D
D
David Hansen
Guest
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:29:02 +0100 someone who may be "Dave"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-
>This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
GMTV was mentioned on GMTV this morning? Fascinating.
Hint - it is always useful to concoct a few words which describe
what the link leads to, so people may decide whether they wish to
follow it or not.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
<[email protected]> wrote this:-
>This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
GMTV was mentioned on GMTV this morning? Fascinating.
Hint - it is always useful to concoct a few words which describe
what the link leads to, so people may decide whether they wish to
follow it or not.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
D
Dave
Guest
"David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:29:02 +0100 someone who may be "Dave"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
>
> GMTV was mentioned on GMTV this morning? Fascinating.
>
> Hint - it is always useful to concoct a few words which describe
> what the link leads to, so people may decide whether they wish to
> follow it or not.
>
It may be. But I guessed, wrongly, that this being uk.rec.cycling that it
would have had something to do with cycling in the UK or at least in this
case someone's view as to why people don't do it.
Dave
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:29:02 +0100 someone who may be "Dave"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
>
> GMTV was mentioned on GMTV this morning? Fascinating.
>
> Hint - it is always useful to concoct a few words which describe
> what the link leads to, so people may decide whether they wish to
> follow it or not.
>
It may be. But I guessed, wrongly, that this being uk.rec.cycling that it
would have had something to do with cycling in the UK or at least in this
case someone's view as to why people don't do it.
Dave
R
Rob Morley
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, David Hansen
[email protected] says...
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:29:02 +0100 someone who may be "Dave"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
>
> GMTV was mentioned on GMTV this morning? Fascinating.
>
> Hint - it is always useful to concoct a few words which describe
> what the link leads to, so people may decide whether they wish to
> follow it or not.
>
Like "Find out why some people are being put off riding a bike on the
road", perhaps?
[email protected] says...
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:29:02 +0100 someone who may be "Dave"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
>
> GMTV was mentioned on GMTV this morning? Fascinating.
>
> Hint - it is always useful to concoct a few words which describe
> what the link leads to, so people may decide whether they wish to
> follow it or not.
>
Like "Find out why some people are being put off riding a bike on the
road", perhaps?
R
Rob Morley
Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Dave
[email protected] says...
>
> "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:29:02 +0100 someone who may be "Dave"
> > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
> >
> >>This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
> >
> > GMTV was mentioned on GMTV this morning? Fascinating.
> >
> > Hint - it is always useful to concoct a few words which describe
> > what the link leads to, so people may decide whether they wish to
> > follow it or not.
> >
>
> It may be. But I guessed, wrongly, that this being uk.rec.cycling that it
> would have had something to do with cycling in the UK or at least in this
> case someone's view as to why people don't do it.
>
Surprisingly not everyone who reads the group is interested in
everything related to cycling in the UK.
[email protected] says...
>
> "David Hansen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:29:02 +0100 someone who may be "Dave"
> > <[email protected]> wrote this:-
> >
> >>This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
> >
> > GMTV was mentioned on GMTV this morning? Fascinating.
> >
> > Hint - it is always useful to concoct a few words which describe
> > what the link leads to, so people may decide whether they wish to
> > follow it or not.
> >
>
> It may be. But I guessed, wrongly, that this being uk.rec.cycling that it
> would have had something to do with cycling in the UK or at least in this
> case someone's view as to why people don't do it.
>
Surprisingly not everyone who reads the group is interested in
everything related to cycling in the UK.
N
Nick Austin
Guest
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:29:02 +0100, "Dave"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
>
>http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=26043
Here's the article...
No cycling
It was revealed today that some people are being put off from taking
to the roads on a bike through fear of traffic.
As many as 47% of people never cycle and a further 17% only use
cycle paths and trails away from roads, a survey by road safety
charity Brake and breakdown service Green Flag found.
Of those not taking to the roads...
* 17% said they shunned roads mainly because they were dangerous.
* 19% included danger as one of the reasons for not cycling on
roads.
* 35% of all those surveyed said they would choose to ride a bike
on cycle paths and trails if those routes connected their home
to local amenities.
The survey follows recent Government figures showing that 2,420
cyclists were killed or seriously injured on British roads in 2006.
Bicycle use is decreasing, with the average number of cycle trips
made per person per year falling from an average of 18 from 1995
- 1997 to just 14 in 2005.
Every year, statistics show that more and more young people, to
the detriment of their health and well-being, are being driven
to school.
Jools Townsend, head of education at Brake, said: "It's terrible
that so many people are afraid to get on a bicycle because of fear
of traffic, and worse their fears are justified.
