Nuxx:Fca769e6-d820-4e63-b984-372342068324@m16g2000prc.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!m16g2000prc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling,uk.legal Subject: Re: DfT : Casualty figures Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 06:31:07 -0800 (PST) References:   Lines: 32 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1296743467 19819 127.0.0.1 (3 Feb 2011 14:31:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 14:31:07 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: m16g2000prc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5.8; U; en) Presto/2.7.62 Version/11.01,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2662 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:798180

On Feb 3, 12:34=A0pm, PhilO  wrote: > On Feb 3, 10:58=A0am, Judith  wrote: > > > > > Pedal Cycle casualties UP 3% > > Pedal cyclists killed or seriously injured UP 2% > > You've raised these before, you deceptive hag,

Charming. You're a real "Judith charmer"....

> and have been told > those figures are meaningless outwith the context of how much cycling > has increased.

But if someone provided figures adjusted for that which still showed that cycling was dangerous, you lot still wouldn't accept them. There'd always be some excuse offered for dismissing them out of hand. It's well known by now that if the figures/facts don't say what you (plural) want them to then you refuse point blank to admit that there's any truth in them. Any possible fact which is perceived to be detrimental to cycling and/or beneficial to evil motoring gets the "La la la, I'm not listening" treatment from the outset.

Or can you honestly say, hand on heart, that if you saw some figures which irrefutably showed that cycling was dangerous then you wouldn't desperately pore over them to find some excuse, any excuse, however tenuous, to cast doubt on them? Isn't it fair to say that for you, pretty much anything would be preferable to simply accepting their veracity? After all, it would be so embarrassing to have to admit you were wrong after all this time....