[OT] Stranded Woman Saved By GPS



* The air of uk.rec.walking was filled with the delicate perfume
* of violets, as theo <[email protected]> descended on a shaft
* of golden sunlight, and announced:

> If two walkers collide at normal walking speed there's not much damage. If
> two cars collide at normal driving speed there's more damage. If a car
> collides with a walker the walker is more damaged then the car.

Unless it's a French car! ;^}

Jim Ford
 
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:07:11 -0000, Fran <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] said...
>> If two walkers collide at normal walking speed there's not much damage. If
>> two cars collide at normal driving speed there's more damage. If a car
>> collides with a walker the walker is more damaged then the car.
>>
>OTOH for many walkers had it not been for their own cars they
>wouldn't have got to where they were walking when they met the
>original car that collided with them. I like having a car; I
>would be lost without a car (as indeed I am at the moment); I
>do not have the required public transport to get to where I
>want to get to and even where it exists it does so at
>prohibitive prices. HOORAY FOR THE CAR, say I. And if I
>collide with one whilst walking chances are it will have been
>my own stupid fault for not looking where I was going or for
>otherwise not paying attention.
>
>This started out with a lighthearted post about an only
>vaguely walking related piece of kit. I doubt I'll bother in
>future.


You keep it up! My heart is still light, and my head is beginning to
get that way too! Spring has sprung here so I have to take advantage
of it and drink in the garden!

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:00:29 -0000, Fran <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] said...
>> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:22:49 +0000, Gordon Harris
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Rooney <[email protected]> writes
>> >
>> >>No - they induce a calm sense of superiority.
>> >>And I've just been looking down at a woman in an Espace in the Asda
>> >>car park. I'm sure she thought I was trying to look down her cleavage.
>> >>
>> >OMG! You shop at ASDA?
>>
>> Asda rules! You should see some of their wine bargains. Otoh, Tesco's
>> cream cakes are much nicer.
>>
>>
>And Sainsbury's have better stuff all round. Woe is me for I
>have not a Sainsbury's sufficiently local for it to be a
>regular haunt.

Same here. I hardly ever venture into one.

> OTOH it's also more expensive, so the woe
>shall henceforth be reduced. Wo is me for... etc.



--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
"Jim Ford" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
>* The air of uk.rec.walking was filled with the delicate perfume
> * of violets, as theo <[email protected]> descended on a shaft
> * of golden sunlight, and announced:
>
>> If two walkers collide at normal walking speed there's not much damage.
>> If
>> two cars collide at normal driving speed there's more damage. If a car
>> collides with a walker the walker is more damaged then the car.
>
> Unless it's a French car! ;^}

My car is French ! Does that make me *walker-friendly* ? :-O

--
Theo
www.theosphotos.fotopic.net
 
Fran <[email protected]> writes
>
>And Sainsbury's have better stuff all round. Woe is me for I
>have not a Sainsbury's sufficiently local for it to be a
>regular haunt. OTOH it's also more expensive, so the woe
>shall henceforth be reduced. Wo is me for... etc.

My local Sainsburys is 1.5 miles away. The new Morrisons is about
2.2 miles away, and means negotiating a busy crossroad, but it is well
worth it for the superior choice, quality and atmosphere.

The Sainsburys is dismal, like shopping in a morgue, and, unlike
Morrisons, the shelves are half empty or lacking the stuff I buy. :-(

Some discreet pleasant piped music would make it a more cheerful
experience to shop there.....
--
Gordon Harris
 
In article <[email protected]>, Gordon Harris
<[email protected]> writes
>The new Morrisons is about 2.2 miles away, and means negotiating a busy
>crossroad, but it is well worth it for the superior choice, quality and
>atmosphere.

Where's the trip report? I didn't even know it was open yet - and I'm
the other side of the busy crossroad :)

--

Dominic Sexton
 
Dominic Sexton <{d-sep03}@dscs.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <[email protected]>, Gordon Harris
><[email protected]> writes
>>The new Morrisons is about 2.2 miles away, and means negotiating a
>>busy crossroad, but it is well worth it for the superior choice,
>>quality and atmosphere.
>
>Where's the trip report? I didn't even know it was open yet - and I'm
>the other side of the busy crossroad :)
>
LOL!
Actually, on foot, I could avoid the busy crossroad, and would choose my
canvas boots (LIDL - £4.99) to tackle the West face.

Didn't know it was open? Where have you been?
It saves me going as far as Hyde, and unlike the Hyde store, there is
plenty of parking area, but Hyde will be closer for you, I suppose.

I bet nobody spotted the great PC offer at ALDI this week, 3,2 Ghz, and
a huge 320Gb HD and 1 Gb memory for £750.