"Too many people try to cocoon themselves and their families in
cars, leading to more vehicles on our roads and an even greater
threat to pedestrians and cyclists.
"Choosing cycling and walking over the car is good for your health
and the environment, so we should be encouraging it.
"But people won't be persuaded to get on their bikes - quite rightly
- unless they can do so without putting their lives in danger.
"It's time the Government put some serious investment into the
national cycle network and other measures to enable people to walk
and cycle safely."
<[email protected]> wrote:
>This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
>
>http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=26043
Here's the article...
No cycling
It was revealed today that some people are being put off from taking
to the roads on a bike through fear of traffic.
As many as 47% of people never cycle and a further 17% only use
cycle paths and trails away from roads, a survey by road safety
charity Brake and breakdown service Green Flag found.
Of those not taking to the roads...
* 17% said they shunned roads mainly because they were dangerous.
* 19% included danger as one of the reasons for not cycling on
roads.
* 35% of all those surveyed said they would choose to ride a bike
on cycle paths and trails if those routes connected their home
to local amenities.
The survey follows recent Government figures showing that 2,420
cyclists were killed or seriously injured on British roads in 2006.
Bicycle use is decreasing, with the average number of cycle trips
made per person per year falling from an average of 18 from 1995
- 1997 to just 14 in 2005.
Every year, statistics show that more and more young people, to
the detriment of their health and well-being, are being driven
to school.
Jools Townsend, head of education at Brake, said: "It's terrible
that so many people are afraid to get on a bicycle because of fear
of traffic, and worse their fears are justified.
"Too many people try to cocoon themselves and their families in
cars, leading to more vehicles on our roads and an even greater
threat to pedestrians and cyclists.
"Choosing cycling and walking over the car is good for your health
and the environment, so we should be encouraging it.
"But people won't be persuaded to get on their bikes - quite rightly
- unless they can do so without putting their lives in danger.
"It's time the Government put some serious investment into the
national cycle network and other measures to enable people to walk
and cycle safely."
P
Peter Amey
Guest
Nick Austin wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:29:02 +0100, "Dave"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
>>
>>http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=26043
>
>
> Here's the article...
>
>
> No cycling
>
> It was revealed today that some people are being put off from taking
> to the roads on a bike through fear of traffic.
>
> [snip]
>
Why are these people so confused and so anxious to confuse their
viewers? They, along with most of the trendy metropolitan media, spend
half their time telling people that cycling is suicidally dangerous
unless you where a h*****t. Then they act all surprised that people are
scared. Then they play the easy cop out "proper cycling infrastructure"
card and hop in their posh cars to drive home from the studio!
I fear that GMTV viewers may lack the necessary attention span but how
about going out with an experienced rider who can show them how easy and
safe it all is? How about telling viewers about training? And how
about getting basic facts right: cycling is /not/ in decline AFAIK.
Peter
--
www.amey.org.uk
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:29:02 +0100, "Dave"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
>>
>>http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=26043
>
>
> Here's the article...
>
>
> No cycling
>
> It was revealed today that some people are being put off from taking
> to the roads on a bike through fear of traffic.
>
> [snip]
>
Why are these people so confused and so anxious to confuse their
viewers? They, along with most of the trendy metropolitan media, spend
half their time telling people that cycling is suicidally dangerous
unless you where a h*****t. Then they act all surprised that people are
scared. Then they play the easy cop out "proper cycling infrastructure"
card and hop in their posh cars to drive home from the studio!
I fear that GMTV viewers may lack the necessary attention span but how
about going out with an experienced rider who can show them how easy and
safe it all is? How about telling viewers about training? And how
about getting basic facts right: cycling is /not/ in decline AFAIK.
Peter
--
www.amey.org.uk
M
Martin Dann
Guest
Dave wrote:
> This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
>
> http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=26043
>
An average of 14 trips per person per year for the average person.
In 70 years that is approx. 1000. I have made well over this amount of
cycles trips in my life, does this mean I have to give up cycling.
Martin.
> This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
>
> http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=26043
>
An average of 14 trips per person per year for the average person.
In 70 years that is approx. 1000. I have made well over this amount of
cycles trips in my life, does this mean I have to give up cycling.
Martin.
N
Niall Wallace
Guest
"Peter Amey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nick Austin wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:29:02 +0100, "Dave"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
>>>
>>>http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=26043
>>
>>
>> Here's the article...
>>
>>
>> No cycling It was revealed today that some people are being put off from
>> taking
>> to the roads on a bike through fear of traffic.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>
> Why are these people so confused and so anxious to confuse their viewers?
