16 per cent of London cyclists admit to hitting a pedestrian

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:27:31 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 12/11/2012 19:46, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:04:42 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 12/11/2012 18:57, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:47:17 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 12/11/2012 18:38, Lieutenant Scott wrote:














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

Pedestrians ought to get out of the way instead of expecting the faster
moving object to move.

"Pedestrians [should not expect] the faster moving object to move"?

I now know that you have difficulties with English, but that was a corker, as
some used to say.

For what purpose did you compress my sentence removing some of the information?

It's what we call (in English) "paraphrasing".

It is a perfectly valid compositional technique, used in order to highlight
the more important parts of a passage of text and draw out their meaning,
whilst downplaying or eliding parts of the text which either do not
contribute or do not add to that meaning.

There'll probably be an equivalent technique in your native language.

You quite obviously changed the wording to suggest that my wording was wrong and yours was right. You simply removed some of the meaning.

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

I had some words with my wife, and she had some paragraphs with me.

On 12/11/2012 21:41, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:

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

Pedestrians ought to get out of the way instead of expecting the faster
moving object to move.

"Pedestrians [should not expect] the faster moving object to move"?

I now know that you have difficulties with English, but that was a
corker, as some used to say.

For what purpose did you compress my sentence removing some of the
information?

It's what we call (in English) "paraphrasing".

It is a perfectly valid compositional technique, used in order to highlight
the more important parts of a passage of text and draw out their meaning,
whilst downplaying or eliding parts of the text which either do not
contribute or do not add to that meaning.

There'll probably be an equivalent technique in your native language.

You quite obviously changed the wording to suggest that my wording was wrong
and yours was right. You simply removed some of the meaning.

When you are more familiar with our language (and with the construction of
argument), you'll realise that you are wrong on that.


PS: The original "Pedestrians ought to get out of the way instead of
expecting the faster moving object to move" does not have a contextually
different meaning from "Pedestrians should not expect the faster moving
object to move".

I put the inserted text into square brackets in order to show that it was a
paraphrase - that's the convention, you see.

But don't worry about it too much. You'll learn all this in time.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:54:43 -0000, JNugent wrote:

On 12/11/2012 21:41, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:
JNugent wrote:
"Pedestrians [should not expect] the faster moving object to move"?

I now know that you have difficulties with English, but that was a
corker, as some used to say.

For what purpose did you compress my sentence removing some of the
information?

It's what we call (in English) "paraphrasing".

It is a perfectly valid compositional technique, used in order to highlight
the more important parts of a passage of text and draw out their meaning,
whilst downplaying or eliding parts of the text which either do not
contribute or do not add to that meaning.

There'll probably be an equivalent technique in your native language.

You quite obviously changed the wording to suggest that my wording was wrong
and yours was right. You simply removed some of the meaning.

When you are more familiar with our language (and with the construction of
argument), you'll realise that you are wrong on that.

Why not write to be understood rather than in riddles?

PS: The original "Pedestrians ought to get out of the way instead of
expecting the faster moving object to move" does not have a contextually
different meaning from "Pedestrians should not expect the faster moving
object to move".

Mine had a stronger emphasis on the pedestrians being a nuisance. But that's too subtle for your poor comprehension skills.

I put the inserted text into square brackets in order to show that it was a
paraphrase - that's the convention, you see.

And your point of paraphrasing was?

But don't worry about it too much. You'll learn all this in time.

I don't wish to. I converse perfectly normally with normal people. I can also be understood easily.

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

Although I can accept talking scarecrows, lions and great wizards of emerald cities, I find it hard to believe there is no paperwork involved when your house lands on a witch.
-- Dave James

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:06:21 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

idiot boy.


Insecure people will often insult or bully others to feel better about
themselves. They will also lie about their alleged “success� to impress
people. Basically, insecure people hide their real self to avoid being
rejected or despised, when most of their perceptions are false.


--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:24:00 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 12/11/2012 20:51, Bertie Wooster wrote:
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

According to Plankwit, 2% of the population are cyclists: about 1.2m.

If 16% have hit a pedestrian that's 192,000 pedestrians hit.

Now divide that by 80 (80 years being an approximate lifespan for a
cyclist) to get an approximate figure per year. 2,400.

