Loz

... and Belmarsh Prison

A recording of the meeting...

Oh, I give up binary_star. You and stats were just never meant be in the same universe together. You remind me of an old adage: I should never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes my time. And it annoys the pig.

The big problem with flats is the leasehold (unless you get a share of the leaseholding company as well). I find leaseholds restrictive and annoying, so personally, if it is feasible, I'd hold out for the house. But, on the other hand, prices are on the up, so waiting may be a bad thing.

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You did it with motorways, I just used your method. Anyway, That was the first lot of stats. > How about the second? I didn't do anything to those. I did it with motorways purely as an aside just to try and make the cycling figures look more palatable for you. As I said, assuming no pedestrian deaths on motorways is not an unreasonable assumption (though wrong), but you have assumed that EVERY pedestrian death in the UK occurs on a minor urban road - a ridiculous assumption. And your second calc IS the minor urban roads one. > For the vehicle you are travelling IN yes, certainly. For the one that hits you? No Loz, > that's just bonkers. Not at all. It's cause of death. It's like looking at cycle deaths. I'm guessing here, but I would suspect that HGVs and buses caused cycle deaths would be a small percentage of total deaths compared to cars and other vehicles, but very high in relation to their comparative annual miles travelled (i.e. high in relation to the possibility of being near one). It's this sort of standardisation that brings the real issues to the fore. You just don't understand how stats work.

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz you're having so many cyclist-bashing arguments on here you've forgotten which ones are which. Not true. Quote me one 'cyclist bashing' comment I have made on this thread. Actually, you are having a massive argument with yourself and I am just helping you do it. > I was tailing about the one you and I were having about cyclists being 'that > dangerous' although still no idea what that means Really? You are confused about two words? Think of it as the opposite of 'not dangerous', as henryb tried to claim. As that was the entire point of my original post, I'd have thought that would have been obvious.

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I'd expect no less (and certainly no more) from > > you LD. Besides, my stats are solid and > > referenced. Unlike some. > > I trust that wasn't directed at me since I used the same ones you did. Twice. Directed straight at you, obviously. You can't mix-and-match stats like you tried, taking casualties for all roads and dividing them by a very small subset of roads. Find the casualty rates for minor roads and you may have an argument. Until then, your calculation is flawed and meaningless. > Anyway. Even though I used those stats to disprove your argument, you still have no explanation as to > why you ever thought "casualties per estimated mike travelled" actually tells us anything... Google 'deaths per mile travelled' and 'deaths per mile travelled uk'. It's a fairly well used approach to standardise differing modes of transport.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That was my comment. It's Saturday afternoon and > the sun is shining. What more do you want?? Tis snowing here, my comment contained no stats and since you already have your laptop opened a slightly more grown-up response was sort-of expected. Or do you only reply to the more provocative comments in order to later complain about them? Or, in other words, being the self-same wrecker for forwarding cycling in the UK that I described?

I'd expect no less (and certainly no more) from you LD. Besides, my stats are solid and referenced. Unlike some. Anyway, still no comment on the above?

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Anyway, Loz and the other cyclephobes, are as effective as King Canute. > > The tide is turning and you can't hold it back, so ner-ner-na-ner-ner. > > Last laugh and all that. Yeah, yeah, they'll be first up against the wall come the revolution and all that. I surprised you've not commented on my thoughts a couple of days ago, LD. To remind you...

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What I'm saying is that some people have an emotional response to seeing cyclists riding on > pavements, jumping red lights, cycling "in the middle of the road". But instead of admitting that > they're getting all frothy mouthed about it evaluate they don't think it's fair, they start > saying daft things like cyclists are one if the biggest dangers on our roads and nonsense like > that. > > My point is that, no actually they're really not. But no one is saying that. What some people like henryb are saying is that cyclists are NO danger on the road, which is plainly false. When I pointed this out, you got your lycra shorts all in a twist and jumped in. Yet you are saying that this is your point all along? Not sure how this ties in with your last few posts. Anyway, what I am saying that cyclists are part of the danger on the roads. I don't think anyone with an ounce of common sense would deny that. And even your own dodgy stat manipulations agree with it.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rowenna have been selected as a Parliamentary > Candidate in Southampton. Hopefully she will do as > good a job there as she did getting Southwark a > High Profile. Its kind of what happens when people > climb the greasy pole in Politics rather than > getting parachute in like Cameron. You are coming across as a bit of a party-twonk cheerleader, TED. What exactly has one person done to get 'Southwark a high profile'.

the-e-dealer Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you in favour or against career politicians. Against. Cameron representing Oxford is just as absurd a notion of 'representation' as Davis representing Southampton. Both are obviously more interested in their careers than representing local people. Both have, arguably, been 'parachuted in'. If Rowena Davis was local, but moved to Southhampton, then she should resign her seat on Southwark council ASAP. If she never lived her, she should never have been on the council. I don't care which party they represent.

There is an article in today's Guardian, by Southwark councillor Rowenna Davis. There was a rather startling line in it (my emphasis)... Returning officers in Southampton, where I live, have told me horror stories about tension rising when a number of young people were turned away in 2010 simply because they hadn't registered. Did anyone else know one of our 'local' councillors lived so far away? Where do the other councillors live? Can someone who lives so far away really represent the people of Southwark?

