Popularity of cycling.

"UK cycling population hits 8.7 million

UK cycling population hits 8.7 million

Cycling now has a participation level of close to nine-million according
to a new report from SPORTS MARKETING SURVEYS INC. (SMS INC.).

The independent sports research firm has put together a report that
found 16.9% of adults in the UK are cyclists, with the average
participant cycling 48.9 times in the past year."

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/uk-...million/017155



8,700,000 regular cyclists? In an island with an area of 94.600 square
miles?

92 cyclists per square mile?

I'm guessing this might be where the Crispin idiot gets the figures that
there is an RTC with injury every 3.7 miles of road.

Or most cyclists are Ninjas?

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 11:10:28 PM UTC, David Lang wrote:
"UK cycling population hits 8.7 million

UK cycling population hits 8.7 million

Cycling now has a participation level of close to nine-million according
to a new report from SPORTS MARKETING SURVEYS INC. (SMS INC.).

The independent sports research firm has put together a report that
found 16.9% of adults in the UK are cyclists, with the average
participant cycling 48.9 times in the past year."

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/uk-...million/017155



8,700,000 regular cyclists? In an island with an area of 94.600 square
miles?

92 cyclists per square mile?

I'm guessing this might be where the Crispin idiot gets the figures that
there is an RTC with injury every 3.7 miles of road.

And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95% chance of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.

You then take the highest figure as fact.
You then calculate that there is only ever one injury per road traffic collision, giving 920,000 collisions per year.
You then Google the length of road in the UK and find an answer of about 250,000 miles.
You divide collisions by miles and get an answer of 3.68.
You round this up to 3.7 (not unreasonably)
You then state that there is a collision every 3.7 miles.

Hahahahahaha

If all your logic was correct, and your maths unflawed, you would have given a figure of 3.7 collisions per mile of road.

Unfortunately you have plankwitted logic and you cannot make trivial mathematical calculations.

However, what can be deduced from the Government report is that there is a 95% probability that the number of road traffic injuries per mile of highway per year lies somewhere between 2.72 injuries and 3.68.

Or most cyclists are Ninjas?

On 25/11/2015 00:11, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 11:10:28 PM UTC, David Lang wrote:
"UK cycling population hits 8.7 million

UK cycling population hits 8.7 million

Cycling now has a participation level of close to nine-million
according to a new report from SPORTS MARKETING SURVEYS INC. (SMS
INC.).

The independent sports research firm has put together a report
that found 16.9% of adults in the UK are cyclists, with the
average participant cycling 48.9 times in the past year."

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/uk-...million/017155





8,700,000 regular cyclists? In an island with an area of 94.600 square
miles?

92 cyclists per square mile?

I'm guessing this might be where the Crispin idiot gets the figures
that there is an RTC with injury every 3.7 miles of road.

And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95%
chance of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.


Which is clearly bollox. One RTC every 3.7 miles? Have some sense,
halfwit.

You then take the highest figure as fact.

Only an idiot like you would do that.

You then calculate that there is only ever one injury per road
traffic collision, giving 920,000 collisions per year. You then
Google the length of road in the UK and find an answer of about
250,000 miles. You divide collisions by miles and get an answer of
3.68. You round this up to 3.7 (not unreasonably) You then state that
there is a collision every 3.7 miles.

Hahahahahaha

You appear to be shooting yourself in the foot - again. More than one
one injury per RTC makes your figures even more ridiculous.

If all your logic was correct, and your maths unflawed, you would
have given a figure of 3.7 collisions per mile of road.

Which is exactly what you are claiming, and it simply doesn't happen,
does it, halfwit?

Unfortunately you have plankwitted logic and you cannot make trivial
mathematical calculations.

Your problem is that I can do exactly that. Which is why I consistently
make a fool of you.

However, what can be deduced from the Government report is that there
is a 95% probability that the number of road traffic injuries per
mile of highway per year lies somewhere between 2.72 injuries and
3.68.

Which is clearly utter bollox. Do you see that on a daily basis?

On 24/11/2015 23:10, David Lang wrote:
"UK cycling population hits 8.7 million

UK cycling population hits 8.7 million

Cycling now has a participation level of close to nine-million according
to a new report from SPORTS MARKETING SURVEYS INC. (SMS INC.).

The independent sports research firm has put together a report that
found 16.9% of adults in the UK are cyclists, with the average
participant cycling 48.9 times in the past year."

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/uk-...million/017155




8,700,000 regular cyclists? In an island with an area of 94.600 square
miles?

92 cyclists per square mile?

I'm guessing this might be where the Crispin idiot gets the figures that
there is an RTC with injury every 3.7 miles of road.

Or most cyclists are Ninjas?


OMG! It gets worse!

920.000 RTCs with injury every year. Allegedly.

Average mileage 10,000 per year. So according to Ready Salted we should
each see 92 RTCs a year! Or 10 every square mile!

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:14:26 AM UTC, David Lang wrote:

And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95%
chance of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.


Which is clearly bollox. One RTC every 3.7 miles? Have some sense,
halfwit.

No you plankwit. Do the maths correctly. Up to 3.7 casualties per mile of road, NOT up to 1 casualty every 3.7 miles. The carnage on our roads could be over 10 time worse than your flawed maths suggest.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:14:26 AM UTC, David Lang wrote:

And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95% chance
of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.

