No,no, no Roger!!!

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

Quoted message said:

Roger Geffen did a great job on BBC1 News against the RAC and interviewers
on cycling "lycra louts" this morning but then the danger question came
up and Roger's reply was "Yes, cycling is dangerous..." and then went on
to talk about training. What an absolutely dumb end to an otherwise
excellent performance.

Roger is a nice bloke as far as I can tell, but he needs some *media*
training...

Cheers, helen s

In article <[email hidden]>

Tony Raven said:

Roger Geffen did a great job on BBC1 News against the RAC and
interviewers on cycling "lycra louts" this morning but then the danger
question came up and Roger's reply was "Yes, cycling is dangerous..."
and then went on to talk about training. What an absolutely dumb end to
an otherwise excellent performance.

Crossing the road is dangerous, that's why they train kids to "stop,
look, listen" or whatever the current version is - why is cycling any
different?

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>

Tony Raven said:

Roger Geffen did a great job on BBC1 News against the RAC and
interviewers on cycling "lycra louts" this morning but then the danger
question came up and Roger's reply was "Yes, cycling is dangerous..."
and then went on to talk about training. What an absolutely dumb end to
an otherwise excellent performance.

Crossing the road is dangerous, that's why they train kids to "stop,
look, listen" or whatever the current version is - why is cycling any
different?

Yes but Roger compared cycling with rock climbing. The correct answer
was "No, cycling is actually very safe and you can make it even safer...."

--
Tony

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

In article <[email hidden]>

Tony Raven said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>

Tony Raven said:

Roger Geffen did a great job on BBC1 News against the RAC and
interviewers on cycling "lycra louts" this morning but then the danger
question came up and Roger's reply was "Yes, cycling is dangerous..."
and then went on to talk about training. What an absolutely dumb end to
an otherwise excellent performance.

Crossing the road is dangerous, that's why they train kids to "stop,
look, listen" or whatever the current version is - why is cycling any
different?

Yes but Roger compared cycling with rock climbing.

It's not the climbing that's dangerous, it's the falling. OK, it's not
the falling that's dangerous, it's the sudden stop at the bottom.
:-)
I can understand the comparison of cycling with climbing, but it
probably wasn't the best choice for making his case :-\

Quoted message said:

In fact bolted 'sport' climbing is probably
one of the safest sports around.

Not as safe as cycling indoors on a stationary bike but there again we
are talking of cycling in general and rock climbing in general.

--
Tony

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

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

In fact bolted 'sport' climbing is probably
one of the safest sports around.

Not as safe as cycling indoors on a stationary bike but there again we
are talking of cycling in general and rock climbing in general.

--
Tony

Even trad rock climbing is safe if you know what you are doing, but
potentially dangerous if you don't, just like cycling! True, pushing
things out on some poorly protected route is risky, but so is down hill
mountain bike racing!

Quoted message said:

. However, with the right training even rock
climbing can be very safe.

OK, you're wearing a martlehat to protect you from falling debris.
And if it's a climb you're not confident on, you've got a rope.

Now, how do you protect yourself from the scorpion in the next
handhold? Leather gloves? No thanks! Some high-tech bug detector
that can tell you what's dangerous?

Or when you say rock climbing, do you perhaps mean the kind of
dreary[1], sanitised things we have in the UK (like for instance
stanage edge or arthurs seat), where you have to look quite hard
to find a little bit of cliff that isn't a walk?

[1] Actually some nice spots, but _climbing_ any of them seems
particularly pointless. It's not even practice for real climbing,
given that the real world challenges like loose, crumbling surfaces
and wet, highly slippery vegetation are so heavily sanitised out!

--
not me guv

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

In fact bolted 'sport' climbing is probably
one of the safest sports around.

Not as safe as cycling indoors on a stationary bike but there again we
are talking of cycling in general and rock climbing in general.

