Road Safety Bill

p.k. said:

John Hearns said:

Quoted message said:

DfT official statistics are not poppycock.

but you use of them is!

As I said, I'm tired of this.
Fencing with an unarmed opponent.

p.k. said:

Quoted message said:

Kindly state which data subsets or variable factors you think are
relevant.

A few of the top of my head and certainly not comprehensive:

Age eg
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/graphic/dft_transstats_505588-38.gif

ksi per million population of pedestrians by age and gender. No mention
of cyclist for comparison

Quoted message said:

Alcohol consumption eg
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/cru/resfinds/drf49-00.htm

Pedestrian casualties and alcohol consumption in Scotland. No mention
of cyclists.

Quoted message said:

Time of day eg
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/graphic/dft_transstats_505588-40.gif

Pedestrian casualties by time of day. No mention of cyclists

Quoted message said:

Time of year ditto chart 16

circumstances & location of accident by type plus Information to
compare fatalities of cyclist behaving correctly & pedestrians
behaving correctly

No reference

Quoted message said:

eg London pedestrian deaths 1995. a.. crossing road heedless of
traffic elsewhere - 45 per cent be.. crossing road masked by
parked vehicle - 14 per cent co.. crossing road heedless of
traffic at pedestrian crossing - 9 per cent

All of which suggest that a simple global comparison : Cyclist death
to pedestrian deaths, will give a misleading answer for someone
middle aged, sober in the middle of the day in June and obeying all
the rules (my question re walk or cycle into Wimbledon) or any child
for that matter. My kids as pedestrians are far safer than many of
the apparently suicide intent kids I see every day driving around SW
London: the global stats do not give any useful guidance as to the
relative safety of cycling and walking.

Do you have any evidence that the age profile and time of day profile
are any different for cyclists or that Scottish cyclists are any more or
less likely to be drunk that Scottish pedestrians?

You have presented a whole load of data specific to pedestrians but have
not shown any data for cyclists nor evidence that these factors work
differently for cyclists. So I ask again, where is your proof of your
assertion.

Quoted message said:

What gives better guidance are the posts in just about every cycling
group I have ever seen about how ".... despite doing everything right
I was nearly wiped out today by some brain dead cager....." it is
self evident that as a cyclist on the road I am more at risk from
said brain dead cager than as a pedestrian on the pavement.

Are you aware just how many pedestrians are killed on the pavement by
brain dead motorists?

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

At Mon, 27 Jun 2005 19:00:55 +0000 (UTC), message
<[email hidden]> was posted by
"p.k." <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of
the following:

Quoted message said:

Age
Alcohol consumption
Time of day

All of which have also been found to affect car and bike crash
probability.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

At Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:07:38 +0000 (UTC), message
<[email hidden]> was posted by
"p.k." <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of
the following:

Quoted message said:

I think that boils down to your having no solid support for your
proposition:
"An amendment has been tabled in the Lords: compulsory plastic hats for
children (but only when cycling, not the equally dangerous walking)."

Except that the solid support for that contention has been
demonstrated by several posters as well as by me.

Quoted message said:

Which in turn supports my contention:
"Why do you insist on weakening and devaluing your strong and valid
arguments
against compulsion [Wrong messages, disincentives, health benefits, limited
protection, risk compensation etc] all of which are difficult to argue
against, by twittering on about walking being equally dangerous"

Because it is, as above. This is why the Japanese tried walking
helmets for children.

I have had similar discussions with people who think that mentioning
risk compensation "weakens the otherwise excellent case", some who
think that reference to whole population studies ditto, disincentives
ditto, limited protection ditto. In each case the person involved is
unable to actually disprove the supposedly damaging argument.

Why not be the first?

Quoted message said:

i think my point is made!

Ah, proof by assertion. Not quite up to the standard required, I'm
afraid.

So, where is your data to the contrary?

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Just zis Guy said:

At Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:07:38 +0000 (UTC), message
<[email hidden]> was posted by
"p.k." <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of
the following:

Quoted message said:

I think that boils down to your having no solid support for your
proposition:
"An amendment has been tabled in the Lords: compulsory plastic hats
for children (but only when cycling, not the equally dangerous
walking)."

Except that the solid support for that contention has been
demonstrated by several posters as well as by me.

