16 per cent of London cyclists admit to hitting a pedestrian

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:02:10 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wnn48xf3ytk5n5@i7-940...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:39:03 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

I wonder what the real proportion is?

Psycholists always say that it almost never, ever happens, this survey
shows
it does with amazing frequency.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...y-8305950.html

And how many of those 16% actually caused anything more than a cut or
bruise or and angry woman flinging her handbag about?

How much damage do you think I'd cause a pedestrian if I did the same with
my car?

Do you often drive around on the pavement

Used to every morning (well two wheels anyway)- good way to get past a 30 minute queue at the 2 year roadworks for building a bridge.

and/or in pedestrian precincts

Sometimes, if I need to park next to a shop on one.

or jump red lights at pedestrian crossings?

If nobody is crossing, of course.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Mother: "Why are you home from school so early?"
Son: "I was the only one who could answer my maths teacher's question."
Mother: "Oh, really? What was her question?
Son: "Who threw the paper aeroplane at me?"

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:06:14 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wnn441wkytk5n5@i7-940...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:03:10 -0000, Mrcheerful
wrote:

Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:22:50 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:39:03 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:




Oh dear, oh dear:

Its survey also revealed that 13 per cent of cyclists have
accidentally damaged a vehicle while out riding, and 16 per cent
confessing to hitting a pedestrian with their bike.

I wonder what percent of motorists have accidentally damaged a vehicle
while out driving.

My wife has managed this three times in the last 16 months alone.

relevance to cycling: nil

He is showing cycling is safer than driving you ****ing numpty.

And how's he doing that? By the scientifically-approved method of comparing
a self-serving cycling poll, against his wife's driving?

All he's shown is that 100% of his wives shouldn't be driving and that only
13-16% of cyclists tell the truth.

He said "I wonder what percent of motorists have accidentally damaged a vehicle while out driving." He was inviting someone else to produce the figures.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

"Sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome, and natural things that money can buy." -- Steve Martin

On 12/11/2012 16:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:

I wonder what the real proportion is?
Psycholists always say that it almost never, ever happens, this survey shows
it does with amazing frequency.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...y-8305950.html

And how many of those 16% actually caused anything more than a cut or bruise
or and angry woman flinging her handbag about?

Oh, that's alright then, eh?

How much damage do you think I'd cause a pedestrian if I did the same with my
car?

Nothing remotely near 16^% of drivers ever have hit or ever will hit a
pedestrian with their vehicle.

On 12/11/2012 15:18, PhilO wrote:

Judith wrote:

Its survey also revealed that 13 per cent of cyclists have accidentally damaged a vehicle while out riding

Given that almost half of the cyclists have been knocked off by a vehicle, only 13% damaging vehicles seems surprisingly low.
Don't you think?

Do you?

Have a think about that one, for a start.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:31:18 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 12/11/2012 16:25, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:

I wonder what the real proportion is?
Psycholists always say that it almost never, ever happens, this survey shows
it does with amazing frequency.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...y-8305950.html

And how many of those 16% actually caused anything more than a cut or bruise
or and angry woman flinging her handbag about?

Oh, that's alright then, eh?

Of course it is. I wouldn't care if I got a little bruise. Stop being such a nancy boy.

How much damage do you think I'd cause a pedestrian if I did the same with my
car?

Nothing remotely near 16^% of drivers ever have hit or ever will hit a
pedestrian with their vehicle.

But multiply it by the damage caused to the pedestrian.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Seven dwarfs sat in the tub, feeling Happy.
Then Happy got out, so they all felt Grumpy.

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wnn72ukbytk5n5@i7-940...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:06:14 -0000, Mentalguy2k8
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wnn441wkytk5n5@i7-940...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:03:10 -0000, Mrcheerful

wrote:

Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 09:22:50 +0000, Judith
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:39:03 -0000, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:




Oh dear, oh dear:

Its survey also revealed that 13 per cent of cyclists have
accidentally damaged a vehicle while out riding, and 16 per cent
confessing to hitting a pedestrian with their bike.