TFT 17" monitor for £150, so I should have waited a few months, but I'm
happy with the previous offer for the same total price.
--
Gordon Harris
 
Following up to Rooney

>>But the averages aren't comparable, because they are taken over a
>>different mix of road conditions. For example, the car average
>>probably includes some motorway miles, which are particularly safe per
>>mile.
>
>I see what you mean: one of the reasons why driving is so very much
>safer is that some of it is done on safer roads. Fair point.

but I think the point made earlier about the protective
environment of a car is the main one. But don't forget a fair %
of cyclists are either untrained irresponsible young boys and/or
ignore all traffic regulations like having red lights and jumping
red lights. Motorcycles are also intrinsically more dangerous
than cars but the bad stats are partly down to the riders, who
are often, young, wild, inexperienced and overtake through crazy
spaces between cars that only require a slight movement od one
car to be an accident.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
Following up to Rooney

>>OMG! You shop at ASDA?
>
>Asda rules! You should see some of their wine bargains. Otoh, Tesco's
>cream cakes are much nicer.

Were getting this profile building up, 4x4 driving, woman ogling
drunken cream cake eater who shops at Asda.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-Photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
 
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:16:21 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Following up to Rooney
>
>>>OMG! You shop at ASDA?
>>
>>Asda rules! You should see some of their wine bargains. Otoh, Tesco's
>>cream cakes are much nicer.
>
>Were getting this profile building up, 4x4 driving, woman ogling
>drunken cream cake eater who shops at Asda.

Fairly accurate.
Incidentally, I'm a product of the same system that produced Tesco's
boss - he was at school with me. Somewhere, buried in the loft
probably, I have my first swimming certificate (for a breadth)
inscribed 'Terence Leahy', after the teacher got us mixed up. (He's
now Sir Terence). I wonder what he drives now.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Rooney wrote:

> The miles will be the same ones whatever form of transport I use, and
> so will the driver/rider.
> Or do you mean the miles that the stats are based on? And if so,
> what's the basis for saying you can't use these stats to make valid
> comparisons?

I've just driven up from Yorkshire, a few hundred miles. That will
take the place of dozens of typical cycle journeys in the overall
statistics.
Your notional three mile journey isn't the only thing that the
figures are made from, so you can't say what you're saying. Unless
you don't understand how the figures are made up, or are
deliberately misinterpreting them.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:47:16 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rooney wrote:
>
>> The miles will be the same ones whatever form of transport I use, and
>> so will the driver/rider.
>> Or do you mean the miles that the stats are based on? And if so,
>> what's the basis for saying you can't use these stats to make valid
>> comparisons?
>
>I've just driven up from Yorkshire, a few hundred miles. That will
>take the place of dozens of typical cycle journeys in the overall
>statistics.
>Your notional three mile journey isn't the only thing that the
>figures are made from, so you can't say what you're saying. Unless
>you don't understand how the figures are made up, or are
>deliberately misinterpreting them.
>
>Pete.

Of course - it's all a question of averages.On average, you're ten
times more likely to be killed per cycling mile than per car mile. I'm
not comparing a dangerous A road and a cycle path here, but the same
quite busy main road with two different forms of transport. The
figures will be relatively significant.

If the figures are not comparable because some of the miles are
'different miles', then it would not be possible to compare the
relative safety of air transport and road transport. And if I said
flying to Paris would be safer than driving there, you would reject
this on the grounds that it was comparing apples and oranges.

But this is getting way OT. Let's get back to what we should be
discussing: What's the best camera to use to take snaps of my 4x4?

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Rooney wrote:

> Of course - it's all a question of averages.On average, you're ten
> times more likely to be killed per cycling mile than per car mile. I'm
> not comparing a dangerous A road and a cycle path here, but the same
> quite busy main road with two different forms of transport.

But you're /not/, that's the point. The 10x figure comes from an
average of all car journeys against an average of all bike journeys.
That average journey is *not* of the same duration on the same type of
road, so since that's what the 10x figure comes from that's all you can
use it to compare.

> If the figures are not comparable because some of the miles are
> 'different miles', then it would not be possible to compare the
> relative safety of air transport and road transport. And if I said
> flying to Paris would be safer than driving there, you would reject
> this on the grounds that it was comparing apples and oranges.

You really don't have a clue, do you? There's no shortage of car
journeys done of that order of distance that end in tears, but I don't
recall many air accidents from here to Paris happening in recent memory.
So it's pretty clear that for a flight of that order of distance
you're safer than driving. It's simply a matter of comparing like with
like, and the total vehicle miles figures do /not/ give you a sound
comparison between cycling 3 miles up the B9025 and driving 3 miles up
the B9025.

> But this is getting way OT. Let's get back to what we should be
> discussing: What's the best camera to use to take snaps of my 4x4?