> They, along with most of the trendy metropolitan media, spend half their
> time telling people that cycling is suicidally dangerous unless you where
> a h*****t. Then they act all surprised that people are scared. Then they
> play the easy cop out "proper cycling infrastructure" card and hop in
> their posh cars to drive home from the studio!
>
> I fear that GMTV viewers may lack the necessary attention span but how
> about going out with an experienced rider who can show them how easy and
> safe it all is? How about telling viewers about training? And how about
> getting basic facts right: cycling is /not/ in decline AFAIK.
I lack the attention span to watch GMTV, within 5 seconds of someone opening
their mouth on GMTV i have changed channel.
Niall
news:[email protected]...
> Nick Austin wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:29:02 +0100, "Dave"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
>>>
>>>http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=26043
>>
>>
>> Here's the article...
>>
>>
>> No cycling It was revealed today that some people are being put off from
>> taking
>> to the roads on a bike through fear of traffic.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>
> Why are these people so confused and so anxious to confuse their viewers?
> They, along with most of the trendy metropolitan media, spend half their
> time telling people that cycling is suicidally dangerous unless you where
> a h*****t. Then they act all surprised that people are scared. Then they
> play the easy cop out "proper cycling infrastructure" card and hop in
> their posh cars to drive home from the studio!
>
> I fear that GMTV viewers may lack the necessary attention span but how
> about going out with an experienced rider who can show them how easy and
> safe it all is? How about telling viewers about training? And how about
> getting basic facts right: cycling is /not/ in decline AFAIK.
I lack the attention span to watch GMTV, within 5 seconds of someone opening
their mouth on GMTV i have changed channel.
Niall
N
naked_draughtsman
Guest
"Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:O9%[email protected]...
> Dave wrote:
>> This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
>>
>> http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=26043
>>
>
> An average of 14 trips per person per year for the average person.
> In 70 years that is approx. 1000. I have made well over this amount of
> cycles trips in my life, does this mean I have to give up cycling.
That highlights just how little cycling a lot of people do. Riding to work
and back every day is nearly 700 trips a year! (taking out some holiday
time)
If all these non cycling people are getting some exercise in other ways
though then it's not all as bad as it sounds.
--
peter
Cheap train tickets database
http://www.petereverett.co.uk/tickets/
Email sent to this address is generally deleted upon arrival
Visit website if you want to contact me
news:O9%[email protected]...
> Dave wrote:
>> This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
>>
>> http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=26043
>>
>
> An average of 14 trips per person per year for the average person.
> In 70 years that is approx. 1000. I have made well over this amount of
> cycles trips in my life, does this mean I have to give up cycling.
That highlights just how little cycling a lot of people do. Riding to work
and back every day is nearly 700 trips a year! (taking out some holiday
time)
If all these non cycling people are getting some exercise in other ways
though then it's not all as bad as it sounds.
--
peter
Cheap train tickets database
http://www.petereverett.co.uk/tickets/
Email sent to this address is generally deleted upon arrival
Visit website if you want to contact me
M
On Jun 7, 10:55 pm, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> > This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
>
> >http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=26043
>
> An average of 14 trips per person per year for the average person.
> In 70 years that is approx. 1000. I have made well over this amount of
> cycles trips in my life, does this mean I have to give up cycling.
Nope, you just have to find a non-cyclist and buy some cycling credits
from him or her to offset your extra trips
best wishes
james
> Dave wrote:
> > This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
>
> >http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=26043
>
> An average of 14 trips per person per year for the average person.
> In 70 years that is approx. 1000. I have made well over this amount of
> cycles trips in my life, does this mean I have to give up cycling.
Nope, you just have to find a non-cyclist and buy some cycling credits
from him or her to offset your extra trips
best wishes
james
M
MJ Ray
Guest
http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=26043 says:
> As many as 47% of people never cycle and a further 17% only use
> cycle paths and trails away from roads, a survey by road safety
> charity Brake and breakdown service Green Flag found.
Same story with comments possible with login at:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1008/1008546_traffic_fears_killing_cycling.html
New Zealand reports are going the other way:
Cycling Far Safer than Reported
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU0706/S00076.htm
Not on the Green Flag web site, the Brake Press release at
http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=461
is a sodding Word file, and stripping it still doesn't reveal who
they surveyed. So I called Brake and was told the data is from the
January 2006 (no news like old news!) report 'Risky Business' from
http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=935
which says volunteers surveyed 'drivers and riders' in 2005. The
report doesn't include any greater detail of method, so I assume it
could well be a fixed-point survey - see past comments here and in
cam.transport about observations, speeds, bias and so on.
