A Rant At Cyclists...

Avoriaz

It is half term again.

skitler

Avoriaz wrote: »

It is half term again.

do you have that on auto post?:rotfl:

esuhl

skitler wrote: »

its always someone else's fault, not me me me.

Well, that's your delusion speaking again! You're in denial. You can pretend that you're never at fault and that everything is the fault of cyclists, but you should learn to recognise when you're being stupid. If you were faultless (and sane), you wouldn't feel the need to publicly humiliate yourself on threads like this.

skitler wrote: »

you could always try a more plyable bike, so it doesn't damage our cars to much when you get in our way, now that's reality.

If you're hitting cyclists who "get in your way", then again, I must caution you on your mental disorder. It's going to get you into trouble. Keep going with the attitude you have and you will (very thankfully) be locked up or at least forced to give up your driving licence (assuming you even have one).

And, if you really are as perpetually drunk as your posts indicate, you shouldn't be driving at all.

Hope you get better soon.

silverwhistle

esuhl wrote: »

And, if you really are as perpetually drunk as your posts indicate, you shouldn't be driving at all.

I assumed under-age or Alzheimers..

skitler

esuhl wrote: »

Well, that's your delusion speaking again! You're in denial. You can pretend that you're never at fault and that everything is the fault of cyclists, but you should learn to recognise when you're being stupid. If you were faultless (and sane), you wouldn't feel the need to publicly humiliate yourself on threads like this.



If you're hitting cyclists who "get in your way", then again, I must caution you on your mental disorder. It's going to get you into trouble. Keep going with the attitude you have and you will (very thankfully) be locked up or at least forced to give up your driving licence (assuming you even have one).

And, if you really are as perpetually drunk as your posts indicate, you shouldn't be driving at all.

Hope you get better soon.

silverwhistle wrote: »

I assumed under-age or Alzheimers..

you need to do better than that, as if ive never heard it before, try troll next time.


now push off! oh that's right you do.:rotfl:

Marco_Panettone

skitler wrote: »

you need to do better than that, as if ive never heard it before, try troll next time.


now push off! oh that's right you do.:rotfl:

Can you stay please? I'm enjoying you contribution to this thread.

[Deleted User]

In the USA in the 1970's, they conducted an experiment whereby the compulsory motorcycle helmet legislation was revoked in 50% of states, and retained in the remaining half.

Result: The data showed a higher mortality in the compulsory helmet states than in the optional helmet ones.

skitler

jack_pott wrote: »

In the USA in the 1970's, they conducted an experiment whereby the compulsory motorcycle helmet legislation was revoked in 50% of states, and retained in the remaining half.

Result: The data showed a higher mortality in the compulsory helmet states than in the optional helmet ones.

not really the full story though, what about other non fatal injuries, obviously not favourable, otherwise would also have been reported.

[Deleted User]

skitler wrote: »

not really the full story though, what about other non fatal injuries, obviously not favourable, otherwise would also have been reported.

What actually got reported was a complete travesty. The front cover of the report showed a graph of deaths which soared through the roof at the point where the experiment started, with the clear implication that the change in legislation was the cause.

The truth was that the graph showed the aggregated total of deaths in both groups. When the data was disaggregated, and the two groups plotted separately, the mortality in the compulsory helmet group rose far higher than in the optional helmet group.

The reason for the steep rise overall was that the start of the experiment coincided with the 70's oil crisis, and there had been a large increase in motorcycle use to save fuel.

Fatalities are a more reliable measure of road safety than injury statistics, as death is a matter of fact, and can’t easily be brushed under the carpet. By comparison, injuries depend on the threshold of severity at which they’re reported, the expertise of the individual making the judgement, and the resources available for filling in paperwork.

The BMA found that only 25% of casualties classified by Police as seriously injured are actually serious. Conversely, many classed as slight are actually serious. The difference is defined by shock, and the Police didn’t know what shock is. 30% of RTA casualties seen in hospital weren't reported to the Police, 70% of cyclist casualties went unreported. Injury numbers rise as severity decreases:- there are more minor ones that major ones, so a small change in reporting threshold causes a huge change in numbers.

A study of the London boroughs found that although deaths show a random variation, the injury stats correlate with the number of Police available for pen pushing.

skitler

jack_pott wrote: »

What actually got reported was a complete travesty. The front cover of the report showed a graph of deaths which soared through the roof at the point where the experiment started, with the clear implication that the change in legislation was the cause.

The truth was that the graph showed the aggregated total of deaths in both groups. When the data was disaggregated, and the two groups plotted separately, the mortality in the compulsory helmet group rose far higher than in the optional helmet group.

The reason for the steep rise overall was that the start of the experiment coincided with the 70's oil crisis, and there had been a large increase in motorcycle use to save fuel.

Fatalities are a more reliable measure of road safety than injury statistics, as death is a matter of fact, and can’t easily be brushed under the carpet. By comparison, injuries depend on the threshold of severity at which they’re reported, the expertise of the individual making the judgement, and the resources available for filling in paperwork.

The BMA found that only 25% of casualties classified by Police as seriously injured are actually serious. Conversely, many classed as slight are actually serious. The difference is defined by shock, and the Police didn’t know what shock is. 30% of RTA casualties seen in hospital weren't reported to the Police, 70% of cyclist casualties went unreported. Injury numbers rise as severity decreases:- there are more minor ones that major ones, so a small change in reporting threshold causes a huge change in numbers.

A study of the London boroughs found that although deaths show a random variation, the injury stats correlate with the number of Police available for pen pushing.

so a pretty useless survey and results then really, as it was done in the 70s and not under normal usage conditions.


some uk stat go on per million miles covered, this actually makes motorcycling safer than car driving.


all stat reports are done favourably to the end users benefit, as heard many times on various politics shows.