Metro today

In news:[email hidden],
burt <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

Sit down and take a deep breath before you read this.

(Sits down. Takes deep breath. Explodes)

No more than one would expect from that loathesome rag, thobut.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Stop press! Pope still dead...

burt said the following on 15/11/2006 13:28:

(quoting)

Quoted message said:

"Cycling kills more than terrorists

"Old age kills more than terrorists."
"Driving kills more than terrorists."

Quoted message said:

I urge Britons to cycle and drive carefully and more slowly. And I

also ask

Quoted message said:

them to support politicians who would spend public money to make

cycling in

Quoted message said:

Britain safer, create new cycling lanes and educate drivers.

Have we got any of those politicians? If so, can we shoot them now
before they create new cycle lanes?

At least she didn't call us "Brits" :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

burt said:

Sit down and take a deep breath before you read this.

OK, calm and relaxed?

"Cycling kills more than terrorists

No biggy (as buffy would have it).

Terrorism (surprisingly) isn't that
big a risk, statistically speaking.

BugBear

bugbear said the following on 15/11/2006 14:38:

Quoted message said:

Terrorism (surprisingly) isn't that
big a risk, statistically speaking.

It isn't, as you say. Isn't there a nominal value put on a human life
when it comes to investment in safety or infrastructure? Something like
if it costs more than x amount to save a life, it isn't economical?

If that is the case, I wonder how much this so-called "war against
terror" is costing per statistically potential life saved.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"burt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sit down and take a deep breath before you read this.

OK, calm and relaxed?

"Cycling kills more than terrorists

Last month, Transport for London realeased figures revealing a sharp rise
in the number of cycling fatalities last year. There were 21 deaths in
2005, up from eight in 2004. One of the victims was my 29-year-old

brother

Quoted message said:

Matt, who, on November 15 2005, was killed by cycling to work.

So if TFL say this are they speaking for the whole country of just for
London and are TFL saying it so that more people will start using their
Public vehicles again rather than cycling. How can TFL speak for the whole
country and what is it to do with them, I'm sure there are other better
organisations who can give a much better figure.

Quoted message said:

Ironically, after the July 7 attacks, when concerned family in Canada rang
Matt to make sure he was OK, he emailed back: "You'll be pleased to hear
that I cycle to work, and I'm rarely on public transport these days." We
were pleased to know that he was safe.

Yet a Briton is far more likely to die from a cycling accident than from a
terrorist act. Every year in Britain, more than 2,500 cyclists are killed
or seriously injured.

Why is there an insistance to link death and injury. What is a serious
injury anyway. What ever it is it isn't dead - there is a big difference to
my mind.

If someone wants to convince people either way they need to be more accurate
and specific with the figures.

Quoted message said:

I urge Britons to cycle and drive carefully and more slowly. And I also

ask

Quoted message said:

them to support politicians who would spend public money to make cycling

in

Quoted message said:

Britain safer, create new cycling lanes and educate drivers.

By all means create new cycle lane but don't make it compulsory to use them,
by all means educate and prosecute drivers who break the law. "Cycle more
slowly" surely she is having a laugh - if you cycle as fast as you can you
can't reach and maintain speeds that cars do in 20mph zones let alone
faster.

Dave

burt said:

Sit down and take a deep breath before you read this.

OK, calm and relaxed?

"Cycling kills more than terrorists"

No cycling doesn't kill, it's the bad motor-vehicle drivers who usually
kill.

Quoted message said:

Last month, Transport for London realeased figures revealing a sharp rise
in the number of cycling fatalities last year. There were 21 deaths in
2005, up from eight in 2004. One of the victims was my 29-year-old brother
Matt, who, on November 15 2005, was killed by cycling to work.

I am sorry to hear about your brother. And obviously it being the
anniversary, your emotions are running high.

The number actually increased from 13 to 21, not from 8.

Quoted message said:

Ironically, after the July 7 attacks, when concerned family in Canada rang
Matt to make sure he was OK, he emailed back: "You'll be pleased to hear
that I cycle to work, and I'm rarely on public transport these days." We
were pleased to know that he was safe.

After 7 July, the number of cyclists went up enormously. Thus there
were more cyclists on the roads, many of them obviously inexperienced.
Cyclists don't require lessons in the UK. Perhaps it would be good for
some optional courses in road safety.

Quoted message said:

Yet a Briton is far more likely to die from a cycling accident than from a
terrorist act. Every year in Britain, more than 2,500 cyclists are killed
or seriously injured.

I recall the figure is nowhere near as high as that.

Quoted message said:

I urge Britons to cycle and drive carefully and more slowly. And I also ask
them to support politicians who would spend public money to make cycling in
Britain safer, create new cycling lanes and educate drivers.

See the other topic on this newsgroup about cycling lanes. We would
welcome them if done properly but usually they are not.

Quoted message said:

Amanda Crocker, Toronto, Canada"

but your e-mail address is a blueyonder.co.uk one

Dave said the following on 15/11/2006 14:54:

Quoted message said:

How can TFL speak for the whole
country and what is it to do with them,

Same as other London-based organisations seem to think that London
reflects the whole country. The BBC comes to mind, as does the government.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

In news:[email hidden],
Earl Purple <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

burt wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Amanda Crocker, Toronto, Canada"

but your e-mail address is a blueyonder.co.uk one

And his name is burt, not Amanda. The clue is in the subject...

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
The thing about Tony Parsons, though, the defining aspect of his
personality, is that he is a complete [censored].

burt said:

killed by cycling to work.

He died while cycling to work, but was he realled "killed by" cycling?

If he was shot by a terrorist while cycling then was he killed by
cycling or the terrorist?
If he was hit by a motor vehicle was he killed by cycling or the
motorist?
If he had a heart attack was he killed by cycling or by a dodgy heart?

