heart attacks?

Velvet

Simonb wrote:
> MartinM wrote:
>
>
>>* rabbit speak for cars from Watership Down; I do hope it's on this
>>Xmas want to watch it before the kids get too old
>
>
> What is it with you and Watership Down, Martin? Have you got something you
> want to share with us?
>
>

Careful, he might start asking if you want to see his carrot ;-)

--


Velvet

MartinM

"Simonb" <sbennett@YOUAREALLNETDENIZENSwiderworld.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41b5783d$0$217$5a6aecb4@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> MartinM wrote:
>
> > * rabbit speak for cars from Watership Down; I do hope it's on this
> > Xmas want to watch it before the kids get too old
>
> What is it with you and Watership Down, Martin? Have you got something you
> want to share with us?

my interest in rabbits, on a public ng? wouldn't share my Cottontail with
anyone ;-)

Dave Larrington

half_wit wrote:

> Actually I love traffic jams!!
> I enjoy breezeing past hundreds of queueing cars.
> If there is no room to pass on the left I pass on there right
> (traffic jams are usually only on one side of the road).
> Failing that I use the pavement.
>
> If you are one of those cyclists who frown on cycling
> on the pavement, jumping red lights etc... then maybe they
> are more prone to stress. My advice is lighten up and
> break the rules a bit.

I presume, then, that you would have no objection to my doing the same thing
while at the wheel of my motorcar?

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

J Houston

"David Martin" <martin-family@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:31kc0qF3cfce4U1@individual.net...
> Tim Hall wrote:
>
>> And those other two monkeys. Who the hell are they? According to Mrs.
>> Hall the taller one is what Clarkson would look like if played by
>> Stephen Fry.
>
> James May. Rides a brompton around town. Allegedly becasue he owns a
> bently and the nearest garage big enough to put it in is 8 miles away and
> the brompton is ideal to go in the boot. Regularly goes on about how you
> must be mad to drive in the centre of London.
>
> Richard Hammond, the little one. Did a good TV series on 'should I be
> worried about..'. Included him selling his own tap water to punters in
> Covent Garden.
>


Again, I think both of them are quite entertaining as presenters. They tend
to keep quoting horsepower figures etc of cars they're reviewing to a
minimum, which helps. James May definately has a touch of the Stephen
Fry about him, though...





James H

half_pint

"Richard" <richard@percival.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cp3ojj$56i$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> half_pint wrote:
> > Why shouldn't you cycle on the pavement when you are causing
> > no inconvienience to anyone except for some 'jobsworth'?
> > Prams and push chairs are allowed on pavements.
>
> Because pedestrians, particuarly the old, less agile, and those in
> charge of small children, are afraid of being hit when some prat like
> you comes cycling along the pavement. You probably won't hit them, but
> the perception is there. So, quite rightly, they get upset. (Small
> children also move extremely unpredictably).


They are far more likely to be hit (and killed) by a car whilst on the
pavement.
I cannot recall any incidents *whatsoever* of anyone being injured
by a bike on the pavement.
I can clearly recall two recent incidents of pedestrians being killed (in my
home City) by cars whilst they were on the pavement.

It is hardly my fault pedestrians have false perceptions the solution is
to educate them not punish innocent cyclists.
>
> It also leads to the mentality "Well, if that cyclist is breaking the
> law by cycling on the pavement, he/she can't object to me breaking the
> law by driving in the cycle lane/speeding/etc."

Only an idiot (who should not be driving) would form that opinion.

>
> R.

half_pint

"Dave Larrington" <smert.spamionam@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:31lhl8F3dkepsU3@individual.net...
> half_wit wrote:
>
> > Actually I love traffic jams!!
> > I enjoy breezeing past hundreds of queueing cars.
> > If there is no room to pass on the left I pass on there right
> > (traffic jams are usually only on one side of the road).
> > Failing that I use the pavement.
> >
> > If you are one of those cyclists who frown on cycling
> > on the pavement, jumping red lights etc... then maybe they
> > are more prone to stress. My advice is lighten up and
> > break the rules a bit.
>
> I presume, then, that you would have no objection to my doing the same
thing
> while at the wheel of my motorcar?

As long as you are not a danger to anyone no.
Thing is with cars is they break down, hence it is vastly more dangerous
for you to go through red lights because if you car stalls the situation
becomes a very dangerous one.
Futher more because of the vast weight of a car itis an inherently dangerous
vehicle.
Also due to protection offered to you by a car you know if you make
a mistake it will probably not terminate your own life, that is not
the case for cyclists.
There is no comparison between the two situation.
Caomparing car with bike not comparing like with like.
Cars are killing machines bicycles are not.


