From: Brimstone on


"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7tfnvkF4ckU15(a)mid.individual.net...
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>> So, given that you've had more than your fair share of road traffic
>> collisions (some might accuse you of being greedy and seeking them out)
>> you have not yet suffered either serious injury (broken bones, coma or
>> similar) nor death.
>
> Yes, he has.
>
> When he was a kid, he was seriously injured and in a coma after running
> into the road in front of an oncoming car to "rescue" the corpse of a
> dead bird.

I didn't recall his injuries being that serious.

> His pig-headed unwillingness to accept any possible fallibility on his
> own part is what's led to him extrapolating that incident into "all car
> drivers are evil murderers"

Similarly the more recent event where Doug was struck by a car wanting to
cross his path and his refusal to give way, despite it being the most
sensible thing to do.


From: Adrian on
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> His pig-headed unwillingness to accept any possible fallibility on his
>> own part is what's led to him extrapolating that incident into "all car
>> drivers are evil murderers"

> Similarly the more recent event where Doug was struck by a car wanting
> to cross his path and his refusal to give way, despite it being the most
> sensible thing to do.

Along with the numerous denouncements of "defensive driving/riding" as
being unnecessary.
From: Matt B on
Phil W Lee wrote:
> "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-throat(a)dibblers-pies.co.am> considered Tue,
> 9 Feb 2010 17:56:59 -0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>> Mortimer wrote:
>>> "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-throat(a)dibblers-pies.co.am> wrote in
>>> message news:R1hcn.254433$cU2.68214(a)newsfe22.ams2...
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 9 Feb, 09:37, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers-
>>>>> pies.co.am> wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> Also road deaths are among the top ten causes of death in the
>>>>>>> world, as a matter of interest for those here who are trying to
>>>>>>> play them down, at nine and is sixth in middle-income countries..
>>>>>>> Now try to say they do not matter.
>>>>>> To put all this in perspective, 830,000 die annually in the UK,
>>>>>> 2,500 of those from road accidents.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Closer to 3,000 plus those who die after 30 days of injury.
>>>> It was actually 2538 in 2008.
>>>>
>>>> And you can compare that, if you like, with 8609 in 1940.
>>> Possibly 1940 is not a very sensible year to choose, because the
>>> results will be skewed by the fact that drivers and pedestrians will
>>> be walking around at night in blackout conditions, and even during
>>> the day there will be far fewer cars because of petrol rationing.
>> Well, you can have:
>>
>> 1970 7499
>> 1980 5953
>> 1990 5267
>> 2000 3409
>> 2008 2538
>>
>> which is why I said:
>>
>>>> In fact, if you look at the statistics over the years, Doug, you'll
>>>> find that the relationship between deaths and car numbers on the
>>>> roads is actually an inverse one. The greater the number of cars on
>>>> the road, the fewer fatalities.
>>> Maybe because people take greater care when there is a greater risk.
>>> Or maybe because new cars have better brakes and are more pedestrian
>>> friendly if they do hit a pedestrian. Or because more car occupants
>>> wear seat belts, though that could cause people to feel safer and so
>>> take more risks.
>> Whatever the reasons, the correlation is clear. If Doug wants to reduce the
>> numbers killed on the roads, he should be arguing for more and more cars,
>> not fewer.
>>
> Are you perhaps expecting people to believe that if there were no cars
> at all, the number killed by them would be infinite?

Funny you should say that because, did you know that in the years before
cars were even invented, the annual death rate per capita due to
transport accidents was higher than it has been since they were invented?

--
Matt B
From: The Medway Handyman on
Doug wrote:
>> Another interesting aspect is that the majority of people are never
>> injured in a road traffic collision in their lives and yet Doug
>> manages at least two, possibly more.
>>
> There was one more where I was driven off the road while cycling and
> suffered hospitalising injuries when I struck an earth/stones/bushes
> bank. Of course there have been a multitude of near misses including a
> deliberate ramming by a taxi driver recently.

Has it occurred to you that cycling isn't for you?


--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.


From: The Medway Handyman on
Doug wrote:
> On 10 Feb, 08:54, "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> On 9 Feb, 17:35, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers-
>>> pies.co.am> wrote:
>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>> On 9 Feb, 09:37, "Norman Wells" <cut-me-own-thr...(a)dibblers-
>>>>> pies.co.am> wrote:
>>>>>> Doug wrote:
>>>>>>> Also road deaths are among the top ten causes of death in the
>>>>>>> world, as a matter of interest for those here who are trying to
>>>>>>> play them down, at nine and is sixth in middle-income
>>>>>>> countries.. Now try to say they do not matter.
>>>>>> To put all this in perspective, 830,000 die annually in the UK,
>>>>>> 2,500 of those from road accidents.
>>>>> Closer to 3,000 plus those who die after 30 days of injury.
>>>> It was actually 2538 in 2008.
>>
>>>> And you can compare that, if you like, with 8609 in 1940.
>>
>>> Wartime.
>>
>> When we had what you say you want - no non-essential motor vehicle
>> traffic.
>>
> And bombs, wrecked roads virtually no lighting, etc.
>>
>>>> In fact, if you look at the statistics over the years, Doug,
>>>> you'll find that the relationship between deaths and car numbers
>>>> on the roads is actually an inverse one. The greater the number of
>>>> cars on the road, the fewer fatalities.
>>
>>>> Why on earth are you not therefore advocating more and more cars
>>>> rather than fewer? It would save lives.
>>
>>> Utter rubbish. The trend for fewer deaths can easily be explained
>>> due to the increase in car safety.
>>
>> Improving safety for *all* road users is one factor, but the subject
>> is far more complex thaan that, involving changing attitudes,
>> legislation
>> and improved understanding of the effects of road layouts on safety,
>> among others. However, increased traffic levels in towns and cities
>> probably does increase safety, by reducing overall traffic speeds.
>>
> I hope so. The slower the better, except for the pollution of course,
> which also kills people but has not been included in the stats. There
> is an estimated 25,000 deaths from air pollution in the UK each year,
> half of which are from traffic, 3,000 in London alone.

'Factoring in' again to spin the truth.


--
Dave - the small piece of 14th century armour used to protect the armpit.