I wonder what percent of motorists have accidentally damaged a vehicle
while out driving.

My wife has managed this three times in the last 16 months alone.

relevance to cycling: nil

He is showing cycling is safer than driving you ****ing numpty.

And how's he doing that? By the scientifically-approved method of
comparing
a self-serving cycling poll, against his wife's driving?

All he's shown is that 100% of his wives shouldn't be driving and that
only
13-16% of cyclists tell the truth.

He said "I wonder what percent of motorists have accidentally damaged a
vehicle while out driving." He was inviting someone else to produce the
figures.

Make your mind up, just now he was "showing cycling is safer than driving
you ****ing numpty"

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wnn8e91mytk5n5@i7-940...
And how many of those 16% actually caused anything more than a cut or
bruise
or and angry woman flinging her handbag about?

Oh, that's alright then, eh?

Of course it is. I wouldn't care if I got a little bruise. Stop being
such a nancy boy.

How much damage do you think I'd cause a pedestrian if I did the same
with my
car?

Nothing remotely near 16^% of drivers ever have hit or ever will hit a
pedestrian with their vehicle.

But multiply it by the damage caused to the pedestrian.

Irrelevant, goalposts moved again.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:43:44 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wnn8e91mytk5n5@i7-940...
And how many of those 16% actually caused anything more than a cut or
bruise
or and angry woman flinging her handbag about?

Oh, that's alright then, eh?

Of course it is. I wouldn't care if I got a little bruise. Stop being
such a nancy boy.

How much damage do you think I'd cause a pedestrian if I did the same
with my
car?

Nothing remotely near 16^% of drivers ever have hit or ever will hit a
pedestrian with their vehicle.

But multiply it by the damage caused to the pedestrian.

Irrelevant, goalposts moved again.

No they're not. The only thing that matters is the total injury caused to pedestrians.

Unless you're saying that two people with a cut on their arm is worse than 1 person dead?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A weekend wasted is not a wasted weekend.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:42:18 -0000, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wnn72ukbytk5n5@i7-940...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:06:14 -0000, Mentalguy2k8
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wnn441wkytk5n5@i7-940...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:03:10 -0000, Mrcheerful

wrote:

Bertie Wooster wrote:




relevance to cycling: nil

He is showing cycling is safer than driving you ****ing numpty.

And how's he doing that? By the scientifically-approved method of
comparing
a self-serving cycling poll, against his wife's driving?

All he's shown is that 100% of his wives shouldn't be driving and that
only
13-16% of cyclists tell the truth.

He said "I wonder what percent of motorists have accidentally damaged a
vehicle while out driving." He was inviting someone else to produce the
figures.

Make your mind up, just now he was "showing cycling is safer than driving
you ****ing numpty"

And he is. He is assuming what the driving stats will show. He just didn't bother fetching them for you.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The best parliament is a well-hung one?

"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wnn85bkhytk5n5@i7-940...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:42:18 -0000, Mentalguy2k8
wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wnn72ukbytk5n5@i7-940...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:06:14 -0000, Mentalguy2k8

wrote:


"Lieutenant Scott" wrote in message
newsp.wnn441wkytk5n5@i7-940...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:03:10 -0000, Mrcheerful

wrote:

Bertie Wooster wrote:




relevance to cycling: nil

He is showing cycling is safer than driving you ****ing numpty.

And how's he doing that? By the scientifically-approved method of
comparing
a self-serving cycling poll, against his wife's driving?

All he's shown is that 100% of his wives shouldn't be driving and that
only
13-16% of cyclists tell the truth.

He said "I wonder what percent of motorists have accidentally damaged a
vehicle while out driving." He was inviting someone else to produce the
figures.

Make your mind up, just now he was "showing cycling is safer than driving
you ****ing numpty"

And he is. He is assuming what the driving stats will show. He just
didn't bother fetching them for you.

No matter, you can fetch them instead.