>
> --
>
> Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
> World Domination?
> Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
> floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)
>
>

David Martin

On 7/12/04 2:47 pm, in article 31lu29F3cg9m0U1@individual.net, "half_pint"
<info@uk.millwardbrown.com> wrote:

>
> "Dave Larrington" <smert.spamionam@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:31lhl8F3dkepsU3@individual.net...
>> half_wit wrote:
>>
>>> Actually I love traffic jams!!
>>> I enjoy breezeing past hundreds of queueing cars.
>>> If there is no room to pass on the left I pass on there right
>>> (traffic jams are usually only on one side of the road).
>>> Failing that I use the pavement.
>>>
>>> If you are one of those cyclists who frown on cycling
>>> on the pavement, jumping red lights etc... then maybe they
>>> are more prone to stress. My advice is lighten up and
>>> break the rules a bit.
>>
>> I presume, then, that you would have no objection to my doing the same
> thing
>> while at the wheel of my motorcar?
>
> As long as you are not a danger to anyone no.
> Thing is with cars is they break down, hence it is vastly more dangerous
> for you to go through red lights because if you car stalls the situation
> becomes a very dangerous one.

And just what mechanism can you think of for a car stalling like that? It
suggests you rarely drive.

> Futher more because of the vast weight of a car itis an inherently dangerous
> vehicle.
> Also due to protection offered to you by a car you know if you make
> a mistake it will probably not terminate your own life, that is not
> the case for cyclists.

Risk of KSI in a car crash is greater than that of a cycle crash.

> There is no comparison between the two situation.
> Caomparing car with bike not comparing like with like.
> Cars are killing machines bicycles are not.
>

fear is fear, is it not? Assault (stretching the point here a bit)is not
just the causing of harm but the leading someone to believe they are likely
to be harmed.

Unless you are riding at walking pace then people will feel fear if you are
on the pavement.
ANd having ridden round Nottingham for a few days, I'd much rather be on
almost any of the roads.

...d

Dave Larrington

half_pint wrote:
> "Dave Larrington" <smert.spamionam@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:31lhl8F3dkepsU3@individual.net...
>> half_wit wrote:
>>
>>> Actually I love traffic jams!!
>>> I enjoy breezeing past hundreds of queueing cars.
>>> If there is no room to pass on the left I pass on there right
>>> (traffic jams are usually only on one side of the road).
>>> Failing that I use the pavement.
>>>
>>> If you are one of those cyclists who frown on cycling
>>> on the pavement, jumping red lights etc... then maybe they
>>> are more prone to stress. My advice is lighten up and
>>> break the rules a bit.
>>
>> I presume, then, that you would have no objection to my doing the
>> same thing while at the wheel of my motorcar?
>
> As long as you are not a danger to anyone no.
> Thing is with cars is they break down, hence it is vastly more
> dangerous for you to go through red lights because if you car stalls
> the situation becomes a very dangerous one.
> Futher more because of the vast weight of a car itis an inherently
> dangerous vehicle.
> Also due to protection offered to you by a car you know if you make
> a mistake it will probably not terminate your own life, that is not
> the case for cyclists.
> There is no comparison between the two situation.
> Caomparing car with bike not comparing like with like.
> Cars are killing machines bicycles are not.

The next time I find myself stuck in traffic in my car, then, I shall take
to the pavement to get to the front of the queue. When stopped by the
dibbles, I shall say "But surely it's OK to drive on the pavement if no-one
gets hurt? Someone told me to lighten up and break the rules a bit!"

You are this: wrong.

And also this: dangerous.

We have traffic laws precisely because history has shown that left to their
own devices, people /cannot/ be trusted to Do The Right Thing.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
World Domination?
Just find a world that's into that kind of thing, then chain to the
floor and walk up and down on it in high heels. (Mr. Sunshine)

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:37:52 -0000, "half_pint"
<info@uk.millwardbrown.com> wrote:

>They are far more likely to be hit (and killed) by a car whilst on the
>pavement.
>I cannot recall any incidents *whatsoever* of anyone being injured
>by a bike on the pavement.

Nonetheless it happens.

The statistics on casualties in accidents between cyclist and
pedestrian on a footway between 1999 and 2002 (the latest figures) are
set out in the following table:

Casualties
Severity 1999 2000 2001 2002
Killed 1 0 0 0
Serious 25 17 16 14
Slight 61 48 38 37
All 87 65 54 51

McNulty (DfT) to McIntosh, Hansard, 16 Jun 2004, Column 934W

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

half_pint

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <norfolk.inspam@dev.null> wrote in message
news:rvibr0l92grokqe2kprvitv5t3h2abto1h@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:37:52 -0000, "half_pint"
> <info@uk.millwardbrown.com> wrote:
>
> >They are far more likely to be hit (and killed) by a car whilst on the
> >pavement.
> >I cannot recall any incidents *whatsoever* of anyone being injured
> >by a bike on the pavement.
>
> Nonetheless it happens.
>
> The statistics on casualties in accidents between cyclist and
> pedestrian on a footway between 1999 and 2002 (the latest figures) are
> set out in the following table:
>
> Casualties
> Severity 1999 2000 2001 2002
> Killed 1 0 0 0
> Serious 25 17 16 14
> Slight 61 48 38 37
> All 87 65 54 51


Wow one fatality in 4 years, and that may have been the cyclist
not the pedestrian. Note all the figures are declining too.