The 2005-2009 average for road traffic accidents was 246,050 per
annum.

So, while cyclists make up 2% of road traffic, them account for just
1% of road traffic accidents between cyclist and pedestrian.

You are making the mistake of assuming that "I have hit a pedestrian" means
"I have hit one and only one pedestrian".

You are also under-estimating the proportion of cyclists responsible for such
collisions by failing to compensate for the - to some extent, understandable
- dishonesty of such people.

So I suppose you'd call me a liar if I told you that I have never hit
a pedestrian while cycling?

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:51:47 +0000, Bertie Wooster
wrote:

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

Oh dear: Crispin at his best.

There is a survey about London - Crispin immediately thinks it extrapolates to
the UK as a whole

Also - anyone who hits a pedestrian must be a poor cyclist - therefore they are
more than likely to have hit more than one pedestrian in their cycling life.

It is a good job that logic and stats are not to be taught in infant schools.

--

Bertie Wooster's real name is Tom Crispin.
He uses the name Bertie Wooster so that people involved with
Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists and John Ball primary school
can't see what a tosser he is.

On 12/11/2012 22:25, Bertie Wooster wrote:

JNugent wrote:
Bertie Wooster 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

According to Plankwit, 2% of the population are cyclists: about 1.2m.
If 16% have hit a pedestrian that's 192,000 pedestrians hit.
Now divide that by 80 (80 years being an approximate lifespan for a
cyclist) to get an approximate figure per year. 2,400.
The 2005-2009 average for road traffic accidents was 246,050 per
annum.
So, while cyclists make up 2% of road traffic, them account for just
1% of road traffic accidents between cyclist and pedestrian.

You are making the mistake of assuming that "I have hit a pedestrian" means
"I have hit one and only one pedestrian".

You are also under-estimating the proportion of cyclists responsible for such
collisions by failing to compensate for the - to some extent, understandable
- dishonesty of such people.

So I suppose you'd call me a liar if I told you that I have never hit
a pedestrian while cycling?

Why would I do that?

You would simply be one of the something-less-than-83% who has never hit a
pedestrian whilst cycling.

I don't say that the correct figure is 0%.

I would only call anyone a liar (whether giving the lie direct or stating it
in fair terms) if there was (a) evidence to undermine what they said and also
to indicate dishonesty as distinct from error, or (b) what they said was so
self-contradictory or so inherently improbable that (given their capacity for
knowing that for themselves) they must be trying to deceive.

francis wrote:

On Nov 12, 9:22 am, Judith wrote:
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...ts-knocked-off...

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.

And that pedestrian is getting really ****ed off.

Ooh good find!

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

JNugent 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...s-knocked-off-
bikes-by-vehicles-in-london-says-survey-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.

I was less than pleased to have a guy ride into my leg last year in
Richmond Park on a clear open road...

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.

quite while in terms of damage he came of worse in that his bike stopped
at my leg flipped and he landed on his back/rolled fairly beaten up,
cracked his front wheel chipped the frame of his bike etc.

I was a good 3 stone heavier plus not on a bike, mind you did give me a
fair limp and some impressive bruising, not surprising since he was
going some, so 25mph maybe more.

This said Pedestrians do in some parts of london have a alarming
tendancy to just step out in front of bikes.

snips



Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:38:13 -0000, Roger Merriman wrote:

JNugent 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...s-knocked-off-
bikes-by-vehicles-in-london-says-survey-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.

I was less than pleased to have a guy ride into my leg last year in
Richmond Park on a clear open road...

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.

quite while in terms of damage he came of worse in that his bike stopped
at my leg flipped and he landed on his back/rolled fairly beaten up,
cracked his front wheel chipped the frame of his bike etc.

I was a good 3 stone heavier plus not on a bike, mind you did give me a
fair limp and some impressive bruising, not surprising since he was
going some, so 25mph maybe more.

Indeed. The cyclist usually comes off worse. He has momentum to loose, and is up in the air balanced on two wheels.

This said Pedestrians do in some parts of london have a alarming
tendancy to just step out in front of bikes.

You can't hear them coming. I look forward to these cretins being mown down by electric cars.

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

Confucius say: "Man who sit on tack get point!"