What do you do?

p.k. said:

the difference is that the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the
hazard and chooses when to share road space with cars - ie chooses when to

Is safe? No. Has the mistaken perception that he is safe? More likely.

Only yesterday a car pulled out on me while I was on the pavement (no, I
wasn't cycling)

-dan

--
http://www.coruskate.net/

Daniel Barlow said:

p.k. said:

the difference is that the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from
the hazard and chooses when to share road space with cars - ie
chooses when to

Is safe? No. Has the mistaken perception that he is safe? More
likely.

Only yesterday a car pulled out on me while I was on the pavement
(no, I wasn't cycling)

-dan

There is of course no such thing as "safe" just relative safety, but in the
normal way of the world I am safer standing on a pavement than crossing a
road. I am safer walking along a pavement than I am cycling along the road.
#
pk

Ewan said:

Tony Raven said:

p.k. wrote on 05/02/2007 00:13 +0100:

Quoted message said:

the difference is that the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the
hazard and chooses when to share road space with cars -

But over 40 pedestrians a year killed on the pavement

Coming up with a statistic such as the one you just did is nothing more than
attempting a smoke and mirrors trick.

I don't think it is. It's a specific (and accurate) refutation of the
assertion "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazard"
(of motor vehicles). Isn't it?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

p.k. wrote on 05/02/2007 14:03 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I am safer walking along a pavement than I am cycling along the road.

Assuming you are going from A to B and not just setting off to walk or
cycle however far you can in a fixed amount of time, you are in fact 30%
safer going by bike, as has been discussed here many times before.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Ian Smith said:

Ewan said:

Tony Raven said:

p.k. wrote on 05/02/2007 00:13 +0100:

>
>
> the difference is that the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the
> hazard and chooses when to share road space with cars -

But over 40 pedestrians a year killed on the pavement

Coming up with a statistic such as the one you just did is nothing more than
attempting a smoke and mirrors trick.

I don't think it is. It's a specific (and accurate) refutation of the
assertion "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazard"
(of motor vehicles). Isn't it?

Ian, can I just ask you not to snip other people's posts to make them appear to
say things they didn't?

It's dishonest and will only reduce your credibility should you want to make
valid points in other posts.

Tony made a statement about *relative* safety, not absolute safety (as the
untampered with posts made quite clear). Since absolutely no statistics were
quoted to support that statement I objected.

--Reinstated sniped text--
But over 40 pedestrians a year killed on the pavement and a further 80
on pedestrian crossings which is more or less the same as the number of
cyclists killed on the whole road system.
--

Note the 'more or less the same'.

Irrelevant unless you know the total populations from which each sample was
taken.

Hope that aids understanding.

Tony Raven said:

p.k. wrote on 05/02/2007 14:03 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I am safer walking along a pavement than I am cycling along the road.

Assuming you are going from A to B and not just setting off to walk or
cycle however far you can in a fixed amount of time, you are in fact 30%
safer going by bike, as has been discussed here many times before.

Can you quote audited statistics for that assertion?

It seems well wide of the mark to me.

Are you sure you are not including time spent crossing roads and using streets
without pavements for the pedestrians?

The person you quoted specified walking along a pavement, not travelling by
foot.

You also need to take account of the fact that pedestrian fatalities are skewed
towards children and adolescents which means that if p.k. is an adult (and
particularly a cycling adult, who is likely to be much more 'road aware' than
the general population), the risks for him/her as a pedestrian are lower than
for the population as a whole.

Ewan said:

Ian Smith said:

Ewan said:

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:37:21 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]> wrote:

>p.k. wrote on 05/02/2007 00:13 +0100:
>
>> the difference is that the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the
>> hazard and chooses when to share road space with cars -
>
>But over 40 pedestrians a year killed on the pavement

Coming up with a statistic such as the one you just did is nothing more than
attempting a smoke and mirrors trick.

I don't think it is. It's a specific (and accurate) refutation of the
assertion "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazard"
(of motor vehicles). Isn't it?

Ian, can I just ask you not to snip other people's posts to make them appear to
say things they didn't?

I have done no such thing.

All the above are direct quotes, said by the people in question in
that context. No-one is misrepresented.

p.k. said a pedestrian on the pavement is safe from cars.