Which is clearly bollox. One RTC every 3.7 miles? Have some sense,
halfwit.

No you plankwit. Do the maths correctly. Up to 3.7 casualties per mile of
road, NOT up to 1 casualty every 3.7 miles. The carnage on our roads
could be over 10 time worse than your flawed maths suggest.

You're dealing with an unemployed handyman whose sense of entitlement and
superiority is unshakeable - and wholly unmerited.

He will never admit that his command of even basic arithmetic is as
non-existent as Nugent's skills in Latin.

--
john smith
'_The Guardian_. Wrong about everything. All the time'
(Anon)

On 25/11/2015 11:58, John Smith wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:14:26 AM UTC, David Lang wrote:

And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95% chance
of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.

Which is clearly bollox. One RTC every 3.7 miles? Have some sense,
halfwit.

No you plankwit. Do the maths correctly. Up to 3.7 casualties per mile of
road, NOT up to 1 casualty every 3.7 miles. The carnage on our roads
could be over 10 time worse than your flawed maths suggest.

You're dealing with an unemployed handyman whose sense of entitlement and
superiority is unshakeable - and wholly unmerited.

He will never admit that his command of even basic arithmetic is as
non-existent as Nugent's skills in Latin.

You are the one who does/did not know what the words "inter" and "alia"
mean.

When they were separated and used independently, you were lost.

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 12:00:05 PM UTC, John Smith wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:14:26 AM UTC, David Lang wrote:

And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95% chance
of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.

Which is clearly bollox. One RTC every 3.7 miles? Have some sense,
halfwit.

No you plankwit. Do the maths correctly. Up to 3.7 casualties per mile of
road, NOT up to 1 casualty every 3.7 miles. The carnage on our roads
could be over 10 time worse than your flawed maths suggest.

You're dealing with an unemployed handyman whose sense of entitlement and
superiority is unshakeable - and wholly unmerited.

He will never admit that his command of even basic arithmetic is as
non-existent as Nugent's skills in Latin.

I too have a limited knowledge of Latin. Two years of learning the language, and all I can recall is reciting "porto, portas portat, portamus, portatis, portant."

But I would expect everyone to understand basic mathematics. And while the odd mistake can be forgiven, making fundamental errors time and again is sheer plankwittery.

JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2015 11:58, John Smith wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:14:26 AM UTC, David Lang wrote:

And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95%
chance of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.

Which is clearly bollox. One RTC every 3.7 miles? Have some sense,
halfwit.

No you plankwit. Do the maths correctly. Up to 3.7 casualties per mile
of road, NOT up to 1 casualty every 3.7 miles. The carnage on our roads
could be over 10 time worse than your flawed maths suggest.

You're dealing with an unemployed handyman whose sense of entitlement
and superiority is unshakeable - and wholly unmerited.

He will never admit that his command of even basic arithmetic is as
non-existent as Nugent's skills in Latin.

You are the one who does/did not know what the words "inter" and "alia"
mean.

Which, presumably, is why I have used the expression eighty-one times on
Usenet, not counting the times I was using graphical news clients and
didn't archive my posts ..

[~] john@server% (103) grep "inter alia" Documents/Usenet/My_Posts | wc -l
81

For example, on Monday 17 August 2015 in the UPM thread ' Unemployed
will have to attend boot camps'. Or in the thread, ' The EU in 12
lessons: Lesson Nine'. That was on Sunday 19 July 2015. Lots more where
that came from. How about Friday 19 September 2014 in the thread, ' The
referendum'? I can go further back, if you'd like. The first time I have
a record of having used it was on Tuesday 16 June 2009 in a thread on
alt.activism.death-penalty (crossposted to talk.politics.misc and
misc.legal) entitled ' Several States Abandon Death Penalty Because Of
Cost'.

--
john smith
'_The Guardian_. Wrong about everything. All the time'
(Anon)

On 25/11/2015 17:03, John Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 25/11/2015 11:58, John Smith wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:14:26 AM UTC, David Lang wrote:

And that figure comes from a Government report which give a 95%
chance of road traffic injuries being between 680 and 920 thousand.

Which is clearly bollox. One RTC every 3.7 miles? Have some sense,
halfwit.

No you plankwit. Do the maths correctly. Up to 3.7 casualties per mile
of road, NOT up to 1 casualty every 3.7 miles. The carnage on our roads
could be over 10 time worse than your flawed maths suggest.

You're dealing with an unemployed handyman whose sense of entitlement
and superiority is unshakeable - and wholly unmerited.

He will never admit that his command of even basic arithmetic is as
non-existent as Nugent's skills in Latin.

You are the one who does/did not know what the words "inter" and "alia"
mean.

Which, presumably, is why I have used the expression eighty-one times on
Usenet, not counting the times I was using graphical news clients and
didn't archive my posts ..

It doesn't matter that you didn't archive your posts. It wouldn't help
if you had.

Using common Latin phrases as terms of art does not show that one is
skilled in the language or that one has ever studied it. Or, indeed,
that one understands the Latin legal phrases other than as "titles" for
various propositions.

In case you didn't know (and given your reaction on this topic, it seems
highly likely that you didn't), whilst most British lawyers are familiar
with a range of legal concepts identified by handy Latin phrases, most
of them (nowadays) have never studied Latin. It is no longer the
commonly-encountered school subject it once was.

It's all Anthony Crosland's fault, of course.