16 per cent of London cyclists admit to hitting a pedestrian

On 12/11/2012 17:34, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
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.

Then divide by 33,000,000.

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

On 12/11/2012 17:49, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
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?

Anyone seen a set of goalposts?

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."

On 12/11/2012 18:18, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 12/11/2012 17:34, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
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.

Then divide by 33,000,000.

Then by twice the number you first thought of.

[You might as well, as "multiply it by the damage caused to the pedestrian".]

On 12/11/2012 18:14, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
JNugent wrote:
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.

And you're not only the only one who matters, but injuries to others are
completely acceptable to you in the course of your anti-social behaviour.

Anyone who uses the term "anti-social behaviour" is a pussy.

Anyone who says "Anyone who uses the term "anti-social behaviour" is a pussy"
is anti-social. Probably needs a shower - most of the time - into the bargain.

Stop being such a nancy boy.

Tell that to the next person you injure.
Especially if he's about 6'4" and built like a brick outhouse.

In which case he wouldn't have been bothered by the bruise in the first place.

Really?

You would have been surprised had you run your bike into my dad.

And why did a big bloke come to mind? Do you like big blokes? Eh?

I see where you are coming from. It's easier than trying to think up
"justification" for your appalling (but sadly, all too cyclist-typical)
attitude to other people, isn't it?

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.

Why?

Because a death is a bit worse than a scratch.

But what's the connection between cyclists cycling along the footway and
frequently hitting and injuring pedestrians (the true figure, of course, will
be well above the 16% of cyclists who are honest enough to admit their
knavery) and... death?

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:28:03 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 12/11/2012 18:18, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 12/11/2012 17:34, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:31:18 -0000, JNugent
wrote:

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

Mrcheerful wrote:





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.

Then divide by 33,000,000.

Then by twice the number you first thought of.

And subtract the number of seagulls on the pitch.

[You might as well, as "multiply it by the damage caused to the pedestrian".]

I will ask again. Why do you think a bruise is as important as a death?

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

Times are tough.
Just the other day, I saw a beggar who was so broke that he was standing on the corner shouting at the cars that went by.
He was shouting, "WILL WORK FOR CARDBOARD AND A MAGIC MARKER!"

On 12/11/2012 18:34, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:28:03 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 12/11/2012 18:18, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 12/11/2012 17:34, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:31:18 -0000, JNugent
wrote:

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

Mrcheerful wrote:





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.

Then divide by 33,000,000.

Then by twice the number you first thought of.

And subtract the number of seagulls on the pitch.

[You might as well, as "multiply it by the damage caused to the pedestrian".]

I will ask again. Why do you think a bruise is as important as a death?

I will ask again (but in a slightly different format, since you didn't
understand the previous version):

What's the connection between them?

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:35:56 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 12/11/2012 18:34, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:28:03 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 12/11/2012 18:18, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 12/11/2012 17:34, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:31:18 -0000, JNugent
wrote:







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



But multiply it by the damage caused to the pedestrian.

Then divide by 33,000,000.

Then by twice the number you first thought of.

And subtract the number of seagulls on the pitch.

[You might as well, as "multiply it by the damage caused to the pedestrian".]

I will ask again. Why do you think a bruise is as important as a death?

I will ask again (but in a slightly different format, since you didn't
understand the previous version):

What's the connection between them?

For the dopey among us, a more detailed explanation:
A random group of 1000 cyclists causes a bruise on 30 pedestrians (arbitrary figures).
A random group of 1000 drivers causes 3 pedestrians to die.
According to you, the cyclists are more dangerous, because 30 is more than 3.
According to the relatives of the 3 dead people, you are a ****ing ****.

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

Create instant designer stubble by sucking a magnet and dipping your chin in a bowl of iron fillings.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:34:16 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 12/11/2012 18:14, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Oh, that's alright then, eh?

Of course it is. I wouldn't care if I got a little bruise.

And you're not only the only one who matters, but injuries to others are
completely acceptable to you in the course of your anti-social behaviour.

Anyone who uses the term "anti-social behaviour" is a pussy.

Anyone who says "Anyone who uses the term "anti-social behaviour" is a pussy"
is anti-social. Probably needs a shower - most of the time - into the bargain.

I bet you'd report your neighbour if he called you a ******. Or go tell your mummy anyway.

Stop being such a nancy boy.

Tell that to the next person you injure.
Especially if he's about 6'4" and built like a brick outhouse.