Tony Raven said they aren't, and provided figures that demonstrate it.

You claimed he was being devious with statistics.

I said I don't think he was - I think he was simply highlighting the
error in p.k.s statement.

No misrepresentation whatsoever, at least until you accused me of
editing things inappropriately.

Quoted message said:

Tony made a statement about *relative* safety, not absolute safety

I never claimed otherwise. You said he was trying a smoke and mirrors
trick. I disagree, I think he was merely pointing out that a
pedestrian on the pavement is not safe from the hazards posed by cars,
and does not get to choose whether to share space with cars. If
pedestrians on the pavement were safe from cars, presumably 40 of them
wouldn't be killed every year.

Quoted message said:

untampered with posts made quite clear). Since absolutely no
statistics were quoted to support that statement I objected.

The statistics are irrelevant to the point I made.

The fact remains that the pedestrian on the pavement is not safe from
cars and has no control over whether they are sharing space with cars.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Tony Raven said:

p.k. wrote on 05/02/2007 14:03 +0100:

Quoted message said:

I am safer walking along a pavement than I am cycling along the road.

Assuming you are going from A to B and not just setting off to walk or
cycle however far you can in a fixed amount of time, you are in fact
30% safer going by bike, as has been discussed here many times before.

you are correct that it has been discussed here many time, and many times
the wrong inferences have been drawn from misused global accident rates.

for instance the global stats do not take account of

eg:

34% of pedestrian fatalities (16 and over) 1997-2003 for which blood alcohol
levels were reported to the coroner were above 100 mg/100 ml, that
corresponds to approx 15% of all such fatalities (Hansard)

95% of UK child casualties occur away from crossings, 60% within 500m of
home and 85% away from crossings on main roads. (OECD)

90% of injuries to elderly pedestrians in the uk occur when trying to cross
the street on roads between junctions outside pedestrian crossing or where
no crossings exist (OECD)

67% of pedestrians killed while crossing road more than 50 m away from a
crossing (oecd)

If I'm not a child, not drunk and use official crossings the overall
accident stats are of no use in assessing my risk - and there are of course
amny other factors not covered in that little list

pk

Ian Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Ian, can I just ask you not to snip other people's posts to make them appear to
say things they didn't?

I have done no such thing.

Yes you did, Ian, and lying about it is pointless as the evidence is archived
for all to see.

Tony made a comment:

|But over 40 pedestrians a year killed on the pavement and a further 80
|on pedestrian crossings which is more or less the same as the number of
|cyclists killed on the whole road system.

The main point of which was an assertion of a *relative*: "more or less the same
as the number"

This assertion was nonsense without a raft of supporting statistics.

(Can you understand the vital distinction between "x are absolutely safe" and "x
is safer than y"?)

You then quoted this sniped section of Tony's post:

| But over 40 pedestrians a year killed on the pavement

And stated:

|I don't think it is. It's a specific (and accurate) refutation of the
|assertion "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazard"
|(of motor vehicles). Isn't it?

But that related to only a fraction of what he said, and as such was dishonest
quoting (since the fraction was valid but the whole wasn't).

Rather as if someone said: "I speak English and I'm king of the world" and when
someone else objected that was nonsense you quoted "I speak English" and stated
that was correct.

Tricky quoting is a sleazy activity and best not indulged in by people who want
to be taken seriously.

Ian Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Ian, can I just ask you not to snip other people's posts to make them appear to
say things they didn't?

I have done no such thing.

'fraid you did mate.

Quoted message said:

All the above are direct quotes, said by the people in question in
that context. No-one is misrepresented.

yes they are. You left out a chunk of what someone said.

Quoted message said:

p.k. said a pedestrian on the pavement is safe from cars.

no he didn't. he said they were safer than someone on a bike in the
road. major difference.

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said they aren't, and provided figures that demonstrate it.

nope, he came up with some figures about the number of peds killed and
related that to the number of cyclists killed without saying how many of
each there were. totally incompetant use of stats.

Quoted message said:

You claimed he was being devious with statistics.

I think the guy just said they were useless without more data.

Quoted message said:

I said I don't think he was - I think he was simply highlighting the
error in p.k.s statement.

