).

I couldn't give a stuff about context. When I go from place to
place, in order to complete my journey succesfully my actions
have to take into account all sources of danger. It's about
absolutes, not about trying to categorise against some kind of
"motive". The wailing and gnashing of teeth that goes on over
the occasional cyclist is totally out of proportion. Motor
vehicles are by far the greatest danger to pedestrians.

So is there a level below which it just doesn't matter? I mean
is it OK if I only kill one cyclist per year for instance?

That really makes you look like an incredibly stupid person. If
any one cyclist killed one pedestrian every year, that would be
serious enough. Now if all cyclists killed one pedestrian a
year...
That would not represent much danger to cyclists would it? Could I
incapacitate two per year? or perhaps 4 broken bones in
a year, all without censure of course, since it doesn't
represent much danger to cyclists in general.

You don't really understand what I mean by "absolute". It is this
- if I go out and need a ride in an ambulance, what is the most
likely cause?
All you seem to do is trawl through press reports, think "how
terrible it is" and don't have the slightest inkling.

I see more pedestrians inconvenienced by cyclists than I do cars.

Where is this nirvana where pedestrians can freely move around
without having to take the presence of motor vehicles into account?

I also see a far higher percentage of lawbreaking cyclists than I
do cars,

A bicycle user can take a judgement with considrably lower chances
of error or consequence than a driver.

going by the evidence of your own eyes is often a good plan.

The view from an air conditioned cocoon will give a very distorted
perspective.

Saying that not many people (reportedly) are hurt by cyclists does
not make their illegal and selfish actions OK or legal.

Saying that drivers don't break the law doesn't remove the danger
they create.

What a good job that no-one said that.

I just have. It seems that there are some here (you, in particular)
that are completely unwilling to want to look at relative danger and
simply want to compare instances of law breaking - as though it has
some connection to consequences.

What a good job that no-one said that 'they did'. (I should have written)

Since this is a cycling group it would actually be best to talk about
cycling rather than cars.

On Monday, 22 July 2013 15:00:09 UTC+1, Mrcheerful wrote:

Since this is a cycling group it would actually be best to talk about
cycling rather than cars.

It's perfectly valid to talk about people and objects that pose a danger to us.