Nuxx:13cc344b-f77a-444b-8803-b56ea5de978f@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <13cc344b-f77a-444b-8803-b56ea5de978f@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: =?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_1_in_6_incidents_involving_cyclists_are_=91hit_a?= =?windows-1252?Q?nd_runs=92?= Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 00:53:09 -0700 (PDT) References:  Lines: 33 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.145.66.20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1241941989 20235 127.0.0.1 (10 May 2009 07:53:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 07:53:09 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.145.66.20; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3193 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:700475

On May 8, 4:41=A0pm, spindrift  wrote: > > While it's true that there was this miserable 11% increase in the > number of cyclists being killed or seriously injured (KSI) between the > 2004 and 2007 figures, it's a bit naughty of the NAO to use 2004 as a > baseline. That's because, for reasons unclear, 2004 was a freakishly > "safe" year for cycling, with "just" 2,308 in the KSI bracket. The > figure for 2003 was 2,411, and in 2005 it was 2,360. It would have > been more sensible for the NAO to take a rolling average across a > number of years to look at the broader trend. With relatively small > numbers, there can often be quite extreme seasonal variations that can > distort the bigger picture.

Funny how you're quite happy to point out RTTM when it suits you, yet you never point it out when it's used in support of speed cameras, and you even start vicious hate campaigns against those who do. Almost as though you know that cameras don't save lives, and you're just determined to pretend that they do save lives because you want to keep them for other reasons, like, say, ooh, I don't know, just a stab in the dark, an intense and pathological dislike of car drivers?

Motorist-hating wanker.

(At least 8 posts today, as Chapman posted yesterday. I see that he "cleverly" posted just after midnight at the start of yesterday, having not posted at all for the 24 hours before midnight, obviously hoping that I'd fall into his "trap" and post myself yesterday.  But he underestimated me, just like he arrogantly underestimates everyone.  Still, nice that I'm managing to influence his posting behaviour already (though he'd deny it of course, being a compulsive liar), and hopefully now he and everyone else will believe that I will post if and only if he does, bringing the "Chapman attracts the 'trolls'" issue into focus like never before.)