No misrepresentation whatsoever, at least until you accused me of
editing things inappropriately.

you seriously misrepresented what TR said and then used that
misrepresentation to make a conclusion about something other than what
he did say. your bad.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tony made a statement about *relative* safety, not absolute safety

I never claimed otherwise.

Jez, dude, it's there as plain as the nose on your face. You definitely
did claim otherwise.

Quoted message said:

The fact remains that the pedestrian on the pavement is not safe from
cars and has no control over whether they are sharing space with cars.

noone said otherwise. you're not saying anything new here.

you did mess with the quoting and now you're busted.

Ewan said:

Ian Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Ian, can I just ask you not to snip other people's posts to make
them appear to say things they didn't?

I have done no such thing.

Yes you did, Ian, and lying about it is pointless as the evidence
is archived for all to see.

Precisely. I am entirely happy the record supports my assertions as
being accurate.

Quoted message said:

The main point of which was an assertion of a *relative*: "more or
less the same as the number"

No. You might have decided that was the main point. I do not agree.
My quoting accurately addressed what I consider the main point -
pedestrians on the pavement are not safe from cars.

Quoted message said:

Tricky quoting is a sleazy activity and best not indulged in by
people who want to be taken seriously.

Indeed, which is why I do not do it.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Roger said:

Ian Smith said:

I have done no such thing.

'fraid you did mate.

Quoted message said:

All the above are direct quotes, said by the people in question in
that context. No-one is misrepresented.

yes they are. You left out a chunk of what someone said.

Quoted message said:

p.k. said a pedestrian on the pavement is safe from cars.

no he didn't. he said they were safer than someone on a bike in the
road. major difference.

No, he did not.

He said, in total in that posting:

"the difference is that the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from
the hazard and chooses when to share road space with cars - ie chooses
when to cross the road. A cyclist is permenamtly sharing the road
space with cars.

"By that arguemnt, cycling is inherently more dangerous"

He said "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazard".
Note - SAFE, not SAFER.

That is what I commented on, truthfully and accurately.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ian Smith said:

Ewan said:

Ian Smith said:

> Ian, can I just ask you not to snip other people's posts to make
> them appear to say things they didn't?

I have done no such thing.

Yes you did, Ian, and lying about it is pointless as the evidence
is archived for all to see.

Precisely. I am entirely happy the record supports my assertions as
being accurate.

Well, you're an idiot, then.

Anyone who looks can see that you dishonestly left a large chunk off what you
quoted and then made out that the OP was correct because what was left said
something entirely different to what the whole thing said.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The main point of which was an assertion of a *relative*: "more or
less the same as the number"

No. You might have decided that was the main point. I do not agree.

Well, that just proves you're an idiot.

The part you dishonestly snipped contained the phase "which is more or less the
same" which, to anyone with even the most basic understanding of English, makes
the statement relative.

Quoted message said:

My quoting accurately addressed what I consider the main point -
pedestrians on the pavement are not safe from cars.

No [censored], Sherlock 😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tricky quoting is a sleazy activity and best not indulged in by
people who want to be taken seriously.

Indeed, which is why I do not do it.

Sadly, the evidence is very much to the contrary.

Ian Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Tricky quoting is a sleazy activity and best not indulged in by
people who want to be taken seriously.

Indeed, which is why I do not do it.

Come now Ian, you are the list Maestro when it comes to selective quoting!!

pk

Ewan wrote on 05/02/2007 14:38 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Can you quote audited statistics for that assertion?

Road Casualties Great Britain 2005 Table 52. Deaths per billion journey
km: Pedestrians 49, cyclists 38.

Quoted message said:

It seems well wide of the mark to me.

Are you sure you are not including time spent crossing roads and
using streets without pavements for the pedestrians?

There are few journeys that do not involve crossing the road at some
(and usually multiple) points.

Quoted message said:

The person you quoted specified walking along a pavement, not
travelling by foot.

p.k. stated "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the
hazard" meaning cars which they clearly are not. 40 a year of them are
killed by cars on the pavement.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Roger wrote on 05/02/2007 16:05 +0100:

Quoted message said:

you did mess with the quoting and now you're busted.

Funny isn't it how Ewan turns up having only ever posted in urc and only
in the last 48hrs and then you turn up having never posted anywhere
before to defend him. Are you related?

