Skiing vs cycling

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2855162, member: 45"]I already have. Try reading the post properly.[/quote]

Mechanical failure is in reality responsible for a very small proportion of accidents...you know that as well as I do.
We drive and ride our machines in a way which stays within the limitations of them . That is also the reason why motor vehicles are required to have an MOT each year. You yourself have stated in the past that operator error is responsible for most accidents. You are now playing up something which in reality is not significant in the overall picture.

 

[Linford]

First you say this

You stated that you were wearing a Thudguard, whether or not you now claim it as "tongue in cheek"...... your usual tactic to retract a statement when you have been shown to have posted something stupid

I had a choice, either take your claim at face value, or another sad and desperate attempt to avoid giving a simple answer to a simple question. I decided to take your post at face value....

Then you say this

Simply wrong..... I have always clearly stated that they are for children - and asked why people are not making their childen wear them

When you have made up your mind what you actually mean, come back and let me know

 

[ufkacbln]

Mechanical failure is in reality responsible for a very small proportion of accidents...you know that as well as I do.
We drive and ride our machines in a way which stays within the limitations of them . That is also the reason why motor vehicles are required to have an MOT each year. You yourself have stated in the past that operator error is responsible for most accidents. You are now playing up something which in reality is not significant in the overall picture.

2% across the board

 

[ufkacbln]

First you say this



Then you say this



When you have made up your mind what you actually mean, come back and let me know

You really are floundering here....and you really need to rethink that post, as it is absurd, even for your standards.



In the meanwhile instead of increasingly desperate attempts like this to avoid the points raised, try actually answering the oft repeated question:

Are there times when you on a motorcycle or cycle and feel that you do not need to wear a helmet.?

Simple answer
* Yes
* No
* I am going to avoid answering this question


Any chance of a straight answer?

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2855390, member: 45"]Your claim showed that you didn't accept that mechanical failure is a risk.

A) We each accept a certain level of risk. Which is to say that a machine operator is never fully in control of the machine.

B) Failure can happen within design limitations.
C) Which is only ever valid at point of test.
D) Have I? It matters not, as it's irrelevant to this point.

E) Not at all. I would suggest that the feeling of invincibility -whether it be due to feeling cocooned by a car or by a motorcycle helmet, or by thinking to be fully in control- has a significant impact on dynamic risk assessment for those who are ignorant of or will not allow themselves to consider the facts.[/quote]

A) I think you are getting 'risk' confused with 'control' . Increased risk doesn't automatically equal loss of control

B) You need to give a few examples of this assertion you are asking others to buy into

C) Agree on this point, but it is still a whole lot better to be tested once a year, than possibly never in the case of a bicycle, well OK maybe once when a bicycle is un-crated from the factory when new.

D) Operator error is the primary cause of accidents..you might want to waive this point away, but safety gear is the last line of defence..the first being that the operators keep the vehicle within its design limitations...or in other words be trained, and then adhere to that training....although I might accept that you will ignore this advice as you appear to have done in the past.

E) This feeling of invincibility you talk about. I see it in all road users, not just in motorised vehicle users. It is disingenuous that it is particular to a single group.

The second most common contributory factor attributed to cyclists was 'cyclist entering the road from the pavement' (including when a cyclist crosses the road at a pedestrian crossing), which was recorded in about 20% serious collisions (and over one third of serious collisions involving child cyclists)
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx

Note I don't include 'pedestrians' because when we are not in or on our vehicles, 'we' are all pedestrians.

 

[ufkacbln]

None, even a kitten could work that out.

I don't mind at all ..........his increasingly absurd attempts to bluster, lie and squirm away from answering it simply reinforces the fact that he has dug himself into a hole that that he cannot get out of without showing the flaws in his own arguments

 

[Linford]

You really are floundering here....and you really need to rethink that post, as it is absurd, even for your standards.



In the meanwhile instead of increasingly desperate attempts like this to avoid the points raised, try actually answering the oft repeated question:

Are there times when you on a motorcycle or cycle and feel that you do not need to wear a helmet.?

Simple answer
* Yes
* No
* I am going to avoid answering this question


Any chance of a straight answer?

I've already stated this up thread....you got so excited when I mentioned the thudguard that you obviously missed it...I think it is about 2 pages back now.

 

[User482]

Could someone ping me when linf has flounced out of the discussion? I think there's an interesting debate to be had if we could dispense with the diversionery nobbery.

 

[Linford]

Could someone ping me when linf has flounced out of the discussion? I think there's an interesting debate to be had if we could dispense with the diversionery nobbery.

Can't you go bury yourself in another futile planet saving thread in CA&D User482 ?

 

[User482]

Can't you go bury yourself in another futile planet saving thread in CA&D User482 ?

I do believe my case is smoking a cheroot.

 

[ufkacbln]

The second most common contributory factor attributed to cyclists was 'cyclist entering the road from the pavement' (including when a cyclist crosses the road at a pedestrian crossing), which was recorded in about 20% serious collisions (and over one third of serious collisions involving child cyclists)
http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx

.

The RoSPA figures are way out according to the DfT... it is essential that these facts are checked before once again they are shown to be questionable, as with the last time this reference was posted.

In the 2012 statistics it is only 7% of all accidents, outnumbered by "failing to look properly" (23%), Misjudging the other person's path or speed" ( 10%), so it is neither 20% or the second greatest cause Table RAS 500005

 

[Linford]

[QUOTE 2855515, member: 45"]No I'm not. There is a risk of something failing on a machine which you have no control over.
[/quote]
Cunobelin has cited it as 2% of all accidents (that is a chance over how many miles travelled ? ). That is a whole lot less than the 20% or 30% of cycle accidents caused by operators not observing the rules of the road.
If you are to stop using vehicles for the risk that you may have an accident, and there may be a 2% chance that your vehicle suffers a mechanical failure to cause that, then I would suggest that you should definitely stop using a bicycle, a car or anything else which has moving parts.

Your fears make you sound irrational.

Other answers are up thread as directed to Cunobelin....FFS, don't you start on his thudguard

 

[Radchenister]

What was this thread about, is the forum linking random titles with disassociated postings, have to admit I've only read the last few comments and I'm lost? ... or is it just because it's raining out or summat?

Just in case anyone has posted anything about skiing - Franz Klammer was my old school favourite, more recently it was Herman Meyer, although Bode Miller was pretty kool for the newskool, made skiing less stuffy.

 

[Linford]

The RoSPA figures are way out according to the DfT... it is essential that these facts are checked before once again they are shown to be questionable, as with the last time this reference was posted.

In the 2012 statistics it is only 7% of all accidents, outnumbered by "failing to look properly" (23%), Misjudging the other person's path or speed" ( 10%), so it is neither 20% or the second greatest cause Table RAS 500005

Have you told ROSPA this yet ?

 

[ufkacbln]

Have you told ROSPA this yet ?

It is up to you to establish the accuracy of figures you bring to the forum, you yourself complained about bias, yet don't seem to feel the need to look for bias in your own evidence.

The Headway and RoSPA sites you favour quoting are simply biased and inaccurate..... you need to read the original reference to establish the accuracy.......... and then in your case avoid discussing the very points that you have raised when they are shown to be in error.

Oh and by the way:

Are there times when you on a motorcycle or cycle and feel that you do not need to wear a helmet.?

Simple answer
* Yes
* No
* I am going to avoid answering this question


Any chance of a straight answer?

Think of the poor kitten praying for you to do so