In which case he wouldn't have been bothered by the bruise in the first place.

Really?

You would have been surprised had you run your bike into my dad.

So he's one of those unwashed knuckleheads you described above then?

And why did a big bloke come to mind? Do you like big blokes? Eh?

I see where you are coming from. It's easier than trying to think up
"justification" for your appalling (but sadly, all too cyclist-typical)
attitude to other people, isn't it?

I've done nothing but provide reasoned arguments, you're just showing your prejudices over and over again.

Question, why are you in a cycling group if you do not like cycling?

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.

Why?

Because a death is a bit worse than a scratch.

But what's the connection between cyclists cycling along the footway and
frequently hitting and injuring pedestrians (the true figure, of course, will
be well above the 16% of cyclists who are honest enough to admit their
knavery) and... death?

Because drivers cause death, cyclists do not.

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

I thought the wife would be the ideal candidate for a new TV show.
Turns out I got it all wrong and the program's called Fact Hunt.

On 12/11/2012 18:38, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:35:56 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 12/11/2012 18:34, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:28:03 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 12/11/2012 18:18, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
On 12/11/2012 17:34, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:31:18 -0000, JNugent
wrote:







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



But multiply it by the damage caused to the pedestrian.

Then divide by 33,000,000.

Then by twice the number you first thought of.

And subtract the number of seagulls on the pitch.

[You might as well, as "multiply it by the damage caused to the
pedestrian".]

I will ask again. Why do you think a bruise is as important as a death?

I will ask again (but in a slightly different format, since you didn't
understand the previous version):

What's the connection between them?

For the dopey among us, a more detailed explanation:
A random group of 1000 cyclists causes a bruise on 30 pedestrians (arbitrary
figures).
A random group of 1000 drivers causes 3 pedestrians to die.
According to you, the cyclists are more dangerous, because 30 is more than 3.
According to the relatives of the 3 dead people, you are a ****ing ****.

Why are you trying to make any connection, of any sort, between:

(a) a comparatively large number of personal injuries to pedestrians, caused
by a significant proportion of cyclists deliberately and selfishly breaking
the law and behaving abominably, and

(b) a relatively small number of fatal accidents caused by mistake and
misjudgement?

On 12/11/2012 18:41, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:34:16 -0000, JNugent wrote:
On 12/11/2012 18:14, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Oh, that's alright then, eh?

Of course it is. I wouldn't care if I got a little bruise.

And you're not only the only one who matters, but injuries to others are
completely acceptable to you in the course of your anti-social behaviour.

Anyone who uses the term "anti-social behaviour" is a pussy.

Anyone who says "Anyone who uses the term "anti-social behaviour" is a pussy"
is anti-social. Probably needs a shower - most of the time - into the bargain.

I bet you'd report your neighbour if he called you a ******. Or go tell your
mummy anyway.

???

Stop being such a nancy boy.

Tell that to the next person you injure.
Especially if he's about 6'4" and built like a brick outhouse.

In which case he wouldn't have been bothered by the bruise in the first
place.

Really?
You would have been surprised had you run your bike into my dad.

So he's one of those unwashed knuckleheads you described above then?

Unfortunately, he is no longer with us.

But there are still plenty like him out there.

Be careful when cycling along the pavement. You never know who you will bump
into.

And why did a big bloke come to mind? Do you like big blokes? Eh?

I see where you are coming from. It's easier than trying to think up
"justification" for your appalling (but sadly, all too cyclist-typical)
attitude to other people, isn't it?

I've done nothing but provide reasoned arguments, you're just showing your
prejudices over and over again.

"Reasoned arguments" being, as far as you are concerned, pathetic attempts at
at justifying your own disgraceful and deliberate behaviour and trivialising
the effects on others, whilst magnifying the mistakes of others.

Don't worry; you're transparent.

Question, why are you in a cycling group if you do not like cycling?

Who says I don't like cycling?

It is true that there are a large number of cyclists whom I dislike, if
that's what you mean.

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.

Why?

Because a death is a bit worse than a scratch.

But what's the connection between cyclists cycling along the footway and
frequently hitting and injuring pedestrians (the true figure, of course, will
be well above the 16% of cyclists who are honest enough to admit their
knavery) and... death?

Because drivers cause death, cyclists do not.

"What's the connection...?"

"Because...".

I see.

English isn't your first language and you have difficulty with it.

You should have said so earlier.