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Ian Smith said:

He said "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazard".
Note - SAFE, not SAFER.

But later clarified to:

"There is of course no such thing as "safe" just relative safety, but in the
normal way of the world I am safer standing on a pavement than crossing a
road. I am safer walking along a pavement than I am cycling along the road"

If this group is asked "Is cycling safe?" the majority will answer "Yes!"
Are you suggest in the answer should be "No", or couched in layers of
Caveat?

There was an interminable thread a while ago about drafting kids cycling
guide where the majority wanted a bald statement that Cycling is safe, I do
not recall you bridling at that usage.

In the same sense: Standing on the pavement is safe. Walking on the pavement
is safe. Crossing roads is less safe. Cycling is less safe.

By delving into the semantics instead of the substantive meaning which you
full well understand, you are doing exactly what you do so often - distract
from the substantive point which you cannot properly refute.

I'm glad others are picking you on it!

pk

p.k. said:

Ian Smith said:

He said "the pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazard".
Note - SAFE, not SAFER.

But later clarified to:

But not in the posting I responded to.

When I respond to postings, I'm responding to postings made in the
past, not anything you might ever say in the future. Sorry, but
that's the best I can do.

Quoted message said:

If this group is asked "Is cycling safe?" the majority will answer
"Yes!" Are you suggest in the answer should be "No", or couched in
layers of Caveat?

Eh? I have no idea where that came from.

I said being a pedestrian is not as safe as you claim, and you
extrapolate that to me meaning that cycling is not safe? I was not
commenting about the safety of cyclists, I was commenting about the
safety of pedestrians. I made no comment about the safety of cycling
(relative or absolute or otherwise).

Quoted message said:

guide where the majority wanted a bald statement that Cycling is
safe, I do not recall you bridling at that usage.

I'm not commenting about cycling safety. I am commenting about what
you said about pedestrian safety. I don't know why your choosing to
put words into my mouth about cycling - I say again - I made no
comment about cyclist safety.

Quoted message said:

By delving into the semantics instead of the substantive meaning
which you full well understand, you are doing exactly what you do
so often - distract from the substantive point which you cannot
properly refute.

I was not commenting on any point other than that it is not true to
say that a pedestrian on the pavement is safe from the hazards caused
by cars. That is all. What I said was and is true.

That is all I commented on. That is all I meant to comment on. Your
relentless misrepresentation of this as meaning I must mean something
about the safety of cyclists is very peculiar.

By commenting on pedestrians, I didn't mean anything about the safety
of airline passengers either, nor of lion taming or scuba diving - are
you going to accuse me of thinking they are unreasonably dangerous
too?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Ewan said:

Ian Smith said:

No. You might have decided that was the main point. I do not agree.

Well, that just proves you're an idiot.

Disagreeing with you proves someone to be an idiot?
Idiot I am then.

Quoted message said:

The part you dishonestly snipped contained the phase "which is more
or less the same" which, to anyone with even the most basic
understanding of English, makes the statement relative.

I didn't comment on teh relative severity. I commented that
pedestrians on teh p[avement are not safe from danger from cars. That
is a true statement. I'm slightly suprprised it upsets you so much.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My quoting accurately addressed what I consider the main point -
pedestrians on the pavement are not safe from cars.

No [censored], Sherlock 😉

Oh, so now you agree?

Why, if you agree with what I said, are you getting so frantic about
it?

regards, Ian Smith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Tony Raven said:

Roger wrote on 05/02/2007 16:05 +0100:

Quoted message said:

you did mess with the quoting and now you're busted.

Funny isn't it how Ewan turns up having only ever posted in urc and only
in the last 48hrs and then you turn up having never posted anywhere
before to defend him. Are you related?

No.

Before I started to read USENET I read a very interesting little guide where it
mentioned lamers who, when they are losing an argument try and make out that all
the people who are against them are the same person (sock-puppets?).

I never dreamed I'd encounter it so soon.

As far as I can see, it's pk who Roger is defending against your drivel, not me.

And as you and Ian both seem to have the same blind spot when it comes to
understanding the difference between an absolute and a relative, can we be sure
that he is not your sock-puppet or vice-versa?