Guy, on the one hand you say:

Quoted message said:

The problem is that your question requires an objective definition of
dangerous. No such definition exists.

but on the other you defend your use of:

Quoted message said:

An amendment has been tabled in the Lords: compulsory plastic hats for
children (but only when cycling, not the equally dangerous walking).

You simply can't have it both ways - and by trying to do so you seriously
weaken your case.

I'm sorry to see in your arguments the trend: Guy is to Helmets as Jobst is
to standing on spokes. You have got so close to the topic that it is now
your precious baby and you cannot bear any querying of your position never
mind accept any gainsaying.

I'll now revert to staying out of Helmet debates

pk

p.k. said:

Just zis Guy said:

At Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:07:38 +0000 (UTC), message
<[email hidden]> was posted by
"p.k." <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of
the following:

Quoted message said:

I think that boils down to your having no solid support for your
proposition:
"An amendment has been tabled in the Lords: compulsory plastic hats
for children (but only when cycling, not the equally dangerous
walking)."

Except that the solid support for that contention has been
demonstrated by several posters as well as by me.

Guy, on the one hand you say:

Quoted message said:

The problem is that your question requires an objective definition of
dangerous. No such definition exists.

but on the other you defend your use of:

Quoted message said:

An amendment has been tabled in the Lords: compulsory plastic hats for
children (but only when cycling, not the equally dangerous walking).

You simply can't have it both ways - and by trying to do so you seriously
weaken your case.

You are wrong, because the first example concerns an objective
definition of dangerous, while the second is simply relative. It's no
different to asking, "What is tall?" Not easy to answer that in absolute
terms, but a question such as "Is Centre Point taller than the London
Eye?" can be answered with confidence.

Quoted message said:

I'm sorry to see in your arguments the trend: Guy is to Helmets as Jobst is
to standing on spokes. You have got so close to the topic that it is now
your precious baby and you cannot bear any querying of your position never
mind accept any gainsaying.

All you've done is ask questions about the basis of some claims made
concerning helmets, received adequate answers based on respectable
references, and then refused to accept the results. However, you have
not offered any data or indeed any basis at all for your position. It is
therefore difficult to see why anyone should respect your argument.

Quoted message said:

I'll now revert to staying out of Helmet debates

Thank you.
--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Simon Brooke said:

Yes, OK, you may be able to discover that male adolescents who
ride wheelies the wrong way down one way streets in busy urban areas on
bikes with no brakes have more accidents per billion kilometres than
people walking on deserted roads in the highlands,

Those are exactly the statistics p.k. is looking for in order to prove
his case ;-)

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

At Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:06:19 +0000 (UTC), message
<[email hidden]> was posted by
"p.k." <[email hidden]>, including some, all or none of
the following:

Quoted message said:

Guy, on the one hand you say:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The problem is that your question requires an objective definition of
dangerous. No such definition exists.

Quoted message said:

but on the other you defend your use of:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

An amendment has been tabled in the Lords: compulsory plastic hats for
children (but only when cycling, not the equally dangerous walking).

Correct. Since no objective definition of "dangerous" exists, risk is
perceived relative to other activities. Decades of helmet promotion
have given large numbers of people the impression that cycling is
unusually dangerous and unusually productive of head injuries.
Comparative statistics for risk per unit exposure show that this is
not, in fact the case: any protective measure which is justified for
cyclists is equally justified for pedestrians.

Quoted message said:

You simply can't have it both ways - and by trying to do so you seriously
weaken your case.

So you say, but you have yet to provide any actual evidence that
cycling is, as you suggest, more dangerous, whereas several sets of
statistics have been cited which prove the opposite.

Quoted message said:

I'm sorry to see in your arguments the trend: Guy is to Helmets as Jobst is
to standing on spokes. You have got so close to the topic that it is now
your precious baby and you cannot bear any querying of your position never
mind accept any gainsaying.

No, you are absolutely wrong there. I am amenable to persuasion, and
happy to change my mind in the face of evidence (for example, I was
once a strong advocate of helmets and even of compulsion for
children).

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

dave <[email hidden]> wrote in news:42c1cc42_1
@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com:

Quoted message said:

Walking.. Hmmmmm People dont really do that any more do they?

Only if they can't avoid the walk from their front door to the car.

p.k. said:

I resolved some time ago to stay out of H*lmet threads, but you prompt me to
mutter again.....