If you look through your Junk folder you'll find plenty of other ways to
make your ***** bigger.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:50:11 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rooney wrote:
>
>> Of course - it's all a question of averages.On average, you're ten
>> times more likely to be killed per cycling mile than per car mile. I'm
>> not comparing a dangerous A road and a cycle path here, but the same
>> quite busy main road with two different forms of transport.
>
>But you're /not/, that's the point. The 10x figure comes from an
>average of all car journeys against an average of all bike journeys.
>That average journey is *not* of the same duration on the same type of
>road, so since that's what the 10x figure comes from that's all you can
>use it to compare.


This has nothing to do with which is safer. The only stats posted
suggest that on average, you are ten times more likely to be killed
per cycle mile than per car mile. You have to be a bit circumspect
about drawing conclusions for a particular journey, but the fact that
the stats are based on 'different miles' is a complete red herring.
>
>> If the figures are not comparable because some of the miles are
>> 'different miles', then it would not be possible to compare the
>> relative safety of air transport and road transport. And if I said
>> flying to Paris would be safer than driving there, you would reject
>> this on the grounds that it was comparing apples and oranges.
>
>You really don't have a clue, do you? There's no shortage of car
>journeys done of that order of distance that end in tears, but I don't
>recall many air accidents from here to Paris happening in recent memory.
> So it's pretty clear that for a flight of that order of distance
>you're safer than driving.

It is clear - but not by your reasoning/experience. Whether one is
safer than the other has to take account of the 'per mile' statistic,
and the fact that they are different sorts of miles is, again,
irrelevant.

> It's simply a matter of comparing like with
>like, and the total vehicle miles figures do /not/ give you a sound
>comparison between cycling 3 miles up the B9025 and driving 3 miles up
>the B9025.
>
>> But this is getting way OT. Let's get back to what we should be
>> discussing: What's the best camera to use to take snaps of my 4x4?
>
>If you look through your Junk folder you'll find plenty of other ways to
>make your ***** bigger.
>
It's quite big enough thanks.

What stats would you use to compare the relative safety of driving v.
the train? Or do you also think the stats are of the apple/orange
variety in this case too? You don't seem to realise that it makes not
a ha'porth of difference whether the miles are different - what we
want to know is which form of transport is safer, and the only way to
measure that sensibly is per unit distance.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Rooney wrote:

> This has nothing to do with which is safer. The only stats posted
> suggest that on average, you are ten times more likely to be killed
> per cycle mile than per car mile. You have to be a bit circumspect
> about drawing conclusions for a particular journey

But that didn't stop you doing precisely that.

> but the fact that
> the stats are based on 'different miles' is a complete red herring.

except that it isn't.

> It is clear - but not by your reasoning/experience. Whether one is
> safer than the other has to take account of the 'per mile' statistic,
> and the fact that they are different sorts of miles is, again,
> irrelevant.

But if you compare miles to Paris for a long haul drive and the miles to
Paris for a short haul flight then they are /not/ different miles: they
are miles to Paris, irrespective of whether on the ground or in the air.
There's not very much of a sample of people cycling over that
distance in a single journey, so you can't really compare bikes.

Comparing the figures you compared is apples to oranges, because you're
comparing longer journeys in the overall figures. That is exactly why
you can't compare same journeys and assume they work the same way.

> What stats would you use to compare the relative safety of driving v.
> the train?

You should compare journeys of basically same start and finish. So if I
want to compare long distances I'd compare something like Inter City
trains to comparable road journeys, or commuting you'd compare something
like Dartford to London on road and track.
Road and rail are easy to compare, because a typical train journey in
the UK will be of the same order of size as a large number of typical
car journeys.

> Or do you also think the stats are of the apple/orange
> variety in this case too?

Not if you compare like with like, which is easy to do with large sample
bases.

> You don't seem to realise that it makes not
> a ha'porth of difference whether the miles are different - what we
> want to know is which form of transport is safer, and the only way to
> measure that sensibly is per unit distance.

You still don't get it, and I'm not the only person here pointing that
out. Why is it better to use per unit distance for all comparisons
rather than per unit journey or per unit time spent travelling, for
instance? The best measure depends what you're measuring, and the fact
is that cars and bikes are used for different typical journeys or
different typical distances, so it's a nonsense trying to directly
compare them.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:38:13 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Rooney wrote:
>
>> This has nothing to do with which is safer. The only stats posted
>> suggest that on average, you are ten times more likely to be killed
>> per cycle mile than per car mile. You have to be a bit circumspect
>> about drawing conclusions for a particular journey
>
>But that didn't stop you doing precisely that.

I said you have to be a bit circumspect - they are all averages. But
the general point holds good. There may be individual circumstances
that affect the position - which is why I took the example I did.

