Jeremy Vine stopped from cycling

Matt B wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:24:45 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Another case of a regulation which does little to improve anyone's
safety against those who are the real danger, but which
inconveniences, burdens and removes innocent and harmless pleasures
from the majority of "normal", safe, conscientious and generally
law-abiding citizens.

Motoring cannot be considered a 'safe' activity. Not only to
motorists kill themselves be the score every year, but they also kill
dozens of pedestrians and cyclists.

Motoring /is/ inherently safe. The problems of safety is a result of
the way in which it has been regulated and the "facilities" provided
to make it "safer".

This is self evident because in places where the rules and regulations
have effectively been removed or suspended, serious accidents have
stopped happening.

Which places would they be?

I seem to recall that motoring is the biggest single cause of
unnatural death in the UK.

I think it is second to "home" accidents, but don't you think it is
about time that we asked ourselves why we put up which such a
dangerous provision and start looking at the systemic causes rather
than blaming the operators?

What systemic causes have you in mind?

In message
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

On Sep 2, 8:53*am, Tom Crispin
wrote:

I seem to recall that motoring is the biggest single cause of
unnatural death in the UK.

It's the biggest single cause of accidental death in children, and
consistently has the highest severity ratio of any cause of accidental
death, but the major causes of death and life-years lost are still
diseases, congenital and otherwise. Of course if drivers cycled all
journeys under two miles we would expect to see those causes of
mortality reducing as well...

Mortality is 100%, what should matter is age at mortality. Another
issue is quality of life before mortality. Since you're going to die
eventually the stark choice is essentially between disease whether
infectious or degenerative, or trauma (accident, homicide etc). Removing
one cause of death will shift the percentage contributions of the
alternative causes.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
" || _`\,_ |__\ \ | caving, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:24:45 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Another case of a regulation which does little to improve anyone's
safety against those who are the real danger, but which inconveniences,
burdens and removes innocent and harmless pleasures from the majority of
"normal", safe, conscientious and generally law-abiding citizens.

Motoring cannot be considered a 'safe' activity. Not only to
motorists kill themselves be the score every year, but they also kill
dozens of pedestrians and cyclists.

I seem to recall that motoring is the biggest single cause of
unnatural death in the UK.

OTOH without the motorcar we'd probably live in a far poorer society, with a
resultant reduction in life expectancy.

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009, Matt B wrote:

This is self evident because in places where the rules and
regulations have effectively been removed or suspended, serious
accidents have stopped happening.


Yeah. There are NO SPEED CAMERAS on the moon, and also, there are no
pedestrian fatalities. That proves it. Stands to reason.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Doki wrote:

"Tom Crispin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:24:45 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Another case of a regulation which does little to improve anyone's
safety against those who are the real danger, but which inconveniences,
burdens and removes innocent and harmless pleasures from the majority of
"normal", safe, conscientious and generally law-abiding citizens.

Motoring cannot be considered a 'safe' activity. Not only to
motorists kill themselves be the score every year, but they also kill
dozens of pedestrians and cyclists.

I seem to recall that motoring is the biggest single cause of
unnatural death in the UK.

OTOH without the motorcar we'd probably live in a far poorer society,
with a resultant reduction in life expectancy.

You are assuming much too precise a relationship between GDP and life
expectancy and between car use and GDP.

--
CTC Right to Ride Rep. for Richmond upon Thames

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:24:45 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Another case of a regulation which does little to improve anyone's
safety against those who are the real danger, but which inconveniences,
burdens and removes innocent and harmless pleasures from the majority of
"normal", safe, conscientious and generally law-abiding citizens.

Motoring cannot be considered a 'safe' activity. Not only to
motorists kill themselves be the score every year, but they also kill
dozens of pedestrians and cyclists.

I seem to recall that motoring is the biggest single cause of
unnatural death in the UK.

Ah... so TC is a sock puppet of Doug...

It starts to make sense...

Matt B wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009, Matt B wrote:
This is self evident because in places where the rules and
regulations have effectively been removed or suspended, serious
accidents have stopped happening.


Yeah. There are NO SPEED CAMERAS on the moon, and also, there are no
pedestrian fatalities. That proves it. Stands to reason.

You'll need to do better than that.

Well... yes... but there was someone posting bhere just last week along the
lines: "You can't prove that x is not the case, therefore x must be the case".

Ian Smith's claim is a model of caution compared to that.

JNugent wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:24:45 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Another case of a regulation which does little to improve anyone's
safety against those who are the real danger, but which
inconveniences, burdens and removes innocent and harmless pleasures
from the majority of "normal", safe, conscientious and generally
law-abiding citizens.

Motoring cannot be considered a 'safe' activity. Not only to
motorists kill themselves be the score every year, but they also kill
dozens of pedestrians and cyclists.

I seem to recall that motoring is the biggest single cause of
unnatural death in the UK.

Ah... so TC is a sock puppet of Doug...

It starts to make sense...
If I call you a ****wit, would that make me a sock of the judith?

Marc wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:24:45 +0100, Matt B
wrote:

Another case of a regulation which does little to improve anyone's
safety against those who are the real danger, but which
inconveniences, burdens and removes innocent and harmless pleasures
from the majority of "normal", safe, conscientious and generally
law-abiding citizens.

Motoring cannot be considered a 'safe' activity. Not only to
motorists kill themselves be the score every year, but they also kill
dozens of pedestrians and cyclists.

I seem to recall that motoring is the biggest single cause of
unnatural death in the UK.

Ah... so TC is a sock puppet of Doug...
It starts to make sense...

If I call you a ****wit, would that make me a sock of the judith?

No.

She has never been rude to me as far as I can recall. Neither do we post the
same things or even, nevcessarily, on the same topics or sub-issues. And
neither does she post the same views that you do.

But the line: "Motoring cannot be considered a 'safe' activity" is a
hobby-horse of Doug's. It is surprising to see it parroted so closely.

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 18:22:45 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

But the line: "Motoring cannot be considered a 'safe' activity" is a
hobby-horse of Doug's. It is surprising to see it parroted so closely.

Not if it is true.

Even passive smoking doesn't kill as many third parties as motoring,
yet smoking in enclosed public spaces is entirely prohibited.

I am not saying that motoring should be entirely prohibited, but I do
think that motoring should be severely curtailed. Cutting out the
school run for anyone whose phisically able child lives within a mile
of their school would be a good first step. Cutting out a workplace
commute for any physically able person with a suitable public
transport alternative would be a good second step.