Paul Boyd said:

Dave said the following on 15/11/2006 14:54:

Quoted message said:

How can TFL speak for the whole
country and what is it to do with them,

Same as other London-based organisations seem to think that London
reflects the whole country. The BBC comes to mind, as does the
government.

and as far as Ken is concerned London is Zone 1!

pk

burt wrote on 15/11/2006 13:28 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Sit down and take a deep breath before you read this.

OK, calm and relaxed?

"Cycling kills more than terrorists

Last month, Transport for London realeased figures revealing a sharp rise
in the number of cycling fatalities last year. There were 21 deaths in
2005, up from eight in 2004. One of the victims was my 29-year-old brother
Matt, who, on November 15 2005, was killed by cycling to work.

Ironically, after the July 7 attacks, when concerned family in Canada rang
Matt to make sure he was OK, he emailed back: "You'll be pleased to hear
that I cycle to work, and I'm rarely on public transport these days." We
were pleased to know that he was safe.

Yet a Briton is far more likely to die from a cycling accident than from a
terrorist act. Every year in Britain, more than 2,500 cyclists are killed
or seriously injured.

I urge Britons to cycle and drive carefully and more slowly. And I also ask
them to support politicians who would spend public money to make cycling in
Britain safer, create new cycling lanes and educate drivers.

Amanda Crocker, Toronto, Canada"

JHC!!!!

Apart from her numbers being completely wrong. 52 people died in July
7 while 21 died in cycling accidents in London. When I last studied
maths, 21 was less than 52.

If you want to write the address is [email hidden]

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Dave Larrington said:

In news:[email hidden],
Earl Purple <[email hidden]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

Quoted message said:

burt wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Amanda Crocker, Toronto, Canada"

but your e-mail address is a blueyonder.co.uk one

And his name is burt, not Amanda. The clue is in the subject...

Name could be anything and they might read metro online because it
wasn't in my copy.

Paul Boyd usenet.dont.work@plusnet said:

bugbear said the following on 15/11/2006 14:38:

Quoted message said:

Terrorism (surprisingly) isn't that
big a risk, statistically speaking.

It isn't, as you say. Isn't there a nominal value put on a human
life when it comes to investment in safety or infrastructure?
Something like if it costs more than x amount to save a life, it
isn't economical?

If that is the case, I wonder how much this so-called "war against
terror" is costing per statistically potential life saved.

Didn't GW ask for $78B for his war? How many were killed in WTC?
5000? Hmmm. Assuming there actually is some connection between the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and those behind the WTC attack.

I seem to remember from the Ford Explorer fiasco that a life was worth
$250K on the road. Somewhere around there anyway.

Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck

"Earl Purple" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

burt said:

Sit down and take a deep breath before you read this.

OK, calm and relaxed?

"Cycling kills more than terrorists"

Quoted message said:

Amanda Crocker, Toronto, Canada"

but your e-mail address is a blueyonder.co.uk one

Dear Mr Purple,

you're the only one on this thread who think that I wrote the letter, what
does that say about you?

Quoted message said:

POHB said:

burt said:

killed by cycling to work.

He died while cycling to work, but was he realled "killed by" cycling?

If he was shot by a terrorist while cycling then was he killed by
cycling or the terrorist?
If he was hit by a motor vehicle was he killed by cycling or the
motorist?
If he had a heart attack was he killed by cycling or by a dodgy heart?

If a cyclist is killed by a heart attack, he is killed by God taking
the [censored]. To my mind, anyway.

In article <[email hidden]>,

bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim (bugbear) said:

Terrorism (surprisingly) isn't that
big a risk, statistically speaking.

Not only statistically, and much like reds under the bed.

burt said:

Dear Mr Purple,

you're the only one on this thread who think that I wrote the letter, what
does that say about you?

ok, I see you were quoting a letter

Still the points in my first post were answering the content, not the
author. My points still hold as a response to Amanda (not to you).

"burt" <[email hidden]> forwarded:

Quoted message said:

Last month, Transport for London realeased figures revealing a sharp rise
in the number of cycling fatalities last year. There were 21 deaths in
2005, up from eight in 2004. One of the victims was my 29-year-old brother
Matt, who, on November 15 2005, was killed by cycling to work.

[...]

Quoted message said:

I urge Britons to cycle and drive carefully and more slowly. And I also ask
them to support politicians who would spend public money to make cycling in
Britain safer, create new cycling lanes and educate drivers.

FWIW, I saw this in the Bristol Metro, so I sent a reply highlighting
that extremely selective use of TFL's statistics and arguing that simply
adding cycle lanes to the crowded London road network may make cycling
less safe: most London cycling injuries happen near junctions (according
to TFL) and adding cycle lanes can add or complicate junctions. Instead,
we need to spend more wisely and make junctions safer in general, by
design and education.

I totally ignored the terrorism comparison IIRC, as it's too silly to debate.

I'm not travelling anywhere that has Metro today. Did the letter get in?
I expect not.
--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

In article said:

burt wrote on 15/11/2006 13:28 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Last month, Transport for London realeased figures revealing a sharp rise
in the number of cycling fatalities last year. There were 21 deaths in
2005, up from eight in 2004. One of the victims was my 29-year-old brother
Matt, who, on November 15 2005, was killed by cycling to work.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yet a Briton is far more likely to die from a cycling accident than from a
terrorist act. Every year in Britain, more than 2,500 cyclists are killed
or seriously injured.

Apart from her numbers being completely wrong. 52 people died in July
7 while 21 died in cycling accidents in London. When I last studied
maths, 21 was less than 52.

But her claim is that Britons are more likely to die cycling than as
a result of terrorist activity, not that Londoners are. The 21 in London
is incidental to that.