At best, that's 47% of drivers and riders, not 47% of people.
It's an incredible press release and amazingly lazy reporting.
While I was there, I looked at Brake's road 'safety' advice for cyclists:
= More cycle *paths*
- contrary to research which shows lanes and even roads and tracks safer
- contrary to most provision policies (which are hard enough to promote)
- only supported by their attitude survey?
= Wear a helmet
- as I understand it, whether this is good advice depends on the sort
of collision you're most at risk from, at best.
= Always wear a high visibility vest
? I've no idea whether this helps or not, outside of the gloom times.
Are Brake trying to get cyclists killed for Bike Week or what?
Irritated,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
> As many as 47% of people never cycle and a further 17% only use
> cycle paths and trails away from roads, a survey by road safety
> charity Brake and breakdown service Green Flag found.
Same story with comments possible with login at:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1008/1008546_traffic_fears_killing_cycling.html
New Zealand reports are going the other way:
Cycling Far Safer than Reported
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU0706/S00076.htm
Not on the Green Flag web site, the Brake Press release at
http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=461
is a sodding Word file, and stripping it still doesn't reveal who
they surveyed. So I called Brake and was told the data is from the
January 2006 (no news like old news!) report 'Risky Business' from
http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=935
which says volunteers surveyed 'drivers and riders' in 2005. The
report doesn't include any greater detail of method, so I assume it
could well be a fixed-point survey - see past comments here and in
cam.transport about observations, speeds, bias and so on.
At best, that's 47% of drivers and riders, not 47% of people.
It's an incredible press release and amazingly lazy reporting.
While I was there, I looked at Brake's road 'safety' advice for cyclists:
= More cycle *paths*
- contrary to research which shows lanes and even roads and tracks safer
- contrary to most provision policies (which are hard enough to promote)
- only supported by their attitude survey?
= Wear a helmet
- as I understand it, whether this is good advice depends on the sort
of collision you're most at risk from, at best.
= Always wear a high visibility vest
? I've no idea whether this helps or not, outside of the gloom times.
Are Brake trying to get cyclists killed for Bike Week or what?
Irritated,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
A
Ambrose Nankivell
Guest
On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 09:00 +0100, naked_draughtsman wrote:
> "Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:O9%[email protected]...
> > Dave wrote:
> >> This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
> >>
> >> http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=26043
> >>
> >
> > An average of 14 trips per person per year for the average person.
> > In 70 years that is approx. 1000. I have made well over this amount of
> > cycles trips in my life, does this mean I have to give up cycling.
>
> That highlights just how little cycling a lot of people do. Riding to work
> and back every day is nearly 700 trips a year! (taking out some holiday
> time)
But not weekends.
Or even the statutory minimum level of days off.
--
A
> "Martin Dann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:O9%[email protected]...
> > Dave wrote:
> >> This was mentioned on GMTV this morning.
> >>
> >> http://www.gm.tv/index.cfm?articleid=26043
> >>
> >
> > An average of 14 trips per person per year for the average person.
> > In 70 years that is approx. 1000. I have made well over this amount of
> > cycles trips in my life, does this mean I have to give up cycling.
>
> That highlights just how little cycling a lot of people do. Riding to work
> and back every day is nearly 700 trips a year! (taking out some holiday
> time)
But not weekends.
Or even the statutory minimum level of days off.
--
A
N
naked_draughtsman
Guest
"Ambrose Nankivell" <firstname+'n'@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181331485.6342.0.camel@cromwell...
> But not weekends.
>
> Or even the statutory minimum level of days off.
aargh thought it sounded a bit good. I took it as 340 days which included
25 days holiday.
Excluding weekends it's nearly 500 trips a year (52 weeks x 5 days = 260
minus 25 days = 235 x 2 trips = 470)
Still a lot compared to the average.
--
peter
Cheap train tickets database
http://www.petereverett.co.uk/tickets/
Email sent to this address is generally deleted upon arrival
Visit website if you want to contact me
news:1181331485.6342.0.camel@cromwell...
> But not weekends.
>
> Or even the statutory minimum level of days off.
aargh thought it sounded a bit good. I took it as 340 days which included
25 days holiday.
Excluding weekends it's nearly 500 trips a year (52 weeks x 5 days = 260
minus 25 days = 235 x 2 trips = 470)
Still a lot compared to the average.
--
peter
Cheap train tickets database
http://www.petereverett.co.uk/tickets/
Email sent to this address is generally deleted upon arrival
Visit website if you want to contact me