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > > Face it BS, we can argue all day which is more dangerous, but cars and bicycles are both > dangerous and lethal to pedestrians. The cycle-evangelists around here need to just accept > that fact. Cycles ARE that dangerous, and as more cyclist take to the roads the death toll is only > going to increase. > > > > Accept it, or prove (with decent, referenced stats) otherwise. > > Define 'that dangerous'. I accept they can be dangerous but cyclists are involved in such a > small minority of incidents I honestly don't believe it's morally viable to divert resources > from more effective measures to increase road safety for everyone. Look at it this way - cyclists probably (as I don't have the stats) as dangerous as red Honda S2000s on the basis that they have probably killed a similar amount of pedestrians over the last 10 years. On that basis, should we exclude red Honda S2000s from road rules? Of course not, because for the number of them on the road, they are similarly as dangerous as any other vehicle. But if the henryb's of this world (and you, to an extent) drove red Honda S2000s they'd try to argue that the stats show red Honda S2000s are 'safe' and 'don't kill anyone'. But it's just not true. And that's why your argument is fallacious. And actually, I (and probably anyone else still awake) have rather lost the point of your argument. My original post was to highlight and disprove henryb's comment that 'cyclists don't kill', which is easily rebutted (indeed you have done so yourself). So, what exactly are you saying?

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For heaven's sake LD, the majority of people aren't anti-cycling. Actually, I think this is an interesting point. I think most people (including myself) think that more cycling is a good thing. The cycling lobby could easily harvest a lot of good will and achieve some their goals much faster, but they have an unerring ability to get up people's noses. They do lots of good stuff behind the scenes with government and the police, but their public persona is absolutely wretched. As it is, politicians and other decision makers are making positive noises, but are almost certainly reticent to act for fear of being seen as 'pandering to the cycling lobby'. If the general public was bought on board with a friendlier approach, rather than yelled at and browbeaten with the general 'holier than thou' attitude, then things may just move a lot faster.

monkeylite Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cycling to work today, another cyclist almost > crashed into me by ignoring a red light. Would be > hospitalised if I did not stop in time. Obviously > *some* cyclists think that they are above the law. > He got lucky today. It could be a bus he will be > cycling into tomorrow. ... at which point henryb will be on here defending said cyclist and quoting unrelated statistics.

The RCD for the whole house, or just one circuit?

You're like a cycling Wolfie Smith, LD.

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > 2) You have completely failed to reference your death figures for 'minor roads'. That stat does > > not appear in the link you gave - where did you get it? Did you just make it up? > > This is getting tedious, you know very well that the data set you used doesn't break fatalities > down like that. I used EXACTLY the same data source as you which means I had to use EXACTLY the > same method you did to calculate when you discounted motorways - I just removed the mileage. > If you're not happy with that, then I'd need to use a different data set (pretty sure one that > only includes journeys where pedestrians are likely to be like inner London would be ideal). > But I have a hunch that it wouldn't matter would it - because you're just not going to accept that > cyclists aren't actually that dangerous after all, no matter what the data or common sense says. Whilst discounting pedestrian deaths on motorways is not an exact estimate and should be treated with due caution, the fact that pedestrians are not allowed on motorways (and therefore deaths there would be statistically insignificant) means that it's not a bad assumption. But, in a desperate attempt to try and skew the figures, you have discounted all major, non-motorway roads without any adjustment in the death figures (which would not be insignificant). Ridiculous. And a complete stats fail. Face it BS, we can argue all day which is more dangerous, but cars and bicycles are both dangerous and lethal to pedestrians. The cycle-evangelists around here need to just accept that fact. Cycles ARE that dangerous, and as more cyclist take to the roads the death toll is only going to increase. Accept it, or prove (with decent, referenced stats) otherwise.

Naah, fl0wer just posts vague links with no explanation whatsoever. I suppose we should be grateful that it's not a Guardian link this time.

unlurked Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She must be so thankful for your support. Did she > name you in her acceptance speech? Can't you go back to lurking?

No second income possibilities??

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > Do we have to dig out the 'cycles and cars are per mile travelled - similarly lethal to > > pedestrians' figures again, henryb? > > > > So you can put that little faux-halo away. > > > I couldn't be *rsed to do this at the time on the original thread but now you're persisting with > that ridiculous 'statistic'... [snipped the calcs] > If you look at the two calculations, it clearly shows that on roads where there are actually likely to be > any pedestrians, cars are almost twice as dangerous. In general, things don't tend to pose a danger to you > when they're nowhere near you... Even with your loophole allowance which allows cars to rack up almost > 200billion miles worth of relatively pedestrian free roads (of which cyclists only used 0.6billion miles), > cars are still not coming out much better than cyclists. > So it expends on what year and what roads. But more importantly 'deaths per mile travelled' is > just a load of sh*t and you know it. 1) You've just proved for me that what henryb said was incorrect (that cyclists "don't kill", so well done for proving my point. 2) You have completely failed to reference your death figures for 'minor roads'. That stat does not appear in the link you gave - where did you get it? Did you just make it up? 3) I was actually referring to a rather better statistical analysis that was picked up in another thread, namely this one.

Pork sausage?