Why do you insist on weakening and devaluing your strong and valid arguments
against compulsion [Wrong messages, disincentives, health benefits, limited
protection, risk compensation etc] all of which are difficult to argue
against, by twittering on about walking being equally dangerous. I'm not
arguing whether it is or isn't, as that is not the point, which is that by
including it you take the discussion into arguable territory where the case
far far weaker that the other winnable strands of argument.

pk

Why do you insist on twittering away with this loony line of yours pk?

Your opinion that highlighting the hypocrisy is "twittering" and/or "loony" is itself loony.

You seem to be either stupid or naive, pk. Do you delude yourself that just because you can label it "twittering" or "loony" doesn't actually demonstrate that it is twittering or loony?

My take on this, pk, is that you are attempting to be a deceitful manipulator -thinking that you can take the readers for complete mugs by simply suggesting that the "helmets for pedestrians" line is twittering or loony.

So if this is not a disingenuous attempt at surreptitious suggestion on your part pk then what's the alternative?
The alternative is that you're so simple minded or self deluded that you can't see your own hypocrisy. And that's not unsurprising.

The "helmets for pedestrians" line is a beautiful illustration of the silly hypocrisy that's there. And peabrain prats like pk here keep trying to dismiss it as loony because that line is so dam effective at highlighting hypocritical (hypo = less than critical) thinking of these pea-brain parrots.

Just in case I didn't make it clear what I think - pk you're a deluded peabrain - and what makes me sick to my stomach is the insult to intelligence of what pk writes.

Roger

RogerDodger said:

Just in case I didn't make it clear what I think - pk you're a deluded
peabrain - and what makes me sick to my stomach is the insult to
intelligence of what pk writes.

Thus spake cycle-forums. :-)

Jon

RogerDodger said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you insist on weakening and devaluing your strong and valid
arguments
against compulsion [Wrong messages, disincentives, health benefits,
limited
protection, risk compensation etc] all of which are difficult to argue
against, by twittering on about walking being equally dangerous. I'm
not
arguing whether it is or isn't, as that is not the point, which is that
by
including it you take the discussion into arguable territory where the
case
far far weaker that the other winnable strands of argument.

pk

Why do you insist on twittering away with this loony line of yours
pk?

Your opinion that highlighting the hypocrisy is "twittering" and/or
"loony" is itself loony.

It may not be the most helpful way to make his point, but it's not loony.

It's a sad fact that when, during the course of a discussion, you present people
with some fact that they do not wish to contemplate as valid, they will often
simply ignore the entire argument and dimiss it with such fiendishly clever
reasoning as "Oh, come on!".

Steven said:

It may not be the most helpful way to make his point, but it's not
loony.

It's a sad fact that when, during the course of a discussion, you
present people with some fact that they do not wish to contemplate as
valid, they will often simply ignore the entire argument and dimiss
it with such fiendishly clever reasoning as "Oh, come on!".

At least someone was listening.

pk

"p.k." <[email hidden]> wrote in news:d9tjkn$ap1$1
@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:

Quoted message said:

Steven said:

It's a sad fact that when, during the course of a discussion, you
present people with some fact that they do not wish to contemplate as
valid, they will often simply ignore the entire argument and dimiss
it with such fiendishly clever reasoning as "Oh, come on!".

At least someone was listening.

No, it appears as if he was reading your posts rather than listening. He
seems to have described your responses to reasoned argument fairly well.

In article said:

RogerDodger said:

Why do you insist on twittering away with this loony line of yours
pk?

Your opinion that highlighting the hypocrisy is "twittering" and/or
"loony" is itself loony.

It may not be the most helpful way to make his point, but it's not loony.

It's a sad fact that when, during the course of a discussion, you present people
with some fact that they do not wish to contemplate as valid, they will often
simply ignore the entire argument and dimiss it with such fiendishly clever
reasoning as "Oh, come on!".

If pk actually had a point, it might not be the most helpful way
to make it, but while he's determined not to contemplate the facts,
what else can he do, loony (or at least irrational) as it might be?

On 29 Jun 2005 17:21:31 +0100 (BST), [email hidden] (Alan Braggins)

Quoted message said:

In article said:

RogerDodger said:

Why do you insist on twittering away with this loony line of yours
pk?

Your opinion that highlighting the hypocrisy is "twittering" and/or
"loony" is itself loony.

