Loz

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Some guy called Miles Dyson and his company > Cyberdyne? Perfect flying record. But when it > becomes self-aware... ... it'll get fired from RyanAir.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And just because you (and I ) find large parts of the sun objectionable isn't the point either. When > it comes to news and objectivity and sales and all the rest of it as a news organisation they should > be free to pursie that angle. But page 3, in a newspaper is just... well it's bloody weird As objectionable is the news reporting is, I was thinking more about the ads section at the mid to back end of the paper with phone lines, soft/hard porn dvds, etc. Dump page 3 and all that will still be there. Frankly, lowering the nipple count by two isn't a big win.

I agree entirely, SJ, which is why I think this campaign is more than a bit misguided and is more than a bit hijacked by the prudes. Let's say Murdoch does what he has suggested and put the tops on. Lovely Chardonnay (23) will still be on page 3 giving her thoughts on the situation in Syria, but now wearing a flimsy top. The 'no more page 3' campaign will peter out and no one will have been saved. Women will be no less objectified (hate that word, too). I can see (and agree with) the greater cause, but it is being served in such a minute way by this campaign. Because I believe too many of the people backing it are worried about naked breasts and have little concern with fighting sexism. If the 'No More Page 3' campaign gets what it wants then, actually, nothing will have changed. And it won't even be a step to something bigger - other parts of the Sun will continue to be just as offensive as page 3. Really, I don't read the Sun and I don't give a damn about page 3. But I do hate prudishness. Even when it's my enemy's enemy.

But would it make it any better if they were wearing bikini tops?

Worst conspiracy theory I've read in a long while. Damn neolibs, strimming our verges. Nationalise our nation's gardening equipment now!

Eh? So because some women make a career choice that you don't like, your solution is to forcibly stop them? Even more amazingly, you seem to believe you are 'saving' them. We're not talking crack-prostitution here. 'Glamour' modelling (I hate the term, but there you go) is seen as a valid career choice that offers lots of money and the opportunity to marry a footballer. Sadly, that seems to triumph over the alternative of a lifetime serving on the till in Tescos. But exploitation it ain't.

Q1: Where did you get the statistic for pedestrians killed by cars/vans on minor urban roads only?

You rang, m'lady? :))

> Will speed camera's etc be altered to pick up speeding cyclists? Look at it this way, in motorbike circles it is considered polite to wave at front-facing speed cameras as you zoom past at above the speed limit. Why? Because there is no reg plate on the front of motorbikes.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree the drafting was imprecise, but it clearly says that use your own parameters to prove cycling > (general) is more dangerous. It does not say, use your own paraneters to prove cycling is more dangerous > within those parameters. Actually, the exact wording was "I've asked anyone who asserts any different to pick any parameter for danger they like". I chose relative deaths of pedestrians per mile travelled across all road types. QED, I believe. Challenge aced.

To be fair, I wouldn't restrain a 10 year old - or any minor - unless you had a *lot* of witnesses. That's begging for the sort of retaliatory false allegation that would appear on an enhanced CRB check (or whatever it is called these days).

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree the drafting was imprecise, but it clearly says that use your own parameters to prove cycling > (general) is more dangerous. It does not say, use your own paraneters to prove cycling is more > dangerous within those parameters. Otherwise you could rightly say, parked card cause zero deaths > per mile compared to moving cyclists per mile. But that is exactly how stats work. You set the parameters, collate the data that correspond with those parameters and reach a conclusion. Anything else would be to introduce bias. Normally, you could either argue the stats or the parameters, but b_s has accepted the stats and then tried to argue the parameters, which under the terms of the challenge is not allowed (as only I get to decide the parameters). But actually, it was a pretty interesting conclusion anyway, and one I bet you didn't expect - even given the parameters. I suspect that, even if you do whittle it down, the best you could hope for is something close to parity, given the wideness of the 2:1 result I got originally. And I reckon that, if the stats were available, certain road types would still give a bad result for cyclists. But that is all conjecture. I await b_s's thorough and well-sourced analysis. And parameters.

I think you still have an legal obligation to report the accident. ghf.

In that case they have left the scene of an accident, which is illegal. You must report the accident to the police noting the other party left without leaving details. I doubt anything will happen (unless you have a good description or a photo), but it will at least register the crime. Section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires drivers/ riders to report to a police officer or police station that they have been involved in an accident involving in any of the following; any personal injury damage only, where the other driver/ rider did not stop damage only, where names and addresses were not exchanged with the other driver/ rider/ cyclist and any other owner of property damaged (even if the other driver stopped)

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > binary_star said: > > > There were two parts to the challenge. The first > > was to choose your data set, year, parameter for > > danger etc. you did that part ok. The second was > > to exactly what you've admitted it doesn't...use > > it to prove cycling is more dangerous. > > Oooo, Loz I do think she's got you there. The flaw > in your argument is that you anslysis of the data > and you parameters DO NOT prove that cyclists are > more dangerous than motorised vehicles. Narrowing > the parameters too much makes a nonsense of any > relative danger argument. Eh? Conclusion: on a per mileage basis, cyclists cause 6.0 pedestrian casualties to between 2.98 (on all roads) and 3.73 casualties (on non-M-way roads) caused by cars and vans, so within those parameters they are more dangerous. How the hell is that, within those parameters, not 'more dangerous'? Are you saying it is less dangerous? Careless wording by b_s, you must agree, so challenge quite easily met. Aced, as I said.