--
Tony

Even trad rock climbing is safe if you know what you are doing, but
potentially dangerous if you don't, just like cycling! True, pushing
things out on some poorly protected route is risky, but so is down hill
mountain bike racing!

Perhaps he should have turned the question by saying that cycling is
very safe, especially for other road users, but that motoring, on the
other hand, is very dangerous, for cyclists, pedestrians, and, indeed,
for motorists?

I think that needs working on a bit, but I am off to the fete. No my
love, I won't buy many, indeed any, books. Honest.

Squashme said:

Perhaps he should have turned the question by saying that cycling is
very safe, especially for other road users, but that motoring, on the
other hand, is very dangerous, for cyclists, pedestrians, and, indeed,
for motorists?

I also rather like the argument that there are a similar number of
bicycles bought every year compared to cars, but cars inflict 1000
(insert correct number here, but its going to be big) times the number
of deaths per unit sold. Now tell me which is dangerous. Then follow up
with your argument.

Quoted message said:

I think that needs working on a bit

I think it's already very good as it stands.

--

JimP

On a mission to discover the source of denial.

Jim Price said:

I also rather like the argument that there are a similar number of
bicycles bought every year compared to cars, but cars inflict 1000
(insert correct number here, but its going to be big) times the number
of deaths per unit sold. Now tell me which is dangerous. Then follow up
with your argument.

Irellevent, deaths per passanger mile are a much more useful metric.
The average bike sold is used for maybe 200 miles a year, the average
car for 10,000+

And indeed, in 2001, 11 times more cyclists were killed (33 per billion
passanger-km) than car passangers (3 per billion passanger-km),
although safer than pedestrians (48) and motocyclists (112)

Air is by far the safest.

Road Casualties Great Britain 2002: DfT (2003).
http://www.pacts.org.uk/policy/briefings/statistics_uk.htm

Quoted message said:

but I am off to the fete. No my
love, I won't buy many, indeed any, books. Honest.

I found it helps to consider the public library as an extension to my own
bookshelves. Saves on space, as they store all your books in a dedicated
off-site building with full time staff to catalogue and organise them for
you, but still hits you in the pocket with their fees.

On 17 Jun 2006 05:10:23 -0700 someone who may be "Paul Weaver"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I also rather like the argument that there are a similar number of
bicycles bought every year compared to cars, but cars inflict 1000
(insert correct number here, but its going to be big) times the number
of deaths per unit sold. Now tell me which is dangerous. Then follow up
with your argument.

Irellevent, deaths per passanger mile are a much more useful metric.

It is but one way of looking at the figures, but there are others.
Each of these ways may tell a different story. Which forms of
statistics are chosen to be trumpeted (and which are ignored) by
official bodies tells us something about those bodies.

For example from the viewpoint of a pedestrian, the number of km
travelled by the one causing injury is largely irrelevant. What
matters is the danger they cause to the pedestrian.

What is the safest form of road transport? A lorry, people in the
lorry often survive because of the heavy construction. What is the
most dangerous form of road transport? A lorry, their heavy
construction often causes the death of people outside the lorry. It
is all a matter of whether one looks at safety from the point of
view of those doing the travelling, or those affected by it.

Quoted message said:

Air is by far the safest.

Measured in certain ways, see my first paragraph.

The official figures are also comparing apples with oranges. Nobody
pops out to the corner shop to buy a newspaper by aeroplane.

--
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

Paul Weaver said:

Jim Price said:

I also rather like the argument that there are a similar number of
bicycles bought every year compared to cars, but cars inflict 1000
(insert correct number here, but its going to be big) times the number
of deaths per unit sold. Now tell me which is dangerous. Then follow up
with your argument.

Irellevent, deaths per passanger mile are a much more useful metric.
The average bike sold is used for maybe 200 miles a year, the average
car for 10,000+

I agree, your argument is irrelevant to my argument. It is a different
argument, pointing out that the availability of cars and bikes is
similar, but that the effects are different in terms of danger given the
typical usage patterns for two different things.