It may not be the most helpful way to make his point, but it's not loony.

*>>It's a sad fact that when, during the course of a discussion, you present
people
*>>with some fact that they do not wish to contemplate as valid, they will often
*>>simply ignore the entire argument and dimiss it with such fiendishly clever
*>>reasoning as "Oh, come on!".

Quoted message said:

If pk actually had a point, it might not be the most helpful way
to make it, but while he's determined not to contemplate the facts,
what else can he do, loony (or at least irrational) as it might be?

I think those who have responded have misunderstand what I meant by the passage
marked with asterisks.

What I intended was that pk had a point in that if you tell people that walking
is more dangerous than cycling (even if you have well documented statistics),
and thus it should be made compulsary to wear a helmet for walking before it is
made compulsary to wear a helmet for cycling, most people will simply ignore
your whole argument because, "of course", it's ridiculous to make people wear a
helmet for walking.

Even though that part of your argument is quite logical, it will cause people to
turn away from the entire message because it will seem absurd.

Alan Braggins said:

If pk actually had a point, it might not be the most helpful way
to make it, but while he's determined not to contemplate the facts,
what else can he do, loony (or at least irrational) as it might be?

The "facts" are less clear cut than some might suggest:

See Table 19:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_505587-07.hcsp

ksi per billion passenger km cycling = 910 Walk = 710 [1994]

Compare to:

http://www.pacts.org.uk/policy/briefings/statistics_uk.htm

Fatalities per billion passenger km Cyclist = 33 Foot = 48 [2002]

Clearly: Not only is the "Walking is more dangerous" line counter-intuitive,
even the global stats do not unequivocally support the proposition, never
mind the position for the different sub populations at risk within the
cycling group and the pedestrian group

OTOH "Helmet compulsion does not save lives" is equally counter-intuitive
but is clearly supported by a whole library of research both at the level of
numbers killed in accidents and at the level of health benefits from
cycling.

I restate my original point: Why prejudice a sound anti compulsion case by
dragging in things which are not demonstrably true?

pk

At Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:40:24 GMT, message
<[email hidden]> was posted by
[email hidden] (Steven), including some, all or none of the
following:

Quoted message said:

What I intended was that pk had a point in that if you tell people that walking
is more dangerous than cycling (even if you have well documented statistics),
and thus it should be made compulsary to wear a helmet for walking before it is
made compulsary to wear a helmet for cycling, most people will simply ignore
your whole argument because, "of course", it's ridiculous to make people wear a
helmet for walking.

So you say. Others have said the same about the fact that helmets
laws do not yield reductions in injuries because "of course" helmets
reduce injuries. And so on and so forth.

I maintain that making people face up to the absurd and inconsistent
reasoning used to justify singling out cycling for special treatment
is a good idea.

It depends on your audience. Among educated people I find that the
relative danger of cycling and walking are quite readily accepted.
Sometimes you can almost see the "leetle grey cells" working.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:20:44 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

It depends on your audience. Among educated people I find that the
relative danger of cycling and walking are quite readily accepted.
Sometimes you can almost see the "leetle grey cells" working.

Oh, definitely.

It's very much an audience dependant thing.

In article said:

[email hidden] (Alan Braggins)

Quoted message said:

Steven wrote:

*>>It's a sad fact that when, during the course of a discussion, you present
people
*>>with some fact that they do not wish to contemplate as valid, they will often
*>>simply ignore the entire argument and dimiss it with such fiendishly clever
*>>reasoning as "Oh, come on!".

Quoted message said:

If pk actually had a point, it might not be the most helpful way
to make it, but while he's determined not to contemplate the facts,
what else can he do, loony (or at least irrational) as it might be?

I think those who have responded have misunderstand what I meant by the passage
marked with asterisks.

What I intended was that pk had a point in that if you tell people that walking
is more dangerous than cycling (even if you have well documented statistics),
and thus it should be made compulsary to wear a helmet for walking before it is
made compulsary to wear a helmet for cycling, most people will simply ignore
your whole argument because, "of course", it's ridiculous to make people wear a
helmet for walking.

Since Guy's argument agrees that it's ridiculous to make people wear
a helmet for walking, that's clearly only part of the story.

But it's hardly the point that pk was making, which appears to be that if
you tell pk that walking is more dangerous than cycling (even if you have
well documented statistics), he will ignore it because he assumes it can't be.