If you have contact details (and since there was damage you should have swapped details by law) then your insurance company will chase them for the money if they consider them at fault. Whether they have insurance or not is irrelevant.

That is my analysis. It proved that cycling causes relatively, by total mileage, more casualties that cars and vans and, thus, is more dangerous. And it met all your criteria. Do you concede the challenge, or are you going to try and weasel out of it and be dishonest? As she has said, even Lady D agrees you set a very careless challenge. Also, my analysis is fair because it proved the point as I outlined in my 11.11am post above. So, get off your bum and do your own if you want to prove some other point. Bandying about a few conjectures is easy, but uninformative. Do the research and the math and then come back to me. But, to answer one point: "You can't use traffic mile figures from traffic miles that don't include cyclists..?". Of course it is fair, as long as there are pedestrian casualties - I thought that would be obvious? It's not about cyclists, it's about dangers to pedestrians. That is why I allowed the exclusion of motorway traffic, as it explicitly bans pedestrians (so the fact that it bans cyclists as well is actually immaterial to any calculation). If you want to go into the mess of trying to separate different road types then back it with sourced, reputable stats (i.e. no interested lobby groups) and separate the casualties as well. No vague guesses allowed. So, if you think my analysis is unfair then do your own. Just sitting there sniping and trying to pick holes is lazy debating.

binary_star, I repeat your challenge, with a little highlighting... > I've asked anyone who asserts any different to pick any parameter for danger > they like, then choose any study, any data set, from any date range I have chosen my parameters and reached my conclusions. Your challenge was met and even the indefatigable LadyD has (grudgingly) accepted it. And all you have done is nit-pickingly throw in a few desperate questions. If you want to challenge my figures, then get out your pen, paper and start googling. Until you have better, fully sourced, reputable figures then suck it up. You lost. Your challenge was taken up and beaten.

LD, I'm not saying those stats prove conclusively who or what is universally more dangerous, just that binary_star set up a challenge and so I took it up. And, I have to say, rather aced it. :)) But, I think it does show that cycles aren't the fluffy-bumpkins of travelling that some would try to portray and maybe, just maybe, all idiots on the roads, no matter what they are sitting on or in, would at least suitably fined, and maybe even stopping them from causing any more mayhem by preventing them from using the roads. I don't actually care about the relative dangers of their choice of mode of travel, fewer morons on the road would be better for everyone.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lots of homework for you there! Do your own legwork!! Here's where I started: http://www.google.co.uk Anyway, stats to the depth of causal and contributory factors are incomplete and, for those there are, even the authors recognise they are, at best, subjective and unscientific.

*Bob* Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Any chance you could compare the distance an > earthworm moves over a six minute period with a leg of lamb? Depends. Is the leg still attached to said lamb?

LD, > I have also read that it was about 5 deaths by cycle in a few years. Sonething like one every two > years or something like that, so I'm not sure your stats are correct, but can't be arsed searching > for my source right now. I used binary_star's own stats, and he/she gave their source on the original post back on page 1 or 2. Hassle him/her for their authenticity. My source for the mileage figures was included in my post. Besides, the challenge from binary_star was: I think my little calculation meets the given challenge, no?

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ok look it's really a very simple question...what is it about cyclists that we need to "worry > about". What is it that makes them so much more "dangerous". Because as a matter of FACT, rather > than opinion, it looks like motorists are far more dangerous than cyclists. Except perhaps to > themselves. Lucky for them they have a ton of metal, airbags and all those other forms of > protection a car provides. > > Prove this wrong. I've asked anyone who asserts any different to pick any parameter for danger > they like, then choose any study, any data set, from any date range. And demonstrate that cyclists > are more dangerous than drivers. I've been staying out of this thread because LadyDelilah has been doing my job splendidly for me (well, and I've been away), but I can't resist this challenge. And I'll even use your own figures from an earlier post, binary_star. What this fails to take into account is the difference between the number of miles travelled by cars/vans/cycles. If you don't take this into account you get bizarre conclusions like the Ford Focus is thousands of times more dangerous than a Hummer, or even drunk drivers are safer than sober drivers. I can't find the 2007 figures to match year to year, but I have found the 2010 figures I needed in Chapter 2 here. But, as cycling is getting more popular, that probably helps the cyclists case. Essentially, car and light van traffic made up 285.6 billion miles travelled and cycles made up 3.1 billion miles that year. Simple maths show that on a per mile travelled basis, cyclists are roughly twice as deadly (2.98:6 actually) to pedestrians than cars and vans. Ah, I hear you say: but a lot of car/van mileage is on motorways, etc, where the chances of hitting a pedestrian is pretty small. Well, about 20% of traffic is motorway traffic, so even if you knock that off the car/van figures, you still have car/van pedestrian deaths at 3.73 for every 6 cycle caused deaths. So, at the moment, cyclist are only 'less of a danger' to pedestrians because, like Hummers, there are less of them and they don't get used as much. But actually, by standardising on a per mile travelled basis, cycles are relatively more deadly to pedestrians than cars/vans. Taa daa!

Erm... I think you are forgetting the entire series in NZ?

I'm just surprised they didn't headline with a Rihanna/Chris Brown love duet.