Incidently how many cyclists avoided dead or seriously injury by
being on the pavement rather than the road?

My guess would be about 300.




Also;-
In 1999 - the last time nationally updated statistics were made available -
there were 200,000 DIY injuries in the UK and 70 deaths

So 40,000 ( *forty* *thousand* ) times more people are injured in DIY
accidents than by pavement cycling.

Time to introduce on the spot fines for DIYers?


>
> McNulty (DfT) to McIntosh, Hansard, 16 Jun 2004, Column 934W
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

David Martin

On 7/12/04 4:22 pm, in article 31m3k4F3div38U1@individual.net, "half_pint"
<info@uk.millwardbrown.com> wrote:

>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <norfolk.inspam@dev.null> wrote in message
> news:rvibr0l92grokqe2kprvitv5t3h2abto1h@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:37:52 -0000, "half_pint"
>> <info@uk.millwardbrown.com> wrote:
>>
>>> They are far more likely to be hit (and killed) by a car whilst on the
>>> pavement.
>>> I cannot recall any incidents *whatsoever* of anyone being injured
>>> by a bike on the pavement.
>>
>> Nonetheless it happens.
>>
>> The statistics on casualties in accidents between cyclist and
>> pedestrian on a footway between 1999 and 2002 (the latest figures) are
>> set out in the following table:
>>
>> Casualties
>> Severity 1999 2000 2001 2002
>> Killed 1 0 0 0
>> Serious 25 17 16 14
>> Slight 61 48 38 37
>> All 87 65 54 51
>
>
> Wow one fatality in 4 years, and that may have been the cyclist
> not the pedestrian. Note all the figures are declining too.
>
>
> Incidently how many cyclists avoided dead or seriously injury by
> being on the pavement rather than the road?
>
> My guess would be about 300.
>
What is your justification for that? You estimate that if the number of
pavement cyclists (no more than 25% of cyclist miles) were on the road then
casualties would go up by 300%?

Why? Are pavement cyclists really that incompetent?

>
>
>
> Also;-
> In 1999 - the last time nationally updated statistics were made available -
> there were 200,000 DIY injuries in the UK and 70 deaths
>
> So 40,000 ( *forty* *thousand* ) times more people are injured in DIY
> accidents than by pavement cycling.
>
> Time to introduce on the spot fines for DIYers?
>
Are the DIYers harming others? I'd guess that most of those 200,000 are self
inflicted.

And therefore irrelevant.

...d

Zardoz

>I cannot recall any incidents *whatsoever* of anyone being injured
>by a bike on the pavement.

But aren't you a hopeless pedant who scours the internet for the
remotest bit of evidence to back up whatever hole you've dug yourself
into?

from a quick google

<snip>

Mrs Fisher said: "Although he maybe shouldn't have run across the
pavement,
the cyclist should not have been there at all.
"It is something that has bothered me since I started taking him to
school
in September because you often see parents and other adults riding on
the
pavement.
"But I never thought that my son would be a victim of my pet hate."
The woman cyclist, who came off her bike in the accident, was shaken
but
uninjured.
Medical staff at Hull Royal Infirmary have recommended Oliver stay
home from
school for a couple of days.
Mrs Fisher, a teddy bear restorer, said: "It is not just children who
could
be injured – there are a lot of elderly people around here.
"I know the police have better things to do but I have seen them
watching

<snip>

And I do remember a thread on here following a ped's death by a
cyclist.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 16:22:31 -0000, "half_pint"
<info@uk.millwardbrown.com> wrote:

>> The statistics on casualties in accidents between cyclist and
>> pedestrian on a footway between 1999 and 2002 (the latest figures) are
>> set out in the following table:

>> Casualties
>> Severity 1999 2000 2001 2002
>> Killed 1 0 0 0
>> Serious 25 17 16 14
>> Slight 61 48 38 37
>> All 87 65 54 51

>Wow one fatality in 4 years, and that may have been the cyclist
>not the pedestrian. Note all the figures are declining too.

It was the pedestrian, I think you'll find. The rate runs at one
every few years.

The point stands: pavement cycling is not risk-free, either for the
cyclist or for the pedestrians.

>Incidently how many cyclists avoided dead or seriously injury by
>being on the pavement rather than the road?

It's much more likely to be the other way around, according to the
research evidence.

Pavement cycling is illegal, inconsiderate and puts you and the people
around you at risk. Oh, and it gives cyclists a bad name.

> My guess would be about 300.

They must be seriously incompetent then.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Richard

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Pavement cycling is illegal, inconsiderate and puts you and the people
> around you at risk. Oh, and it gives cyclists a bad name.

And pedestrians are fearful of an accident, which is the strongest
reason for me. In just the same way that it's illegal to go around
throwing punches or kicks that just miss, because it makes people
fearful of actually being hit.

R.