Quoted message said:

And indeed, in 2001, 11 times more cyclists were killed (33 per billion
passanger-km) than car passangers (3 per billion passanger-km),
although safer than pedestrians (48) and motocyclists (112)

Again, my argument is different to yours as I am addressing who is
causing these deaths, not the minutiae of what type of unfortunate
person is on the receiving end. I believe it is better to address the
causes rather than the effects. Similarly, I would not consider
legislation for safety WRT guns purely for being dangerous because of
the number of people killed divide by some metric of their use, but of
their availability versus the number of deaths by gunshot.

--

JimP

" " - John Cage

Paul Weaver said:

Jim Price said:

I also rather like the argument that there are a similar number of
bicycles bought every year compared to cars, but cars inflict 1000
(insert correct number here, but its going to be big) times the number
of deaths per unit sold. Now tell me which is dangerous. Then follow up
with your argument.

Irellevent, deaths per passanger mile are a much more useful metric.
The average bike sold is used for maybe 200 miles a year, the average
car for 10,000+

And indeed, in 2001, 11 times more cyclists were killed (33 per billion
passanger-km) than car passangers (3 per billion passanger-km),
although safer than pedestrians (48) and motocyclists (112)

If they could work on ways of making things a lot less safe for car
passengers, perhaps the statistics would improve for the rest of us
soft-skinned items. I know, never happen!

Quoted message said:

Air is by far the safest.

Yes, but when things do get nasty, I can always try to head my bike for
the pavement and a soft landing.

David Hansen said:

The official figures are also comparing apples with oranges. Nobody
pops out to the corner shop to buy a newspaper by aeroplane.

If they did, they wouldn't want to leave it outside the shop. They'd
want to leave it by the soft drinks cabinet, out of people's way.

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

but I am off to the fete. No my
love, I won't buy many, indeed any, books. Honest.

I found it helps to consider the public library as an extension to my own
bookshelves. Saves on space, as they store all your books in a dedicated
off-site building with full time staff to catalogue and organise them for
you, but still hits you in the pocket with their fees.

I did buy a few as it turned out. Oh dear.

Agree about libraries. To me they still seem a quite revolutionary
idea, and I keep expecting Blair to destroy them. Still they don't like
you writing in their copies or using cheese sandwiches as bookmarks,
for some reason.

Jim Price said:

Squashme said:

Perhaps he should have turned the question by saying that cycling is
very safe, especially for other road users, but that motoring, on the
other hand, is very dangerous, for cyclists, pedestrians, and, indeed,
for motorists?

I also rather like the argument that there are a similar number of
bicycles bought every year compared to cars, but cars inflict 1000
(insert correct number here, but its going to be big) times the number
of deaths per unit sold. Now tell me which is dangerous. Then follow up
with your argument.

Quoted message said:

I think that needs working on a bit

I think it's already very good as it stands.

Gosh thanks, I think that this may be the first time anybody has said
something like that to me in any thread. Better sign off, going all
weepy.

Squashme said:

Agree about libraries. To me they still seem a quite revolutionary
idea, and I keep expecting Blair to destroy them. Still they don't like
you writing in their copies or using cheese sandwiches as bookmarks,
for some reason.

When I worked in libraries decades ago I once found a book amongst the
returns with a whole fried egg in it. I wish I had found the culprit,
if only to hear the story of how his breakfast ended up in Chapter three.

--
Brian G

Squashme said:

David Hansen said:

The official figures are also comparing apples with oranges. Nobody
pops out to the corner shop to buy a newspaper by aeroplane.

If they did, they wouldn't want to leave it outside the shop. They'd
want to leave it by the soft drinks cabinet, out of people's way.

And if anyone just pops down the Hudson river to see some investment bankers
in one, people get all uppity and start declaring war on everyone.

IGMVeryTastelessC

A