>
>> but the fact that
>> the stats are based on 'different miles' is a complete red herring.
>
>except that it isn't.
>
>> It is clear - but not by your reasoning/experience. Whether one is
>> safer than the other has to take account of the 'per mile' statistic,
>> and the fact that they are different sorts of miles is, again,
>> irrelevant.
>
>But if you compare miles to Paris for a long haul drive and the miles to
>Paris for a short haul flight then they are /not/ different miles: they
>are miles to Paris, irrespective of whether on the ground or in the air.
> There's not very much of a sample of people cycling over that
>distance in a single journey, so you can't really compare bikes.
>
>Comparing the figures you compared is apples to oranges, because you're
>comparing longer journeys in the overall figures. That is exactly why
>you can't compare same journeys and assume they work the same way.
>
>> What stats would you use to compare the relative safety of driving v.
>> the train?
>
>You should compare journeys of basically same start and finish. So if I
>want to compare long distances I'd compare something like Inter City
>trains to comparable road journeys, or commuting you'd compare something
>like Dartford to London on road and track.
>Road and rail are easy to compare, because a typical train journey in
>the UK will be of the same order of size as a large number of typical
>car journeys.
>
>> Or do you also think the stats are of the apple/orange
>> variety in this case too?
>
>Not if you compare like with like, which is easy to do with large sample
>bases.
>
>> You don't seem to realise that it makes not
>> a ha'porth of difference whether the miles are different - what we
>> want to know is which form of transport is safer, and the only way to
>> measure that sensibly is per unit distance.
>
>You still don't get it, and I'm not the only person here pointing that
>out. Why is it better to use per unit distance for all comparisons
>rather than per unit journey or per unit time spent travelling, for
>instance? The best measure depends what you're measuring, and the fact
>is that cars and bikes are used for different typical journeys or
>different typical distances, so it's a nonsense trying to directly
>compare them.
>
>Pete.

You can split hairs ad infinitum - you can't avoid the conclusion that
on average, per mile travelled, you are ten times more likely to die
on your bike than in a car.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
Rooney <[email protected]> writes:

>On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 02:25:51 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris
>Malcolm) wrote:

>>Rooney <[email protected]> writes:

>>>On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:36:24 GMT, Colin MacDonald
>>><[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>Rooney wrote:
>>>>> On 18 Mar 2005 13:55:18 GMT, Mark Thompson wrote
>>>>>>Just to be annoying:
>>>>>><URL:http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7250.xls>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Seems it'd be safer than walking for most people ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Have I misread that or are you about ten times safer in a car than you
>>>>> are on a bicycle?
>>>>
>>>>No, not really.
>>>>
>>>>The table shows deaths 'per billion passenger kilometres', which makes
>>>>it hard to compare.
>>
>>><snip interesting stuff>
>>
>>>But aren't all these comparisons done per mile (or km, or billion km -
>>>makes no difference)? Eg. air and car, etc?
>>
>>>Surely that makes it easier to compare: I'm going to the village, a
>>>journey of two miles, whether I walk or bike or drive. What's safest?
>>>It looks to me like, *per given journey*, the car is 10 times safer
>>>than the bike?
>>
>>But the averages aren't comparable, because they are taken over a
>>different mix of road conditions. For example, the car average
>>probably includes some motorway miles, which are particularly safe per
>>mile.

>I see what you mean: one of the reasons why driving is so very much
>safer is that some of it is done on safer roads. Fair point.

And another reason is that the driving stats contain a lot more
middle-aged women drivers, who are unusually safe drivers, and the
cycling stats contain a lot more young men, who are unusually dangerous
on anything with wheels.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
Rooney wrote:

> You can split hairs ad infinitum - you can't avoid the conclusion that
> on average, per mile travelled, you are ten times more likely to die
> on your bike than in a car.

And if I'm doing ten times the mileage in my car, what with me using it
for longer journeys as I do, how does that demonstrate I'm safer in a car?
And since the average life expectancy of a cyclist is better, even
considering the chances of a fatal accident, than a non-cyclist, and
that longer life will have fewer chronic health problems, how does that
demonstrate I'm better off in a car?

Fact is that on my bike or in my car I stand a very good chance of
arriving at my destination in good working order on any given journey,
so making a big song and dance about the car being safer is a red herring.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:01:42 +0000, Peter Clinch
<[email protected]> wrote:


>Fact is that on my bike or in my car I stand a very good chance of
>arriving at my destination in good working order on any given journey,
>so making a big song and dance about the car being safer is a red herring.
>
>Pete.

Not in a discussion about safety, it isn't.
If you can draw some comfort from the fact that, although you're far
more likely to be killed on a bike than in a car per n miles, this is
partly because you take longer on the bike, then go ahead.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back